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.
Personally I'm skeptical of Biography.com for various reasons (including personal knowledge of sloppy stuff reported in The Biography Channel programs) but I'm willing to accept it as RS if that's what RSN seems to think. Nonetheless WP:BLPPRIVACY calls for "wide publication" of precise birthdates (or publication by sources linked to the subject) before we report them. EEng01:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
As one of the WP:DOB-Nazis I have to agree with EEng on this point: I did a search and biography.com is the only RS that I could find that mentions it. IMDB does, but we don't consider that a reliable source. Other than that only the year is reported. The issue is that while he's become a somewhat public persona (movies and whatnot) since the crashlanding, he is still a relatively private person when considered in the spectrum of notable people. Birth dates have become personally identifiable information and considering that we are typically the default first stop (at least in North America) for information on people, we need to make sure that his birth date is widely reported before we harm his privacy in that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness
Hello, EEng. This comment by you at Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness appears to be trolling, pure and simple. It has no place on the talk page, as it does not relate to improving the article, and I would suggest that you remove it (per WP:TALK, "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
My comment, "Reading this entire page, I find no little irony in the fact that the subject relates to insanity", is an attempt to get the participants to draw a line under the 50 posts, over 15 months, on the meaning of the words enemy and or. I guess it isn't going to work. EEng08:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
You were free to make a constructive comment if you wished; even stating that the issues under discussion on the talk page were not important might have counted as a constructive comment. Insulting other users, whether directly or by implication, is unwelcome. I would again suggest that you remove or refactor your comment, which is certainly a candidate for removal under the talk page guidelines. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a perfectly serious point made in an attention-getting way. Groups of sane people can act in an insane way, so there's no reason for you to feel it reflects on you individually – unless you keep obsessing about it, in which case my comment will indeed take on a deeper, less impersonal meaning. EEng08:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I decline your request. "Attention-getting" doesn't imply "insulting", and as you will surely see if you review this very page, plenty of very excellent editors prefer exercising their expressive faculties to selecting stock expressions from some menu of approved platitudes. I said the discussion was insane, which is was, and with any luck that would have caused you both to snap out of it, though unfortunately that did not happen in this case. As already mentioned, you should beware lest your insistence that there's been some negative reflection here on you personally take on the quality of a self-fulfilling prophecy. EEng01:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
If you call a discussion insane, by implication you are calling the editors involved insane. Stating that directly would be a personal attack. Do so, and I will invoke WP:NPA to get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It is best to avoid making comments that other editors are likely to interpret as insults, whether or not they actually are. I have no wish for you to be blocked, per se; I was simply noting that if you want to go further and make direct personal attacks against me, that I would then feel obliged to try to get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I know, we should just allow some people to have the last word and let that speak for itself. But it impresses me the knots they sometimes tie themselves into to do so. "Obliged" to try to force someone to show you some respect, rather than doing something to actually earn it? Really? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Christ, just how clueless are you? As three people now have tried to tell you, there was no attack. Not everything is about you, and as to It is best to avoid making comments that other editors are likely to interpret as insults, whether or not they actually are, I suggest you try: It is best to avoid interpreting other editors' comments as insults, when there's another reasonable way to interpret them. And finally: I would then feel obliged to try to get you blocked – obliged? Are you – I will now say it – insane after all? Now, per David Eppstein, go ahead and dig yourself down to bedrock by having the last word. EEng06:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
When he originally made the comment,I did not have the slightest idea what would it snowball into.....Really! It's simply pathetic that some people are just so humorless.And above that so obliged !Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard08:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this discussion is really unfortunate. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you really have not gotten to know EEng very well. If you had spent any time reading EEng's talk and user pages, and followed EEng's edits, you would have known that many of his/her comments are humorous, and that s/he values humor as a way to lighten a conversation or brighten his/her fellow editors' day. EEng and all the talk page stalkers here make many serious and valuable edits on Wikipedia, including comments in discussions, but occasionally – one might say often – they take time to have fun, mostly on their own talk pages. That many editors appreciate this is evidenced in the number of people who have this page on their watch list and participate in discussions here. In this light, I am absolutely certain that the comment to which you provided a link at the beginning of this section was not meant as a personal attack. I believe it was meant as a lighthearted comment on the content of the discussion, which s/he saw as endless arguing over unimportant things, and the humor in the comment lay in relating that endless arguing to the topic of the article itself. You took it as a personal comment about you, and I don't think EEng meant it that way. Yes, s/he could have said it more seriously, something like, "I think this endless arguing over something so unimportant is ridiculous," but that's not EEng's style. S/He really is a very nice person who will always give a thoughtful answer to a reasonable question or request. I think the best response to his/her comment on that talk page would have been either to ignore it entirely or to respond with humor. Of course you are not insane, or anything close to it. You're an intelligent and valued editor. If you don't enjoy the wit and banter that EEng and his/her talk page stalkers enjoy, just ignore it. I think it would be a complete waste of your time to try to change EEng. You will never succeed. EEng and others here, it is just simply a fact that some people don't relate to, or catch, or understand, or appreciate, some varieties of humor. I'm not advising you to stop posting humorous comments, but if you think about it, you will realize that that kind of comment could be misinterpreted by a serious kind of person as a criticism of the person engaged in a discussion instead of a criticism of the discussion as a whole. Imagine how the suggestion that a person is insane – if the person takes it as a serious comment upon himself – might make him feel. I would just like to suggest that you (and talk page stalkers) follow up a misunderstanding of a humorous comment (with the possible, and unspoken, hurt feelings that go along with it) with more kindness. – Corinne (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
What a thoughtful comment, thank you! I'd have more sympathy for F.K.C.'s misreading if he hadn't opened a bunch of ANI threads in the past year, claiming he's being insulted and harassed by various people. It's a pattern with him (or her). EEng19:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I have, at various stages, been harassed by other editors, and I've no apologies to make for responding to that vigorously. It has nothing to do with you, as I've never accused you of harassment. By the way, if you'd bothered to look at my user page, you'd know I'm a guy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator on the job
Well, at least you imagine you're being harassed, attacked, insulted. How long before you stop digging? This has ceased to be amusing, and is now just sad. Please, go do whatever it is you do when you're not playing the victim. But first, have the last word one more time, and I ask my glittering salon of talk page stalkers to not respond so that F.K.C. can experience that tiny feeling of triumph that will maybe raise his self-esteem a notch. God knows he can use it. EEng21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Back again? Don't you ever give up? How appropriate that the quote at the top of your user page [1] speaks of a "circular system whose prime significance lies precisely in circling around forever within itself". Indeed a magnificent achievement of unintentional self-parody! I congratulate you! EEng08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If you continue to respond to me, that invites further comments. That's your choice - no one is forcing you to do it. The quote on my user page is, of course, a comment on Wikipedia as a project. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, A magnificent achievement of unintentional self-parody. Or perhaps I should have said "unconscious". EEng09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Not to hurt your feelings, rather to test the limits of your commitment to your status as victim. What's your purpose in coming here over and over? Masochist? EEng09:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, your continued posting on another user's talkpage when that user has made it clear they don't want you here is itself starting to slip over the line into harassment. You've been on Wikipedia long enough that I won't patronize you by putting a big red triangle on your talkpage, but I strongly suggest you both knock it off. ‑ Iridescent09:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
EEng is capable of speaking for himself. If he had even once suggested I should not comment here, I would have stopped. To insist on commenting on the talk page of an editor who has made it clear that he doesn't want you do to that is harassment, certainly. If EEng really wanted me to stop, why would he go on to replying to me? Replying over and over again to a user who comments on your talk page is hardly evidence that he doesn't want you to comment there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
EEng, say the word and I'll put a stop to this; FKC is well aware that the final warning he received for disruption here still stands. ‑ Iridescent10:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Goodness (now following Iridescent's link) I had no idea what I was getting involved with. FKC is right -- I never asked him to stop visiting (and it's a point of pride that I've never "banned" someone from here -- I fear no one's comment or scrutiny) and I cannot in any way say that I feel I'm being harrassed. But this is beginning to lose its charm, so please FKC, for your own sake, take on board what six editors (including, now, someone over at the article talk page) are telling you: you were not being insulted, and you need to take WP:AGF on board more thoroughly than you have. But when you then come to another editor's talk page over and over, acting the fool, you'll likely be treated like a fool. You may now have the last word, if you wish, and this time I really promise I won't respond. Notice I said if you wish – there's an opportunity in that. EEng10:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding User:EEng#Museum of Puffed-Out Chests, I have a (bad) idea for an additional specimen for the museum, but I dare not add it without the curator's approval. In fact, I'm ashamed of even having thought of it. Sorry. Really, this is in very poor taste. Please be warned: the link leads to disturbing content. I mean it.
