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.
Tempted into stupid ideas... beliving this will be saving Wikipedia or tidying it upp....
Page errors
Hi EEng
Are you aware your user page contains floating boxes hovering under the Wikipedia logo and sidebar menu, making both those and the boxes unintelligible? Is this intended?
Also, FYI, I tried to restore the deleted content from your talk page but kept getting errors, perhaps a fault triggered by the large page size being copied from the clipboard.
Hey there, sroc ol' buddy. Yes the floating boxes are intentional. It's not that I wanted to obliterate the WP logo etc. intentionallyper se, but I figure everyone's seen that stuff (and the links are available on any other page anyway) so I might as well use the real estate for some fun links. You'll notice I make sure that the images are cleverly positioned so that the links unique to me (User Contributions, Email this user, etc.) are either still visible (no images over them), or visible if you scroll the page down a bit. (Or are they? Maybe the placement is wrong on your browser? Please let me know if so.) EEng (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Please don't restore my talk page. That's Nakon's job.
Well this is what it looks like on my screen. Note the "Email this user" link gets lost amongst the images, but I suppose you'll blame that on some widgets changing the sidebar in some way you didn't anticipate. Note also the box under File:Screenshot of EEng's user page as seen from space.png#Licensing asking to enter a tag depending on whether "this screenshot displays the Wikipedia logo"; how do we answer that, then? {{Wikipedia-screenshot|logo=kinda}}? —sroc💬15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Also: "Welcome to the Museums! Pleas[unintelligible]clic[unintelligible] to si[unintelligible]k." —sroc💬15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Scroll down the page and the WP stuff disappears, leaving my nice images (which if you click take you to fun articles). So what's the concern? (That's not to say you don't see legitimate concerns, but before I give you all the answers to all the various potential concerns, I'd like to know which ones concern you.) EEng (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so I see. What if one wishes to click on one of the obscured sidebar links, however, such as "Email this user"? I mean, I'm sure a clever user will find a way around such things, but what about the rest of us/them? Not that I'm really concerned; it just looked like it may have been a formatting error and you'd meant the boxes to be floating elsewhere. Oh, the journeys they could have through the depths of these pages! —sroc💬16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Aha! I thought you would ask that! Well, if you click the little expand/close triangle next to Tools, two or three of those links should be visible in the little gap between images; others, not visible e.g. (I think) Email this user become accessible if you scroll down just the tiniest bit. Even if that doesn't work, User contributions and Email this user are available at User talk:EEng. I thought all this was a small price to pay for the warm inner glow I felt at how clever I was to have those images there. You understand, I'm sure. EEng (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Zillion
So I thought I'd clean up Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from March 2006 (only has two members), but I can't find any "update" template in Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, though the edit screen verified that it's a member of three or more of those hidden "to be updated" categories. Where should I be looking? Drmies (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the category I mentioned is for {{as of}}. I sure envy you getting to work on the Michigan State Highway articles. EEng (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, I get it--"as of" can (also?) be potentially dated, sure. Yeah, Michigan highways, it's a thrill only few people understand. Only thing better: Ohio highways, but Nyttend has claimed all of those already. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, Drmies, would you like me to send you my papers on Gage? I think you might find them interesting. They'd have to be attachments, so you'd have to Email this user so I can email them back to you. EEng (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, no thanks--I got plenty to read right now (Paul Theroux, for starters). Hey, I tackled a dozen or more of those articles that need to be updated--man it's tedious. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I see. You're turning me down for some asphalt and a hack travel writer with a lot of wasted vowels and x's at the end of his name. Fine. EEng (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I've looked at so many articles just now that my head is spinning. I'm done with the Mayflower Madam (whose smile, exactly the same in every picture, is scaring me), and I'm done--stick a fork in me. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Note for humor-impaired admins: "I'm done—stick a fork in me" is a figure of speech, not a suicide threat or request for euthanasia -- please do not block! EEng (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Careful, Andrew--someone may think you think I'm just a cook, when in fact I'm the head chef, and block you. (Also, thanks for the article link!) Drmies (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Your comment regarding syntax is incorrect and inaccessible. Basically what you're doing is closing the unbulleted list and starting (with your edit) 5 definition lists and associated definition items, and subsequently causing my post to close all of your lists and start my own. The previous syntax continued the list item which it was in as well as the definition lists from above, and correctly so.
I disagree also with your statement about the threading of the topic but I'm not in the mood to revert again. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for accessibility but I'm tired of it being used as a bludgeon for demanding that everyone (sighted or not) attend to hypertechnical colon-colon-star-colon-star minutiae. A screen reader should express what a sighted person would see and comprehend, period. You may be technically right in the sense that *::: gives a slightly different interline gap then ::::, but since fewer than 1 in 30 sighted persons know or notice that anyway, it's clear they get along without the distinction, so there's no reason those using screenreaders can't as well.
As for my formatting of my own comment, thanks for offering to leave it alone -- although, in the event, you didn't, so I'll be fixing it again. EEng00:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I rarely trot this out, but I have a degree in computer science (among other things) from a breathtakingly prestigious institution, so please don't try to tell me what a screen reader "can't" do. It's nonsense, and you're talking through your hat. "Disruptive"? -- oh, shut up and go bother someone else, will you please? I've got a busted water heater to deal with and, frankly, I'm not in the mood. Cheers. EEng02:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you...
