This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
Removing the colloquial tag from the article Lobotomy
EEng, if I had the capacity to fix the colloquial language present in that article, I would have done so. However, as I do not, my next best option was to tag it, so that someone else who does have the capacity to fix it would be more likely to notice and resolve it. Unfortunately, before that could occur, you removed the tag without fixing the colloquial language. I've recently been accused of tag-bombing, so noticing you had removed this tag a while ago in my contributions list was a little frustrating, to say the least. Why would I tag something if I could fix it? I didn't add it for fun. I'm re-adding the tag; please don't remove it again unless you're fixing it, or unless someone else fixes it but doesn't remove the tag. Thanks. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what colloquial language you're referring to, nor apparently does another editor who just removed the tag again. There's a {{Colloquialism}} tag you can add inline so others will know what you're talking about. EEng16:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I think I'm being hounded at this point. That person who removed the tag after you seems to be following me around. I should have added a hidden comment tagging every colloquialism along with having the banner template, but I forgot to do that. Now I don't really have the motivation, so I'm going to leave it alone. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
You are not being WP:HOUNDed. David Eppstein is a highly experienced editor and a nice guy to boot, and he's trying (as am I) to guide you onto the right path. He no doubt saw your post here and went to see what the issue was. EEng04:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, I happened to have lobotomy on my watchlist and found your edits that way. I did not have raft already watchlisted, but it is not unusual, when I see an editor being mistaken in a particular way, to check whether they might have been similarly mistaken elsewhere recently. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
It's why I did not explain, those in on it would get it, and those not in on it would not really benefit from knowing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
... the editor you reverted here was also blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (and honestly, doesn't what they added sound like a sockmaster trying to justify themselves?). So, if you see that edit again in the future, that's what's going on, so any account making it should (especially if new) be reported to SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
He's also a University of California professor. That saddens me even more. Harvard at least has the excuse that his misdeeds were in the unknowable future. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you think perhaps, if it should be left as "hoist" [3], it should be placed in quotation marks to indicate it's quoting Hamlet directly? Or maybe with a corresponding bluelink to the article on the phrase? I've got no problem with it being "hoist", but chancing across it, my first thought wasn't that it was deliberately using the archaic version of the past tense. Since the modern usage makes "hoisted" the past tense, and since the phrase "hoisted by his own petard" is generally used in modern English, quotation marks or a bluelink would indicate it's deliberate rather than a typo. Any objection to one or the other? Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Glad I could help. But for the record: if this was article space we’d worry about such things, but in project space we play fast and loose. EEng19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
For those playing along at home, this relates to [5] (and I certainly appreciate El C's faint praise). Here's what I would have posted (in response to our esteemed fellow editor Rhododendrites) had I not been delayed elsewhere:
Well first of all, WP:TPO is clear that in project space, in opposition to article space, the thumb on the scale favors retaining someone's post after a tentative removal has been opposed by the post-er, and the xRR resides in the persistent attempts to remove despite that opposition, after which those with a concern should restrict themselves to commenting on a post they see as problematic.
Beyond that, while your suggested approach has a superficial appeal, I really don't think it's applicable and workable. First, it wasn't really removed by multiple people multiple times, rather by one person multiple times (on perceived lack of merit) one person once (on perceived lck of merit) and after that apparently under the misapprehension that it had been added after closure; and note I wasn't the only one restoring. But more generally, ANI has more than a thousand active watchers [6] and if anything not super-serious could be removed on the say-so of just few of those then ANI would be a dreary place indeed; on the other hand, your point about giving extra weight to the opinions of those participating in a particular thread is a good one, and I'll try to keep that in mind in future.
I realize my humor isn't everyone's cuppa tea, but it's clear it is a whole lotta people's cuppa tea, and the former group can just ignore what they don't "get" (or they can make the effort to get the point – they might even learn something that way).
As a final note for SchroCat, you've got to stop personalizing everything. As already explained I didn't even realize it was you [7], anyone can make a typo, and if you can't be good-humored about it, tough. I wouldn't put it that bluntly were you not so dyspeptic about everything, but your behavior is such that I'm not inclined to put much store in your continual cries of outrage and victimization.
As for getting blocked, well, if I don't get blocked at least once in a while then I'm probably not doing my job. EEng20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Followup:
Um, borderline personal attack – what???? So let me get this straight: so now it's a personal attack if I make fun of my own typo? But (and super-serious here now): I have never made fun of anyone's dyslexia; saying that I did without evidence is a personal attack; and if such accusations keep up there's gonna be an ANI thread on that. So have a fucking care. EEng21:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Followup followup:
And now ol' SchroCat decides he's going to end the discussion [8]. Gotta love the control-freakism. Or am I not supposed to say that because being a control freak is a disability? EEng21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Thomas the Tank Engine after a bruising discussion at an "administrative noticeboard" EEng says: Looks like the discussion got derailed?"Tanks." "You're welcome."Archives for let it pass.No, I said "pictures at will," not "pictures of Will"...In de fence, a bull EEng says: I really should be doing something else, but for those budding visual punsters out there wanting to improve their skills, I'd suggest "A lot of bull offered in de fence"
Hello EEng,
Sorry that you got blocked the other day. I have a few requests to make. I have been approached by SchroCat with a request that I ask you to avoid interacting with that editor unless necessary. In exchange, that editor will avoid interacting with you. This would be an informal arrangement for the purpose of avoiding conflict, not a formal logged interaction ban. I would also like to request that you avoid any comments that can be construed as mocking or ridiculing established editors for making routine typographical or spelling errors. Some people are much better at spotting such errors than others, and copy editing is always welcome in article space. Pointing out such minor errors on talk pages can be perceived as cruel or gauche, unless the meaning is unclear to most readers. In that case, a neutrally worded request for clarification is appropriate. My final request has to do with your fondness for placing humorous or ironic or punning images into the type of discussions that almost always lack images unless you get involved. I am not asking you to stop that practice, since I am sure that you have inspired countless chuckles and often help people stop and think. But like most comedians, sometimes your jokes fall flat, at least among some of the participants in these discussions. So please consider letting it pass if somebody objects to and reverts one of your image jokes. If your joke is essential to understanding the matter, I am sure that another editor will restore it.
"Tanks" for the compliment, and you already know I respect you as a "really useful administrator". And thanks for the sympathy, but to paraphrase something I told ol' Ritchie recently, after you get blocked enough times you really don't care.
The situation is a bit complicated, your proposal is a bit complicated, and a proper response will take more effort than I can muster tonight (but you needn't fear that means I'm looking for a complicated way to say No). Probably tomorrow. EEng06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Cullen's advice about mockery and about ANI images is very good, I want to encourage you to accept it. As for your usefulness...[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
As someone who has gotten into plenty of real-life trouble for jokes at the wrong time, it's definitely a "know your audience" problem. I think most people won't care or will get a laugh out of EEng posting a humorous picture for a typo (and let the record show that I'm one of those people, EEng is free to post pictures at will on my comments, especially when I make bad typos), but if someone objects to you posting on them...man, just apologize, make it clear that you were just making a joke about the spelling or whatever and weren't trying to insult them, and maybe make a list of people who have asked you to not do that (and then, you know, leave them alone). I think everyone wins that way. creffett (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you making fun of his typo??? EEng04:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Don't worry, Cullen, I am going to respond to your thoughtful post, but it's been a busy week.
😂 Porpoisely mammalian, I'd say, creffett. Bellezzasolo, I would never be able to remember the spellings. Can we not add a simple shortcut, like {{cnn}}?
In copyediting I leave the lead to very last, after I've done (and therefore read) the rest of the article, so I can't say much at this point except that eponymous and buoyed and spawned and (beyond the lead, but an especial peeve of mine) accolades make me want to vomit, and factoids such as "youngest person to single-handedly write and perform a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" and "first act to have four albums sell one million copies within one week in the U.S." are ridiculous. But you gotta love that she spent her early years on a Christmas tree farm. EEng10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I present EEng with the first annual EEng Award for outstanding accomplishments in the field of eponymous accolades. Haukur (talk) I'll get you for this, Haukurth -EEngDad
Monotonously is more like it. I love it that the first outbound link in the article on this Kylie Minogue creature takes you to a page whose lead image is Plato. Her own lead image shows "Minogue performing at The Queen's Birthday Party" – I can imagine Queen Liz thinking, "I'm just glad Winston isn't alive to see this." EEng18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say exactly the same thing, so you see great minds do think alike after all (and please do not post the traditional followup to that). EEng19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
William McMurray (engineer) - could probably be expanded but the technical aspects are over my head. If/when you have the time, perhaps you could add some information about McMurray's contribution - maybe create a history section, and another about his inventions/patents, or whatever? AtsmeTalk📧13:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not my area but I can fake it well enough. However, I'm a little backed up right now. Ping me in two weeks if you don't see any movement on the article by then. EEng15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Atsme, I'm sorry to note that I never got to this. I'm afraid now isn't the time either, but I don't want you to think I plan to let you down. Ping me sometime when you think of it again, at least 6 months from now. This is probably something best done when the libraries are open. EEng03:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, Atsme, I've looked at this again, and it's just too far from my areas of competence for me to add anything useful. Sorry. EEng16:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Your memory is damn impressive, and so is your probity in light of your decision to respond at all. I say to hell with competence. Nothing wrong with the article as it sits now. Atsme💬📧18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Your interference over at DGG's talk page
Thank you for your opinion.
His talk page is extremely clumsy to use, he will obviously not fix it himself, and I trust you're not saying some editors stand above the law?
For those playing along at home, this concerns [9].
Now you're talking about "interference" and "the law". You need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'm serious. This nannying of others' user pages will not end well for you. EEng19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
For those intrepid enough to still be playing along at home, this has now metastasized to [10] (that section and the one immediate following it)
Hello, EENG. It's one thing to actively argue "let's remove any numeric goal; here are my reasons..." It's another to passive-aggressively snipe at editors, which you just did more than once over at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#guidance on talk page size. I am writing this polite and personalized message to ask you to please stay out of the discussion if you have nothing constructive to add. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
As seen right now in the thread at issue, you have a peculiar idea of what constitutes constructive discussion. I'm doing my best to help you see you're wasting your own and everyone else's time, but it's not working. EEng18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
If your idea of having a constructive discussion is "let's not discuss it, everything is fine as is" then you need to actively put forward arguments for that, arguments that then can be evaluated, rather than merely trying to shut down discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Meh. 'fraid I don't have a large interest in making so large an issue of large user talk pages. And if you over archive, you're being secretive or something. Now, ima go protect or delete something.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for thanking me for my 70,000 contributions, including specifically 22,000 policy and other project-space posts. In return, your 8,000 edits, including almost 500 to project space, are appreciated as well. Your relentless rambling about whether we should have a rule specifying that 50K, versus 75K, is a good time to start archiving talk pages, and now a discussion about the meaning of something you could look up in wiktionary, is not appreciated nearly as much. EEng16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
CapnZapp, okay, templating EEng (after the normal, non-templated discussion above) is just condescending. Don't do that. Or, if you prefer:
TEMPLATE THE REGULARS AT YOUR OWN PERIL WRITE YOUR OWN A PERSONAL MESSAGE MORE PERSONALTHOUGHTFUL LESS STERILE Burma-shave
For those playing along at home, this concerns the repeated removal of the lower image-and-caption seen here [11]:
The flaw in your analogy, Chris troutman, is this particular nest doesn't belong to the wasps – it belongs to the community. The Signpost's editor-in-chiefmost of all shouldn't be tampering with commentary on the items it publishes, and if Megalibrarygirl wants to selectively remove comments on her essays then she needs to publish them on her own user page. Of course, given the subject of the essay there's some irony to all this [12]. EEng17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem, EEng, is that the joke is not neutral. You have your own intentions. However, I and Smallbones both pointed out to you that there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult to a group of people, in this case, non-binary people. You may not agree with us, but it is a valid interpretation of what you wrote and it is always best to err on the side of civility. Wikipedia isn't stand up comedy: it's a place full of people with very different ideas who need to work together and making some people a joke is antithetical to that. Since the image is now back up, please remove it. The second image which you posted with diffs, is also not civil in my opinion where you categorize people who are concerned about the joke as "people intolerant of criticism of themselves." I am not intolerant of criticism: I am intolerant of making marginalized groups the butt of any kind of joke. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Being born and bred in Berkeley I knew what a woke-scold was decades before the term was coined, and you are a woke-scold. By folding everything that anyone even conceivably could choose to take offense at (there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult – gotta love it) into one giant ball of weepy hysteria [14] you give a bad name to people (such as myself) who care about actual things that actually harm people. You prattle about civility but give a free pass to those who blatantly accuse other editors of conspiring to suppress coverage of women and so on. Turn that high-powered perception on yourself, busybody. EEng02:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi EEng. I've been polite and only pointed out that you are being offensive. And you continue to do so. "Woke scold" is a new one! What you're doing is edit warring and escalating the situation and doesn't need to happen. If you don't like the truth, that's fine. But what you're doing is wrong and I'll say so. Notice I've not called you names or made any aspersions on your character. I said you did one thing wrong. You should admit your mistake and move on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Behold the sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse, clothed magnificently in dudgeon! So supremely arrogant is she in the certainty of her moral superiority! Christ, you lack even the modesty to qualify your opinions – phrases such as I think and it seems to me are traditional ways of reminding yourself that maybe, just maybe, you're just one editor among many, though of course they're unnecessary if you know you're always right. Maybe that's it.
A polite woke-scold (e.g. If you don't like the truth, that's fine) is still a woke-scold. If by "edit warring" you mean I restored a comment – a comment you removed... from a discussion of something you wrote... because you disliked it or couldn't understand it – then you better give WP:TPO another read, Madame Administrator.
Every liberation movement goes through its That's not funny! stage, and the sooner that's over the better. No doubt you mean well, but you need an emergency injection of perspective, proportion, history, and humility. I'm a gay man who was fighting the good fight – and not by sitting behind a library desk in a pussy hat, I assure you – when you were in diapers, so I require no enlightenment about oppression and injustice. The next time you remove another editor's comment because it doesn't conform to your self-righteous standards I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your head spin. Signal your trendy virtues some other way. Got it?
"You appear to be reading the situation upside down"
EEng, I think I know Megalibrarygirl pretty well. It's not my business to repeat what I've been told in confidence, but I will say she thinks Trump is a raving lunatic too and Boris Johnson is just missing the clown car. You are picking on the wrong target, If you think she is a "sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse", you are so far out of whack on this one, you're in a different area code. She is not a shrinking violet at all. I mean, she's a flippin' atheist in Texas - what more evidence do you need? Now, in the words of Dr Evil, zip it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Well hello there, Ritchie. How good it is to see you around again; for a while we feared we might have lost you. You seem to be reading the situaton upside down:
I'm not picking the wrong target, nor indeed any target. She picked me.
I never doubted that she and I probably agree on most social and political issues, and I don't know where you'd get the idea I might think otherwise.