This museum is about EEng's psychiatric condition. For the endocrine condition, see Breast hypertrophy.
Indeed you should be ashamed, but we must face the situation unflinchingly. I encourage you to add the following code, which modifies your proposal slightly and gives credit where credit is due:
::''This museum is about EEng's psyche. For the endocrine condition, see [[Breast hypertrophy]].'' {{mdash}}<small>~~~</small>
Alright then, the unconditional psyche. But sign it? No way! It's merely a tip-of-the-hatnote, and I don't want anyone associating that with me. I've got my rep-pew-tation to protect! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not signing anything without either my lawyer or my shrink. But for now, modesty demands that I bid adieu! (I must be tryping.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
One of the entries that made Leo Kearse the UK Pun Champion at the Leicester Comedy festival in 2015:
"I was in hospital last week. I asked the nurse if I could do my own stitches. She said "suture self".
The pathologist said: "It may be shit to you, but it's my bread and butter." (True story: when I took Biochem 10 at Harvard, the professor actually told that joke in the final lecture of the course.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm banning both of you from this page for 48 hours to give you two a chance come to your senses, sober up, or whatever it is that's needed. EEng21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make User:EEng pay for that wall. Mark my words." [4]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "I was shuffling through the Harvard sand, but my head's in Mississippi". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok Martinevans123 I haven't met any of you in person so I have no clue which one is the "foxy Harvard boy" - do tell - or is WP fortunate enough that all of you fit that description? Atsme📞📧15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
^^One of the reasons I love volunteering here. Real people seeing each other as real people but having said that, you must surely be referring to the red fox jacket as being "foxy" because the dry suit image is closer to the "real me". , but please carry on and I, too, will bask in the wonders of the brilliant minds I've been so fortunate to experience here and throughout WP. Atsme📞📧17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
EEng, per your edits on the Marshall Newell article, I don't see how it's productive to restore html code for those endashes, particularly when the endashes throughout the rest of the article are rendered in wikicode. Using wikicode instead of html code appears to the preferred way do things across Wikipedia. Also, your last edit on the heading of the head coaching record table breaks standard formatting used on thousands of other articles about sports coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Dashes are difficult to distinguish from hyphens in the edit window, so using symbolics (–, {{ndash}}) makes it immediately obvious that the right character is present. (Had I noticed I would have changed the remaining –s to symbolics as well; I won't do that now since I don't want to appear WP:POINTY.) Your idea about "the preferred way of doing things" is an illusion. As my edit summary in moving the coaching record table indicated, I'm not sure of the right way to introduce the table, and you're welcome of course to improve that. EEng04:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
What's not an illusion is the several years I've spent collaborating with a number of editors to standardize both those endashes and those record tables across thousands of articles. You are welcome to acknowledge that reality whenever you care to. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Also not an illusion is the phenomenon of editors working in this or that narrow sector of the vast Wikipedia enterprise misinterpreting the happenstance of their personal experience for a universal status quo. If there's a guideline or policy backing up your claims about markup, you are welcome to point it out whenever you care to. As to the table, I am now for the third time inviting you to modify it, or its heading or lead-in text, however you think best; but it does not belong sitting alone in its own section. EEng08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Neither two featured articles nor two thousand featured articles would establish that there's some universal rule -- a policy or guideline would (might) do that, and I note you've declined my invitation to point to one. I say now for the fourth time that I don't care about the table heading and you're free to make it whatever you want.
I have to go back to actually improving articles now, and you have to go back to adding wikiproject templates and fiddling with categories and changing markup in ways that don't affect what the reader sees and other busywork, so I'd like to draw this particular discussion over nothing to a close. Please be my guest and embarrass yourself one final time by having the last word now. EEng14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You are indeed a smart ass and a disrespectful child as well. When you want to come back to the adult table, I'm here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever helps you sleep at night. For future reference, smartass is one word, or you could hyphenate it: smart-ass. Thanks for playing our game, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng17:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Citing
California Penal Codes
Hi again EEng. I don't know if you know anything about the citation of penal codes, but I've asked at the Teahouse and before that at the Help desk without much avail. I'm trying to cite these two links: [6] and [7] at Ronald Reagan. I could just leave the links in-line, but I'm not sure whether or not that's MOS or not. Please help. Many thanks,--Nevé–selbert20:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, Neve-selbert, legal citation has a lot of prissy detail used to frighten newcomers, but if I really needed to cite one in an article I'd just do the best I could, not worry about it, and let someone who knows that they're doing come along and fix it. Here's something which might help [8].
But I looked at the article and there's a deeper problem. First, I don't see the need to cite (much less link) the specific penal code section. It's already referred to as the Mulford Act, with a link to an article discussing that act, and that's really enough. Even if you wanted to name the specific penal code section, you'd need to get that from a reliable source, which would give you the citation format; to determine the code section yourself would be WP:OR. And there's another problem: codes get reorganized and amended, so there's a real problem of knowing that you're citing and linking the most up-to-date statute (and in fact one of your links doesn't even seem to work). So, again, I'd just link to the Mulford Act and and leave it at that. If there's some text from the statute which readers should know about, that should come from a RS too. EEng23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
That's my suggestion. If there's something we're missing then someone will revert and then you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Good luck! EEng00:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Official records and so on take some creativity. I'd give it as
Death certificate for Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher, 8 April 2013, BAY 326211, Entry No. 194.
