user talk:theleekycauldron

This talk page is archived.
To browse the archives, press "Show" and select the month of posts you want to view.

2020 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 — Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move, so it's leeky's turn – check back later! (last mover: CopperyMarrow15)

Bit of a mental health break

Stepping back from projectspace/my inbox for a short bit to process what's in the news. Then I'll be back to coordinate some fixes to the new recall process, get GalliumBot back up and running, respond to messages, etc. Stay safe, everyone theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as no one notices...

... the log entry for Voorts... :-p Primefac (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trout theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ewa Ligocka's goose

The source for Ewa Ligocka's goose uses the same wording for the story about another mathematician winning a goose as a prize (for which we have photographs!) as for Ligocka cooking the goose. There is no reason to treat this merely as a rumor; it is labeled as an anecdote. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: there's no reason for both sources to report it as a "story" or "anecdote" unless they didn't know it was true firsthand. this is basically lighthearted hearsay. we can call it something other in a rumor, but it can't stay in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not reporting it as something they are not sure of. They are reporting it as something true but incidental to the life of the person they are writing about. The story of the goose prize itself is widely documented and accepted as true (again, photograph!). This is additional detail from the same story, reported as equally factual.

Additionally, elaborating on the true or false nature of the story destroys the whole intended double meaning of the hook, a play on the phrase "to cook one's goose" where the joke is that in this case the meaning is literal rather than metaphorical. If we state it in a way that makes it clearly intend the meaning to be factual but at second hand, then there is no joke any more and no point to running that hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Saying "another anecdote says" she was the one who cooked it is another way of saying "I've heard someone say this is true, but have no way of verifying it myself". Anecdotes, as I believe you've pointed out before, can't speak. It's a way of attributing to another source, and a vague one at that. And this source isn't fact-checked or editorially controlled, it's just a mass email. Would you be okay with adding "according to an anecdote" to the hook? I understand it ruins the punch a little bit, but the sourcing is already very shaky. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said above and will say again: describing the ontological status of this statement, in the hook, destroys the point of the hook. If you refuse to run a hook with a point, I think it is better not to put boring pointless hooks into DYK at all. DYK hooks are not the place for pedantic elaboration, as you should already know. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, well then, pulled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think it "destroys the point of the hook" at all. You lose the pun, but i think cooking another mathematician's goose is still interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the remaining point left, after removing the joke, is: when a group of Polish mathematicians needed some kitchen work done, they selected a nearby young woman to do the work, without regard to her mathematics. Is that the point you wanted to make? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's a strange takeaway from the story itself. Someone with a doctorate in mathematics kills and cooks a coworker's goose, and the only takeaways from that are wordplay and gross sexism? You wouldn't be the least bit curious why a university math professor slaughtered and cooked her coworker's goose? Seems pretty interesting to me, and it was interesting to the person that sent out that email blast, too. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t read the phrasing as casting doubt on the veracity. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Wendy's on Twitter

Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wendy's on Twitter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]