Nor would I imagine she's a shrinking violet. Her problem's the opposite: she confuses her personal opinions – even on something as subjective as a joke – with what she calls "the truth", to the extent that she thinks it's OK remove others' discussion posts in violation of TPO because, well, she knows the truth. That's the behavior of armchair social justice warriors of the woke-scold variety, and as you know I have little patience for such hubris, especially from those on the thinking end of the political spectrum, who should know better.
She had plenty of chances to back off and agree to disagree, but no. Perhaps she'll think twice should a similar situation arise in future.
EEng, I think you're confused. I'm not picking on you. In fact, I've barely interacted with you. I only pointed out that one joke in the comments on the Signpost article was offensive and removed it to promote civility on Wikipedia. It would have been easier to just leave it off, but you don't want to do that. The joke is most likely going to stay up on Signpost, a place that should be neutral, since no one wants to start an edit war over a joke. Fine. I don't want to edit war either, but I also don't appreciate your personal attacks. It's really petty of you and shows you can't take criticism. Your joke is both regressive and offensive. If something is offensive to a group of people even if you don't think it is it's still offensive. Not sure why you don't understand that. I've said my piece, I spoke the truth and that's that. If you want to talk more, ping me. But leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately, I don't like to see two of my favourite editors slugging it out with each other. You both make enormous contributions to the encyclopedia and Wikipedia is a better place for having you both around. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
None of us can really say whether or not a joke is offensive to a group of people; we can only say it's offensive to us, individually. I've seen people say or do things on Wikipedia that I think are obviously and egregiously antisemitic. But I can't speak on behalf of all Jews, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to assert that something was antisemitic or offensive to Jews–I can only speak for myself. And speaking for myself, I can say that I strongly agree with Ritchie about not liking to see two good editors going at it. Levivich[dubious – discuss]21:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, will you get clue? In ==>YOUR OPINION<=== it's offensive. Can you really not see that it's just ==>YOUR OPINION<===, that everyone else need not kowtow[1][2] to ==>YOUR OPINION<=== and that it's not OK for you to remove another editor's post based on ==>YOUR OPINION<===? Apparently you still haven't reviewed WP:TPO as previously recommended, and maybe try taking a hint from the ever-wise Levivich and let someone actually offended (if there be any) speak for themselves; this isn't a schoolyard and you're not the teacher.
As for leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act – I can only interpret that as unconscious self-parody. I'm sure you're a nice person, and as said before I know you mean well, but these tautologies that begin by assuming that ==>YOUR OPINION<=== is obviously the truth are beyond tiresome. Give the broken record a rest now. Really. Tomorrow morning I have to play the authority figure and will be expected to say wise things, so I just haven't got time.
^I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect[1]. -EEng
Hoping that I am missing something here, but can anyone explain to me why using Chink in the above context is okay? Perhaps helpful if I copy the Wikipedia page introduction is an English-language ethnic slur usually referring to a person of Chinese descent.[2] The word is also sometimes indiscriminately used against people who look and have an East Asian appearance. The use of the term is considered offensive. Kees08 (Talk)22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Scolding that that last batch of jokes are regressive/offensive/exclusionary goes here:
"Intelligent" discussion begins (heading by EEng, scarequotes by User:PackMecEng)
Just in case it will matter to you, I think you happen to be in the wrong here. We all make mistakes, and we should all try to listen with an open mind to other people when they tell us we've made one. Paul August☎16:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Note, I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August☎16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
What you think does matter to me, actually. I'm always open to reasoned discussion on something like this because I recognize that my humor is sometimes a bit, um, shall we say... edgy (plus I'm always interested in learning more about why people find things funny or not funny, in any context). But because of Megalibrarygirl's precipitate action, that's not what this is about; it's about one editor setting up her personal judgment as overriding and unerring, and being unable to recognize that that was a mistake (and contrary to WP behavioral guidelines as well). EEng18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I vote for trouts all around - I don't think MLG should have unilaterally removed your comment given her position (would have been more appropriate to either ask you to remove it or start a discussion), and I don't think you should have continued adding it after it was removed. This isn't a hill worth dying on for either of you, and I suggest both of you just take a deep breath and let it go. creffpublica creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no plans on dying, but self-appointed scolds are a particular sore point with me. Had MLG simply offered her opinion, a quite possible outcome would have been that I would have found something even funnier to post in a different vein – strange how constraint can liberating in that way. But instead she took the in-your-face approach, and I just don't take that lying down especially from mop-holders.I let it go with my post 3 days ago timestamped 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC), but MLG just keeps coming back for more. I have little doubt, however, that she's learned her lesson and won't do this again – to anyone. EEng21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
One question seems to me to be how to determine whether something (say a joke) is offensive. Surely you agree that just because a joke was not intended to be offensive does't mean that it isn't offensive? Correct? So how do you determine whether something is offensive? Do a certain number of people need to be offended before something can said to be offensive? Maybe is not zero or one, maybe something is more or less offensive depending on the number of people who find it offensive? So even if only one person finds something offensive, then it *is* offensive, just not very? So what should one do if someone tells you they think one of your jokes is offensive? I guess it depends on how generous you want to be. For me, if some thinks one of my jokes is offensive—even if I think they are the only one who thinks so—I think my response would be to apologize, and retract it. It seems to me to just a matter of simple politeness. Paul August☎11:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Better questions might be: why does it matter if a joke is considered by some to be offensive or not? Is there such a thing as an inoffensive joke? Should an offensive joke be treated differently than an offensive non-joke statement? Is making an offensive statement (joke or non-joke) a problem that requires correction? Only then can you get to: how many people have to think it’s offensive before it’s considered offensive? The base assumption i chafe at is the notion that a joke is some kind of frivolity, whereas being offended is an actual injury of some sort. I disagree with both characterizations. Just as I disagree with the characterization in this section heading. Levivich[dubious – discuss]15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Or something else altogether? Note as I've written above: I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent".Paul August☎16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Paul August:, I'm disagreeing fundamentally that a joke should be retracted because it offends one or even more than one person. (Also, I didn't mean the header comment as a criticism of you or as implying that this conversation wasn't intelligent; rather, I think the conversation above the header was also intelligent.) The joke, as all good jokes, brought an important truth to light. In the context of an article about "invisible women" – about how women are overlooked by the history books – EEng made a joke about non-binary gender. This has many layers of meaning. First, it reminds the reader that non-binary people are, today, right now, the "invisible people", just as women once were (and, in many ways, still are). A second layer is that by looking at a picture of people who appear to be women and calling them "women", we are assuming their gender identity–something that modern society is trying to get away from. Calling them the first "non-binary" programmers (because they were programming analog computers) is a clever way of linking the struggles of women in the past to the struggles of non-binary people today, while simultaneously noting how language (here, the meaning of "non-binary") can change over time, just as social attitudes and oppressed group's rights and privileges can change over time. All in all, it's a clever way to say, "don't forget there are still invisible people today, and they're not just women". And this message was better delivered as a picture with a funny caption than as a long paragraph of text as I have provided here.
So, should we then erase this message because – OMG! It has the word non-binary! It's a joke about non-binary! That means it's offensive! Kill it kill it kill it!! No, to me, that's just a really shallow understanding of a really deep and brilliant joke.
Humor is a very powerful tool when it comes to changing minds, and, by extension, changing societies. It should not be discounted or eliminated based on one person's, or a small group of people's, sensibilities. At bottom, there is no such thing as an inoffensive joke. If it's not offensive, at least a little bit, it won't be funny. And if it's not funny, it won't be heard. So I think in these situations, we should leave the picture, not complain about being offended by a "non-binary joke", and instead be offended by the fact that non-binary people are even more invisible than women. Levivich[dubious – discuss]17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I just said said that, had MLG simply offered her opinion, I'd likely have recast the joke some other way. Perhaps an intelligent conversation such as this one [17] could have ensued. But unilateral removal (which, I tire of repeating, TPO forbids)? Repeated unilateral removal? I've made my attitude on that abundantly clear above. EEng16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the removal was right, I'm trying to say that your response could have been more polite. Just saying ... Paul August☎16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I tread carefully in these things, having been accused myself of being too silly on wiki-pages sometimes (although the more common accusation is that I'm too ponderously serious on wiki-pages, such as I'm being now—of course it's quite possible that both these things are true). Still, in this instance I happen to agree with those who have opined that these images and their captions are, at best, an unnecessary distraction from a significant discussion. If I'd been the first one to see them, I would probably have removed them myself, and I'm thinking through whether I still ought to do so. Also, while I'm absolutely certain this is not how the word was intended to be used here, I am also surprised that no one has observed yet that "scold," used as a noun, is perceived as having sexist connotations and, especially in reference to a specific female editor, should generally not be used. Addendum: I should add that I have a very high level of respect for your (EEng's) talents and abilities, and a disagreement on this specific item doesn't detract from that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, for the record I have a high level of respect for your talents and abilities, and I'm not just saying that because you're an arb and, ya know, you never know what turn things might take. I want to be sure you read Levivich's post above at #Levivichx because, while he's read in a bit more than I had in mind, by doing so he demonstrates vividly why humor is powerfully useful in getting people to think in fresh ways about important and difficult issues. EEng18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I reject your scold scold; in modern usage the word's been fully liberated [20].
Followup: I said earlier that discussion, instead of knee-jerk censorship, had a good chance of stimulating me to find a better way to make my point. Thanks primarily to ol' Levivich, here we go:
There may be some non-binary people among those operating this differential analyser, but from the historical record there's probably no way to know it.
I dare anyone to find offense in that.We turn now to the great John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, "Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"):
We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
OK let's get married because you just quoted my favorite philosopher, and it was my favorite chapter of my favorite book of his, and you quoted it at length. (You had me at "it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied".) Levivich[dubious – discuss]19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I knew you'd come around, Mr. Nohomo. I usually introduce On Liberty as "the greatest piece of political philosophy ever written" but for some reason this time I hesitated for fear the discussion would get sidetracked by a debate about that. EEng20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
As I was reading through all this, on my watchlist I saw the edit summary for your most recent edit: excellent in other contexts, but beside the point here. In a nutshell, that's how I, and I think many others, too often feel when we see your humorous images and captions in places like the noticeboards. Please bear in mind the old aphorism that "a nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place—like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." And after all, no one can quarrel with that, as it's a well-known proposition of Euclid.Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm the first to admit that some of my posts aim merely to break the tension or buoy spirits. But are you claiming that the image+caption above doesn't make a memorably useful point in the context of the original discussion? EEng20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I claim that it very foreseeably became a distraction that substantially outweighed the value of any point you intended to make in the thread. Next, diverting the thread still further to an argument about whether the image and caption should remain, with a re-posted image with a new and nasty caption of its own, was a double digression or meta-digression. Removing the images from the thread was, at a minimum, a very defensible thing to do, and your harsh and unnecessary personal comments about the editor who took the lead on trying to remove them were yet a further distraction from the original discussion. In addition, your position that you might have been willing to see the image removed after all, if you had been asked more nicely, is in tension with your position that the seeming joke actually carried substantial informational value. As for the word "scold," we'll have to agree to disagree; if you continue using it in the context of specific female editors, I predict that sooner or later a serious complaint about the connotations underlying the word will be raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
You're off on the sequence of events (for which you can be excused given what a mess it was) but I'll just say that once it was explicitly asserted that it "could very easily be taken that you are making fun of non-binary people. We don't do that" – naming me specifically as committing this alleged transgression – there's no way I was going to leave the record uncorrected. Smallbones chose the venue by posting that where he posted it.
I didn't say I'd be willing to see the image removed (though it's the caption we're really talking about), rather I said that non-kneejerk discussion had a good chance of leading to a better caption. And it finally did.
I'm sorry, but I see nothing in your responses above that indicate to me that you are listening to or taking on board any of the constructive criticisms your fellow editors are trying to give you. It would be good if you could try harder to do that. Paul August☎14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm listening; I just don't agree that my original posting was inappropriate. And it seems to me that you're not listening to or taking on board what I've said: Discussion, not suppression. I will now say for the final time that intelligent, non-kneejerk, non-strongarming discussion not only could have, but finally did, lead to something better. The mess in between is entirely down to one editor's ham-handed arrogation to herself of the role of censor. EEng15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
That you seem to believe that everything you've done here was perfectly appropriate—that you seem to believe all your critics are wrong—that you take no responsibility at all for any part of this problem—is disheartening. If you continue in the same vein I don't think this will end well. Paul August☎17:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
"Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor."
All of which still leaves the question whether I should remove the whole set of images and captions from that talkpage as being a disruptive distraction from the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
If at the same time you remove Smallbone's public implication that I'd "attack[ed] or mock[ed] [a] group whose members include those who do not have a choice about their membership in the group", and leave (floated to the right, of course) the image with the revised caption (the one seen above in this thread – which surely comports well with both the original essay and the discussion) I'd be perfectly happy with that. EEng18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
What point exactly are you trying to make with the gorilla image on the right? Are you saying NYB's trying to intimidate you? If so it would be better to say so directly. That's another problem with some of your images, their use as innuendo. Paul August☎19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to my glittering array of (talk page stalker)s for saving me the trouble of explaining. I will just add that this little subplot illustrates a principle which, had it been applied to the main issue of this whole thread, would have saved a great deal of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair: instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. And for the record, if I thought that NYB was trying to intimidate me, yes, I'd just say so. Now stand by while I find a tasteless joke on innuendo (assuming Levivich or some other clown[FBDB] doesn't beat me to it). EEng19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
With the help of some stalkers, I found what I was looking for: this brilliant chain of puns by Guy Macon. (Key words and phrases: pun account in arrears • semicolonoscopy • innuendos.) Please note: Guy's just coming back after a serious illness so please visit his page to wish him well.EEng02:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
(outdent) I remain convinced that those images and captions are a disruptive distraction and don't belong on that talkpage. However, given everything else that's going on right now, on Wikipedia and in the world, we don't have the luxury of enough energy and bandwidth for the drama that would probably ensue if I removed them again. Therefore, I will reluctantly drop the issue at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
But there's always a silver lining. With everyone sequestered at home with little to do, I expect that the NPP backlog and any open arbitration cases will be resolved with remarkable speed. EEng20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
2021 referendum on EEng's joke
Results
Choice
Votes
%
Yes, the joke was transphobic or could be construed that way
am i reading this correctly? i don't mean to beat the dead horse here, but... oh, who am i kidding, i'll get the glue and the club. As a non-binary person who loves computers and puns, that shit's funny as fuck—i legitimately doubled over laughing and I can't think of a single one of my many, many non-binary friends and peers who wouldn't agree, if not without a groan. With all due respect to the people who are trying to stand up for my community, talking over us is not the solution. Anyone who thinks that that joke was out of line should try growing up non-binary in a religious family—it should put things right into perspective for them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Like I said earlier in this thread, instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. No doubt someone will now explain that you're so oppressed that you identify with the oppressor. EEng20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Since you pinged me in your edit summary, I guess you want a response. There is no "the someone" here. Rather there are many someones. Sure it was funny, if understood, and sure some will have understood, and not be offended. But not all (perhaps not even most?) Do we not care about them? Paul August☎21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't particularly want a response, though I'm happy to have it; I mostly just wanted you to see what an expert witness had to say. In answer to your question: yes I care about them, so much so that I'm trying to help them see that even the weightiest subject admits (and benefits from) a bit of levity. EEng21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
That humor can be beneficial is not in dispute. And having good intentions is not an adequate defense. Results are what matter. Something is offensive if it offends, not if it was meant to offend. Paul August☎11:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but that that's an oversimplification; under your formulation there would no degrees of homicide -- off with their heads! Not only does a speaker's intent matter in and of itself, but knowledge of the speaker's intent inevitably affects the hearer's perceptions. Plus, here at WP we're supposed to assume good faith in interpreting what someone says and does, not search for offensive interpretations. When (if) someone actually offended appears on the scene we can discuss that, but for now all we've got is (a) the woke-scold fretting that someone could be offended against (b) someone actually in a position to opine affirming that they are not, in fact, offended. Perhaps Theleekycauldron could ask among any friends similarly situation and let us know the results. EEng13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
After a rigorous referendum held by the Secret Society of Non-Binary People With Secret Handshakes™, theleekycauldron news network is ready to show some preliminary results and call the race. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The text is "Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered: ... Less Than Zero", where the Less Than Zero wikilink is [[Less Than Zero (song)|Less Than Zero]]. Less Than Zero (song) (capital T) is a redirect to Less than Zero (lowercase T), so the claimed example is a violation of the point it's supposed to be making. Less than Zero is also a DAB, so it wouldn't be a great example even with a lower-case t. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
One of the weirdest things I know is when a writer with a slightly shaky command of English decides that it is a good idea to produce an "original" text by copying an existing text and changing some content words into (what they believe to be) synonyms. I think of it as "thesaurus abuse" – I have run into it from time to time on Wikipedia, and am not sure whether it is more amusing or awful, but feel a sudden urge to document it somewhere where it might be appreciated...
