This is an archive of past discussions about User:EEng. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can someone who uses stealth to canvas others into changing their mind about a deletion discussion get in trouble? I understand it would really just be my testimony, but would it mean anything? Longevitydude (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Someone tried talking to me on facebook to change my mind about whether or not certain articles should be deleted because he didn't like my vote. I don't know how much clearer to make a yes or no question. He tried talking me into changing my vote to keep because he didn't want an article deleted? Is that not stealth canvassing? Longevitydude (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Canvassing is selectively, or with a non-neutral message, bringing people into a discussion. Off-wiki conversation with people already involved isn't a problem. EEng17:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Actually, it's not that simple. If people on one "side" of the AfD discussion are being contacted one-sided-ly without the knowledge of other discussants, that treads dangerously close to "selective" contact that would be canvassing (particularly because only some editors get to see whatever reasons for keep or delete were presented off-site). This does not sound like anything that requires action, although you might consider putting template:Not a ballot at the top of the discussion. Otherwise, of course, use your own judgment about how you !vote there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'd add to the above that in most circumstances, it is not allowed to post messages that were sent off-wiki on Wikipedia itself for several reasons: first, oddly enough, is that text which is produced on mediums other than WMF wikis is likely not in line with our licensing from a copyright perspective. You also have the issue that it is very difficult to prove that other accounts are people's WP accounts, and it gets into doxing and other concerns. IF there was an issue with canvassing off-wiki, you could contact the arbitration committee, but it doesn't seem like this is anything that is a big enough deal to require that. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Look carefully. STEALTH, like CANVASS in general, is about notifying editors of a discussion, not about engaging privately an editor already part of the discussion. EEng19:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
All I read about STEALTH was "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages." I understand what you're saying, I just thought maybe there was a rule concerning privately trying to get people to change their votes. I guess it doesn't matter, though. Thank you both for your input, I guess there's nothing else any of us can say about it.
Except where there's something truly sensitive involved, when people try to contact me privately I gently ask them to re-present their comments, modified if they like, somewhere on-wiki. EEng20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, however this was someone who is banned and therefore unable to comment on previous deletion discussions these past few years. Again I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. I'm content to say you've both addressed my concerns in full. Longevitydude (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow! That's some, um, impressive rowspanning. I spent a few minutes looking at it, but I don't mind admitting that what happened is what usually happens when I tangle with rowspan/columnspan: the room begins to spin and I need a good stiff drink of chocolate milk before things settle down again. There are two possibilities I see: one is there's some subtle error in your coding that Chrome is able to correct for, but IE isn't able to correct for, and the other is that your code is OK, but there's something about its complexity that triggers some bug in IE (I'm using Chrome so I don't know what problem manifests in IE). If it's the former, then there's some hope IF someone can spot the error; if it's the latter, there's no hope because it could be years before IE is fixed. It's possible some member of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers may spot what's wrong, but I fear this will only be resolved by your finding some other way to present all this information. Sorry I don't have any better answer for you. EEng15:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict -- great minds think alike) You can try WP:Village pump (technical), but honestly I wouldn't hold my breath. Do something else in the meantime -- don't keep beating your head against it -- and if someone sees what's wrong, great, but if not after a week, I think you'll need to accept there's not going to be a solution anytime between now and when the universe runs cold. I'm sorry but that's the reality of this kind of software problem. EEng16:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you could do something with this edit summary
Hello EEng
I am writing to inform you of the following isssue on the wiki page (list of law enforcement agencies in New York) when you click on the link for the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority police it redirects you to the MTA Bridges and Tunnels page but the law enforcement information is different, also if the type in the wiki search (TBTA police) the information is also different from the MTA Bridges and Tunnels law enforcement information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7083:8100:7CD7:A143:4FCC:4034 (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This talk page has been nominated for euthanasia by Martinevans123. (Personally, I think that Martin should leave those youths in Asia alone.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to have a go at the next Signpost article that no one reads. You'll get a byline, appreciation, applause, things thrown at you, death-threats, fame, fortune and your own designated parking space. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉09:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Edit comment: "Type 'a' when you want 'a', a 'b' when you want 'b' ..."
Are you serious [2]? It's no issue to me (and I will not argue the point), but I couldn't believe that those edit notes make any worthwhile difference. My logic is as follows:
There are those who are familiar with editing tables and for whom the edit summary is distracting.
There are those who are not as familiar with editing tables, but try and notice that they've messed up the table, and then figure out how to fix it.
There are those who are unfamiliar with editing tables and would not notice that they'd messed it up but happen to take note of the edit note. But then they would probably mess up the table in other ways at the same time, even if they'd taken note of the edit note.
There are those who just don't pay attention to anything, including the edit note.
The edit note usefully addresses only the subset of the third bullet who did not mess up the table in any other way. Also, editors do not stay in that category for long (they tend to move up the list fairly fast), and the edit rate of this table is probably not high, especially since the less experienced editors probably do not make many edits to the MoS (at least edits that will not be reverted in their entirety anyway). Given this "nonempirical logic", I'm interested to know whether you've found that the edit notes have made any observable difference? Or are they there mainly to express frustration? —Quondum17:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I created that table and have nursed it even since. When I added the warning, problems with people forgetting to adjust the rowspans -- including those not carrying that note -- seem to decrease. It's easy to overlook that the rowspans are there at all, and this acts as an alert. They're certainly not hurting anything and they may be helping, so let's leave them. EEng (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey EEng, shouldn't the caption say "If you want to take on metrics vs. imperials in articles, that's your business. I've got a more pleasant appointment to keep." not "English" since even the English don't use their own system anymore? Or have I missed something here? Probably missed something, but still ... Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Remove protection on list of law enforcement agencies in new york
Hello EEng
Can you please remove the protect on this wiki page, or can you update the page with the correct info. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police does not exist, it should read the MTA Bridges and Tunnels. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7083:8100:6dc5:8b72:536:731d (talk • contribs)
Thanks. Oh, I never truly left. I was editing in French., once I felt like doing something. Most of my contributions are quite small. And seldom that controversial, in any sense we've been dealing with. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not really the same
Some of the comments Rjensen blanked would have been okay to blank if he had cited NPA rather than BLP (indeed, I group the incident that started that whole thread as one such comment), so my citing NPA makes it different on its face.
It's also not like I was edit-warring with other experienced users to keep the off-topic (and baseless) personal remark out and constantly refusing to listen; the user who reverted me (and I'm not talking about you) is brand new, half their edits are reverts, and based on my brief interaction with them on their talk page they clearly have a fair bit to learn about policy. I'm not trying to BITE them mind you -- it was apparently a good-faith mistake and while I think they need to show a bit more care it couldn't hurt to do so for them first.
Unlike Rjensen, though, I understand the Streisand effect and will not deliberately aggravate the situation by dragging it out any further. It's good that the thread finally got closed. I'm gonna stay offa ANI for a while and go back to editing articles on topics the user in question is never going to be able to follow me to (like they obviously followed me to that thread, if you look at all their edits in context, their not having anything specific to say about the topic under discussion, and especially their failure to even attempt to deny this).