However, there's an issue here a bit similar to the one for the Cal. statute, which is that this is a WP:PRIMARY source, and would not typically be cited to support a fact given in an article e.g. for the cause of death. I know that sounds strange but there are good reasons for this e.g. sometimes such records get amended; thus we depend on secondary sources (e.g. a good biography, which would have researched the question) for such information. The only way I would foresee using such a document is as an image per se, placed in the article to illustrate something mentioned in the article e.g. if there was something interesting or memorable about the document itself. You'll find three examples of such primary images (two newspaper reports and the burial record), appropriately used, at Phineas_Gage#Death_and_exhumation – you'll notice no facts are cited to these images, rather the images illustrate facts cited to secondary sources. There's a long discussion, by yours truly, of these kinds of issues here [9]. EEng22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Most sources state that she died of a stroke. If I just added "Stroke" to the death_cause = parameter & added a footnote linking to the said death certificate suggesting that she specifically died of an ischaemic stroke, would that be OK?--Nevé–selbert22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your post until now, Neve-selbert. (It was election day.) That would still be going beyond what the secondary sources say. If it really was an i. stroke specifically, there should be some secondary source saying that, specifically. Try papers of record like The Times and The (New York) Times. EEng06:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Friendly Caution: You look like you are on the edge of an edit war. Please take any content disputes to the talk page. I've gotten, and declined for now, a request to protect the page. I'm also leaving this message on the other party's talk page. Drop me a line if you have questions or concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Um, thanks, Ad Orientem, but I guess you're still getting your sea-legs as a new admin -- you forgot to check the article's talk page.[10]. The idea of page protection here is ludicrous. EEng19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, EEng. Please read my response on my talk page, and please respond to it.
I would expect that an experienced editor like you doesn’t revert willy-nilly without reasons, which is why I’d really like a reply from you.
You’re allowed to admit that you were wrong. I don’t care. All I want to do is improve the MOS page, fixing all the grammar- and punctuation-related mistakes, but you’re keeping me from it. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 15:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the leeway to admit I'm wrong. I'm not wrong. We've been through this before with you. You're taking stuff Miss Snodgrass told you when you were 11 as gospel. EEng17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
God, you’re so full of yourself. Instead of explaining why my revision is wrong, you are being childish instead. Did you just revert my edits for fun, not knowing what you were doing? ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this is about this nonsense
I explained it, Dicklyon explained it, Ss112 explained it, plus Ealdgyth reverted you. What you read about dashes in some idiosyncratic style guide is just that style guide's idea, and your assertion that it's some universal rule is just flat-out wrong. What you're saying about however at the beginning of sentences is just flat-out wrong. As you'll see if you review this page I don't suffer fools gladly, and I'm just about out of suffer with you. You're out of your depth. Find something else to do. EEng00:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, they didn’t explain it. Sure, they said that I was wrong, but they didn’t explain it.
I’ve given you sources for my claims, but your sources are you. Google “en dash” and read about them. I’m not following one style guide or my personal, made-up rules.
Would any of my glittering array of talk page stalkers like to give our friend a talking-to about changing his posts after they've been responded to? [11]EEng02:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
PapiDimmi You really should read WP:Talk page guidelines, particularly this section: WP:REDACT. It specifically addresses the issue of changing one's own comments. You need to stop and think, PapiDimmi, whether you would enjoy editing (or even possibly writing) articles on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. If you think you would, you need to avoid getting into heated arguments over minor issues like punctuation, "go with the flow" and follow the WP:Manual of style (even if some things irk you) – and really, PapiDimmi, is punctuation that important an issue? Wouldn't you agree that there are other more important things to think about and accomplish? – and find articles and tasks that are pleasing to you. If you continually get into arguments with other editors, make unpleasant comments like your last one just above, which is precariously close to a personal attack on EEng, and make what will be considered disruptive edits by changing things that have already been explained to you are not in accordance with the MOS, you may find yourself one day blocked, either for several weeks or months, or indefinitely. If that happens, there goes one of your hobbies. Is that what you want to happen? It is really up to you now. – Corinne (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that we've heard the "I'm sorry" spiel from you before [14]. I wasn't convinced then and I'm even less convinced now. But I guess we'll see. EEng21:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I’m learning things as I go. For instance, I’ve learned that Wikipedia has its own strange rules, such as using en dashes inappropriately and bypassing English grammar rules when it comes to the use of quotation marks. I didn’t know these things before, but now I do. There’s no way of knowing all these obscure rules until someone tells me about them. Now that I’ve learned these things, I will not repeat my mistakes. It’s a lot easier when I learn what I’m doing wrong, rather than everybody turning against me for no apparent reason. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you've drawn the wrong lesson here. There's nothing strange about MOS' rules. They may be different from the ones WP:MISSSNODGRASS taught you, but with minor and obscure exceptions they're all things you'll find in one or another of the major style books. I'll say it for the Nth time: certain things someone taught you are "universal rules of English" just aren't. You need to internalize this, and remember it next time you see something you're sure is wrong. EEng00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses spaced en dashes like em dashes, which I have never seen before. It also violates English grammar rules when it comes to quotation marks. That’s what I mean by obscure rules. I did not know these things, but now I know. Rather than constantly reverting my revisions and making offensive remarks, you could have told me what I did wrong. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 14:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Christ Almighty, I guess you didn't read what I just wrote. None of these things is obscure or wrong – just things you have never seen in Antarctica or on Jupiter or wherever it is you're from. You've been told this over and over. Please go away now. You've wasted more than enough of people's time displaying your parochialism. EEng16:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted you because your edits appeared to be poorly thought out. For example, why would you choose to remove referenced information, such as the fact that the incident was attended by armed police (police are not routinely armed in the UK, incidentally), while leaving in an unreferenced sentence describing the order in which she was shot and stabbed? Carter Kenny's part in the incident is well documented, and he was mentioned on numerous occasions by the media. Any dramatic changes, such as those you wish to make, should be discussed beforehand on the talk page, particularly as this article was recently the subject of a content dispute. This is Paul (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Re this. First of all, I'll remind you to be civil. Secondly, your edits appear to show that you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, and more importantly the role of law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom. The majority of our police are unarmed, and armed response officers only tend to be called out to something serious, such as the incident described in the article, so their appearance at the scene is worthy of note. While naming the eyewitness may not be strictly necessary, Bernard Carter Kenny's role led to him being awarded a George Medal, which is quite a big deal in the UK, so he becomes notable. I'm not sure what your issue is about the sandwich shop, the library, etc, as these were all significant in the context of the crime. Perhaps you don't edit crime articles very often, but those of us who do have a fairly good idea of how much detail to include, and at two and a bit paragraphs the description of this incident is not excessive. This is Paul (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The medal wasn't in the article, so I don't see how I was supposed to know about it, but in any event it could be mentioned in a phrase: "A 77-year-old passerby who was stabbed in the abdomen after rushing to help was later awarded the George Medal." Other than that, let's see... You say the library and the sandwich shop are "significant in the context of the crime". Yes, that makes sense, and we should invent some new categories: Crime victims who were on their way to the library and Injured Good Samaritans who took refuge in sandwich shops.
I've edited crime novelsarticles a good deal, and they tend to be filled with fancruft like this. You've certainly borne out my prediction that discussion will be futile. EEng19:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm surprised to read that, since what you did amounted to a hatchet job. Your above comments also lead me to suspect you haven't actually read this article beyond that particular section, and that you were doing some drive-by editing. I don't believe your contributions to either article were particularly constructive, or that you actually intended to improve them. And your subsequent dummy edits, and remarks about sandwich shops, appear to back that up. This is Paul (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Much of this article needs not just a hatchet taken to it, but a chainsaw. Consider, for example, the contrast between (at the top) a short sentence that tells the reader something and (at bottom) what's actually in the article – a run-on accretion of trivia fully three times as long:
The first session of self-defense training subsequently offered to MPs was attended by two MPs and eighteen assistants.