One of the earliest examples I saw was a plot summary in a draft about a TV series. It was first a copypaste job from a promotional website; when that had been revdeled, the editor added a thesaurused version of the same text, which was also revdeled, and yet another version was produced – at that point, I think the entire draft was deleted. I copied and pasted the two versions into a Word document and have occasionally used it as a cautionary tale with my students; I won't subject you to the whole thing, but the original contained the sentence "Diya is forced to bridge the class gap between her and Arjun's family, while also pursuing her dreams", thesaurus abuse version 1 had "Diya is compelled to connect the class hole among her and Arjun's family, while additionally seeking after her fantasies", and TA v2 "Diya is constrained to interface the class opening among her and Arjun's family, while furthermore hunting her mirages". You couldn't make this up.
Another example, documented here, had "follows a group of dancers in a University as they find themselves thrust into a world where every move is a test" being TAed into "follows a gaggle of dancers in a University as they discover themselves thrust right into a world the place each transfer is a take a look at".
Today, I came across this. Here the thesaurus abuse isn't onwiki, instead there is someone copypasting articles from various online publications, re-publishing them as "his own" through various self-publishing platforms, and selling them on Amazon with titles that have to be seen to be believed. I had to restrain myself from wasting the entire afternoon on tracking down the originals, but this (which should point straight to a preview of the kindle book at amazon.in) comes from here and here, while this comes from here.
What a bunch of class holes! (Reminds me, sort of, of the time when a student admissions essay I read said "I would like to attend your extinguished university.") --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"Do you keep in mind having a super enjoy at a eating place and afterward tweeting approximately it? This is, essentially, phrase of mouth marketing (WOMM)."
I know I'm late, but we have a word for this at en.wikinews: "scuffing up". And it always sounds like this. The best are the obscure synonyms one knows the writer looked up, or slang/idioms. Heavy Water (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I like that one result under "Trump is right" is Trump is right that excess mortality studies [etc etc]. Right. Like Donald Trump can even spell "excess" or "mortality" or "studies". EEng04:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
But he can probably pronounce it right. I mean, like, people all over the world tell me all the time how much they like the way he pronounces those words. Really, beautiful pronunciation. Levivich (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
"Il n'y a point de gens qui ont plus souvent tort que ceux qui ne peuvent souffrir d'en avoir." --la Rochefoucauld (But, I could be wrong about this.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
And all this time, I thought it was "the time of day" not date. Oh, and I never met François, so I have no opinion there. Atsme💬📧19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Awwww...I promise...I was not being critical of you being right. I thought, for all intensive purposes, that I might have been wrong using "day" all this time. "Atsme is wrong": 1 hit. Oh, the irony. Atsme💬📧21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
It's so annoying that everyone was named the same back then. François de La Rochefoucauld just seems like it shouldn't have to be disambiguated. And don't get me started on the Williams and Marys. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit upset as my world just turned topsy-turvy. All my life, I was trained, indeed destined, to become an accomplished French moralist of the era of French Classical literature. And now, the moralist of Wikipedia, has suggested that this has no meaning. I now have to retreat to the comfort of Nietzsche. If you believe in nothing -- you can never be wrong. You can't be right either; but I can live with that, as can Atsme. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Coords and OR
I didn't want to get into it on Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols, because trolls, but one can put coordinates in articles without secondary sources, and it isn't WP:OR. This is because it falls under WP:Routine calculations. In the case of Killing of Tyre Nichols, primary sources reveal that the beating occurred at the intersection of Castlegate Lane and Bear Creek Cove. Then, Google Maps can be used to show where that is. Right-clicking on the map allows their coordinates to be copied to Wikipedia, then rounded to an appropriate level of precision. Given that he die not die there, it is probably fine that the article does not display coordinates. Abductive (reasoning)11:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but what you're describing is nothing like a routine calculation, and is classic OR. Sources tell us the street names at the intersection, so we report that. If they later supply some kind of map, we might present that too (if the licensing is right). But we don't take the street names and convert them to coordinates, even if a tool does that for us. If the coordinates were important, a source would be reporting them. EEng15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I put the intersection into the text in the case of this article. So that won't be a worry. But in something like half a million articles, the coordinates got there by editors like me are grabbing coordinates from Google in the way I described, or from OSM's "Query features" function, and rounding those numbers according to WP:OPCOORD. As an example, I just did this with UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The university's website gives an address and a building, and Google and OSM show the building and give exacting coordinates for it, so all that remains is proper rounding and formatting. Abductive (reasoning)20:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Most or all of those other articles contain OR, then. And you've picked a particularly bad example for your cause. "The university's website" (at https://caes.ucdavis.edu/, the very URL given in the infobox) does indeed give an address: 150 Mrak Hall. It also gives another address: 1 Shields Avenue, which is far away from Mrak across campus -- apparently a general address for the campus as a whole? The infobox gives the Shields Avenue address, but you seem to have used Mrak Hall to use as the base for the coordinates. Thus the infobox gives two conflicting pieces of information. And all for what? Davis' College of Ag and E isn't a place anyway; it's an institutional entity. It's faculty, offices, classrooms, labs, and administrative apparatus are undoubtedly diffused all over the Davis campus in general. Just because they gave an address for, I dunno, admission inquiries doesn't mean you should be putting a pin on the map showing readers, based on what is (I hope you see now) indubitably your own OR, "where it is" -- which it isn't. EEng22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry EEng but I gotta go with Abductive on the original question of "Is it OR or otherwise unacceptable to add coordinates for a specific street location?" As long as there is no question about the location (e.g., there aren't multiple streets with the same name(s)) and the coordinates are specified with an appropriate level of precision, this does seem like a routine calculation that doesn't fall afoul of OR. I won't opine whether it's DUE as I don't have any specific interest in that topic or experience in editing that article or others like it but of course this information must pass that bar, too.
I don't recall the specific issue with UMass Boston; I edit a *lot* of college and university articles! In general, we don't include street addresses simply because most of those institutions occupy multiple physical addresses. I don't know how that does or should impact coordinates; I simply haven't ever paid much attention to them so I haven't given them any thought. I do not know the common geographic practices, either among geographers broadly construed or within Wikipedia, for specifying the coordinates for one or more oddly shaped parcels of land that may be geographically dispersed (center of mass or the geographic equivalent, maybe?).
Universities tend to have central quads, intersecting axes, large fountains, main administration buildings, main libraries, student unions, visitor's centers (rarely), and other targets, and the coords usually point to one of those. Abductive (reasoning)00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
With a sorry from me for being even less help, here is my take on it. Adding coordinates based on a street address, as the location of that address, is not OR. It's a routine calculation. On the other hand, treating the location identified by those coordinates as the location of a page subject may very well run afoul of OR and/or DUE, for the kinds of reasons described by EEng. A mailing address may differ from a physical address, and may not accurately or meaningfully reflect the location of something that is not a mathematical point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as my example goes, it's not the general method that is in question, but my (in)ability to interpret the source. If anyone were to change the coordinates, I wouldn't argue. Abductive (reasoning)00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Misinterpreting one piece of primary data, then turning it into something else which isn't obviously based on that mistaken data, is part of the reason we don't allow OR. EEng01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, we collaborated well the other day on the Miracle of Lanciano article. It was about massive influence and distortion of content by religious POV. I would like to bring to your attention a slanted discussion: I reported a religious user and the editors see it as a violation of Wikipedia rules on my page. Maybe you can participate in the relevant discussion. Greetings
You said that this corrected nothing, but now you want it as "called"? I can't even revert my own edits without making people upset I guess. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
What I said in the discussion at WT:DYK (where you said that you had "corrected multiple hooks") is that this [22] was not any kind of correction, since there was nothing to correct and all you did is substitute one synonym for another. Attracted by your post, I went and did a general touchup on that hook set. But then you came in and just reverted everything back to where it was in the beginning. Clobbering changes made by others after your changes is not reverting your own edits. EEng01:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I reverted everything back to how it was in the beginning which you then reverted with the edit summary "For heaven's sake, will you stop mucking about?". I'm not referring to anything after that. I didn't notice your touch-up which happened later. I reverted it back to how it was because of the comments from you and theleekycauldron. SL93 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
You reverted me after I already changed it back to how it was before either of us touched it. You can look at this version if you don't believe me. I honestly don't care about changing your touch-up because I changed it to how it was before the complaints. It is not "mucking about" to backtrack to how a version was before complaints no matter the circumstances. I will end this discussion here. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
You've got the timeline mixed up [23]. I understand you were trying to help, but when multiple editors are involved you need to look carefully before blanket reverting. EEng04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Happy summer/winter
Sunshine!
Hello EEng! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Uranus is a magnetLife in a shark tank vs life in Uranus
Are you sure about that? I'm afraid Jupiter doesn't have a solid surface you can land on. Perhaps you live on one of Jupiter's moons. Interstellarity (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
OMG - I'll just say this - my granddaughter named my cell phone after Uranus. Here's the kind of notices my phone sends me: Would you like to download the software to Uranus? The end. uh oh, the close!Atsme💬📧22:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
And I'm in the shark tank. But you know me...if I ever strike it rich, you can rest assured that nobody around me will be poor...and that's a promise!!! I will move to a rich neighborhood. Atsme💬📧22:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know it myself, but I've heard that it's not the easiest programming language, but not the hardest either. (t · c) buidhe23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
If you have time, mind taking a look at Columbine High School massacre? Filled with superflorous details, with some poor structural choices as well. I planned to make some trimmings and reorderings myself anyway, but figured I'd bother you as well since you're faster at identifying those things and trimming them out than I. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm still fighting an IRL deadline, but since it's you I'll give it a whirl. I can't promise to give it the full treatment, though. EEng07:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at it now it's way beyond anything I can even try to get my mind around now, especially when you factor in the parallel, and substantially duplicative article, on Harris and Klebold (which should probably be merged in). I can see why you want help -- it's grotesquely overdetailed, and as you say the structure is off kilter in many ways (e.g. there's a sectioned headed "The boy in the window"). I know this will seem like a cop-out, but can you ask me again in early February? I can't attend to this without guilt about what I really need to be doing. EEng07:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I have now; I really do need to clear out my watchlist a bit. I used to use it as a way of bookmarking / a "read later" list, since my browser bookmarks are too clogged up to be useful, so now my watchlist is mostly filled with random edits on random pages and overall it's a mess to filter through.
ATTENTION STALKERS! Your leader has been intending to bring this to your attention for some time: Go to Preferences > Watchlist and check the box,
"Add direct unwatch/watch markers (×/+) to watched pages with changes". Best thing since sliced bread. When some old article pops up, I take a second to see ... do I want to look at that article again, and do more? Do I care? If not, a single click drops it off my watchlist. Goodbye! EEng19:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
From one of your stalkers (with a stalk perhaps worth trimming), two bits of info:
Of no utility whatsoever, when I first saw this section header, I thought incorrectly that it was yet another complaint about this talk page. Fortunately, I was incorrect for the first time in my life.
They are a treat. That whole Xmas album is a great disc to sing along with while driving around viewing Xmas lights. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk05:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Threats on ANI page, in re "White supremacist" thread
EEng,
Don't bother making threats toward me or counting down the hours. It is unworthy behavior. Just do what you're going to do and don't telegraph the punch. Don't even phone it in. Dynasteria (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
^Linked since you probably don't know what that is.
Slip of the tongue
Hey EEng, I just noticed now, and I'm sure it's just a slip of the tongue, but your misspelling of that user's name here is rather unfortunate, and you might want to correct that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)03:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Glad to have sweetened your tongue, EEng! If ever you need any artificial sugarcoating, you know you can count on me. C14H18N2O5Aspartame (talk🍬)21:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
But you must see things from my perspective, your name was uttered, I expected nothing. Then a whirlwind of destruction was brought upon the page. I feared that you would go too far and could not be stopped. I wondered if I could call your name when I was in need, I feared that one day you would be called against me. I laughed at your jokes, then cringed at how I would feel if they were directed at me. I read some of your talk page. This world was not meant for me. I shall return to my corner of Wikipedia and hope you never find me. Thank you for your recent work.Dushan Jugum (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, EEng. You undid my fixes to the mangled section at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. My intention (as stated in my ES) was to correct WP:LISTGAP errors and to fix the threads that Catchpoke had garbled.
Then, seeing as how your complaint was do not rearrange others' posts like that, I reapplied the fixes to the WP:LISTGAP problem, without doing any rearranging, just correcting the reply/indentation levels (I really just deleted two separate colons). Your response was to tell me to "Cut it out".