Especially at ANI, leave it to others to decide what's personal attack on you. It's one of the few places we comment on editors, not on content. When you participate there as much as you have recently, you have to expect that others will form opinions on that participation -- possibly negative. EEng15:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, with the exception of that one thread (which drained an awful lot of my energy) my ANI activity went down over the past month or so, and it's difficult to take that particular user's involvement in the thread in good faith because (a) he didn't seem to have read the discussion himself (if he had, he would have !voted in favour of Vanamonde's proposal like everyone else), (b) he kept aggressively campaigning for what he knew would be the worst possible result from my point of view (that would have drained even more of my time and likely caused Maunus to face sanctions for his already withdrawn and apologized uncivil comments, thus emboldening Rjensen), (c) his only substantial comment was to draw attention to my prior conflicts with him, and (d) he was directly accused of having followed me there and did not deny it, apparently because to do so would have been a lie and would have brought him under scrutiny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I didn't untangle who was saying what to whom. All I know is that you got in way too deep in that thread. Your participation may have gone down a lot recently, but it's still very high. If you're going to swim with the sharks you're gonna get bitten now and then. A thick skin is the only answer. EEng22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Meh. I think I have thicker skin than you give me credit for in comparing me to the subject of the thread: I let similarly off-topic and aggressive comments consistently made by Rjensen stand, choosing instead to respond and discredit them rather than remove them (although I likely would have been forgiven for doing the latter), hence the getting way too deep you refer to. It's just that, per AGF, in the normal state of affairs in the sharks' den it is assumed that the normal targets for scrutiny on their behaviour are those involved in the initial dispute, and the only way uninvolved third party commenters can normally expect to get bitten is by misbehaving in that same thread. So in effect, being a third party who is right on the substance and successfully convinces a significant number of other contributors makes one immune. The wild card, though, is my having a wikistalker who has no qualms wih showing up, not actually readin he thread itself, and making oblique references to my dispute with them from almost two years ago. The simple fact is that 100% of the hatting and collapsing was either done by me or at my request and done for the explicit reason of readability/closability, so claiming that it was because I had been myself guilty of off-topic or inflammatory commentary is an extraordinary claim that should not have been made without extraordinary evidence. Such claims should not normally be allowed to stand just because the thread was closed before the target had a chance to respond. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I have no intention of reverting you, or bringing this up anywhere but here. I'm happy with the close and don't intend to open myself up to more criticism from that user again. So if you're not happy to keep discussing philosophy of editing with me you can blank this section or just tell me to buzz off and I will oblige. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to blank this section (look at this page -- obviously I never do) nor will I tell you to buzz off. But your tendency to expound at length on fundamentally simple topics is part of why some of those ANI threads became so prolonged and involved. If you feel attacked, let others defend you, and if they don't, shame on them. EEng23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the idea that I'm "stalking" Hijiri88 is ludicrous. I haven't checked recently, but at one point I was the number 2 or 3 contributor to AN/I by number of edits. Right now I have 7935 edits to that page, about 4% of my total (my article edits tend to hover just below 75% - right now they're at 73.27% [3]), so the idea that I'm participating to AN/I to "stalk" Hijiri88 is hogwash, pure and simple -- as is his assumption that because I disagree with him I must not have read the thread. Lately he's a heavy participant there, and I've been one for many years, so our crossing paths isn't "stalking", it's to be expected. If H88 doesn't like the heat, then I suggest he get out of the AN/I kitchen, or else (as you say) grow a thicker skin and cut down his verbosity significantly. In the meantime, unless for some reason the community bans me from dong so, I'm going to continue to contribute to AN/I when and where I see fit, whether or not he is involved. If H88 thinks that's "Wikistalking" (which we now actually call WP:Harassment) I suggest he either file a formal complaint accusing me of something specific, with concrete evidence to back it up, or shut down his whining about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Re: this edit & your edit summary: Agreed. And the reason the altered image page has that linkage to Gardner & his original photograph is because I put it there yesterday - originally it had been marked as completely the uploader's work (and it's not, it's derivative of the original).
You had mentioned somewhere during our many discussions on this article that the side-by-side version wasn't your favorite either so I decided to tinker with the placement. I like the altered one being there by itself, even at its present size. Even if people can't quite see all the figures within the photo, the overlay of dark-green combined with the white highlights of where Lincoln was standing and where Booth was standing still clearly shows how *close* they actually were to each other. Shearonink (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the way I saw it too. If the article text grows some in the future (and clearly there's more to say about the subject) there will less crowding of the images and we can increase the size of this one a bit. EEng20:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Archiving?
Eeng, greetings.
I was wondering if you're ready to archive a sizable number of messages in your talk page? At last count, your TOC includes over 300 of them. :)
I know you take great pride in your large user space. :p Unfortunately, it's starting to get too large. My browser occasionally crashes from the large amount of resources this page requires to load. I was wondering if you'd be willing to archive some old content?—CYBERPOWER(Around)21:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No edit conflict Entreat harder for best results! 00:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
You've probably already thought of this, but just in case you may have forgotten or set it aside or whatever I have a potential solution. The discussions you don't want to archive for whatever reason (like the moratorium) just add the following below the subject line: <:!-- User:DoNotArchiveUntil 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) --> Of course you can use whatever date you want. Then set your archive settings to archive everything else according to whatever size matters to you. Atsme📞📧01:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Functional Training
This section reserved for inmates of the EEng Insane Asylum and Home for the Bewildered.
Considering the lifestyle of so many authors, academics, WP editors, etc. in today's fast paced society, I thought an article that focused on "Functional Training" would be appropriate and perhaps even helpful to our readers, as far as WP articles go. I would appreciate a bit of input from you, and maybe David Eppstein because of his area of expertise, and maybe even some input from Tryptofish (which he'll provide anyway considering his exercise routine as a tps) and area of expertise...after all, aren't are we all living in the aquarium of life? I think this source would be perfect to model after since JP Sears actually came up with the idea. Atsme📞📧13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In all serious, whenever you and Atsme get into itjoin forces here my intellectual faculties are immediately anesthetized. EEng20:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
EEng, I agree - whenever Tryp starts using big words it gets real confusing; however, in an effort to not do further damage to your mental faculties Just curious...who are the academics on your mental faculties, anyway?, watch the following (while we all pray it doesn't anesthetize you beyond reproach): Functional Training. Atsme📞📧00:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
...of not being the only TP we can see from space. DGG has 428 sections to your 294 which equates into 937,120 bytes for DGG vs your 961,495 bytes. He is closing in!! It is urgent that you contact Capt. Kirk and the Starship Enterprise for help!! Atsme📞📧23:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Some people like big ones. But tell me -- and please, just briefly -- what's with this Microsoft/Windows monomania? EEng00:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I've been using Microsoft/Windows jokes to scare the crap of people lol. and later, Windows 10 come in my talk page and say "what do you want? uninstall edge or use it?" me: "Edge is not a good browser, get the hell off! I'm uninstalling you." KGirl(Wanna chat?)01:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It serves no clear encyclopedic purpose. This is the most important aspect concerning keeping this painting in the article. The painting depicts every. single. person. of note who was in the deathbed room at Petersen's during that night. Readers don't need this painting to figure out who was there - they can rely on the text to see the doctors, the politicians, the generals, the doctors, the family-members - who came into that room. As opposed to the various 1865 lithographs that depicted and that were contemporaneous to the assassination (and at least reproduce the Presidential Box at Ford's fairly well), this 1868 painting doesn't reproduce the actual bedroom in its dimensions (take a look at the deathbed room photo and at the boothiebarn article about the painting). It also wasn't used during the days after the assassination to whip up patriotic fervor/sell newspapers so I am not certain it belongs in an article about the assassination itself.
I think it should be either
removed completely or
moved to a gallery or
placed into a separate article about memorials etc to Lincoln.
If it's worth having in the article, it's worth displaying it at a size such that the reader has at least a fighting chance of making out what's going on. The size (upright=2.2) is hardly bigger than the size in your this past arrangement link (upright=1.9), so I don't see what your size complaint is.
I don't follow how this image "breaks up the text" any more than does the Second Inauguration double image higher up.