MPs were offered training sessions in Krav Maga, a form of unarmed combat that combines judo, jujitsu, boxing and street fighting used by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, as a self-defence technique. The Yorkshire Post reported that the first session, held in early August, was attended by two MPs and eighteen assistants.
What does this tell us? What if, instead of judo, jujitsu, boxing, and street fighting – used by the Mossad, in case we were wondering – some consultant security expert had chosen instead to teach them a form of karate, baritsu, savate, and kung fu used by (say) the CIA? What does any of that tell us about Jo Cox, her murder, or the climate that followed it? Nothing. Who doesn't understand that the purpose of teaching people "a form of unarmed combat" is that they may want to use it "as a self-defence technique"? Nobody. And what's the Yorkshire Post got to do with anything? As it happens there's a page devoted to just this kind of article; I commend to your attention especially the section on WP:RISOTTO. EEng21:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all, I want to apologise for all that stuff that happened last weekend. It's been quite an unpleasant experience, and my bout of ill health came as a real shock, not to mention the effect it had on here. I've learnt that it's probably not a wise idea to be editing when one is suffering from an acute condition, as small matters suddenly seem like a huge deal when magnified through the fugue of malady. I think if I'm unwell for any other reason in future I'll just log off for the duration.
After everything that happened I decided to have a few days away from Wikipedia to make sure I'd fully recovered. I also wanted to think about whether it was time to call it a day on here. I've been on some strong antibiotics since Monday, and the symptoms have gone now. I came to the conclusion I didn't want this to be my last experience of being a Wikipedia, and that I'd like to continue my editing career. I don't plan to get food poisoning again, so won't be in that particular frame of mind again.
In the unblock request I filed on Monday, I volunteered to refrain from editing the article for six months, as well as anything similar, so basically articles covering politics and crime. Instead I'll focus on stuff regarding arts and entertainment, and some general interest stuff. I will stick to this offer unless I am advised otherwise.
Thanks also for being really good about this whole episode, and even speaking up on my behalf. Hopefully we'll get the chance to work together on something one day. This is Paul (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I am merciless in battle, magnanimous in victory. I think you should check with Primefac on whether any kind of steer-clear agreement was part of you unblock. I doubt it, because the only question was whether in fact your account was compromised, which it turned out it wasn't. If you feel it will be better for you, though, you might steer clear for a while anyway. Jo Cox was indeed a good person, and in a way a martyr, but it didn't help people to appreciate that if they had to plow through all that detail to find out what happened. If it makes you feel any better, I've done all I feel like doing on that article. The reactions section really needs to be reduced as well – again, people will appreciate her more if a more distilled presentation is made – but I'm just not up to it.
Believe me, no one will even remember this two months from now. We're all human. Good luck, and yes, I hope we run into each other in future. I'm going to ping Kieronoldham here, who had a similar experience with me, and whom I successfully converted to the dark side. EEng15:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Unblock (and indeed the block itself) were implemented purely based on the compromised account situation. If Paul is willing to be collaborative, then that's great. Primefac (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the clarification about this. Seeing as the block wasn't topic-related then I can at least do some stuff in those areas, though I'll ease myself back into it and won't do a great deal in the short term. I'll steer clear of Jo Cox related stuff for a while though, just because it seems like the right thing to do. And I submitted the article for a copyedit, which will probably take a couple of months to complete. EEng, really glad to be joining the dark side. This is Paul (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, EEng. Much appreciated. I wouldn't say you solely converted me, but your friendship, advice and support certainly played a very significant part as I have hearkened to in the past. Actually, I have to add further appraisal by stating unambiguously that had it not been largely for yourself and MartinEvans123, I would have probably been diverting my attention somewhere else. You and MartinEvans123 "aw shucks" use a perfect blend of humor, nurturing and professionalism to hone and maintain users' skills/intrigue/abilities for the benefit of others. As it is, I am now roughly the 7,300th most exhaustive contributor on Wiki. (largely solely to the appeal of the true crime dark side).
This is Paul, sorry about your recent bout of ill health, but don't leave Wiki. I haven't since what has returned with a vengeance to me since 25 April (see my user page and talk page and its archives). Sadly it has become more predominant in my life (last seizure was at work on Thursday), but I stay here and intend to continue to do so.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Kieron and everyone for your encouragement. Don't worry, I'll be sticking around. I'm sorry to read about your condition, and I hope things can improve again for you so it doesn't trouble you too much. This is Paul (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm hooked on caffeine and haven't had enough if I'm to keep pace with you two. Serious question - it is my understanding that Sherwin's BS was in veterinary biology, and post grad was veterinary science and animal welfare science. He spent years at Bristol, so how does one know/find out if his title would be PhD, MSc by research? He signed off as a Dr. and Senior Research Fellow, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol. Is there an "official" or "common" combined short title that can be used to describe him at DYK and elsewhere as needed? Atsme📞📧18:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
DYK Hook (probably needs a little polish) but how about - "One of the most tendentious editors in recent years, Chris was rarely away from dramah boards, and was community barred from many areas of english wikipedia for his unnacceptable behaviour" -Roxy the dog.bark19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Roxy the dog, any issues one of our fellow editors had while here need not follow him into the grave. I can't help noticing, though, the the juxtaposition of items at the top of his user page just now is a bit jarring [15]. EEng19:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh my...you're right. When I was a kid, Mom would tell me to put on clean underwear before I left the house. Now that I'm a Wikipedian and rarely leave the house, I just have to make sure my user page is clean. Atsme📞📧20:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Because when I just re-read it, I realized that it could be misinterpreted, I rushed over here to assure you that my comment on this thread was not aimed at you, but at those who, in the past, have excoriated me for my participation on AN/I. I just used your post as a jumping-off point. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
As I also told Atsme, if you are having problems with lint, you should change to a different fabric. But I guess it will all come out in the wash. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Searchable NPP browser
This might be more helpful to you and easier to search than the keywords list. Now if we can only get them to make the actual WMF operated feed more user friendly. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I like the additional data and so on, but I really want the start-date thing or something similar. EEng02:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. That can't happen soon enough You're on the phab task subscription, so you should get an emails on the (slow) progress. If you unsubscribe I can let you know when they fix it. Amazes me how they missed that when developing it. Sorry for bothering you, but I did want to let you know that had been ported to labs, which is some help in dealing with the endless scrolling nightmare. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The work done by people like you, who toil to keep unglamorous but essential corners of the project klunking alone, is insufficiently appreciated. EEng03:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry to contact you out of the blue, EEng. This may seem a bizarre request (but what is normal about me anyhow)? Could you point me in the right direction as to how this article, which I have recently researched and contributed extensively towards, could receive necessary assessment? It seems to me to be a neglected article and to be stagnating as opposed to more infamous cases in British criminal history. Any pointers/advice as to other contemporary articles I populate would be appreciated too. Kindest regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Kieronoldham - Sorry, I missed this until just now. Looks like Corinne has jumped to the task. Is there anything else I can do? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by Any pointers/advice as to other contemporary articles I populate -- I'll be happy to help if you tell me more about what you need. And I'm glad you're back in action. EEng06:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, EEng. Still almost continuously actively contributing here. As you say, me and Corinne are cordially working on the article to bring it to a greater level. The guild and submissions Corinne has inserted on the talk page of this article largely addresses "contemporary articles" as I may now divert attention toward obscure cases while I'm still here. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The IP vandal issue has reached pandemic proportions...and worse yet, they're registering and making some really cool user names unavailable. Atsme📞📧16:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The next step would be "You must obtain consensus at the talk page before removing my vandalism", I think. Followed by reporting at the edit-warring noticeboard when you remove it anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
Dear Inmate: The Sheriff's Office of Patron Satisfaction will be conducting a survey of jail inmates on their experience and satisfaction level during their recent stays... EEng21:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Holiday Cheer + a barnstar
...did this talk page just take five minutes to load?