Can you elaborate? What do you have against this kind of corrections? WP:TPO specifically enumerates fixing indentation levels ... fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance)... under "Fixing format errors". Please let me know what you don't like about my attempts to make the discussions easier to parse. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)17:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The extra indent level you removed (in your link above) is one many editors like to use when there are multiple responses to one post. Instead of all responses at the same indent level (which makes it hard to tell how many responses there are and where one editor's response ends and the next begins -- and indeed often causes the reader to miss the first signature buried inside and mistakenly think all the paragraphs were posted by the editor whose sig comes last), the responses "cascade backwards", the first most to the right, the next one indent level less, etc., making it obvious what's going on.For years we were browbeaten about how irregularities in indenting causes screen readers to "close one list and open another" because some screen reader is trapped in the 1990s. And then came the day I was told by an actual user of a screenreader that it reads our talk pages just fine if only you bother to set certain options right (basically, telling the reader to be less verbose and just read what a sighted user sees). So I've little sympathy for this kind of gnoming, which makes it harder to follow the conversation for a spurious reason. EEng17:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
This is an issue that I don't understand on a technical level, but am interested in from the perspective of being helpful to other users. It's something that I previously discussed with Isaacl ([26]), and I would be interested to know what isaacl thinks of the discussion here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate some editors think their response is more directly related to a comment than the immediately following reply, and so choose to interject their response in between, sometimes with extra nesting to make it look different. Yes, it causes extra list start/end announcements (as I recall, Graham87 has confirmed this before), which does correspond to what a sighted user sees, since they see the extra left margin space (which was the point). Thus the interjected reply will have greater prominence to both sets of users. Whether or not interjecting a comment is a desirable talk page practice is a community practice matter, and not technical. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with giving more prominence (though it could be used for that, I suppose), but rather for the reasons I gave above. The technique can be used when putting your response either above or below an existing response. I do sometimes put my response above an existing one where my response is in the manner of a one-off not likely to lead to more back-and-forth, and where the existing post has already led, or is likely to lead, to further discussion. EEng19:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly reasonable to use extra indenting in order to top-post etc. during a discussion. (Although I'm also participating right now in a discussion in which it has reached the level of absurdity: [27].) But I also think that it serves a useful purpose, and really doesn't impose on anyone, to use consistent formatting in terms of ::: or *::, or the like. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
"Prominence" was just a shorthand way of referring to your statement that you wanted to avoid readers "miss[ing] the first signature buried inside and mistakenly think all the paragraphs were posted by the editor whose sig comes last..." isaacl (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I misunderstood you. I once had someone accuse me of top-posting because I thought my contribution was more important (or, more precisely, he accused my of treating his contribution as less important). EEng22:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Phineas Gage, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance.
Using the preview button can help avoid embarrassing mistakes (diff, diff). You may wish to try making practice edits to your sandbox first, only making the edit to an actual article once you feel sure you know what you are doing. The Wikipedia Adventure may help you learn these basic skills. As a reminder, please do not refer to edits as "dummy" per WP:CIVIL–such language should be reserved for editors only. I understand today is your favorite day; let's try not to ruin it with poor editing.Levivich04:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one picosecond. Once the block has expired, your peers are welcome to make slightly more useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been dunked on. If you think there are literally any reasons for being unblocked, nevermind.
Oh, please...it's too difficult to separate the April fools day blocks from the real ones. They get lost in the latter. AtsmeTalk📧00:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, when I think back on all the utterly stupid, moronic, idiotic, and indescribably knuckleheadly vapid images I've seen in my time, my head literally spins. For those wondering, we're talking about the image below, which I found in our article on truancy. EEng03:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Psiĥedelisto, I didn't know it was you. But COME ON, MAN! What in the world does the reader learn from a photo of a car? If they used a donkey cart to return truants to school, THAT would be worth a picture. EEng03:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, clearly, the kids will be more compelled to go to school or the truancy police will grab them forcibly! Hooray for education! This'll really get them paying attention at school. NCLBA or bust... — ThatCopticGuy (let's talk?) (contribs) 03:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The truancy enforcement vehicle returns truant students? Well, I never. If the vehicle was returning hot coffee and bagels for the truancy officer meeting, THAT would be worth mentioning. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand--and would therefore ask for clarification--why the subsection I created on Premiership of Liz Truss was deleted. The stated reason was "Honestly, this has nothing to do with Charles" with no further explanation provided. It is very hard for me to understand how a meeting at which Charles was present somehow has "nothing to do with Charles" and would ask for clarification as to what you mean. Moreover, handling the relationship with the prime minister--especially during times of transition like is presently occurring--is one of the core duties of a constitutional monarch such as Charles and is one of the key reasons why the UK retains a monarch. Far from "having nothing to do with Charles", the King's audience with Truss represents a core example of the King performing one of his key constitutional duties. It is also especially notable because it is the first major example of the King's reign of his performing such duties. I welcome discussion on this, but in the absence of strong clarification of why this content was deleted, I intend to reinstate it in 24 hours. Usually I wait a week, but this change seems so especially egregiously in error that a shorter time frame is called for. If I'm missing something please let me know. Dash77 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Template talk:Convert. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. As you have been informed, you have repeatedly made personal attacks towards me. I explicitly note that this behaviour does also degrade Talkpage's effectiveness, in other words: WP:NOTHERE. DePiep (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, our benighted visitor refers to [28]
I'm tempted to ask how long you think it will be before you realize how completely clueless you are, but then you wouldn't be completely clueless anymore and that would deprive the community of a source of periodic amusement. EEng14:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The Kennedy assassination is one of the most scrutinized events in human history. Find a high-quality scholarly source or forget it. EEng06:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Evidence submitted at Conduct in deletion-related editing
I never thought I'd see the day that my UTP would get more pageviews than yours, and that scares me...seriously...sorta. Atsme💬📧16:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, if that's the case - make an appointment for a mani-pedi tomorrow at 10 am. It's long overdue. Atsme💬📧18:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
First of all, I know that you are not both the same person, because one of you is much prettier than the other. Also, is Mani-Pedia a new WMF project? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on the looks because I already know where that might go; however, I will say mani-pedia just might work as a new project! Send the link to my cell phone and we'll see where it ends up (read the planet post below). Atsme💬📧22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for reading my mind, DYK? - Ukrainian peace music was "on" yesterday, with the conductor! + today, another conductor. - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've always thought that your long years of work on music-related topics is a great example of a particular area of coverage being steadily improved by an interested and knowledgeable volunteer. EEng16:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thank you, and also for being my voice against pettiness - a word mentioned on top of precious, for a reason. For background: as you may feel we have a history. This nom didn't even mention "created", but was refused for other reasons. "created" was debated no end for previous hooks. The saddest thing was a great singer who performed - with the composer's knowledge, so extra bonus - in the last opera by Camille Saint-Saëns, and instead of saying that we proclaimed that she performed Carmen 3000 times, - pure quantity. (I deleted my credit in the nom, didn't want to take "credit" for that.) I work for quality articles, not quantity. /rant and thanks for helping with that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually, this sort of thing is viewed very differently on this side of the pond, compared to the land where they arm bears. It does reflect very badly on his Lordship. It seems that it is considered trivial in Merkia. If somebody broke into his Lordships residence and stole the shotgun, terrible things could happen. If the miscreant could get hold of ammo, for which they'd need a home office licence I believe, and all sorts of Police clearances. I think the deleted section could well be WP:DUE. Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF09:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Or could well not be. From the sources, it appears this old gent goes shooting weekly in season, and seems this one time to have forgotten to secure his gun before going off on holiday. Now, that's an irresponsible thing to do, and a £1,000 smack on the bot-bot [30] is well deserved to teach him never to do that again. But the article text, with its overspecific talk of contravening (contravening – like he did it on purpose or something) section two of the Firearms Act 1968 (oooh! – section two – 'cause that's, like, the very worst section to contravene) and being fined the sum of £1,000 (which sounds way worse than simply being fined £1,000) makes him out to be Lord Lucan or something. He's a government official so naturally such news was duly reported by the BBC as a matter of record, but whether this apparently isolated incident belongs in his WP bio is a different matter. EEng16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm flummoxed now, I so rarely make any comments here, let alone semi-serious ones. Boris' (note apostrophe usage) entitled priveliged govt here are doing just exactly what we expect of them, and they dont appear dislodgeable. They'll continue with the behind closed doors do what I say not what I do stuff until long after I'm gone. -Roxy the grumpy dog.wooF16:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Use of the word "contravene" is standard British English for legal topics. Just like shooting things is a standard Scottish hobby for Lord Keen of Elie and other such "big knobs in their kilts". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear that we Americans do not have a monopoly on gratuitous sesquipedalianism. Why not just say "broke the law" rather than "contravened" it? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the reason is that saying "contravened", just like saying "gratuitous sesquipedalianism", makes one sound smarter. (I can, at least, pronounce "contravened".) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
The edit was constructive in my opinion, with very clear reasoning in the edit summary. If you disagree with the reasoning, just revert it or start a discussion on the article talk page. This is not the correct forum to discuss it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Our options...(1) bring back the round table – hardworking Wikipeedians deserve it, OR (2) let the chips fall where they may, but make sure you're wearing clean underwear before you leave the house, OR...(3) re-tire the humor van...and finally (4) take a number. Feel free to add more options if you think it will do any good. Atsme💬📧21:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm late, but it's my first break in a while. I will begin by saying that Martin's reference to "other organisms" gave me pause. At first glance I failed to see the letters ni, be it inadvertent or otherwise. I attribute that anomaly to something similar to hearing loss, in that with aging we tend to lose "sight of things" (go ahead, run with it). That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Atsme💬📧22:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
"May 12 at 12pm, EDT"
Serious question: "I've just been invited to a webinar at the stated time. Should I join at 00:00 on 12 May, 12:00 on 12 May, or 00:00 on 13 May? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
12pm on 12 May is noon that day. Sometimes people get this mixed up and think it's midnight (which, correctly, is 12am), and it's to avoid confusion along those lines that labor strikes usually start at e.g. 12:01am, since no one's unsure when that is. Unless it's a webinar for vampires, I think you can log in at noon with confidence. EEng05:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Given that Knauss no longer occupies the second place on the list of people who staved off death the longest, and the AfD last time was no consensus, any thoughts on another AfD? I'd give it a few weeks, right now passions are high among the longevity fanboys (though Tanaka and Randon are genuinely interesting people, about who there's at least something to work with), but if anything the arguments are stronger than last time around. It also helps that a few of the more disruptive elements from that AfD are now blocked, which should reduce the amount of noise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
She almost made 120 years old and is the oldest known US citizen ever (third in the world overall). As notable as the day (and her life) is long (she was found to be part tortoise). Maybe consider just leaving her memory, and page, be. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to be late to this (I've been AWOL a while) but I think this is one we can afford to leave be. The article itself needs a machete taken to it, however. EEng21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon
Turns Ashes — or it prospers; and anon,
Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face,
Lighting a little hour or two — is gone.
I appreciate your bringing this to my attention, but it's certainly nothing more than speculation. Harry Widener apparently did bring a volume of Bacon, which he'd just purchased in London, with him on the voyage, and this has led to the silly story that he missed the lifeboat because he ran back to his cabin for the book. Now, just supposing that he had this ruby-encrusted treasure in his possession as well, one would certainly think the story would be that he went back for it. Even the BBC's text tell us the story is speculation: "Mr Shepherd considers it likely the book was in the safekeeping of bibliophile Harry Elkins Widener ... 'The duty on the book would have been enormous, so he could have been asked to carry it on under his arm,' according to Mr Maggs." EEng00:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem there is (in Conan Doyle's phrasing) that mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself. Her website's down now, but Teresa Nielsen Hayden once called the article "Wikipedia as art: a deft, beautiful, possibly even perfect entry"; but of course WP:MISSSNODGRASS knows better.
Hi EEng. I just closed the reassessment discussion of Sacred Cod. I must say I wasn't too impressed with the tone of the discussion, and your role in that. You have enough experience to know to focus on content, rather than contributor. And I believe you've got enough of a sense of humor to diffuse tense situations. If you're annoyed a contributor does not know what a euphemism is, why not explain rather than expressing annoyance? And a phrase like "can you not count to 1" was also not called for. All of our energy is better spent improving articles. Femke (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I believe I can say, in all modesty, that I did indeed do as you suggest, that is, use humor to diffuse the conflict. In an ideal world there's hope for some Dunning-Krugers, but this one's beyond help, as you'll have already seen in his response to your post on his talk page [34]. He's still convinced that he's right and everyone else is wrong. EEng21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
My take on it, is that humor only made the situation worse here (for instance, the joke about "I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account." may have given the impression of an in-crowd), and that invoking Dunning-Krugers in particular borderlines a personal attack. Femke (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate your taking the time, but I have a feeling you didn't click on the link in my post just above, which I'll repeat here more explicitly: WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. There was no making the situation better or worse, because Mr. or Ms. MJ's humorless rigidity of mind made educating him impossible. (You're probably unaware of the several rounds of interaction prior to his opening the GAR. And even after the GAR was all over but the shouting, he was POINTily restoring trivia I'd removed from another article, apparently thinking that it was somehow equivalent to the material he objected to in Sacred Cod.) EEng20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
As someone who participated and endorsed "keep", I will remind my friend the humorist of WP:2WRONGS. (Splendid essay, because I wrote it, and if the shoe fits... ) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed a splendid essay, but as described just above, I'd given up trying to make anything right so I figured we may as well all have some fun along the way -- those of us capable of it, anyway. EEng20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic for this section, but in the general spirit of having fun along the way (no, I'm not encouraging you, but, whatever), I found this recent diff to be priceless: [35]. Those long diseases! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that's what the person in that diff meant. I suppose being long-deceased is the ultimate long-disease. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I teach history to a Year 5 class - that's 9-10 year olds. We're doing the Ancient Greeks, and they were working on informational posters about the Olympian gods. Having exhausted the meagre pickings that our textbooks afforded, I encouraged them to find interesting facts to add on Wikipedia. One of the girls said "My dad says that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, it's full of rubbish." I told her that, while people can come along and change things, there are lots of people who keep an eye on it and make sure that the information is correct, and that I do a lot of writing there myself. She thought about that for a bit, and then asked, innocently and seriously, "So, are you the one who makes up all the rubbish?" GirthSummit (blether)20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
If I'm being honest with myself, I spend so much time at SPI now that I can claim very little credit for the addition of new rubbish. My main contribution is preventing people from recycling rubbish, which I don't suppose is looked on favourably these days. GirthSummit (blether)00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I will respond here because of WP:NOTFORUM, but only briefly. My point is simply that written and spoken language serve separate purposes, and that written language can and often does have a separate, independent existence from spoken language, to the point where its ability to be spoken is irrelevant. Furthermore, I wanted to clearly indicate that spoken language is not inherently dominant over or primary to written language (i.e. the 'base' to writing's 'superstructure'). I was thinking of Classical Chinese, and more specifically, Kanbun. Certainly, Kanbun can be read out as it is written, but no one will understand what it means if that is done. It will simply be a bunch of random, incomprehensible sounds, which is what one hears when one listens to something like a monk reciting the Heart Sutra. That can hardly be considered 'spoken language', if 'language' is defined as something that conveys meaning. Kanbun can only have meaning when one reads the specific characters displayed, and deciphers their meaning through their association with ideas, irrespective of sound. If one looks at the unaltered text of the Heart Sutra, it is possible to decipher it in a way that is not possible from hearing it spoken. It functions solely as a written text, rather than a spoken text. Furthermore, Kanbun offers a mode of translation, called kundoku, which can 'translate' Classical Chinese into a version of Japanese that can be spoken and understood. This is a complicated process, but it is only possible because the text is capable of existing independent of sound and spoken language, through the use of Chinese characters. I don't care to write more here, but if you read Japanese, you might consider reading Fukuda Tsuneari's Watakushi no Kokugo Kyoushitsu for more information. RGloucester — ☎11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
All you're telling me is that either (a) Kanbun never was the writing system of a natural language (and my comments explicitly restricted themselves to natural languages), or (b) whatever spoken form or forms it once had are no longer in use, and therefore incomprehensible to listeners today. By your reasoning, Egyptian hieroglyphic doesn't represent spoken language.If you read English, you might consider reading John Wilkins's An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language for more information. (Though in many ways completely wrong, it's still full of insight and very pleasurable to read). EEng17:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
That from someone who had to point out that he is not a moron, because otherwise it would have not been clear: [38]. By the way, I have no opinion either way in the argument you are having here, because arguing about MOS is like counting angels on the head of a pin. I mean, really, why have a rule about Sisyphus's but not Sisyphus', and then make an exception only for sake? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
My anxiety to state the obvious stemmed from uncertainty about perspicacity of my interlocutor (see, for example, his post below) not the objective facts. EEng02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
You did not clearly limit your comments to so-called 'natural languages' (and I would dispute the validity of that term anyway). I was responding to your proclamation that 'writing is fundamentally a visual embodiment of speech'. If you cannot see that this is not the case, I do not know what to tell you. Kanbun is a written language that works by conveying ideas, rather than sound. The ideas can be related to a comprehensible sound after the fact through a complex system of translation, but ideas are its primary mode of function. But as I say, I yield. I should not've expected much understanding for this cause in this, a place of 功利主義 . RGloucester — ☎20:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
You did not clearly limit your comments to so-called 'natural languages' – What part of That writing (in natural languages, anyway) represents that which can be spoken is a bedrock axiom[39] escaped your comprehension?