Anyway, I've tried something else [4] which you might like better. This requires reducing the size to 1.8 (which is unfortunate), but I guess I can live with that. EEng04:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Better. As to the two "Lincoln's Second Inauguration" photos I am not crazy about them either. They dominate that area of the article but are untethered to any accompanying text. Shearonink (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
As to integrating images and text...I have always thought the text should be considered first and the accompanying illustrations second. And as to the size of an image being perhaps too small for informational purposes on a first pass, isn't that what "clicking" on them is for? Shearonink (talk) 05:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Images don't have to be tethered to anything. As in a print presentation, if they relate to a particular bit of text they should be reasonably nearby. Clicking on an image is if you're super-interested and want to see all that fun stuff on the description page, and maybe see it super-blown-up. If it has a function in the article, it should be able to serve that function as presented in the article, and that means, in particular, being presented at an adequate size. EEng05:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Those two side-by-side renditions of the Alexander Gardner photo of Lincoln's Second Inauguration... they visually dominate that area of the article, and are the biggest photos in the article - bigger than anything of Lincoln or of Booth etc. Yes, the reader gets it - Booth was close enough to be just above the Inauguration dais, to see & hear Lincoln speaking clearly and he could have possibly killed Lincoln that day (as he vaingloriously claimed in his Diary) - but 1)he would have had to a better gun than the eventual assassination gun - Derringers were awful, dumb, inaccurate & only good in a close fight - and 2)he would had to have been a better shot than he actually was - Booth was a terrible marksman.
We will continue to disagree about this particular usage and that's just the way it is. I won't change the size or placement, you have already indicated you strongly think the images in their present size should stay in their present placement. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll just say it again: if an image is worth including, it should be large enough for the reader to make out what it's meant to show. I don't particularly like the "double" inauguration photo – I think a single photo, marked to direct attention to Booth and Lincoln, would be better – but I'm not interested enough to design something new. And if there was just a single photo I'd prefer it floated as well, but for the moment there isn't enough text for that. Big deal. EEng18:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Re: this edit - I included all those names because they turn up in various sources. If a reader consults references about Lincoln's Assassination and reads about the man who held Booth's horse in that alley the reader will come up with the name John Bohran. And Peanut Johnny. And Johnny Peanut, also Joseph Burroughs, "Peanuts" Burroughs, etc. I would think WP's content should make it clear that these are all the same man, not that there was a gaggle of various men holding that "bitch of a horse" in the alley. There is some even further confusion about this "Peanut" fellow - some say he was a black man, some white... Shearonink (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The entire question could be avoided by not naming him at all; since he's apparently non-notable, I don't see what would be lost thereby. I would say the same, BTW, about the name of the guy who took the deathbed photo. It's not the goal of the article to cram in every possible detail. That's what scholarly monographs are for. EEng04:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The deathbed photographer, Julius Ulke, was a boarder at Petersen's - he took the only known photo of the deathbed after Lincoln's body was removed. When I saw the name credited in Commons I started wondering who and what he was - as it was not an "official" photo taken by a US Army officer or a government official etc.. He's important enough to the Assassination narrative to appear in "Last Hours...", that Alonzo Chappel painting featured in the article. Shearonink (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
So what? How does the reader better understand the Lincoln assassination by learning the name of the boarder who took the photo? That information properly belongs in the description page of the photo itself, but in this article, unless there's something useful to say about this guy it's just cruft. EEng16:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Help with getting MOS:TENSE established in an article
Hi, "EEng,"
I see that you're a somewhat frequent, or at least somewhat recent, good contributor to discussion about the MOS. I was wondering if maybe you'd be so kind as to offer your opinions and other help elsewhere as well. Have you been familiarized with MOS:TENSE? If so, what's your opinion about making sure it's applied? The MOS is a set of rules that applies to every article, correct? Would you please be so kind as to lend me your hand then?
Well right off the bat, yes MOS "applies to every article", but not rigidly – like it says at the top, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. As to TENSE, these discussions often end up being of the angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin variety, and they rarely interest me. Where does this arise? EEng00:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, EEng, thanks for your reply! Maybe we'll be able to work well together. There's an article about a fairly long-discontinued computer-based entertainment product that one editor is refusing to accept the MOS rule of tense on, which tells us that we use present-tense for products even if they've been discontinued long ago. So I was looking for someone who would go help me nail it down because he doesn't seem to believe me, or doesn't want to pay attention to my edit summary, and just reverts things based on his opinion (and even says "IMO"). So we just need to show him a consensus that there is this MOS and it indeed applies.
Now please see the other part of my reply down below this section.
Also, as long as I have you here reading my request for MOS-establishment help, let me ask you for your opinion on some other things, okay?
Which to you is more accurate: calling abbreviations in which letters are pronounced individually, like a lot of initial abbreviations such as "CD," "ATM," and "LCD" are, as "acronyms," even though they are not (since they aren't pronounced as if they were just single words like "LASER," "SCUBA," "PIN," and "VIN," etc. are, and so those abbreviation examples are acronyms [even as "laser" and "scuba," and probably several others, have long been commonly lowercased]), or just calling them "initialisms" or "initial abbreviations" when they are indeed NOT acronyms?
Which to you is clearer: saying that a given model of computer or game system looks like just a "stereo" (which could be anything from a non-portable, traditional home stereo system, to a vehicle stereo system, to a tiny little MP3 player), or saying that it looks like a traditional home stereo system component?
And then, as a follow-up regarding systems that look like home-stereo equipment, if they are still computers, then which makes more sense: to compare them with other devices that look like just "computers" (even though these still are computers, so they look like their own unique type of computer), or to compare them against computers that look more like traditional computers?
Which do you believe is clearer: that when a specific computer-derived entertainment system can be converted into that computer by adding back specific peripherals such as a floppy disk drive like the derived-from computer model the system came with has, to simply say "disk drive" (which is ambiguous because it can refer to the CD drive that the machine already has, or to a hard disk drive which is only secondary to the floppy drive on those computers), or to be more specific by saying "floppy disk drive"?
Oh, okay. Well, before I get into where issues like these might surface, I just want to find out what your general beliefs about how to handle them are, so I can get a good idea on how well we might work together, and then go from there. Is that cool?
Hey, E, I've done my best to do the right thing and get my discussion going at talk:Commodore CDTV, but some trolls keep on deleting my discussion and all replies with it! Will you please help me out over there by restoring it and standing up for me, and then adding your own discussion? 75.162.224.39 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello again EEng. I am currently having a problem with stacking a sidebar at Margaret Thatcher. An image that is supposed to be situated in the second section has been shoved down the page to a different section, and I don't know how to rectify this. I was going to ping you and Redrose64 where I did last time concerning Mr Reagan, but I forgot where that was. Anyway, I'm also considering whether to be bold in trimming the infobox at her article, given how long the sidebar is. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert13:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Glad to see you're still contributing. I don't see the problem (though what you see and I see will differ, depending on screen size, zoom setting, and sometimes browser). Can you tell me more? EEng15:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The trick is to recognize that the sidebar (on the right) will always appear further down than the two stacked images (on the left) anyway, so it makes sense to invoke the images first, then the sidebar. The way you had it before ran up against limitations on how much floating material can be deferred on one side or another, though I've never quite understood the details of this. In general things are most likely to go as expected if you alternate invocations left and right. EEng16:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, but you'd do better to ask at the article talk page, where people more committed to the subject will likely be found. Happy editing! EEng16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
A very good question - which may serve as the anthem of a frustrated editor facing one ANI too many. Credits to Nine Inch (0.011 chains, 0.23 m) Nails. Possible answers:
They've been amazed at our dazzling erudition and wait with bated breath for the outcome of our deliberations
They've got bored
They're wondering how many editors can dance on the head of a pin, and don't know if there's enough room for them to join in. BTW - there's loads of room - drop in here.
For a moment I thought it said defibrillations. Perhaps we can work "Everybody's Gone to the Moon" (or maybe "Fly Me to the Moon") into the examples somehow. You two might be interested in a "discussion" I'm having with a troglodyte who thinks humor has no place in serious discussions -- Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Continued_obstruction. EEng10:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
More than interested! Happy to be a nosey bystander though. I'll join the discussion after we've sorted out units, and I've brought clarity, peace, tranquility and a common sense of purpose to This RFC - that should give me 5 years minimum, and there'll still be humourless trogs to deal with.