The Happy Holiday Barnstar
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas01:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The years are passing us by at the speed of light (it seems)...
Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
Tis the season for mistletoe and camels. The season for cameltoes and missles will began right after the 1st. Please celebrate either or both with spectacular glee. John from Idegon (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with my first DYK, it has been "promoted". I'm sorry if I misunderstood you at some points, and I'm tickled that an article I worked on might soon be on the front page. I really appreciate your patience and help. Smmurphy(Talk)20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
If someone has 100 DYK credits to his name, all for articles that he himself created, and now he's nominating someone else's work, does he have to submit a QPQ? Or does he get a grace period until he has 5 DYK nominations of other people's work? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm flattered, but if you're coming to me because I'm considered "the expert" then DYK -- indeed all of WP -- is doomed. Nonetheless I'll do my best to resolve this recalcitrant riddle. My interpretation of WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria (5) is that, once you have 5 credits for whatever reason, you have to start doing one review for every nom you make. So no grace period for your friend. EEng (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to start another interminable discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, so I'll comment here first. The spirit of your latest edit was fine by me, but the precise wording of the first change could confuse some editors. I undid it, but then decided to leave it for the present. My concern is over an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body and whether people will grasp that it has to be read in conjunction with the next point which allows YYYY-MM-DD in limited contexts. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not participate in the discussion leading to this change, but for some reason was asked to be a kind of neutral implementer of the changes apparently agreed upon. Having said that, I don't see how there can be any confusion, since there is clearly a list of three alternatives, and the second one (which you quote above) doesn't restrict the possibility of using the third one. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. In any event if you think there's a clarifying change that will help, by all means raise it at Talk:MOSDATE. Better to get things as perfect as possible while it's all relatively fresh in everyone's mind. EEng (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I recall that clusterfuck but I thought there might be something else, in the absence of which I'll just preserve the text on this as is, but not add this as a ref 'cause I think that to do so will just cause trouble. (There'll be trouble sooner or later on this, of course -- a house divided against itself cannot stand -- but I don't want to be the one to spark it.) But if you think it's helpful go an ahead and add it yourself (as a footnote, I would think) -- it's your funeral. EEng (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
But do I gather correctly that since your post here the problem has been resolved? I've added the nom to my watchlist so that if there's further trouble I can leap into action.
7&6=thirteen, as you may have realized I've stopped participating regularly at DYK, but you know I love a goofy hook, so any time you have an article that lends itself to such treatment, feel free to call on me. It will bring a ray of sunshine into the life of a forgotten DYK shut-in to know I can still be useful. BTW, have you visited the museums lately? EEng (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I know you love goofy hooks and puns.
I can see why one might avoid WP:DYK, particularly on a daily basis. This article is a good (but by no means the worst) example. Sisyphus comes to mind. If you have any insight, it would be appreciated. Thank you for adding it to your watch. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎)18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harvard University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
How clever of you to copy exactly the warning [16] left by another editor, on your talk page, regarding your behavior in this very matter!
It seems that, stymied in describing King's College as "one of the world's most selective and prestigious" schools [17], you've made it your mission [18][19][20][21][22] (based on your misunderstanding of WP:PEACOCK) to remove the word prestigious from Harvard University, despite the fact that abundant sources support this characterization. You've been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, and repeatedly directed to discussions such as Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_4#The_Header_Dispute; and I'm afraid I must quote something that another editor (an expert on higher education) wrote in that discussion to the last person who went on the same crusade you're on: "I suggest that if you don't know that Harvard is considered one of the world's most prestigious universities then you're incompetent to edit this article." So smarten up. EEng (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
One of the great things about Harvard is that everyone who works there, including the cops, plumbers, and dining hall workers, seems to have some hidden talent or interest. The night guard at Lowell House had an extensive knowledge of the Federalist Papers, and my roommate used to get help with his Greek homework from the guy who checks your bags on the way out of the library. During the long struggle for unionization, the union's motto was "We can't eat prestige". You gotta love the dry humor for a serious situation. EEng (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't want to clutter the current Lobotomy talk page section with this since it's sort of tangential to what's being discussed in that thread, so I'm just posting it here instead.
I think one limitation of the current notes is that what constitutes a "passing mention" isn't really clear, at least not to me. E.g., I can't distinguish how the existing article statement – "In Sylvia Plath's 1963 novel The Bell Jar, the protagonist reacts with horror to the "perpetual marble calm" of a lobotomized young woman." – qualitatively differs from these recently added and reverted statements which discuss how lobotomy is portrayed in a cinematic work (i.e., I'm not sure why these should be reverted based upon the current censored notes and the works that are currently covered in the article section):
It is revealed in the fourth season of the Netflix show Bojack Horseman that the title character's maternal grandmother, Honey Sugarman, was lobotomized. Her husband forces her to undergo the procedure after manic depression brought on by the death of her son causes her to act erratically. The procedure is not explicitly mentioned. Honey Sugarman's husband Joseph tells his daughter "What’s broken in the heart can never be repaired, but the brain, well, we have all sorts of science for the brain!” and shortly afterwards Honey is reintroduced with a subdued personality and a large scar on her forehead. This is the last time the audience sees the character's face, subsequent appearances only show a silhouetted shadow with a pronounced forehead scar. (revert diff - refs omitted)
The fourth season of BoJack Horseman, released in 2017, reveals that BoJack's grandmother was given a lobotomy to prevent her "womanly emotions getting the better of her", following the loss of her son in the war. The procedure leaves her an emotionless shell of her former self, and she is portrayed at the piano playing a single note, where previously she had played and sung lively tunes with her son. (revert diff - refs omitted)
That said, I'm not familiar with "BoJack Horseman", so if the issue pertains to including that type of show, I suppose that would explain the removal. It's not described as a horror show though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The usual test for popcult inclusion is that sources tell us that a work either illuminates the subject in a significant way, illustrates how the subject was perceived, or itself affected popular perception of the subject. That's how we cut down the once-long list of trivia to what you now see. But really, the purpose of the hidden comments is primarily to end the chronic reinsertion of two particular films, white the hidden comments actually name. That was 90% of the battle won. Anything else can be handled with the usual BRD. Honestly I find it fantastic that this much effort is. Don't expdnded on a solved problem. EEng08:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I don't have any more thoughts on the matter being discussed in that thread, so I don't think I'm going to comment further. On another note, since this page is ginormous, you might want to consider archiving like 200 or 300 threads. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Seriously though, it takes me between 10–15 seconds to actually commit an edit to your talk page on my connection due to the sheer size of this page. Edits to pages that aren't absurdly/massively bloated typically take a second or less to commit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyway, would you like me to create Template:Editnotices/Page/Lobotomy using the following edit notice? This notice isn't intended to replace the current censored notes in the Lobotomy article since those are clearly necessary and address a more specific issue. I just think that an edit notice like this one might help to further reduce the workload for you and other regular editors of the article if it's used together with the censored notes in that section.