and I would dispute the validity of that term anyway – Chomsky would disagree with you [40] but maybe you know better. If you like I can get you on the phone with one one of his students so you can make your case.
You might consider the chronology of your remarks, and see that, at the time I took issue with your proclamation, you had yet to make any such specification. You might take note that I attempted to demonstrate my point above. Anyone that understands Chinese characters can understand the meaning of the above, irrespective of sound. Ruby characters can be added to indicate sound, but this is a secondary consideration. Even English can easily be written in Chinese characters, primarily because the characters function primarily in the realm of ideas, rather than that of sound. But I yield, I yield! For in this, the world of today, language has been reduced to a mechanical, machine-readable mode of industrial communication. Ambiguity is despised, interpretation unnecessary. In such a world, it is no surprise that the phoneticists reign supreme. If only I were as learned as the great Mr EEng, I wonder what my life might have been. Alas, I have been condemned to the domain of the folderol, for I am so impudent as to seek the treasures hidden in the land of things immaterial. Farewell, RGloucester — ☎13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I yield, I yield! – And yet like a moth to the flame you keep returning for more.
at the time I took issue with your proclamation, you had yet to make any such specification – You continued taking issue long after I "made the specification" i.e. spelled out for you that which is taken for granted by anyone who knows the first thing about the subject, and even now the Dunning-Kruger effect blinds you to what a fool you continue making of yourself – as usual.
If only I were as learned as the great Mr EEng – Let's take things in achievable steps – maybe start by being as learned as you imagine yourself to be.
Ambiguity is despised, interpretation unnecessary ... I am so impudent as to seek the treasures hidden in the land of things immaterial – Oh poor you, stranded in your mountaintop cave gazing into your navel, alone and unwanted, with nary a single visit from supplicants seeking enlightenment for lo these many years now. I'm a published author in computer science and the history of medicine and a major literary journal so if you're casting around for technocrats reducing language to a mechanical, machine-readable mode of industrial communication, aim your Mr. Magoo blunderbuss elsewhere please. Maybe you find yourself siloed off in some intellectual backwater, but I am not.
You are verily irascible, Mr EEng, and yet, I am left no choice but to prostrate myself before you. For what it is worth, I am also a published author. Regrettably, I am relegated to the inconsequential field of Japanese studies. I also reckon that I am quite green in comparison to you, Mr EEng. Perhaps with the benefit of age, I shall come to understand the nature of your opinions on this matter, and indeed, your greatness in the general sense. In the meantime, I do hope you might consider that you may well be a victim of the very phenomenon you cite, and that there may be alternative viewpoints on this subject that allow for the acknowledgement of the intangible value pregnant in a language of ideas, independent from the realm of the spoken. In any case, I hope I have not engendered in you any sort of hostility. Forgive me, Mr EEng. RGloucester — ☎17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
You are verily irascible – I'm not angry or upset in the slightest.
I am also a published author – I raised the point only because you counted me (and please don't deny it) among those reducing language to a mechanical, machine-readable blah blah blah blah blah.
you might consider that you may well be a victim of the very phenomenon you cite – Not likely. I really know this stuff.
alternative viewpoints – Unfortunately you reject basic definitions of linguistics, so there's no common ground from which to discuss whatever it is you keep trying to say.
I hope I have not engendered in you any sort of hostility – All are welcome. Just please try to read carefully what the others are saying, and respond to that instead of something you're imagining theysaid.
Well, I'm simply trying to figure this out. You're concerned about the perspiration of your interrogator, and he's got a green prostate. And I still don't know what's so special about saké. And now there's a test? Involving Mordor? (When the moon hits your eye like a big piece of pie, that's a moron! That's a moron!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I know that! It's a particularly popular joke in the aquarium hobby. And besides, I'm no moron. (For that matter, it isn't a big piece of pie, either, paisan.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
My boyfriend was just in India and he assures me that they definitely do not need more stray dogs there. EEng23:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, and I'm inclined to think that we don't need that page either; I've had it on my watchlist for a long time because I feel like it could perhaps be an AfD candidate, but I just haven't felt motivated to act on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
A group of administrators shun a young Wikipedian for considering EEng to be a positive role model in her life. (EEng sez: Hell, I'd shun her for considering me a positive role model.)
If I were to do something like this I would be disowned by every administrator on Wikipedia. If only I've been around as long as you have... Panini!🥪18:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You're right, and EEng has been disowned by every administrator on Wikipedia. It's the standard RFA acceptance: "I have no other accounts, have not edited for pay, and disown EEng." Levivich19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I suppose I can go on record saying I've never done that (either giving or receiving) and never want to. Yuck. It's one of the reasons I miss Flyer22, who could explain topics like that that just go completely over my head. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I've heard many times that Boris sucks. I looked at the lead image of the Disco Animal, and it's the quintessential face of a Disco Animal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing up turning the budget section into a table. I don't know of any good tables to use for it since the only time I use them is for election stuff. I put the information into that dump just to hold it for the future if I found a good table. Do you have any suggestions? Give me one and I will transfer it into that. Jon698 (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
A good table to use. -LNot a good table to use. -L
Not sure what you mean by "a good table to use" -- you can make your own table with whatever formats you want; there are tables in lots of articles so click Edit to see how they work. But don't lose sight of my other point: does the reader benefit from all these details, regardless of the form of presentation? EEng03:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Biden - the oldest first-term U.S. president
If you think the fact that Biden is the oldest president in US history is "idiocy" and "trivia", why don't you remove the same fact from the article about Donald Trump? I think consistency should be one of our goals here. Felix558 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Felix558, it belongs in the article somewhere (and without looking, I'm confident it's there); the idiocy consists in thinking it belongs in the already-very-overburdened lead. I encourage you to get it removed from the lead of the Trump article as well. EEng03:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
EEng#s While you are obviously entitled to discuss this matter, you are not entitled to make unilateral changed, especially when you see that most users disagree with you. You seem to be in the minority and most users think that the media coverage and discussion about him being the oldest is such that it merits inclusion. Please discuss before you unilaterally remove it again. I not, I will have to report you to the edit-warring pageEccekevin (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Eccekevin, report away. The longstanding lead (at least back to late November [43] -- I didn't check further than that) does not include this, and you're attempting to force it in because you misunderstand the nature of the Wikipedia consensus process. EEng20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
He was on track to the be the oldest president since the moment he was elected; the fact that he took office yesterday doesn't make this suddenly some new and amazing fact no one thought of before. EEng20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
'on track' means nothing. Yesterday, he became the oldest sitting president in the 230 year history of the United States. Clearly, most users think it deserves a mention, especially given the media and online overage around his age (as a reminder, Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions).Eccekevin (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Consensus is about reasons, not headcounts. And as demonstrated at the article talk, if we used a count of sources as the criterion then we'd be putting the rescue dogs in the lead as well. EEng00:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Wait, the rescue dogs aren't in the lead? OMG, he broke his foot on one of them! Possibly while naked! Clearly that's lead territory. —valereee (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
In fact, in many jurisdictions dogs are required to be on the lead. While you're here, V, you might pop over and have a talk with Eccekevin about BRD. EEng01:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. And don't think I forgot about you-know-what. Right now I'm working on User:Levivich/Seussipedia
That is a false parallelism. People.com, CNN, and Countryliving(UK) are not really the same standard as all the national and international newspapers listed above. Please find a better argument.Eccekevin (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Those are in the 'Entertainment'. 'Celebrities' and "Animals' sections, not politics. Very different tone and importance. Not all sources are equal. But if you want to argue for its inclusion, don't let me step in your way. That is not what this discussion is about, this seems like whataboutism. Eccekevin (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources are reliable, which is what matters, and you've got a couple of "Style" section links in there yourself. And you misunderstand WP:WHATABOUTism. EEng03:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
My deepest condolences, GoodDay. But while you're here... should the lead of her article say she's the oldest governor general ever? EEng04:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
So in what passes for a constitutional crisis in Canada, Richard Wagner gets to stand in as the person who does nothing until a proper replacement can be found? I'm jealous. If only US politics could be so boring. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Canadian media tries to make it sound like a constitutional crisis, but it's quite a non-event within Canada. I in favour of the abolishing of the office. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, EEng, forgot a shout out back in August when I, myself, reached that milestone (diff). Felt like it was a bit of a pyrrhic victory (the 300 Spartans, to be specific), but I know you're not one to be weighed by earthly things... Anyway, how about I image macro you, for once! El_C21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm taking seriously the "in all sincerity" part, so just in case you were actually asking, he means the number of talk page sections. And if you actually knew that all along, never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Having managed to provide evidence that led to a desysop, I'm not sure "undesyoppables" is really a thing. Of course I think the recent block was heavy-handed and ill advised, but it didn't last very long and was swiftly overturned. It's not like anyone's running around blocking "content creators" left, right and centre, is it? (Or is it?) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Editing closed discussions
Hi there. I recently reverted one of your edits to that closed discussion at WP:AN and Levivich reverted me back, saying it was not a rule. Would you mind moving that file to outside the archive box? It would be really appreciated, thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
No I won't, because the external media box can't perform its function except in the place I put it. What's the big deal? Leave it alone. EEng17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
A group of new Wikipedia editors, hoisting me by my piscine petard. --Tryptofish
You've been subjected to a certain amount of... whatever, over the past day or so. So I figured I'd tell you about something ridiculous that I encountered on-wiki today, in the hope that it will bring a smile to everyone here. (I'm not looking to give the guilty party a hard time. Just let it pass.) But (as Atsme will well remember), a little while back I created a fake "user warning" template that is based upon The Wikipedia Pissoff AwardTM, which everyone can feast their eyes upon here. Clearly this is very serious bizness.
So today, I made this revert: [45]. What I reverted was an editor making it look like this. Note the "documentation" at the bottom. Which made it into a "real" user warning template. Which set off a bot to "subst:" it where it occurs.
I'm picturing some earnest editor seeing the "uw" part of it and deciding that it just absolutely had to be properly set up as a user warning, with level 1, level 2, and so on. Either that, or they out-smarted me, and hoisted me by my own fishy petard by duly following the instructions, and pissing me off! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.
Franklin, recognizing that presidents might sometimes “render [themselves] obnoxious,” recommended a formal, constitutional mechanism for bringing them to justice instead of what he saw as the inevitable alternative: assassination. Or, to put it differently, impeachment was an attempt to domesticate, to tame, assassination ... I suggest that, in the context of presidential impeachment, we accept Franklin’s provocative invitation—an invitation that scholars have thus far ignored—to view impeachable offenses as (what might otherwise be) assassinable offenses ... These heretofore unexplored connections suggest that assassinability may appropriately provide the substantive criteria for impeachability. But assassination as a means of executive removal has significant drawbacks. It is politically disruptive; it carries a high risk of irreversible error; and it is, of course, violent.
I appreciate the compliment, but I have an extremely important IRL project for the next 6+ months which will severely limit my WP participation. EEng17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for responding. If you happen to think of someone else who might be able to help, I would be happy to have a suggestion (but if not that's fine, too). 185.104.139.23 (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Easily distracted? Can't concentrate on that latest Wikipedia rant?? Need to bring that hopeless article to GA review in only 3 hours??? You need.... The Isolator!! Available from all good local Wiki-stores today! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
⚠ Look, Hass Avocados have a very important place in the dinner table of society. For one thing, guacamole. Don't insult that legendary fruit by mentioning them in the same breath as reprehensible avvocatos, or for that matter, abogados, advogados, avocates, or avocats (you can see a picture of an "avocat" in the post immediately above this one). Of all the nerve, EEng. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)14:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
True story: when I was on the poetry board of the Harvard Advocate, there was someone who, today, is a fairly prominent person in conservative Republican politics (whom I won't name for BLP purposes) who was (of course) on the business board, and he showed up one day with a copy of that other Advocate and made snide and somewhat homophobic jokes about the similar magazine names. He was a jerk then, and continued to be one later in life. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I dropped by the Harvard Archives and did a little research to figure out who you're talking about. When I was in school he was a well-known closet case. And an asshole, of course. EEng07:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, the person I'm referring to seems unlikely to me to have been gay, closeted or not. There are so many assholes in that area of US politics, of course, that we might very well be talking about two different holes. The person I'm talking about was class of 1978 and never sought elective orifice, I mean, office. On the other hand, one of my roommates was closeted, and really a sad case of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I read an article in The Advocate (magazine) years ago that quoted The Advocate (Lousiana) without clarifying that they were in fact talking about a different Advocate. The only reason it didn't confuse me is I had previously learned of the Louisiana paper by typing in theadvocate.com instead of advocate.com—an ambiguity which is now reflected in the articles' hatnotes. Incidentally, today I was cutting some stats cruft from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and noticed that it claims that the (Louisiana) Advocate used to discriminate against LGBT people, while our article on the paper doesn't mention this. The cited source doesn't look great; maybe someone else here wants to get to the bottom of it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 07:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I have raised the discussion as to whether how we should reflect's Simpson's culpability for the "crime of the century", much like LHO is named "guilty". Discussions open here. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
My only comment is that BLP still applies for six months minimum, and I'd suggest longer in this case. EEng21:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi EEng, how are you? This comment [46] of yours is a suggestion to block Hakikatco, right? But the place you posted it was in the "User:Kaalakaa Disruptive editor" subsection, which is Hakikatco's counter report on me. Could you please move it up from that subsection to Hakikatco's section? Not only to avoid misunderstandings, but also to easily count the number of editors who support the block. You might also want to link "to be on the safe side" in your comment to this diff of Hakikatco's comment, to show that you quoted the phrase from him. Or if you don't want to do any of that, can you at least please specify in that comment who you're suggesting to block? Thank you. Feel free to delete this post of mine if you want, though. — Kaalakaa(talk)17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Somewhere higher up I explained that I finally got one-click archiver to work again, got into the project a bit, and now it's stopped working. I just haven't got time to troubleshoot it right now. EEng15:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, I see the experiment you did. The problem is, when *I* look at the page, the click-to-archive links just aren't there. Something in my jpeg or my jstor no doubt. EEng20:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
(While I’ve made several visits to our article on Phineas Gage, I’ve never read or watched Game of Thrones and don’t know any other catchphrases.) ManuelKomnenos (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The point ...