Personally, I think a bit a humour greases the wheels of collegiate editing, or something. It's been fun to have a joke on the side of the rather dry topic of units.
By the way, you spoke to soon, it's all kicking off over there on units.
I'll wade in a bit later if needed, but I need to disappear for a few hours for a hospital visit (not that far away from defibrillators and drug doses...) Robevans123 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
If you mean wade in on units, great, but if you mean on sockpuppetry, please don't -- I didn't mean to canvass you, just thought you might be amused to gawk at the humorlessness -- I do so cherish the quote at the top of User:EEng. I've run into this prick before and he's/she's completely tonedeaf. Hope your hospital visit's not troubling. EEng14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely units only! Didn't feel canvassed, it's definitely an area of watch, don't touch. Hospital visit was fine thank you. Just a follow up on some routine blood tests - all in the green zone. Going to have a quiet night off, so I'm ready to deal with some people who are fantastic at saying what they don't like, but surprisingly quiet at putting something else forward. All will be done as politely as possible, and in the best possible taste. Nil illegitimi carborundum. Robevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI
I've reported our latest friend here because I have a feeling he's related to the previous troublemaker on the Harvard article. I also have half a mind to MFD WP:UNIGUIDE seeing how it is constantly misrepresented and flies in contradiction to WP:V. Calidum¤02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Avoiding phrasing like "highly prestigious" for Podunk Junior Community College sounds like good advice to me. The difference is that for Harvard it happens to be true, and also arguably an accurate summary of the later "University rankings" section. Anyway, it's an essay, and you can find one of those to support any point you'd want to make (and many you wouldn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I was specifically wondering what you thought about Calidum's idea of sending UNIGUIDE to MfD. I say don't bother. EEng04:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
And no UNDO button, even. How do you like my Trump-Hitler retrospective at User:EEng? I'm surprised no one seems to have noticed it. EEng07:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I keep typing and erasing replies. I've tried evasiveness, wryness, silliness, sarcasm, black humour, acerbity, seriousness, ponderousness, but nothing I can come up with sounds appropriate. I want to say something wise, witty or at least coherent and worthy of reading, but words fail me. I find the topic too depressing, and I feel as if making light of it mocks survivors and victims – and those who find themselves in a much more precarious position than I believe myself to be, who live in immediate, mortal, existential fear. It feels so privileged. I don't know; I just don't think it's my place to talk.
I saw it but felt it best not to call attention to it. (Oops.) By coincidence I am reading Ian Kershaw's two-volume Hitler biography and am presently up to mid-1933. Some of the parallels between current events and then are... thought provoking. You could take whole sentences and just change the names or places and it would be impossible to tell whether they were from the book or today's newspaper. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes you don't even have to change names. One quotation I was struck by is Ludwig Thoma's undisguised complaint about Berlin, the supposed incompetence of the government, the local socialists and "orientals", in 1920. It sounds like a letter to the editor or web comment written by any reactionary Bavarian curmudgeon today. Except that the "orientals" today are Muslims (the Kreuzberg quarter is particularly well-known for its population of Turkish Germans) rather than Jews. The Nazis denounced Berlin as "verniggert", presumably because of the popularity of American cultural products such as jazz – Afro-Germans did exist, but I believe were more of a rarity even in Berlin. I was shocked to hear that, according to a poll in 2008, as many as 26% of the German population still insisted that dark-skinned people don't fit into Germany, and 50% didn't want to live in the same building together with "Turks" (I fear it has only become worse since then). That's, like, the definition of racism. Clearly, even tons of people here have learnt nothing from history, and going over all this stuff at school was an exercise in futility. :( --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't shake the impression that Germany really does consist of 50% I'm-not-racist-but-heads and 50% pc Cultural Marxists® and Antifa anarcho-punks. (At least street battles like in the twenties aren't common.) I still guess we commies have more fun. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If you have the time and stomach for it, I have a modest proposal for EEng and his glittering admirers.
Come to a personal position on whether he's on or off his rocker, and how many of his arguments fail and why.
Go back and reconsider our host's well-chosen and -illustrated gallery, and try to resolve any internal hypocrisies.
I'm currently glumly pondering step 3.
On a tangential note, I just saw the '61 West Side Story for the first time and found it remarkably topical as well: the core theme (optimistic if anything) about the plague on both our houses is the story of our current globalfailure-of-politicsplotlines, of course, but the film also fits in still-thoughtful treatment of immigration, racism, misogyny, gender nonconformity, and even headscarf symboism. FourViolas (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll get on it as soon as I've finished this steak. BTW, the next time we have to relitigate whether Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities" [6] we can just point out that Trump called Iraq "Harvard for terrorism" [7]. Yale, eat your heart out. EEng06:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Time to get out the canoes and paddle to section, Wadsworth old fellowHey, I hear we do pretty well ourselves. That "source", incidentally, states that Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities"; also, that we "boat" a 201-acre main campus.
What are you doing eating steak at midnight? 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I always eat raw meat at the witching hour, after strangling the animal to death with my bare hands and drinking its blood. Believe it or not the Charles, as recently as 1958 or so, has risen to the point that sandbags were needed as far upstream as Eliot House. EEng00:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of school spirit, I have in fact been closely watching the Hitler/Trump quiz. It troubles me that I scored 100% on telling them apart (and with no peeking at the answers), because it would seem to indicate that I understand too well some things I'd rather not be familiar with (maybe too much time spent with ArbCom and GMOs). I just figured that I wouldn't gloat about it until now, because of my, um, educational commitment to humility (ha, ha). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I don't expect it to actually be hard to tell who said what, because of the strong stylistic cues (Hitler being decidedly more literate than Trump). EEng00:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hitler? or Trump? – "A highly intelligent man should take a primitive and stupid woman. Imagine if, on top of everything else, I had a woman who interfered with my work!" EEng02:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Answer
(Voice of Mel Brooks...) "I've got da Vestern Front! – da Eastern Front! – dat fat pig Goering! – zose Juden! – Und jetzt, on top of all dat, dat voman is driving me meshuggana! Oy vey!"
I think I would have gotten that one right, too, but your talk page is so slow to load (ahem!) that I could see the hidden answer before it finished loading. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
"Hey Stalin, if you're listening out there, if you can find FDR's letters, I'm sure that the press here will reward you mightily." followed by: "I vas just being sarcastic!" --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As I follow your embellishments of your user page, I've gotten an idea for some alternatives to the ostrich, courtesy of a joke told by Bill Maher: 1, 2. Gets the affect and the hair rather well, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not a complete impossibility, come to think of it. Then you and I can be interviewed on CNN, responding to Trump saying we should be shot (digitally, of course)! EEng08:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
User:EEng, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EEng and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EEng during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
And people wonder why editors who actually write articles get pissed off at gnomes who tinker, fiddle, and fuss over nothing. EEng07:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Damn, I missed all the fun. I didn't know that we could delete editors! For a price, I know someone who can do that the old-fashioned way (joke). Or maybe just witness protection. Anyway, +1 to what NeilN said about archiving. Please, please, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
For once, you came up with a YouTube link that I actually found interesting enough to watch through, and then watch several more that came after. (In fairness, several of the US foods are things that I've never seen in the US.) So, spotted dick comes in a can, and you can put your spotted dick in a microwave. Does that clear up the spots? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, Martin, if you are trying better, you'll have to be more careful about talking about pulling a dick out of a Fanny! And how many Evans123 family members are there? Sounds like they are reproducing like Welsh rabbits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, if that archiving is really happening, it might be better to put this section away sooner rather than later; for convenience, I've erected a section heading. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC) (And if you decide not to archive it, you could at least put it in a hat.... okay, I'm done now.)