If you're interested in using an edit notice but would prefer to word it differently than the one below, feel free to revise the notice here and I'll use the revised version. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposed edit notice
Attention editors:
The majority of edits to this article's "Significant literary and cinematic portrayals" section which add new content about the portrayal of lobotomy in popular culture are unencyclopedic and therefore promptly reverted. If you intend to add new content to this section, it is requested that you seek feedback about your proposed addition on this article's talk pagebefore adding it to the article.
The MoS (up to about 13 January 2014) used to call for a spaced en dash if either date in a range of dates contained a space. I see that you were in the middle of that MoS change, but I couldn't find any discussion regarding it. Was there some reason for dropping that requirement, or was it just something lost in the shuffle? There is no specific guidance now for how to correctly format a case like "Otto Schulmklopfer (c. 1819 – c. 1871)", though the example "Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470 – c. 540)" still uses a spaced en dash. I have added spaces to en dashes in cases like this and had them undone, and now find my ammunition disappeared around January last year. Any clarification would be appreciated. Christhe spelleryack03:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
A quick check doesn't find that the interaction between c. (& c.) and spacing of the en dash was ever explicitly stated, but anyway I added something [23]. Does that do the trick? EEng (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent? Did you mean to be offensive? If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all? It's okay when you do it and you're special? I'm not understanding the message you're sending here. --Pete (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The grrrr of my edit summary distills what the edit itself says: "I'm beginning to see why everyone's so pissed off at you." For example, you keep fussing that date-format choices for particular articles shouldn't be decided at Talk:MOS. That's true -- but nobody's proposing to do that nor is trying to do that. Your "You do understand this, don't you?" was the icing on the cake. EEng (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand that - and your incorrect perception - but could you answer my question, please? Evading the point just makes me more curious to hear your explanation. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Here are the answers to the questions in your OP:
Q: Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent?
A: As already explained, grrrr expressed frustration.
Q: Did you mean to be offensive?
A: No.
Q: If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all?
A: Aside from being rhetorical, question is counterfactual since I'm not trying to piss off other editors.
Q: It's okay when you do it and you're special?
A: I don't know what it refers to, but we're all special in our own ways.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm astonished that you don't see how your edit summary could be taken as offensive, but your answers make this clearer. Perhaps you could be more careful in future? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You're easily astonished, and no extra care is needed. Now stop wasting my time trying to conform my edit summaries (!) to your delicate sensibilities. EEng (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Awww, that's so sweet of you. That vitally important discussion at Skyfall is really showing off Wikipedia to its best, isn't it. What a good job we're not discussing Skyfall Categories. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Please apologize
I am going to request that you strike your "Delusional smoke and mirrors" comment at the Ameen AfD. That was out of line. Reasonable minds can differ. Montanabw(talk)10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
EEng, I have not seen the AFD mentioned here. However, at AFD:Octaviano Tenorio, you can see that Montanabw has engaged in a protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors, and is also demanding apologies. I don't know if the issues are connected. I wrote a looong reply on my talk[24] to Montanabw's complaint there. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
(uninvolved) I'm going to suggest that persons actually interested in retaining the article spend their time adding citations and content to it, rather than arguing needlessly over other people's AfD comments. Softlavender (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I would wholeheartedly agree, and on that article BHG mentions, John Pack Lambert did so, my position is that his work was adequate, BHG's position is that it is not. I am tired of being repeated accused of "dishonesty" and a "protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors." My position is sincerely held and made in good faith -- on an article on a topic involving conservative white men instead of third-world progressive women, no less (I am trying to be fair in my assessments at AfD). The RfC is a slow-developing process and is raising a number of good discussions about the misapplication of WP:N. Frankly, I am finding this exhausting, but I cannot allow the ad hominem remarks of BHG, who I used to respect as an editor, to continue to the point that I permit myself to be bullied. She is crossing a line here and so did Eeng. Reasonable minds can differ, and even heatedly, but we can remain civil. Montanabw(talk)18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
.... You're doing it again. Just stick to adding RS citations and content -- ignore the opposing comments of others. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
My problem, Softlavender, is that I don't care enough about the JPL articles to work on them; I do care that I am being insulted and attacked. If others would stick to only their own cogent arguments and lay off trying to tell me that I am wrong, stupid, bad, dishonest, manipulative and whatever else they are throwing around, we would all be much better off. Montanabw(talk)22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If you don't care enough to improve an article (or at least find and provide links to RS that provide significant coverage), then don't argue on AfD -- just place your !vote but don't add the AfD to your watchlist. If you get that bothered about being insulted/attacked/labeled, and if you react to such insults, then in my opinion you won't have a good time on Wikipedia; I've said as much before. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, talk page stalkers. I saw Montanabw's message early this morning and composed an appropriate apology. but rushed off without sending it. Here it is: Montanabw, I'm sorry you're delusional, even if sincerely so. Ecstatic hand waving can't make up for absent sources. I came up with the "smoke and mirrors" image entirely on my own, and the coincidence of plural editors doing so independently should give you pause. EEng18:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
EEng, I am so sorry that you can only respond to a reasonable request by WP:BAITING. You have now officially and directly called me "delusional" which is a personal attack and has crossed the WP:NPA line. It is unfortunate that you can only deal with disagreement by devolving into attacking the individual. Now I understand the kind of person you are. Thank you for clarifying your views so precisely. Montanabw(talk)22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Your delusions apparently extend even to the meaning of the word delusional. I doubt strongly that you understand, or indeed are capable of understanding, the kind of person I am. As I just suggested to you elsewhere, WP:STOPDIGGING. EEng22:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, delusional is commonly a reference to having a psychiatric condition wherein an individual has had a break with reality and is in need of psychaitric hospitalization. That is, for someone who is not suffering from that condition, a belittling insult. For someone who does suffer from that condition, it is cruel. Let's try for some civility. Montanabw(talk)22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Montana, and I say this as someone with personal appreciation and respect for EEng and general admiration for his stalkers, trying to get him to apologize for incivility on his talk page is all but permitting yourself to be bullied. I suggest you stop trying to get blood from stones, and file a complaint if you need to or go do something nice with someone you love if you don't. FourViolas (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
A delusion is a strongly held belief that is stubbornly resistant to being displaced by superior evidence. It's meant that for at least 400 years, and only comparatively recently took on the specific medical meaning you for some reason want to give it in reference to yourself. It is at this point that many editors in my position would issue a stay-off-my-talk-page "order", but I've never done that and expect I never will, because I fear no man or woman's criticism or denunciation—I'm secure in my own skin, you see, and happy to let observers judge for themselves. But please, for you own sake, stop embarrassing yourself and take FourViolas' excellent advice. Kid's got a good heart and is wise beyond his years. EEng00:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your insights, FourViolas. It is clear from the above comments that I am dealing with an abusive personality here and there is a time to stop beating my head against the wall. I have a number of other projects and AfD is most definitely in need of attention. I shall step out of this particular talk page discussion, with considerable disappointment. Montanabw(talk)00:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Exit Montanabw, stage right, draped magnificently in victimhood. Presently he or she is heard offstage, demanding apologies and retractions from numerous editors in rotation.EEng01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I've never understood the Wikipedia bent for requesting (or demanding) apologies. For an apology to be meaningful it must be freely given, at the initiative of the person who offers it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's especially puzzling since it gives abusive personalities such as myself the opportunity to flagellate anew the hapless, innocent victim who sought only to offer the aggressor the chance to purify his soul via confession and contrition. EEng01:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth I think you're going a bit overboard on the mockery. (I've probably managed to piss off both you and Montanabw here, but what the hell, somebody has to say these things.