... isn't that the reader will not understand what is and isn't an actual Shakespeare quote, it's that the material's exact present form makes the writers/editors of the page look like they are not competent enough to distinguish between quotation and non-quotation material (i.e. that they are not encyclopedists but maybe half-witted social media posters of the sort who can't spel thigns properrly in thier meme-pics). It completely baffles me that you're going to fight me changing it in any way, no matter which way I change it, but whatever. I have other stuff on my plate, I don't like squabbling with you, and I have a head cold, so my patience is extremely low right now.
PS: This page is getting to the point that it badly needs archival again. It took several minutes to open a "New section" thing for editing, and it failed on the first two tries, probably due to the amount of memory required (of my aged Mac). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(For those playing along at home, we're talking about [47].) Sandy, I have not the slightest fear that our fellow editors will (a) fail to recognize that There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your seventh-grade English teacher's handouts is not, in fact, something Shakespeare wrote; or (b) imagine that we, authors of the essay, believe it to be something Shakespeare wrote. EEng17:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC) P.S. Macs are for wimps.
You don't seem to be parsing my point (which is probably my own fault, for some form of lack of clarity). I don't believe any readers would get either of those impressions, either. Rather, the impression that is the writers/editors of the page are not competent in creating and formatting quotations, allusions, attribution, jokes, and a mixture of them – i.e. that they can't write well enough to separate the original non-joke material from the added-in joke material, and are personally unclear on what the notion of quotation and attribution is versus the notion of making reference or allusion. The result looks like something a 13-year-old would clumsily write in a book report (I say that remembering my own iffy writing at that age which made similar mistakes, some of which are burnt into my memory after receiving red marks in the grading process). I might not care much, since that's not an encyclopedia article, except that the page history shows me responsible for much of the content on it. Heh. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 14:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Please just trust me on this one. It's OK. No one's going to misunderstand or think bad of us. EEng16:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the inconvenience, I was only trying to help but I respect the fact that you are arguably more familiar with how these things work. I'll leave the page alone after I add a section about the "Babushka Lady" who is absent in "Unidentified Witnesses". Have a nice Summer! :) Abc747 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
you get this a lot, but
please archive your talk page, mediawiki itself is complaining. i got this when trying to view your talk page:
MediaWiki internal error.
Original exception: [9a9b1859-4dd1-4b95-bf63-bf585289304d] 2024-07-19 00:33:45: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBUnexpectedError"
Exception caught inside exception handler.
Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.
What was it originally? I don't have any stake in the article You removed a name that didn't have a good source...but you left the article saying, unsourced, that 3 years after it's founding it was renamed Harvard. Make it make sense. --Onorem (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
That other original name is still listed (without adequate sourcing) at Colonial colleges. You might want to do something about that. Also, it's not clear to me that the current text of Harvard College that it was "renamed" in 1639 is accurate; maybe "named", if it did not have an earlier name to be renamed from? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I overlooked "renamed" -- now changed to "named". (Plus I fixed the Colonial colleges article too.) In answer to the original query...
The school didn't have any particular name originally, as seen in the excerpts from the records of the Great and General Court inscribed on the Johnston Gate:
Note in particular that last bit: "It is ordered that the colledge agreed upon formerly to be built at Cambridg shalbee called Harvard Colledge". Before that it wasn't called anything in particular, just "the college". See extensive discussion at Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_9#Former_name_"New_College"?. It's hard to prove a negative, but I think at last I've got the right source for it [49]. EEng23:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! You have reverted my edits on Harvard University per, my Wikipedia isn't the best as of right now. I'm wondering if you could at least keep some of the grammar and punctuation changes in? I have a slight problem with "Over more than three and a half centuries, Harvard alumni have contributed creatively and significantly to society, the arts and sciences, business, and national and international affairs." even if it is true, it sounds eh?
And the pages, (I felt like that) could do work on the Literature and popular culture, so I just hastily edited out a paragraph of a quote I considered a bloat. Sorry. WhyIsNameSoHardOmg- - (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
There might be some useful changes in your edit [50], but there's no way to tell because they're buried in a sea of mostly trivial changes that don't even affect what the reader sees. No one's going to wade through all that. The Paul Sherman quote is useful and appropriate. EEng06:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Indenting
Howdy. Maybe if you were to 'write' in (don't have to ping) the editor you're responding to, that would help one figure out who you're responding to. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Indenting is to help people see, at a glance, which comment follows on from which other comment. Your changes made it look like someone was talking to me when they were actually talking to someone else. EEng18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't have made that mistake, if you were to 'name' the person you're responding to. The Discussion has several editors participating, so it would be helpful. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
You'd need to ask everyone to do that, but anyway it's not needed since the indenting indicates it. I don't know why you're fooling with it. EEng19:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend avoiding that NORN thread entirely
I don't think many people care what gets posted on Wikipediocracy, but it may be worth keeping in mind -- I commented in that thread to say that I thought the table was unnecessary, and some guy on there accused me of being a pedophile and "helping them legally fuck kids" due to me having interacted with the thread at all. jp×g🗯️21:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern. I'm aware of these external sites but pay no attention to them. On the other hand, I'm not sure there's anyone more I need to say in that thread. Again, thanks for taking the trouble. EEng06:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bishonen | tålk15:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your edit on Harvard University (→Libraries and museums: for a research library, total volumes is irrelevant...) and I wanted to thank you for it. There is currently a lot of boosterism on HigherEd pages when it comes to listing volumes in the libraries. Do you have a suggestion about how to reduce the inflation and make the information more relevant? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that you do to other college article what I did to the Harvard article: if it quotes the "volumes held" of the institution's library (count of total physical books, including multiple copies of the same title), switch it to "titles held", which counts multiple copies of the same title as just 1. That's the true measure of how much research material is available. EEng16:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
It's probably available only for relatively large institutions. Anyway, there's little point in readers being informed that Podunk U's library system is #1382 in the nation in titles held. EEng17:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Rear admiral (lower half)
Hello. I just wanted to reply to the question you left on Illegitimate Barrister's talk page. So, technically, there is no actual upper half as it is actually now an informal term. When an officer is promoted to two-star rank, the rank is just called rear admiral. Another informal term for two-star rank is a full rear admiral. Prior to World War II, the Navy didn't have a one-star rank. All captains were promoted to rear admiral (two-star). A more ridged pay grade scale was established during World War II and the Navy split the pay for the more junior rear admirals into the one-star pay grade in order to match the Army and Marine Corps rank of brigadier general and called them lower half rear admirals, the remaining more senior rear admirals were paid equal to major generals, and where designated the upper half of rear admirals. But regardless of they were paid at the lower half or the upper half of the pay scale, they were all officially two-star rear admirals, which did not sit well with the Army and Marine Corps, because the rear admirals being paid at the "lower half" of the pay scale, still outranked the one-star brigadier generals who received equal pay as the "lower half" rear admirals. The Navy temporarily established the one-star rank of commodore that did solve this problem until the rank was eliminated after the war. A permanent naval one-star rank was not established until the 1981 as commodore admiral. Since 1983, that one-star rank was renamed to it's current inception as rear admiral (lower half). Neovu79 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this relates to [51].
That's all well and good, but if they only use the lower half of the rear of the admiral, what they do with the rest of him (or her). I've heard food on ships is terrible, so maybe that's related? See [52]. EEng03:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I was tempted actually, but a photo of someone vomiting is too obvious, our photos of Soviet purges aren't obvious enough, and we don't even have a photo of Miss Conduct. EEng22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Judging someone as inexperienced (naive) is not a personal attack, nor is saying that the situation is "getting crazy". However calling someone "sophomoric" is. Paul August☎10:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
But it is my understanding that, in this case, EEng was referring to the "analysis" as sophomoric, rather than the editor in question themselves. El_C11:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
No way sophomoric is a PA. If someone is acting overconfident and immature, then they are being sophomoric, and saying so isn't "attacking" them. Not every criticism of a person is an "attack". Just like the common example: saying "you're acting like an asshole" is a criticism, not a personal attack; saying "you are an asshole" is a personal attack. Anyway, that's my 2 cents, assholes. Levivich[dubious – discuss]14:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh common on, so your saying that If I want to get away with calling someone "a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole" all I have to do say is: "You are acting like a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole"? Paul August☎14:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
But the latter statement isn't "getting away" with something. In O these many long years I have, now and then, had occasion to say to my boyfriend, "You know what -- you were acting like a complete asshole [the other day / with that hotel clerk / to the innocent person who was clearly mixed up / whatever]". That's completely different from saying, "You know what? You're a complete asshole", which would quite possibly be the beginningn of the end of the relationship. We all play the asshole now and then, and there's a huge difference between helping someone see that in a particular situation -- e.g. "You're being an asshole" -- and condemning someone as a blanket generality -- e.g. "Donald Trump is an asshole" (not that, of course, I'd ever say that here on WP without citing appropriate sources [53]). EEng17:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Another example: "Your mother smells of elderberries" is a clear personal attack, but "you're acting like someone whose mother smells of elderberries" is a perfectly acceptable social criticism. But seriously, it's not a personal attack to say someone is acting overconfident or acting immature, and thus it's not a personal attack to say someone is acting sophomoric. "Sophomoric" isn't an insult like "asshole" or "elderberry". WP:NPA doesn't say "never criticize". Levivich[dubious – discuss]14:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Saying someone whose mother smells of elderberries might be construed as a compliment, whereas saying someone whose mother smells like dingleberries...uhm, no. AtsmeTalk📧01:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
English is such a wonderful language, so many words, so many nuances allowed, so better able to describe the real world, where things are not black or white but shades of grey. There are shades of niceness and meaness. You can be nicer or meaner. Saying someone is "sophomoric" is meaner than calling them "inexperienced". Bottom line "sophomoric" is a pejorative. No way around it. And by the way I think you are acting like a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole, no offense intended ;-) Paul August☎15:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
A long time ago I had a colleague from Ukraine. His English was very good but nonetheless there was room for improvement. We both enjoyed movies so we used to see one together now and then. One night we came out of the cinema and he pointed to the sky: "Look! There is the Mars!" So I chuckled and explained that, for whatever reason, in English the earth is "the earth" and the moon is "the moon", but Mars is just "Mars" and Venus is just "Venus" and so on. He said, "I see. Well, it's just one more of the nuisances of English." One step, two steps later, something began to nag at the back of my mind. With each additional step the nagging got stronger. Six, seven, eight paces. Nuisances ... nuisances ... nuisances. A few more steps and it hit me. "Wait ... you mean nuances???" He said: "Yes, yes. That's what I meant. Nuances." That was the most delicious moment. EEng21:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
So considering that our dear leader has recently taken to using the term "Kung flu" to describe the pandemic, are we to suppose—see above—this is a case of great minds thinking alike, or is he reading this page? For my money "moo goo gai pandemic" would have been the smarter choice. Paul August☎21:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. It's been a while since anyone made a pass at me. Incidentally, you must have completely exhausted yourself preparing that report; just to lighten your load next time, it's not necessary to notify editors who are merely tangentially mentioned in a report. EEng14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@Eeng, I thought the expectation was to always alert other eds when you mention them, regardless of venue? It's how I would like to be treated, so.... but thanks, you're right, I find documenting long running low intensity problems of that sort to be hard, since the community seems to ignore them if you don't paint the whole picture. And sometimes even if you do... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it's not a problem, just trying to (as I said) lighten your load next time you write a 100K ANI report. (I was amused that you quoted my "Uh oh". That was a very complete report.) The rule (as stated in the box at the top of the ANI page) is to notify anyone you are "reporting", which presumably means the person(s) at whom you are trying to direct the community's wrath. Notifying others (who will probably be pinged, depending on the technique by which you mention them, and on their preference settings) is probably optional, and in fact I could see an argument that pinging all the person the reportee (if that's a word) has tangled with might be seen as canvassing. In practice, though, I've never seen anything like any of these questions be a real issue. EEng18:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
EEng..I don`t understand what you meant by " says the IP who has made 80 post " I may have quoted you incorrectly word for word but it`s essentially what you said..I just don`t get..what is that supposed to mean ? Why did you say it ? Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
My comment here [56] was intended to highlight the fact that you were dispensing advice along the lines of "Behavior X won't get you very far on Wikipedia" to an editor with literally 500 times the editing experience you appear to have. EEng23:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Why didn`t you just say that instead directing a borderline personal attack at me ? this guy who is constantly referring to himself as "we" isn`t exactly endearing himself to others..I was just trying to point that out 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
"We" (meaning Wikipedia – ""We do this", "We don't do that") is appropriate when explaining the project's fundamental rules and practices on which there's no debate whatsoever. When there's a living accused person, or likely to be one later, "we" don't label a death murder without an official determination on that point. As Stephen Leacock put it, "Newspapermen learn to call a murderer an alleged murderer and the King of England the alleged King of England to avoid libel suits." EEng02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You could have just said that..actually if someone had said that from the beginning I`d have never said a word..I don`t appreciate the condescending attitude toward me regarding my 80 edits..the "we" thing was just plain obnoxious the way it was used..do not include me in your group because it suits your purpose..
Can you at least explain the red links to me ? Some lead to page does not exist other to editors with 100`s if not 1000`s of edits..it`s confusing..