Honestly, I'm a bit upset over this whole archiving business; it's just not right to deconstruct the only man-made talk page that can be seen from space. Perhaps I can dicker with EEng on the matter.... (bold and italics highlighting what was apparently MartinEvans123's point all along.) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Gosh, it's nice to know my humble page brings enjoyment to so many. What's canfassing, and is it legal in all 50 states? EEng20:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I don't want to look at the page history, but did you censor your own joke, or did someone else do it for you?
If it was someone else, I think you'd be forgiven for reverting them. If it was you, I thought I'd tell you that "one of the candidates takes the podium" makes a little less sense, and so is a little less funny, to those outside the US. The image being what it is would make me a lot more like to interpret "candidate" as one of the contenders for the throne in a monarchic state prone to succession disputes.
"One of the candidates in the 2016 presidential race" would probably be the best solution (I probably would have found this more amusing than just saying "Trump", honestly).
Hijiri88, see [10] and [11]. As you'll see from my edit summary I agree with you, but with the adjacent posts talking of small-r republicanism and so on I'm sure most people realized who was who, and I didn't feel like making a fuss. Have you visited The Museums? EEng22:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
User:EEng@D.Lazard:@Suranadira: As of sometime in the last 3 days, the "armands strazds" Wikipedia entry has disappeared from the (top of) the a.s google search. The Facebook entry has much less gravitas/substance.
Please link to instructions that say "you MUST break them into smaller diffs that can be considered and discussed as needed". No evidence has been provided that any user other than you has difficulty processing several small changes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it's the one huge change that's hard to review. Several small changes are what I was asking for. Thanks for cooperating. EEng23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Harassment
Hi. I ask you kindly to stop harassing me. People make mistakes, and I am a person. Continuously insulting me is unnecessary and discourteous. ―PapíDimmi(talk | contribs)19:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Mistakes, fine. Never learning from your mistakes, and making the same ones over and over, even after being blocked multiple times for them, not so fine. Those playing along at home may wish to review the discussion on your talk page in which a half-dozen editors warn you how close you are to an indefinite block. [12] Let's see, um... the last post there is an admin warning you to stop [correction:]removingcollapsing others' posts from an archived ANI discussion. You're no victim. EEng21:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
But undoing someone's undo of your own edit is; it's "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, revert back". I can't believe I really need to explain the basics of Wikipedia to someone who's been active on Wikipedia since 2013, and I strongly suspect you actually know the policy perfectly well; as I said to you earlier regarding a completely unrelated matter, as far as I'm concerned you no longer qualify for AGF. ‑ Iridescent22:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Not to put words in your mouth, but how about "I'll cease and desist" or perhaps even "I'm sorry". You start this section with People make mistakes, and I am a person. Continuously insulting me is unnecessary and discourteous. Other editors feel the same way, and have finite supplies of patience. You would like them to just go away, but they have made it very clear they won't fulfill your wish there. I didn't see anyone being discorteous of their own volition, many users have patiently tried to aid you per DIY and AGF, yet you rebuffed with "my sig is ok", "other people's are longer and nothing has happened to them", or loop-holing. Personally I am terrible at signatures, so I sympathise because creating and tweaking a custom signature is a hard task. But if a multitude of editors have demonstrated that a problem exists brushing them off is not the way to go. d.g. L3X1(distænt write))evidence(02:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for not reading every single policy on Wikipedia. I’m sorry making mistakes. Like I’ve said before, even someone doesn’t like my behaviour on Wikipedia, that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to continously attack me on various talk pages. ―PapíDimmi(talk | contribs)02:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Again, you are violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks, insulting me in the same section where I asked you not to do that.
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.
If you want to report me and request a block, feel free to do so, but attacking me is, yet again, unnecessary and immature. I’ve lost count over how many times you’ve called me an idiot, told me I have a disorder, etc. I’ve politely asked you to stop, but you refused. That’s not how an editor is supposed to treat fellow editors. ―PapíDimmi(talk | contribs)04:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
My god, just how clueless are you? As linked above, you've even been tampering with my edit notice for this very page! What on earth is wrong with you? Why do you keep coming back here to make ever more of a laughingstock of yourself? As I said to you months ago: I don't suffer fools gladly, and I'm all out of suffer with you. You're no longer a source of amusement. Begone. EEng04:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. There's no need for me to report you anywhere in order for you to get blocked. No doubt sooner or later you'll arrange that all by yourself.
Followup: you were very modest, startswithj, about your humor-detecting talents. But take heart, there's someone even more humor-impaired than you apparently imagine yourself to be, as seen in the next section. So feel yourself lucky -- as the old proverb says, "I cried because I had no WiFi, until I met a man who had no laptop."EEng (talk)
Note: The author of the below subsequently removed it. However, I'm electing to repost it here as a permanent reminder to myself of how serious can be the sufferings of those afflicted by profound humor impairment. The assertion that my phrase "terrorist threats against local bridges" -- just above, next to another editor's joking "exploding gift" gif -- actually "insinuates" that the text to which it links is a "terrorist schtick" (odd image, that -- better check your dictionary, CG) suggests a poor prognosis.
Warning
Misappropriation and changing the context of any editors text is specifically not allowed. Do not do this EEng. You've lied and put words in my mouth and you are being abusive. Next time, I will take it to arbcom do not dare put any insinuation with terrorism to my comments. You understand?! You've insulted my work and you've lied all it one post, but then you alter my text and flow and chalk it up to some terrorist schtick. I think you owe me an apology.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. CG, I'd appreciate your telling me where I altered your "text and flow" or "lied and put words in [your] mouth". (Since there was no section heading I made it "Personal attack? You decide!" -- and I've now clarified that it's not your heading, if that's what's bothering you.)
Later (10:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)): The patient exhibits a continued preoccupation with removing my post, above, quoting his earlier "warning".[15][16][17] Of course it's best for his recovery that he face the consequences of his actions, rather than run from them.
A friendly note
Stop refactoring and reinserting my deleted text, you are violating the talk page guidelines. I am well within my right to remove my own comments and not have them altered, refactored or reinserted by you to mock. You are being hypocritical because you continue to refactor my text and you scream about "not fucking with my posts". Now calm down - you are only adding fuel to the fire. You've continually altered text and you edit war over nothing. You don't see me constantly bringing up your comment that almost got you indeffed for personal attacks; treat others as you want to be treated and you'll find your interactions on Wikipedia to be more pleasant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
For those who may be wondering, we're talking about the text removed here [18], which can be seen in context here [19].
Sorry, I missed this until now. Quoting a post of yours, giving full context, is not refactoring, whether you subsequently deleted it or not. (And in quoting it I noted that you had deleted it.) EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Query
Hi EEng. Chris has raised with me the edit you made here. Would you stand by this edit and its like? I do share his concerns with the standard of your interactions. I'd prefer to sort it out with you directly, but if not I would need to go to a central noticeboard, so please consider your response carefully. --John (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I stand by it fully. If you can explain what the hell he's talking about, including the silent shift, from the beginning of the thread to the end, in what's being demanded, please do so -- there. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, why don't you go up to your room and loosen that girdle. Ooof! Doesn't that feel better? EEng (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Another clueless editor drops in to visit
Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Do not refactor my comments again and do not make snide personal attacks. Also, do not call editors "nazi"s, because they removed 1900 characters of this.[20] Comment on the edit not the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I didn't call another editor a Nazi, but rather a MOS Nazi -- that is, an often ignorant, always arrogant, self-appointed knowitall who finds salve for his insecure ego by pretending that enforcement of increasingly minute and arbitrary rules, over consideration of what looks good and reads well, benefits the project.