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot imagine what you think you've done to offend or annoy me, and if someone comes repeatedly to my talk page begging to be called out as a fool, who am I to disappoint? EEng03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Not a chance -- see above in this thread, plus User:EEng#get the joke. If Atsme or Randy Kitty were somehow offended (and see elsewhere on that page where we'd been enjoying each other's company) they would have spoken up for themselves. What WP doesn't need is yet another tone-deaf, tsk-tsking scold poking her nose into others' friendly interactions. EEng03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This is truly unnecessary. Name-calling is a clear personal attack on another editor, the sort of thing that can get you blocked in a heartbeat by the first admin who spots it (and frankly, I'd support it, given your determination to double down on this). Your conversations at an AfD are not private and if you think you might be annoyed if someone else interjected their own remarks, perhaps an AfD is not for you. In any event, I urge you reconsider. There are always ways to tell someone precisely what you think of them without crossing the line. This was not the way. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary perhaps, but not unwarranted, and there's no doubling down. I realize you mean well, but you obviously haven't absorbed what's going on here. Of course anyone's free to interject his or her own comments, but Nosy Parkers who get the wrong end of the WP:STICKin others' completely friendly interactions, because they apparently lack the capacity to understand them, and scold people for imagined offenses within a conversation in which they were not previously involved, are a particular pet peeve of mine. There's enough real friction at WP without someone inventing it where there is none. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about you here.) EEng05:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, EEng. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
I wondered at first whether that might be a bit of sophisticated wordplay on the part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea News Service. I decided the answer's No when I realized they don't seem to know there's an apostrophe in Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Gosh, can't they find even one commie fascist totalitarian apparatchik who's fully literate in English? EEng23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In fact, that's a parody account run by the Popehat account. They quite often get quoted by unknowing news sources. ghytredtalk16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
That explains why they got Harvard mixed up with Yale. Even North Korea knows better than to fuck with Harvard. EEng16:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Revert of edits adding country into US place articles
Dear EEng, I see that you have made several reverts of edits of mine such as this one with the comment "...we don't qualify US states as being in the US -- WP:USPLACE". I believe that you are in error. The page you linked to does not relate to content but the convention of US place names as article titles, the opening paragraph of the guide says "...This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places" (my underlining). I have been editing a long time, although not so much recently, and it was my impression that putting the name of the nation into an article lede is promoted since it helps search engines. I would be grateful if you would either revert your edits of mine or provide me with a guideline (or rule) which indicates that US articles, or articles generally, should not have the nations name in the article text. As you have reverted a number of good faith edits by me, it is for you to prove that your edits are in line with current WP practice. I shall watch your page for your reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I've already answered you on this twice. First was in a thread you yourself opened [27], where you'll notice multiple editors joined in explaining why what you're doing is inappropriate. Second was in the edit summaries I used (e.g. [28]) in reverting your changes. I might also add that I only had to revert some of your changes, as the rest were reverted by various other editors before I got there. EEng23:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I will respond there - suffice to say that a guideline relating to titles has no effect upon content; it is why the title of the guide refers only to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. X4n6 (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Re: [29]. Firstly, it's really poor form to roll back a whole edit, taking it with other improvements and corrections. If you think a particular sentence violates policy, you should just do something about that.
Secondly, no, looking up an address, and subtracting the date of construction of the bridge from his birthdate is not OR, it's providing context to the reader. That the construction of the bridge began when he was about 7 is trivial maths. That the bridge's on-ramp passes in front of 55 Frankfort St is easily verified. The previous version of the page was factually incorrect (it stated he was born at the location of one end of the bridge, when the bridge didn't exist yet). Please be more careful with your OR sledgehammer. Stevage07:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Stevage, I've enjoyed working with you on the article, so please let's not fall out over something like this.
I don't believe my undo (which you link above) removed anything other than the statement that When he was just seven, the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge began, its northwestern on-ramp passing directly in front of the family home; but if it did, that must be very subtly hidden in the diff. For my peace of mind, can you give me an example of one of the "other improvements and corrections" that my edit removed?
(so that, presumably, we're supposed to click on the map and conclude that his birthplace address is opposite a Brooklyn Bridge ramp) is absolutely OR. How was the address converted into coordinates? How do we know the street wasn't renumbered at some point (which happens more often than people realize)? How do we know when, during the seven years it took to build the bridge, the ramps were constructed? Was he living there the whole time from his birth until the ramps were constructed?
Since, for whatever reason, you've brought this issue here to my talk page, I'm going to invite members of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers to check out the diff you linked and opine on the OR question. In the meantime, I ask that you reconsider and remove this material yourself. It can't be passed for DYK with this issue outstanding. EEng07:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm familiar with this, having read some of the studies. For example, let's say the population of the US is 320 million. One percent of that is 3.2 million. And the square root of that is 1,788. Hope that helps. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this is about [30]
TimidGuy, you're interpreting it as (The sqrt of (1% of 320 million)). But what if it's ((the square root of 1%) of 320 million)? Then sqrt(1%) is 10%, and 10% of 320 million is 32 million. No wonder there's still war and unhappiness and Donald Trump. Also, how come it's quantized by national boundaries? I mean, let's say the population of Boston is 1 million. 1% of that is 10,000; sqrt of that is 100. Now, I could probably get 100 friends and neighbors together for a little TM. Would that work, at least for Boston? And if so, but I work in Cambridge, do I lose my happiness for the duration of the workday? And if that's true, what happens if I go to Allston, which is a neigborhood that wasn't incorporated into Boston until the late 19th century. Does the cosmic consciousness operate according to current, up-to-date political boundaries, or some traditional boundaries from the past? EEng20:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The example given in the actual article clearly intends : For example, a group of 200 practicing the TM-Sidhi program together in a city of four million (100 x 200 x 200) would be sufficient to produce a measurable influence on the whole city. The evidence is overwhelming: The p values (the probabilities of the observed changes happening by chance) of these three effects were 0.01, 0.005, and 0.001. The groups in question are clearly defined as "whichever we happen to be interested in, during a conveniently chosen interval". FourViolas (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No, no, ITYM a bunch of clowns -- and they certainly made me laugh! "The square root of one percent of the population" is the funniest thing I've heard all week. (Granted, it's been a bad week...) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Lincoln assassination (William Crook and Ward Lamon's stories)
I suggest that the section on the Lincoln assassination page, "Lincoln premonitions" be removed, as they are second-hand stories/urban legends. Or at the very least, get some sources from more reliable historians, who point out the errors in both stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.240.110 (talk • contribs)
I agree the sourcing needs to be better (though I consider American Experience reliable), but I lack sufficient interest in the subject to do it justice. They do need to be mentioned somewhere, even if as unconfirmed legends; my personal feeling is that they are not really about Lincoln's assassination per se, but about Lincoln himself, his psychology, whatever, and belong in his article, or perhaps one of the other subsidiary articles on him. Undoubtedly all of the first-class bios of Lincoln touch on this, so it'd be great if you dug in. Please take further discussion to the article talk page. EEng20:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I just tried pinging you about this but didn't get it right. I'm not quite sure how to fix broken pings and so will notify you the old-fashioned way, to make sure. Maybe it's not your department but when I see mention of Harvard, I think of you first now. Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Well somewhere in my monobook is a script which does precisely what you're looking for, highlighting dabs and redirects and all that jazz. It's most likely to be "Anomie's stuff" but feel free to copy, paste, refresh cache and see how it goes. P.S. Clear out your talk page. Too long by about a factor of five.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, EEng. I got one of those helpful notifications that you had reverted my edit on the MOS page. Thanks, always appreciate that. But may I ask why? My reason was SCJARGON, which states that shortcuts shouldn't appear in hatnotes. I'd be happy to consider your valid and informative explanation, if you'd be polite enough to give me one. – Margin1522 (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
You're focusing on the letter instead of the spirit of SCJARGON, which is that a hatnote is usually clearer for refering to a page by its full name instead of by a shortcut. But where the hatnote's very purpose is to clear up potential confusion over two similar shortcuts (WP:TQ vs. WP:THQ) then to insist on not mentioning those shortcuts in the hatnote would be silly.