I'm sorry, but I don't know what red links you're talking about. My very strong suggestion to you, if you want to contribute to the project, is that you create an account, which will give you credibility. If you have further questions about how Wikipedia works or how to edit, the Teahouse is a great place to ask. EEng20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Please don't template the regulars. --TryptofishAnd don't regulate the templars either. --Tryptofish
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Edit-warring on a guideline is far ruder, and far more destabilising on top. EEng should know better than to try forcing a guideline rewrite by edit-warring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Francis Schonken: I left that message on your talk page, because I hadn't notice that you had also left the same message here on Flyer22 Frozen's talkpage as well. I thought that also warranted pointing out. I'm sorry you thought my messages to you were rude, that was not my intent. I think it's important, when we see editors not treating each other as well as we might to point that out. (EEng can vouch for that.) And I don't think doing so is rude. Paul August☎15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
There are two magic words one should please try to use. They are "please" and "thank you". Thank you. runs to avoid being struck by flying objects --Deepfriedokra(talk)14:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I see a certain irony in using a template to ask a Knight Templater to not template the regulars, however, I seem to be missing the rudeness. --Deepfriedokra(talk)16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Francis Schonken: I personally don't mind getting templated, because it tells me right off who I'm dealing with. None of us needs instruction or reminders about appropriate behavior, certainly not from you. But you need some. When someone puts a lot of work into something via localized, bite-sized changes, it's incredibly rude and dismissive to simply revert it all at once with meaningless edit summary like
too many changes that seem counterproductive on first sight, were never discussed, or are far from getting talk page consensus, or any combination of these rationales[57]].
"too many" is not a reason to mass-revert multiple changes, nor is that they "seem" counterproductive "at first sight", or "were not discussed". They can't ALL be unhelpful. Feel free to give them a second look (i.e. actually look at them) and revert or build on individual changes selectively, with actual reasons. But mass reversion of multiple others' work because you don't want to take the time to review is not OK/
But of course, instead of doing any actual work, you came here to leave your idiot template. EEng19:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
We need something like a swear jar for every time someone skirts NPA by calling an edit "idiot:. point of order, needs an "ic" at the end. not agreeing with the description. just a once upon a time English major --Deepfriedokra(talk)20:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
(Slightly o/t, and asking EEng's indulgence): Deepfriedokra, nah, and I'm sure you're not a descriptivist, and you have to admit, "idiot template" is much pithier, has better meter, and fits the tone better here, so I'd argue it is "correct". OTOH, if you want to propose an "irony jar" (as you previously alluded), you can sign me right up. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
While it's fun indeed, I'd actually appreciate it if people would focus more on F.S.'s mass reversion without giving a cognizable reason (linked in my rant above) than on the templating. (Though both are symptoms of valuing form over substance, of course.) EEng21:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Somebody did, on 7 August 2005. Its content was, verbatim, "The last person who edited this page (not including me!) is a BIG FAT IDIOT!". It was deleted four minutes later. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the attribution--it seems I am finally a real Wikipedian! Feel free to use to your heart's content. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry but you misspelled the correct word - it's not immortality - remove the "t" - surely it was a slip of the left index finger. It happens. 😂 AtsmeTalk📧21:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
Good god, you and Fowler&Fowler are both completely mad. [Reaches for wordsmyth.net.] Around the bend. Batty. Cuckoo. Mental. Suffering from rabies. Bishonen | tålk15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC).
I'm not going to get involved in the actual thread because I don't care, but I take issue with because readers not mentally defective, from whatever geography or culture, will know without being told that an American vice-president-to-be is (duh!) an American politician. You know and I know that the US has the "native born" clause, but there's no reason for readers elsewhere to know that and in most countries it's not wildly unusual for politicians to be citizens of other countries owing to the complex rules governing who got what citizenship when the British, French and Portuguese colonial empires collapsed. (Until a couple of years ago Boris Johnson was a US citizen, there was a minor diplomatic incident recently when UK government minister Nadhim Zahawi was banned from entering the US owing to his Iraqi citizenship; and you have people like Claire Hanna who serve in the British parliament without even a dual let alone a sole British nationality. I'm sure the same is true in every other former colonial power and most former colonies, as well—probably half the adult population of Macau and Hong Kong are officially Portuguese or British citizens.) ‑ Iridescent16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I get both sides. I also have an extreme aversion to lecturing people on grammar. I was taught that it’s something you should never do to an adult as correcting grammar is something that you do to children, so when doing it you’re effectively treating someone like a child. It’s basically one of the rudest things you can do in English. Anyway, all that to say, I get why you’re pissed off (I see MelanieN commented on it, so I’ll ping her for my take here 😅.)On the merits, I actually disagree that “we do this for everyone” is a bad argument. Consistency of style on major articles helps us create a house voice of sorts, which in turn makes us seem more professional and helps the reader know what to expect in an article in terms of structure. Consistency is more reader friendly.That being said, if I had to build the entire system from scratch I’d dump it for largely the same reasons you (EEng) are describing. Ignoring the citizenship context, of course a member of the US Senate and VP-elect is an “American politician”. In the cases Iri is describing, I’d actually argue fairly strongly that commonwealth nationals serving in the Parliament of the United Kingdom are British politicians even without citizenship in the UK/colonies or nationality: if they’re elected by the British public to serve in a British political body, they are a British politician regardless of nationality/citizenship issues. They might be a Canadian or Aussie or Bahamian as well, but that wouldn’t change the fact that they are also very much serving as a British politician. The question of their citizenship in such cases would be worth mentioning, but I’d see that as something to do in cases where such issues arise. Also, on the Hanna topic, I get why calling an Irish person a British politician might not be ideal, so skirting around it by not mentioning anything in the lead seems the most diplomatic way.TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to use the limerick! I might tweak it a little bit - do feel the last line could be punchier, but go with the version you like best. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 7.7% of all FPs23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Smart. It might work as "truthful whimsy" -- see Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page#The_Ground_Rules. Perhaps the entirety of the text/caption for the image could be simply and only the limerick, with the link behind it taking the reader to the article. But the article needs work, really it does. I'll be happy to help but with the Harvard Archives closed it may be tough to do a good job. That's unfortunate, because my spidey sense tell me that [59], being a scrapbook by alumni, might have interesting biographical details. By the way [60][61][62][63][64]. (She apparently spent a lot of time at the beach.) EEng13:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? Conjunctivitis is when you write a long sentence and it goes on and on and you use and and/or or a lot. EEng07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I always welcome WP:ASTONISHME contributions, but this case seems borderline on the reader likely already knows score. At least I think it's borderline. Not sure. I guess definitely borderline. Maybe. But anyway, I think we can avoid that question once we realize that WP:ELEVAR is also in play – saying the planets, when we could just name them, needlessly makes the reader jump through a little hoop. Take a look at what I did. EEng07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Ovinus, current events divert me, but if I don't get back to Talk:PGage by, say, two weeks into the Biden administration, please ping me again. EEng05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked at the image out of curiosity, and if I were to !vote on it, which I won't, I'd say delete purely on grounds of extreme ugliness. If I were discussing people in a serious setting, I would never judge them based on what they look like, but for the purpose of my comment here, ewwww!, talk about human garbage! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Cage, Gage, Shiiiit!
When I start making jokes, I can really get on a roll! --Tryptofish ... nice!! --Sandwichmaker123
I don't know if you have access to Netflix, but they have a new comedy series hosted by historian Nicolas Cage, called The History of Swear Words. Episode 2, examining the topic of "Shit", includes a segment about Phineas Gage. I think it's not very accurate, but... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Historian Nicholas Cage? Stealing the Declaration of Independence and discovering a secret message on the back from the Illuminati does not make one a historian. Mgasparin (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well for what it's worth, I think it's funny now, but when I first read your comment above (without clicking on the link), I just assumed that there must actually must be a historian with the same name. Paul August☎22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I was about to actually revert you (ha!) because "an unable president" has got to be the worst of all worlds, and I was going to say in the edit summary that "unable" is an adverb not an adjective. But I looked it up, and unable is listed as an adjective, apparently in every dictionary, although some note "not before noun". This is blowing my mind. I thought "unable" always modified a verb, or acted as a "helping" verb, almost always accompanied by the preposition "to", and almost always modifying the verb "to be" (is unable to, was unable to, has been unable to...). I thought that's what an adverb was. But turns out it's an adjective, even though it never modifies a noun (The unable car? The unable tree? The unable president?). Help me. Levivichharass/hound22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
What exactly should I stop in History of photography? You seem to be complaining about a line I wrote when I edited an article years ago. I'm not sure which article I then used, but it was from an art historian who seemed qualified enough, and was also mentioned in another wikipedia article. It was apparently not good enough for you, so you removed some content I wrote, but apparently not all. I didn't care enough to put this back or to discuss it. Your whining about this only feels like an invitation to put this back in. Let's forget whatever I used as a ref then. Is this Taylor and Francis ref good enough for you: [68]? I could also look up whatever books included this concept, but if you just intend to remove everything that doesn't agree with you, please let me know in advance.Joortje1 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The idea that the Shroud of Turin is some kind of photograph has been thoroughly debunked. Here's what an actual scientist -- an expert on the history of photography -- said about it [69]:
Such claimants tend to draw upon the wisdom of hindsight to project a distorted historical perspective, wherein their cases rest upon a particular concatenation of procedures which is exceedingly improbable; and their 'proofs' amount only to demonstrating (none too faithfully) that it was not totally impossible ... The assertion that photography was the secret production of an isolated artistic genius may offer a compelling drama to those eager for sensation, but it belittles the practice of science ...
So yeah, unless you have multiple, expert sources for this outlandish claim, I'll keep removing it. (Hint: Workers who publish their work through vanity presses don't count as scientific experts.) EEng17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
And now a word from the guy who just fell off the stool at the end of the bar
You guys hear the one about Trump and the sheep caught in a fence? Of course you didn't because you'd actually have to interact with "working-class" regular joes in a "personal" social situation somewhere "locker room humor" and "guy talk" are "permitted" and then you'd still have to "make friends" with MEN instead of hanging out with "males" and pretend to like them!
BADABING!
You males/females can surely take jokes as well as you make them, right? I'm sure you can and that means you're not liking me right now because your "jokes" are about as funny as one would expect from "jokesters" that don't even have the sack to TELL JOKES on a "talk page" despite being the "Untouchables" of the Wikipedia World. Or at least English Wikipedia, anyway. And in "talk space". And on the "largest" but yet "loneliest" talk page in the whole history of the "community".
The last place anybody really "important" and "powerful" around here will ever need much less want to be and therefore catch the little males trying to act like big men in their "locker room" where they share "jokes" via Wikimedia image files and hyperlinks to online social media like YouTube and pretend to like other "editors". Or at least other "socks".
And here you are still "joking" about an ex-president so stupid and crooked and vile and hateful and racist and everything else "intellectuals" and "academics" so "liberal" and "tolerant" and "mature" and "ethical" and "respectable" in THEIR personal lives and professional "careers" just can't STAND in a "politician" they HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THEIR EYES AND EARS AND TYPING FINGER(S) (index only, I'm guessing) and their MINDS AND "MOUTHS" off DONALD JOHN TRUMP FOR 20-25% PERCENT OF THEIR WIKIPEDIA "TENURE". Oh yes. Are you "guys" ever glad HE'S out of the "public sector". I wonder how TWITTER'S "bottom line" is liking "Biden". You know him, right? Got any good jokes about Biden beating Trump who beat Hillary who beat...Bernie Sanders yet? Better get on the Biden Bandwagon. He's your BOY!
Ah the delicious irony and no-jokes-necessary for the comedic timing and native humor of "intellectuals" and "academics" that a "generation" or two ago "grew up" (that just means got taller) and went off to "college" (and not a mile or a minute farther from Mommy and Daddy than absolutely necessary so they could still walk Junior to class the first day or at least "stop by" his dorm room...for the weekend) and plumb forgot to GO HOME pretending to hate a northeast Democrat "globalist" billionaire limousine liberal "white nationalist" lifelong New Yorker big city boy that insists on "Donald" that mopped up the floor with Hillary by going straight-up SAUL ALINSKY on the "Clinton machine" 0for "Sleepy Joe" the Blue Dog of Delaware.
And having to act "happy" about it here in the "locker room" or just ignore the unintended consequences of that laughable "Democratic" primary "election" process (minus the "caucuses" where "consensus" creates the "final count") where "winner takes all" starts and WINNING A PRIMARY ELECTION "DEMOCRATICALLY" DOES NOT GET YOUR NAME ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT UNLESS YOU HAPPEN TO "WIN THE PRIMARY" EVEN IF YOU LOST "SEVERAL STATES" AND "ELECTED OFFICIALS" AND "ELECTION OFFICIALS" AND "JOURNALISTS" CAN'T FIND "EVIDENCE" OF "ELECTION FRAUD" ANYWHERE AS/AFTER MILLIONS OF "AMERICANS" HAD/HAVE THEIR PRIMARY VOTES "COUNTED" BUT NOT "COUNT" AT ALL UNLESS THEY VOTED "BIDEN" IN THE "PRIMARY". "DISENFRANCHISING" EVERY SINGLE NON-BIDEN PRIMARY VOTER AND ALL TO "PROTECT DEMOCRACY" FROM A LAME-DUCK LIBERAL AS THE DAY IS LONG "REALITY SHOW STAR" THAT'S A HUGE THREAT TO???? WHO EXACTLY BESIDES AN IRANIAN "GENERAL" OFF THE RESERVATION TRYING TO CONDUCT A "COUP" AND
MILITARY "INSURRECTION" IN "WMD-FREE" IRAQ DID "TRUMP" POSE AN "EXISTENTIAL THREAT" TO AS PRESIDENT AGAIN?
I'm sorry. I got serious during "happy hour" and started "yelling" posting in "all caps" and we all
know where and when that sort of communication stared being described as "offensive" and even "hate speech".
I wonder if "young people" on college campuses see the "irony" in being "taught" that all caps on a screen where the "hate speech" gets erased every time an "app" is closed is YELLING and that YELLING is BULLYING and BULLYING is VIOLENCE while actually yelling and screaming inches from and straight into a stranger's face "on the street" without knowing a thing about him or her except that he or she is facing them and therefore MUST be on the "other side" is just "free speech" and "peaceful protest" and "civil unrest".
Got any mpegs or jpegs or pithy little witticisms or better yet some double entendres or personal anecdotes or "tongue in cheek" references to historical events "analogous" to something you'd "like" to see happen to "Trump" or maybe "the right" as a whole?
Or are you saving those for "Harris"?
I sure hope you folks do all your Wikipedia "volunteer work" on your own time, internet-enabled devices and internet access and have the receipts in your names - in the real world names - to prove it and don't live in "public housing" and never, ever take your paid job "work" home with you or your "charity" home "work" to your "workplace(s)" with you. Cause I got a feeling your "jokes" get much worse and and a lot more "graphic" and the "images" don't exist online or at least on the "light web" to make them "sight gags" and I don't think you have any of the necessary resources to "Hillary" your way out of public records requests that won't and can't be made so that records requested are "responsive" unless the lparty "requesting" them knows knows what is there to "respond" so the right "request" is made.