As to you, do not fuck with others' comments on article talk pages, as you did -- I've restored my comments and stand by them. You made a run-on, borderline unintelligible defense of certain actions of yours; I responded with "Everything you're saying is nonsense", followed by a bullet-list explication of why everything you had said was nonsense. [21] If you don't like that, then stop posting nonsense.
As already pointed out elsewhere, you spend a great deal of time removing, and issuing warnings about, angry comments directed at you by other editors, e.g. on your talk page. Ever think about why that is?
Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem. You have a massive COI and your ownership is problematic enough, but making up lies is not acceptable. Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page and next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA. Do you understand? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Re next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA:
(For those playing along at home here's the edit summary [22] Chris is so up in arms about.) I could change my wording from "MOS Nazis" to "bossy schoolmarmish MOS-haunting tin-ear-for-language knowitalls" -- would you prefer that? Anyway, if you don't recognize yourself in those descriptions, what does any of this have to do with you? And if you do, then how is it a personal attack to describe you in a manner which you agree is accurate?
In any event, here's what I predict an administrator would say about all this:
First, he or she will tell me that -- though it's understandable I was pissed off at you for making a complete mess of an article and then, when challenged, posting a list of nonsense justifications for what you'd done, but falling strangely silent when those justifications were answered -- I should have heeded the better angels of my nature and moderated my condemnation of your absurd waste of my time and your own time.
Second, he or she will counsel you to stop being a crybaby. You fucked up the article, wouldn't admit it, and almost a month later are still sulking because you were called out for it.
As to Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem: What the fuck are you talking about? What can "making up things you know nothing about" even mean?'
And Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page: What the fuck are you talking about here, either?
As to massive COI and ownership... well, I'll deal with those laughable ideas on the article talk page.
Why are you being rude and spiteful? I'm trying to work with you - this is not your article to rule over and I'd much fancy being able to read the actual text with more than 13 characters smashed between two large images and other formatting and size issues. Why will you not discuss this civilly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You're confusing ownership and stewardship -- see WP:OAS. As to "formatting and size issues" (and "13 characters") please post a description of them at the article Talk, in a way others can understand what you're talking about. I suspect you've got zoom set high and/or text size (if you're using IE) set to "Largest" or something. EEng (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It is better, but your assumptions of what I am using is wrong. I'm not going to argue with you about this; it's why I've purposely avoided responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation. You are emotionally and academically invested in the page and it is only out of respect for actual experts on Wikipedia (we have too few) that I don't want any dramatics. I mean no offense and I hope you understand my position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, whatever. "I'm not going to argue with you about this" -- you don't argue (or discuss) anything. What you do, as just seen, is complain vaguely ("formatting and size issues") but then never explain what you're talking about; you've been doing this for a month without making a single suggestion for anything to change. If telling yourself you're "avoiding responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation" makes you feel better, fine, but the the important thing is that you've decided to move on to wasting others' time instead of mine. Call it selfish if you want. You're practically the Wikipedia poster-boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect. EEng (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You made an improvement to the rendered page - it is not my preference, but it is better. So why would I need to reiterate or argue after its resolution? I see you have asked for clarification on my arguments - and normally I'd be happy to explain further, but you don't want to listen to me. You are an expert on Gage, while I dislike the significant conflict of interest generated by extensively using both you and your co-author's work, I respect your position. If I wanted to be a thorn in your side, trust me, I could, but we both have better things to do than indulge in dramatics. That is why I asked you stop the personal attacks, but I've realized by not responding in kind or getting upset gives more time to you to improve the content. So long as you seek to improve Wikipedia, even just this one page, I'll respect your stewardship. If you really want to make a fight, WP:COIN and a few other places would be a good proving ground to see if those "MOS Nazis" could explain in more detail why your page presents significant problems with its excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates. Your call. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
For the 100th time:
go to the article's talk page and post a concrete suggestion or description of a problem (e.g. specifically describe the "excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates" you refer to above -- I genuinely would like to know about any potential problems);
or go somewhere to complain about my COI, or my attacks, or whatever;
or just go away.
But do not keep saying here that you've identified problems with the article but aren't going to explain them. It's ridiculous. EEng (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I dunno. It seemed like too much trouble to merge all the adjacent empties (and doing so would create a lot of potential for rowspan mess-ups), so I drew the line where the entire "category" (Information) has empty comments. My motivation was to eliminate the unpleasant visual effect of all those parallel lines blocked together and that's the most important example of it. If you want to extend that to the rest, or revert my one merge, that's fine. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I quite like the visual cleanliness, but we should be consistent — both within the table and across tables generally. It actually works well (at least on my browser: Firefox 27.0.1 for Mac OS X) to omit the final cell in a row when it's not needed; it has the same visual appearance without the messy rowspan parameters that are prone to tripping editors up. I'll give that a go but feel free to revert if it doesn't look right. —sroc💬12:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
The reason I didn't do that is that IE 11 interprets the lack of the final, empty value as "on this row, that column isn't even there" and expresses that by omitting the right-hand, final vertical line for that cell. In other word, instead of
-------------------
| val | val | |
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val | |
-------------------
you get
-------------
| val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val |
-------------
(Here I'm assuming your browser renders this ascii art the same as mine does.) To me that looks a bit odd but better than all those empty cells, but I fear you may get blowback. I suggest you leave it as you have it and brace for reaction.
So you see, we're friends after all. But don't think you've heard the last of me on that stupid year-comma thing. EEng (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see the ASCII art. (How'd you do that?) My browser shows as the first case, but I feared some other browsers would show as the second case (or something else weird). Let's see what happens. (grabs popcorn) —sroc💬14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If the more than 50% of the characters in a block of text are hyphen, plus, or pipe, the browser detects ascii art and renders it that way.
More information
Ha ha! Just kidding! If you go back and look, each line begins with a blank. For some bizarre reason lost to history that triggers that stark monospace rendering.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you removed "the definite article", you added a negative byte count pointing to the unlucky number 13. And mentioned it in your edit summary. After a 133 byte edit. At 22:23. Such links are almost always unintended, since numerology is merely a special relationship between a number and some coinciding events.
Fair enough. Just thought if you'd been the type to believe in the hoo-ha, you'd have liked the heads up. I had to ask a Wikifriend to revert mine. It's an awkward request. If you run into any bad luck, hope for sevens. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:30, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know? Seven minutes between my post and your reply, and an inverted 23 here. You'll be fine. InedibleHulk(talk) 03:32, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Per COMMONSENSE, you're just too funny. I've never seen anyone revert a dummy edit before -- much less twice! [24] The important thing is that through collaborative editing the article is incrementally improved relative to its state when the sun came up this morning. EEng (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm making this the founding entry in the Museum of Bizarre Reversions on my userpage.
And per any of the measures of most editing, you are patronising, boorish, and certainly nowhere near as good as you think you are. The article hasn't improved much, and some of your edits have been a step backwards: Milligan "later told someone"? that's just laughably poor. I hope not ever to be back here, so feel free to leave some "witty" (tedious and tiresome) comment to close it off. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty of amusement here without my contributing anything. Your reversion of a dummy edit is worth the price of admission alone. EEng (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
A visit from an editor both angry and clueless -- always a dangerous combination
You clearly love a joke judging by your user page, so take a look at these; Did you hear about the deluded and seriously unfunny editor who thought they improved a featured article by writing like a drunk three year old? These are bloody hilarious! [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], and this. Cassiantotalk19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I stand by all of them, which with perhaps one or two exceptions are straightforward corrections -- for example, the insertion of a missing quote mark [33] and changing [34]
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, 26 years to the day
to
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, twenty-six years to the day
You've listed all my edits to this one article, even those obviously appropriate, which implies you're just one of these OWNy editors who can't stand fresh eyes. If you'll say why you think any of them inappropriate, I'll be happy to discuss. EEng (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I like fresh eyes, but not the ones with shit in them. Your cliche OWN accusation is also more predictable than your "humour". Oh, and thread properly as it becomes more readable and easier to respond. Cassiantotalk 4:39 pm, Today (UTC−4)
LOL! "And please don't reformat my posts"? That's a nice use of a conjunction to start a sentence EEng. It's edits like that which makes your grammar all the more laughable! Cassiantotalk21:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be hinting that And at the start of a sentence is a blunder, which it's not. But people who take comfort in rigid rules often say it is. As for --
It's edits like that which makes
-- I'm sure you know better, so I'll take it as a measure of the extent to which you're just lashing out blindly. Still waiting for specific comment on any of my edits you complain about above. EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
As a gesture of respect for the Grammar Nazis and their selfless and untrankful work I made a point of ending my sentence with a couple of prepositions for them to clean up at. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I see -- you were giving them something to be angry at. The thing is, a grammar Nazi is someone who actually knows his grammar but applies it inflexibly and thoughtlessly; here we have someone who doesn't even know the grammar.