While we're here, let me suggest (as I do to everyone when I get the chance) that you turn off revert notifications; you'll find yourself a much happier editor. Your watchlist will still show everything, of course, just without those red flags at the top of the page sending your blood pressure up. EEng07:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
No, that part means exactly what it says. I know because I wrote it. Shortcuts are a convenience for use on talk pages. They are not supposed to be discovery tools. Granted that TQ could plausibly refer to Questions at the Teahouse. But it doesn't. Someone who wants to go to the Teahouse and thinks he can get there by typing WP:TQ may be confused, but we don't have to worry about him. He can very easily get to the Teahouse by typing WP:Teahouse. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of who writes a guideline, it remains a guideline by the suffrage of many others, and these others cannot automatically be inferred to have contemplated whatever interpretation you happen to prefer. But I'll avoid going further down that path by invoking IAR.
Anyway, you misunderstand the use case, which is not someone "who wants to go to the teahouse", but rather someone simply following a link to WP:TQ – a link that someone else put down, on some talk page perhaps, mistakenly thinking it would take his fellow editors to the teahouse. The hatnote gives the first editor, thus misled, a fighting chance of finding his way to the destination actually intended. Someone presumably added this hatnote out of experience, and I don't see what lofty goal is served by purging it just because it commits the sin of exhibiting a shortcut. Not sure if you noticed that I modified the hatnote [31] to make its purpose more explicit. EEng09:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The purpose is to reduce the amount of irrelevant cruft at the top of Wikipedia policy pages. There's no end to it. If we are going to clear up the confusion about THQ, then what about Thq, TH/Q, and T/Q? Somebody might have mistakenly used one of those. My position is that these are all incomprehensible jargon and the less of it the better. No one, if asked what "T/Q" means, would say Teahouse Questions. And no one should be forced to read about that when they actually want something entirely different – the Wikipedia rule about whether periods go inside or outside of quote marks. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
EEng, my wife asks if you could stop coming to my house and twisting my arm to read everything on Wikipedia policy pages. Apparently I'm in a bad mood afterwards and won't drink my Ovaltine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, experienced users of Wikipedia know that hatnotes in general, and shortcut hatnotes in particular, are almost never relevant to whatever they may be looking for. So they just don't read them. Which raises the question, why they are there in the first place? But whatever, if I'm just going to be mocked I'll stop here. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Just curious, Margin1522, are you referring to the notes at the top of many articles saying something to the effect that: "This articles is about X. For the article about Y, see..."? If so, I think those serve a valuable purpose. Perhaps the vast majority of those are about actual content articles and just a few are to help readers find the right policy or guideline page. Experienced editors already know where to find many policy pages, and also know the shortcuts to many of them. Wouldn't you say that it is mainly new editors who need help finding policy and guideline pages? If so, then the hatnotes would be helpful to them. I agree with you in one respect, though. I think if a shortcut is similar to another shortcut, the easiest and most logical thing to do is to change the shortcut of one of them so it is not similar to any other shortcut. Then you wouldn't need hatnotes, at least for policy and guideline pages. Wouldn't you agree with that, EEng? – Corinne (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem, Corinne, is that once a shortcut is in use, it's essentially impossible to change; for example, references to WP:THQ are already embedded in thousands of pages, and we're not gonna run around changing all those. Margin, you're not being mocked but you're still not understanding the use case. With respect to your claim that experienced readers don't read hatnotes, to the extent that's true (and I think it largely is) then you're contradicting your other claim: editors are not being "forced" to read something (experienced editors, anyway). However, in the case of new editors, who are indeed more likely to read hatnotes, they're exactly the people we're hoping to help, as I've already outlined, and therefore they're exactly the ones we want to read it. EEng03:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Corinne, I rarely have problems with hatnotes in article space. The problem is the cruft in Wikipedia name space, which is almost all due to shortcuts. For example, recently I wanted to find out if it's OK to upload pictures of French buildings from the 1950s (it's not). So I checked the WP:Copyrights page. That wasn't the page I needed, but before I could find that out I had to be informed that, speaking of COPY, Wikipedia also has pages on copy editing and copying material between Wikipedia pages. Well that's fine, but it's not what I'm interested in. I was also told that Wikipedia has other pages with titles that begin with the letter C. No kidding.... There are hundreds of them. But someone decided that readers of WP:Copyrights needed to be told how to find WikiProject Countries and WikiProject Council. Why those? For 99% of the intended audience it's a complete waste of time. I also doubt that new editors appreciate this stuff. More likely they hate it. It's too much. – Margin1522 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
You're absolutely right that many shortcut names (like many template names) are ill–thought out; whenever I see WP:NOTHERE, for example, it takes me a split-second to remember that it's not about something Gertrude Stein said. And because of that, hatnotes frequently save me a frustrating search for the right shortcut when I've mistakenly used the wrong one in a draft talk post – for example, I might be recommending that an editor visit the Teahouse, linking to WP:TQ; but on previewing before saving I find it's the wrong shortcut, but luckily the hatnote tells me how to fix it. (That's a made-up example only because, at the moment, I can't recall any real ones; but that doesn't change the fact that I'm sure I've had many experiences like that.) EEng04:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
One that hits me with some frequency is when I'm trying to direct someone to the page where it is recommended that "broken" redirects not be fixed. I often try WP:DONTFIXIT, which is an essay about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", as opposed to WP:DONOTFIXIT or WP:NOTBROKEN. However, these occasional incidents are really not an argument for getting rid of "cruft" (a highly pejorative term in the Wiki-world), which is actually very useful information to someone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I ask that if you have any objections that you please mention it in the talk page and find a resolution. You can't just delete pages without discussion. Thank you.
_(cropped).jpg)
_(14775718853).jpg)
.jpg)
![[3]](http://www.signsofthesea.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ENRUG014-A.png){kind=link}