Ever heard of "Jeopardy"? Ever wonder why anyone would name a "quiz show" that forces the contestant to do all the talking "under duress" would be called
"Jeopardy" and have most "duress" and the highest "paydays" - potentially - by far? And a 50/50 "chance" of "losing it all" on the final question "bonus round" going in as the "leader"?
Probably because they had experience with subpoenas, grand juries, discovery, the "hot seat" etc. And "personal communications" on "public property" including devices without "paper trails" that still produce "public records". And the "documentation" that they are "work-related".
Remember old Sleepy Joe xoesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor, too.
(a) The fawning nominating statements make me want to vomit.
(b) My only criterion for adminship is that the person not be an idiot or an asshole, and if you oppose you have to say why, but you're not allowed to say someone's an idiot or an asshole.
(c) They're like super-serious over there and don't allow jokes.
@Tryptofish: I'm not sure if nominating EEng for adminship would be a good idea. I might support him if this page gets created, but I can hardly imagine what absolute chaos would ensue if he were nominated, let alone actually be promoted. SemiHypercube02:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Disappointed!
This is very disappointing. The header turned up on my watchlist, and I took it to mean "Why do I not see you as a candidate at RFA?" So I came here fully expecting to see either a good excuse for not standing from EEng, or (better) an abject apology followed by a prompt self-nomination. (I agree about the fulsome nominations, and always give extra points to the few who self-nominate. Let's have some self-reliance and independence at RFA, people. What are the admins? A mutual admiration society? An exclusive country club?) Anyway. Please do nominate yourself! I'd certainly vote for you. (Yes, I'm too proud to use that "!vote" jargon.) Bishonen | talk03:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC).
I know that Bishonen prefers self-nominations, but that doesn't mean that Bishzilla does too. If Bishzilla nominated EEng, I'd definitely support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
All the bullhonky aside...HELL YEAH!!! EEng proudly wears the battlescars that were inflicted upon him by years of clueless [fill-in the blanks]. He knows what it means to be [fill-in the blanks]. He has years of experience, incredible knowledge and the wherewithal to [fill-in the blanks]. Any editor who ever doubted his ability to craft the almost perfect encyclopedic article...[fill-in the blanks]. He would be the WP symbol of the Phoenix rising...the mystical Unicorn...the ultimate [fill-in the blanks] that would attract hordes of news media. And I would damn sure vote for him because [fill-in the blanks]. 🦄 Atsme✍🏻📧00:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
While I appreciate the compliments, I have not the slightest interest in becoming an admin – not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening anyway. I feel I can do more good as a member of the loyal opposition. EEng21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
We can have a pretty good guess what these two are thinking about each other, but what exactly? I'll start off with "Free image? Only dumb people give away work for free, that's like the stupidest idea in the world evaaaaaaaah" Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I honestly don't get what you're saying, but I'll just note that the file description for that photo says President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. I don't know what a pull-aside is and, frankly, with Trump in the mix I don't want to know. EEng13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll save my praise until the page reaches 1 MB (1,048,576 bytes). Mixing decimal and binary units is highly distasteful. You end up having to use words like "mebibyte". *shudders*nagualdesign01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Was the north facing photo talk page closed to prevent people from hurting my feelings, in part?
Your comments on Cullen's talk page sounded kind, so I thought I might try to talk with you. It seems that Magnolia677 had been being ironic when he said he liked the idea. If so, I totally fell for it. I would like to talk with Cullen to ask him why he (if it was him)closed the discussion (I thought it was productive), but I'm not sure whether he would welcome that. What do you think? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Arctic Gazelle, sometimes enthusiastic new editors get into Wikipedia's "behind-the-scenes" areas before they have a good grounding in why a lot of things are done the way they are. (That's not to say that everything is the way it is for a good reason, but a lot of it is.) In this case, you're going against a very important principle which I, your humble correspondent, elucidated years ago at WP:NONEEDNORULE. We like to give editors who are working on a given article as much freedom as possible to fashion the article according to what they think will best serve the reader's understanding; to go against that that -- to make a rule saying that all X must be Y -- there needs to be a really good reason. You weren't understanding what other editors were telling you, and when that goes on for a while people begin to feel their time is being wasted, and then comments can turn harsh. It can be very disheartening to be on the receiving end of that, and and since you're a new editor I wanted to help avoid it. My advice is that you spend a year doing the everyday work that is Wikipedia's lifeblood: fixing errors, adding content, locating sources, participating in article talk-page discussions about directions to take the article. After that start looking around behind the scenes at guideline and policy pages. Good luck, and happy editing! EEng22:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I am not as humorous as you would like in this post. I went to the Help Desk to ask where I should post my idea and one of the suggestions was to post it in MOS, which I did. Then someone suggested moving it to the MOS for images, and I authorized that. I did not authorize the change in the title, and that made my proposal look much more extreme and finalized than it had. I don't think I did anything bold, let alone wrong. I just followed the instructions I was given at the Help Desk.
I was perhaps helped by your remark about 'behind the scenes'. It seems like I was sent to something like a supreme court of Wikipedia. I read that article about 'no need, no rule' as well as several that it linked to. I learned a lot, and not just about Wikipedia, but also about why a supreme court might refuse to hear a case, which had previously puzzled me.
I finally got Magnolia677's pun, on the tenth reading or so. A paling is also a post. Clever. I find it all the more puzzling that someone that intelligent would fail to at least find my idea interesting.
Of course it was me who closed that discussion, which is why it has my signature. The reason that I did so is that the chance of your proposal being accepted is zero, and it is a waste of time to keep discussing it, Arctic Gazelle. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping he'd admit it without any coaxing, which would provide a bit of ego stroking for those of you who worked so hard putting that presentation together. I mean, seriously...someone the caliber of David reading Dr. Seuss because of the work you & Levivich invested...well, it speaks volumes about your talent!! You deserve a stroke or two. (don't look a gift horse in the mouth). Atsme💬📧20:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Arctic Gazelle: While I honestly don't intend to be mean, it was, frankly, a really dumb idea, and if I were you I wouldn't harp on it any more, lest you attract unwanted attention from people looking for presumed troublemakers. Perhaps it wasn't intended to be quite as dumb as it sounded, and you meant to propose something different than what you proposed, but it is indistinguishable from trolling. It's "we should start every article with the letter Q"-level silly. We wouldn't discuss that for long just because it's a completely new idea, no one's seen it before, and it hasn't been discussed and rejected before. It is not important for 99.99999999% of readers (I'll assume good faith and say that 0.00000001% is you) to know whether Kasparov was facing N, S, E, or W. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
You sure know how to greatly intimidate someone safely. I learned a lot from you. Thanks for that. I am puzzled that someone so intelligent would not find my idea interesting.
Maybe you are right (I could take it as a compliment) that I am the only one who would care which way Kasparov was facing during a chess match. But I would suggest that if that is true it is because others have not spent years thinking about visualization and it's role in understanding and memory.
Also, I wonder what percentage of people would be grateful if they were to read that Kasparov was facing due east, or whatever the direction was? Conversely, how many people lay awake at night worrying about the fact that there was no encyclopedia that anyone can edit, before Wikipedia came into existence?
My original title for the proposal was only that orientation of photographs should be made known somehow to the reader. That surely is not all that absurd? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
How did we go from crampons to Monty and even further backward to Orville & Wilbur? They aren't the only ones who were high fliers considering this monumental moment in time. Atsme💬📧20:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, the reference is to [70]
I had a momentary lull in my day
So what better time to make use of it than on a Friday when WP is relatively quiet? I made us a little something to add to our dramah artillery. Atsme💬📧18:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
An updated boomerang to align more closely with 21st Century Wikipedia and American politics.
I'm happy to set up archiving on this talk to match mine, which is : threads are archived 21 days past the last comment, individual archives have a maximum size of 70K, no archiving takes place until there are more than 10 threads on the page. As I said on the other thread, it's not a question of "getting off your back" as just that I can't read this page on my phone and feel somewhat left out. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Reading through the (now closed) ANI thread I was surprised that this talk page crashes an iPhone. I thought they were supposed to be good. I'm using an old HTC One running Android 5 (circa 2014) and it loads without any issues. Same goes for my ~12-year-old laptop. nagualdesign21:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I am half expecting an admin to just jump in, archive the talk page, which would then trigger a revert and a complaint from EEng, which would then lead to EEng being blocked. That's how this usually works, right?--WaltCip-(talk)21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Not an admin but if the talk page archiving is really an urgent issue (and one doesn't want to just take the lazy {{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}}) and if we want to avoid a test case for the suggested desysop policy I'll volunteer my poor self: can't be much worse than waiting 6 months for... :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I keep wondering if the slow loading times aren't really a symptom that something's wrong with how the server processes the wikitext before sending it to the browser, or in how the browser scripting for wiki edit windows work, or something like that. These files really aren't that large, by modern internet standards. So why are not-that-large files so noticeably slow? It would be more helpful to track down and fix the slowdown than to keep complaining that everything's too slow and making people work around it by moving their messages to inconvenient archives. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Good point on the technical issues. But removing old discussions and moving them elsewhere also has the benefit of helping keep track of which matters are current and which ones have been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
It's for EEng to decide how to organize his old talk archives and which ones he thinks are worth keeping on the current page. Listing reasons why you think he should do it a certain way is, at this point, kind of pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Late to the party, again
I frequent DGG's talk page as well as EEng's talk page. I enjoy both—usually, but not always—for different reasons. Both show an amazing amount of patience and forbearance (in different ways). I have no problem with length at either tp—perhaps because I use an iPad most of the time; I'll likely never buy an iPhone again—the iPad is so much cheaper and more useful. As far as possible bandwidth issues, perhaps it would be possible to add anchor points in the talk pages and index the points on the user page. On the other hand I always carry a camera bag that easily accommodates an iPad in a slot.
I thought the table of contents does that. But perhaps you mean chronological points by month or year in addition which would lead to the start of a group of sections? --it might make sense for the most recent month or two--this is the first time I've heard this suggested, and I am going to try it tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
But my talk p. just worked fine on my iphone xr, --but that's using my 50 MB home wifi and being 10 feet from the access point. instantaneous access to the table of contents and then to each section. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I feel it's the least I can to do make up for all the man-hours lost to the project because of editors sitting waiting for my talk page to load. EEng23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
This is very disruptive, I'm very upset. The large amount of archiving resulted in a large number of changes on my watchlist. As a result, my watchlist suffered a severe outbreak of hives.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi EEng. My apologies for the run-around; I should have been more clear. I know what it is and what it means; I am trying to understand the part about "extended". Someone is proposing creating a similar user group on the pt-wiki, and I suspect that the translation is completely wrong. In the meantime (after posting my questio to you), after reading many pages on the subject, I found this piece, which seems to shed some light - "Extending it even further like Pocketthis says ("You could make it 90/1000, and I'd be fine with it")", here. So if I am reading it right, the "extension"/ "extended" refers to the extended criteria (longer [extended] period/ more [extended number of] edits) to be met to be allowed to edit. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You're on the right track. In the sense used here, extended means "beyond/more than the basic criteria needed for confirmation" (the basic criteria being 4 days and 10 edits). My Brazilian boyfriend doesn't have the patience to teach me Pt but my guess is something along the lines of estendida/estendido or aumentada/aumentado or amplificar might work. EEng01:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Maravilha. Thanks for confirming. PS: We have something in common — Brazilian partners (I am Angolan). As for learning the language, my son started now on Duolingo, as a lockdown project, and he is very happy with it. He is actually doing sterlingly. Cumprimentos, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
You mean "none of us thinks that you are on the brink". And you pretend you went to Harvard! EEng11:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Look here for a Juan nightstand. --Tryptofish
You know, I hesitated for a long time before saving the edit, for that reason! But I did go there, and I also graduated. The way I see it, "one thinks" is unquestionably correct, but it would also be common practice to say "none of them are here", and thus, "none think". On the other hand, one would say "no one thinks" and "none" is a contraction of "no one". This is one of those situations where the language is, well, degrading. So you are correct, but I'm more stylish. But in any case, we all think that you are well over the brink.
Which brings me to another bit of impertinence, or at least to wax poetic. You keep claiming that you have a Brazilian. But I'm skeptical. You do not strike me as the type who would go in for body waxing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Not that I'm above recycling a joke myself, but you've made that crack before (search Brazilian on this page). EEng06:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Facepalm . Sorry! I'm really slipping. Should I plead mental incompetence because I got my second Covid vaccine shot yesterday and am undoubtedly out of it, or should I plead mental incompetence because I'm just mentally incompetent? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi EENG, I noticed you reverted my section about ongoing lawsuits against Harvard University regarding antisemitism. I read the recentism article that you cited for this reversion. How could I address these ongoing Harvard lawsuits, without conflicting with this rule? I understand my edit discusses three ongoing lawsuits, but my edit only discussed updates in the lawsuit that already happened. Can you expand on what I could do to address this edit while following the rules? Thank you so much EliG2027 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
You might have been fully joking, rather than only semi-joking, but the comment was this - there really is nothing worth keeping there, even as example of what not to say it's not useful.
By the way, your talk page is massive, have you considered archiving some of the older posts? It actually takes time to load a new topic. – 2804:F1...D2:B7E7 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing my attention to this revision, which should have been suppressed along with the other two versions of the talk page containing this comment. It has been suppressed now. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
If we're talking about the "beyond the pale" post mentioned at ANI, I was of course joking. But I will add that the only thing that makes me at all want to be an admin is that I'd be able to see naughty stuff like that. Other than that, there's too much heavy lifting. EEng23:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
On 15 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rooms by the Sea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an art critic felt that Rooms by the Sea was one of Edward Hopper's "strangest" works? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rooms by the Sea. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rooms by the Sea), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
.jpg)
.jpg)
Atsme 💬 📧 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as WT:Talk page guidelines are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Care to comment? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Atsme 💬 📧 19:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
is the least of it. --Sweetiefish (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Template talk:Convert. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. As you have been informed, you have repeatedly made personal attacks towards me. I explicitly note that this behaviour does also degrade Talkpage's effectiveness, in other words: WP:NOTHERE. DePiep (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
_-_page_47_-_honorificabilitudinitatibus.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
Will repeat!
,_21.10.2013,_Praha_(cropped).jpg)
Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be verifiable and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the main page. Repeated good edits may result in featured articles or nomination for adminship to keep you away from article writing. Thank you. creffett (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
is too obvious, our photos of Soviet purges 
aren't obvious enough, and we don't even have a photo of Miss Conduct. EEng 22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
EEng 01:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme 💬 📧 20:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- refresh the page, if you have an ample amount of spare time. 😊 Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
nagualdesign 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Facepalm . Sorry! I'm really slipping. Should I plead mental incompetence because I got my second Covid vaccine shot yesterday and am undoubtedly out of it, or should I plead mental incompetence because I'm just mentally incompetent? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/?oldid=413103170#File:Ruby_shoots_Oswald.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water, 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/Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water 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. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