Did you hear about the boy who was tired of the same old bedtime stories about Australia? He said to his father, "Dad -- what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?" EEng (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, comparing me to a Nazi because of an age old grammatical rule that has a split opinion...that old chestnut. This was about as predictable as your colleagues OWN accusation earlier! Cassiantotalk08:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
You missed an apostrophe this time. And a hyphen. For someone who picks fights over grammar and usage, based on age-old grammatical rules that have split opinions, you're certainly having trouble. Still waiting for specific comments on my edits which you complain about in your opening post. EEng (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Die Gammar Nazis (FTW TM) rule at FAC. Got in Himmel. Damned right too. We can't afford to have these casual passers-by mess with our firmament. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Some don't get the joke, even when it's on them. See next subsection. BTW, did you notice my comment here [36]? EEng (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Get the joke? You are about as funny as a strong dose of syphilis. Gerda, I'm surprised you find this entertaining. This kind of negative exchange is what loses the project editors, losses which you so publicly mourn. Cassiantotalk09:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I probably missed something because I did't see "negative exchange". - Nazi - I just explained in a DYK nom that you better use that word to be "attractive": simply compare views for hooks mentioning "Nazi" and those that don't. - That is negative, but how would we change it? - I don't "mourn publicly", I factually made a note on top of my talk about a loss 3 years ago which prepared me well to take all later ones. I sing praises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You have now breached WP:3RR (you are at 4RR). The talk page thread is open and awaits your comments, rather than edit warring. If you revert again I will have no hesitation in reporting you in the right forum. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Oooh! You won't hesitate!Oooh! I'm scared. Report away, but watch for the ol' boomerang. You're ridiculous. (For those who are wondering, SC's got his knickers in a twist over this [37] -- click back back earlier from there to for some world-class Angry Edit Summary contenders from SchroCat and his co-owner Cassianto -- more from the latter above in this very thread! EEng (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Postscript, 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC): Since I ran into this while on another errand a moment ago, I thought I'd insert it here:
Uncle G to Schrodinger's cat is alive: "You demonstrate exactly the sort of non-collaborative non-effort-expending attitude on the part of an editor with an account that makes editing so bad for so many, and that people rightly ridicule in cases like this where myopic Wikipedians foolishly fight to un-write the encyclopaedia. Calling someone who in no article edit did anything but add verifiable content and cite sources intended to support it a "vandal" is almost merely icing on the cake of how unproductive, uncollaborative, and un-Wikipedian that attitude is. ... You're supposed to be a collaborative editor. Stop thinking that your purpose here is no more than to sit in an armchair, mark other people's work, and use the undo tool, without otherwise lifting a finger to help when an article needs fixing." posted on WP:AN#Editor Dr. Blofeld, 03:22 19 December 2012 (UTC)
A different editor responded in far more appropriate terms to Uncle G's rather sanctimonious wailings that failed to take into account anything based in policy, most importantly WP:BLP. Still, always nice to have an admin veer into incivility about one. Anyway, you want me to drag through your ANI performances? Life is too short to do so, but I wonder why you bothered to do it with mine... How pointless to drag up something from 18 months ago. As you probably didn't bother to look into it in much detail, I stand by my response given at the time. As per the above, move on, it only poorly reflects on you, not others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I'm particularly pleased because understatement is not one of my stronger modes of expression. BTW you might be amused by [38] and [39]. EEng (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
TfD
It would easy enough to make the case without ridicule, and without the negative adjectives, which verge on the personal. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Your insult directed at me on the DYK nomination page is not appropriate nor appreciated. I expect an apology from you to be posted on that page. HalfGigtalk11:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't an insult, I wasn't talking about you (or anyone else for that matter) [41], and there's nothing to apologize for. However, the fact that you feel compelled to imagine it was directed at you is something you might want to think about. EEng (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's OK that you misunderstood, but not OK that you can't just say, "Oh, I see, I misunderstood." For the last time: I wasn't referring to you (or, indeed, to anyone), there's nothing to apologize for, you embarrass yourself by continuing to whine about this, so please put a sock in it. As mentioned elsewhere, if you want to have the last word please do -- I'm unlikely to respond because experience shows you're unlikely to say anything new. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, why don't you read the thread linked in my post above, Tfish, and see that it referred to no one. As Martinevans was able to see with ease (see below) this is all in the complainant's mind. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think HalfGig is in the right too, as far as how editors should treat one another i.e. civilly. Unfortunately that has no relevance here, since nothing, nothing in this matter has been in any way uncivil, unless you count HalfGig continuing to make accusations about an imagined slight. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
User:HalfGig, I too found the grammatical ambiguity in your first hook quite amusing. I assume it was unintentional. It's unfortunate that you took EEng's poking fun at that as poking fun at you. I'm sure you're the type of editor who likes a good Luffa now and again. I'm the true pun-kin head around here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You always lift the spirits of those around you. Listen, will you please check your inbox/junk folder and get something useful done while I'm doing my penance here? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If only I could get to the bottom of it! But, irony of ironies, it seems you "can't actually archive your page until the block is expired, because you can't edit the Archive sub-page..." or so come kindly technical chap tells us. Now there's something in need of tweaking. However will you fill your time? A trip to Cornwall never goes amis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, yes. While he was well-intentioned, I'm afraid our friend fell into what appears to be an endemic trap at GA, which is WP:Reviewing_good_articles#Imposing_your_personal_criteria. Please stay with it. I need your honest opinion on whether you can see these "image and quote" problems. If so, I'll fix them. Either way, after that I'd like to renominate and get a proper (i.e. stick-to-the-criteria) review from you. EEng (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
But I believe I must apologize for bad reverting. Not that I don't like the change; in fact I do. If the sroc's change is finalized formally, I can finally act upon it. But if I acted upon it and then someone spring the same revert on me objecting the bad MOS change, then I'd be unfairly in trouble. Fleet Command (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm staying out of that one -- these date-consistency wars make my head explode. sroc's a good guy/gal BTW, in my experience, so I'm sure y'all can work it out. EEng (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK rules
Yes, this is better. I knew that my change was awkward, but I wanted to make the most minimal change possible for it to be correct. As for your next edit, I think we'll have to add a time machine to the DYK toolbox, so people can verify that an article will be created, expanded, or GA-ized in the year after it appears as an April Fools' Day DYK. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know, actually, and your timing is perfect as I'm in Berkeley just now so I'll pop down and have a talk with them. If MT had direct contact with the family, which is remotely possible, he could have mentioned it in these materials. EEng (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
For your reading pleasure/horror/sign of all thats wrong in the world.
EEng, this edit crossed a line. I know you are eager for the AfD to close, but this edit was borderline vandalism in as much as you deliberately edited the article to make it the subject of an in-joke. Regardless of her suitability to have a standalone article, it is not hard to work out that Dr Thabet is a real person with a real Facebook account and a real Twitter feed. Just sit back and be patient. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second -- it can't be "borderline" and also "cross the line". Jeesh! But I will agree temptation got the best of me. EEng (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Oy - I've only used revdel twice and got yanked off to ANI for the first time ever for it. You can't see the diff now because your prayers were finally answered when another admin deleted the article per WP:CSD#G3. I'm sure I could sit down with Dr Thabet and have a nice cup of tea and some chocolate digestives. Maybe I'll bring some Wickedly Welsh Chocolate along. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course I know about your trouble re revdel, which is why I gave you a hard time about it. Just to, you know, twist the knife a little. I'd stay away from this Thabet character -- she might atomize you into dark-matter interstellar space or something. EEng (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Its you who is on the side of the wiki. Beware of trolls who claim they are there to repair the bridge... they are trolls - they don't repair the bridge they just curse those who repair the bridge and note how they would remove the bridge as that would prevent repairs being made. Remember to finish talking when its obvious you are in the lead. Let the uncivil have the last word. This barnstar is for all the great work you do and I don't want you to feel unappreciated. I rarely comment at DYK talk because of the uncivil comments made by those who are not in your league of contributions to the project. You don't need to prove that people are uncivil - its obvious to all. You don't need to show that you are assisting the project - that's obvious too - hence this barnstar. Nil desperandum. Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, though I'm not sure how obvious things were to others, since the only comments (other than equivocal ones) were by drive-by admins grabbing the wrong end of the stick. But here's how you can help, despite your understandable distaste for the atmosphere: comment at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. If we can make basic grammar a DYK criterion, we won't have to listen to Rambling Man's complaining any more. EEng (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
My worry is that even if the sulky child is demanding something sensible then why would I support their agenda. The demands won't be complete until we include the silliest of ideas like "lazy redirects"... ???? At some point we have to say that Wikipedia is flawed. Always is, always will be. Getting the main page to FA status is just a crazy idea. If you think that doing "X" would mean that we wouldn't have to listen to uncivil and irrational demands then I do hope you are right, but I fear that you are being over optimistic. Talk at DYK is just toxic - we need to find somewhere else or ignore uncivil comments entirely. I'm trying to do thr latter and others are too, if you discuss there then you may feel alone - but you are not. Meanwhile Well done. Victuallers (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, nonsense like "lazy redirects" is... well, nonsense, but I asking that an article linked from MP have no obvious grammar boners does seem realistic. If you haven't already please do comment at the link I gave. I'd appreciate it. EEng (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Accusation struck
It was actually with reference to the awful choice of hook you promoted for the Grace Kelly filmography, which I subsequently fixed, but never mind. Perhaps now you could remove some of your personal attacks? If not, don't worry. I've supported your proposition, for the numbers. Perhaps now we can bury the axe (not in my head) and crack on with fixing the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Let me see if I have this right. I promoted the hook
... that '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|Grace Kelly]]''' won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then retired from acting the following year at the age of 26?
... that [[Grace Kelly]] won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|retired from acting]]''' the following year at the age of 26?
And that's what you called my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse" that "is damaging Wikipedia"???[43] I appreciate the strike, but please tell me you see how outrageous -- bizarre, really -- an accusation that was. EEng (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook, and I was actually genuinely surprised that you sanctioned it. Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre. It was foremost in my mind at the time I wrote what I did. Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard. I also felt like noting that using a search on Template edits is all very well, but you didn't do a search on edits I've made on prospective articles listed in prep and queues. That may seriously slew your claim that I do so much less than you at DYK. But it matters not. I have no further interest in pissing in the wind trying to debate things with you. Your ongoing accusations of me being a bully and a liar are too much for me, much like why I left DYK in the first place, after you'd made it clear that DYK was your place and who was I to be there, complaining about the lack of quality etc etc while you wisecracked your way through everything, abjectly belittling and bullying those with whom you disagreed. It was only when I saw the quality control diminish to nothing that I felt the need to interact again. Now you seem to entirely agree that the quality is appalling, and to see a promoting admin suggest that he moved an article he described as "abysmal" to the main page has been a real eye-opener that we wouldn't have got from this debate if we hadn't have been cock-blocking. Sure, it didn't pan out as I wanted, and I sure as hell never wanted you to be blocked for anything, even the personal attacks, even the repeated liar and the fuck himself and the soak your head (although the latter belongs at kindergarten, as I'm sure you now agree) and the endless "kvetching" (do consider that some of us really don't care for this kind of kvetching). Do us all a favour, agree to move on, as I have offered to do, if you'd like to strike some of the attacks and so on, fine, if not, fine, history will see it for what it is (as you have demonstrated in your keenness to keep the collapsed discussion uncollapsed). If you'd prefer to keep the attacks going, so be it, and I'll have some belters for you. This is my best, last and final offer, do with it as you will. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's look at some of the things you're saying:
No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook
If you think linking to Grace Kelly versus to Grace Kelly filmography is anything like a shocking indictment of DYK then you've lost all perspective.
Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre.
Again with the insults you so freely spit at everyone.
Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard.
If you don't know whether it's "the only one", then what possible justification could you have had for your comment that I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre, or worse"? It's nice that you've now retracted that statement—days after you were challenged to back it up and refused to do so—but that you insisted on leaving it in place for so long makes you... yes, a liar if you knew it was inappropriate all along, or... just plain deluded if you actually think it was appropriate i.e. that the isolated example of the mistaken (as you see it) link discussed above justifies such calumny. Take your pick.
[44]Here this just comes across as unnecessarily abrasive; by editorialising a problem, strawmanning those who don't agree, shaming the reviewers and then using it as an excuse to deplore the failings of DYK. Highlighting a problem can be quite useful, as with any constructive feedback, but continuously using fresh examples to advance an argument while indirectly pillorying good faith contributors is disruptive.
This is very much what I've been saying to you for months:
[45]Why do you keep saying I'm happy to have not-so-well-written articles appear? I'm not. I've simply pointed out that the review process as it stands does nothing to prevent that ... The people who participate here already share your concerns about quality, on the whole, so you're preaching to the converted -- and insulting and annoying them at the same time.
[46]If you think DYK criteria should be changed (and I agree they should -- if it were up to me DYK would carry only GAs) make a proposal for a change to those criteria. But you're wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria.
[47]You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"—go soak your head, will you? I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into—the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping.
I have no desire to drive you away from DYK, but I do want you to stop that behavior: Stop belittling other editors for not enforcing standards not in the criteria, no matter how "obvious" such standards may seem, to you (or even me), to be. Instead, help get the criteria changed.
I appreciate your recent support for adding basic grammar as a DYK criterion, and if we can get that to happen, you and I both will have less to bemoan in the future. EEng (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Note, this was not yet another opportunity for you to keep the fight going. I have no interest in you repeatedly and repetitively going over old ground. If you wish to move forward, let's do that, if you don't, just say so, leave the personal attacks and the repeated claims all over the encyclopedia, and I'll know exactly where I stand and where to go next. That you ignored pretty much every sentence of my note speaks volumes in that regard. I will not be watching this page for a response, as it seems fruitless to do so. Moreover I will continue to fix up the articles that are being promoted to the main page via DYK despite some of them being "abysmal" and will comment accordingly. The sooner you realise that your approach has also turned off many editors, and driven some away (myself included, temporarily) , so much the better for you and the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The only criticism I've received in this matter is from admins warning me not to call you a liar, and they're right -- I should have called your comments "grossly unfair and contrary to fact", not called you a liar. As for what others think of your behavior I again refer to Fuebaey's comment above. And -- oh yes -- this and this and this and this and this and ... EEng (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip on the link-coloring js.
Just curious...who are the academics on your mental faculties, anyway?, watch the following (while we all pray it doesn't anesthetize you beyond reproach): Functional Training. Atsme📞📧 00:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
User:EEng, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EEng and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EEng during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