Are you an American old enough to remember annual broadcasts of Amahl and the Night Visitors? If so, the title references it.
Thank you for this [[1]]. The term "directly related" was hideously pernicious. It allowed any editor to remove an image from an article that didn't have a ridiculously direct connection to the subject even if the picture was positive, or even just harmless--despite the fact that there are thousands of violation of that, particular wording in excellent articles which contribute positively to the project. It happened to me. There was plenty of concensus opposed to my edit, but while that wording existed, it trumped any of my arguments. The previous wording guaranteed a 'hypocrisy of uneven enforcement.' Eliminating it means that your edit 'punched above its weight class.' Regards Tapered (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
A note: the link to the edit appears differently on your page than it does in the preview. It still links fine, but it's a puzzlement. Tapered (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
All steamed up
Hello, EEng. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Drmies: Thanks. Can you check me on something? Though I haven't read it word for word, I don't think the word sorcery appears anywhere except in the title, nor do I see anything explaining the source or significance of the quotation in the title. Right? EEng05:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not in there, no. Open at your peril--the LA Times is like a rickroll that makes your browser crash: voila. That's it, that has to be it. But I only got the article in today, and meant to read it today after yoga, but both Yngvadottir and LadyofShalott had "other plans". Drmies (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
[FBDB] To complete your something...there is a delectable herbal mix that not only reduces discomfort, bloating and tiredness, it puts an Italian salad to shame.Atsme📞📧19:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
You'd be willing to do what? Fix the article? Watch the treatment? Take part in a telecommercial about it? Come on Mr Eng, we need specifics! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)21:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, stop. Just STOP. I am a Harvard grad-u-ate. But while it's on my mind there's also "... that steaming your nether regions could lead to unpleasant side effects?" See the talk page -- can we really base an article just on the sources there now? EEng21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, it looks like Ritchie has fixed the sourcing problem and thereby snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. EEng01:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Working toward a more realistic solution for the hook - just trying to be helpful here - based on what Paltrow said, "You sit on what is essentially a mini-throne..." the following is the perfect hook ....that Paltrow's new V-steaming solution gives new meaning to the expression,sit on it." Yes, EEng, there is a real source for that expression coined by The Fonz, and urbanites will swear to its reliability in equal stride to Paltrow's belief that a vagina should be steamed and not worn on one's head in protest. Atsme📞📧00:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The things you youngsters talk about... Does that nice Mr. Wales know there is a gang of foul-minded perverts running amok on his website? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC) SBHB, I heard JW offered to donate the images. Atsme📞📧05:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No, Drmies - green week is when Paltrow, Madonna, & Rosie wear nothing but green body paint and carry signs that read Stop discomfort, bloating and tiredness - toss a salad! while marching in front of Trump Tower. Atsme📞📧05:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MOS units and stuff
About: "However, non-standard abbreviations should always be given a full stop." ... As you say, this is a bit inscrutable, but what I think it means is: "Non-SI unit abbreviations should have a full stop." When I was at school, before the SI thing, the correct way to write 27g was "27 gm." with a dot, because 'gm' is an abbreviation.* The use of the word "symbol", referring to a string of letters rather than a conventional symbol, is I believe new with SI, and the current wording is not quite precise either ("do not require..."), because they are not abbreviations. So it would be more accurate to say "do not use full stops" (or similar).
Well, I think that's about right, but it leaves some questions. By {{tq|"Non-SI unit abbreviations ]}, do you mean e.g. ft for foot? If not, what? EEng07:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think the writer meant "non-SI" by "nonstandard". As per the current discussion, there has been a big trend away from using dots in England (where I lived for a long time), which confuses the issue. So I'm not convinced that the instruction would have been correct even if expressed more clearly. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that some abbreviations may be used with full stops, particularly in quotations. Really, it would be nice if the distinction between "symbol" and "abbreviation" were made clear.
Incidentally, do you speak Chinese? I don't really, but I can read that, and it doesn't look right to me: I think it says "New things are at the bottom", declarative. And "Nuovo roba" surely lacks some agreement: a search finds it inside "Anno nuovo roba nuova", which means "new stuff for a new year". Perhaps "Roba nuova"... Imaginatorium (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm losing the thread of where we're going with this. We certainly don't want editors putting dots on symbols like ft. And we don't want editors using any other kinds of "nonstandard" abbreviations, either. In general I think that "units" section of the main MOS page should be trimmed to include only the most important highlights, and I don't think this is one of them anyway, so I'd like to just omit it.
As to the Chinese and so on, I have no idea what it means. My deranged talk-page stalkers added all that stuff. EEng08:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think your edits are in the right direction, so no problem. But I still think you are wrong to call "ft" a "symbol"; a symbol is something like "#" or "￡" as opposed to an "abbreviation" made from letters, and until the SI thing came along, I don't believe anyone would have confused the terms. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that's the terminology used at WP:UNITS, and it works well there. I think the problem here is that the main MOS page, which is what we're discussing here, tries to cover too much on the units topic, and then trying to compress it too much. If I get no pushback on my edits so far for a 24 hours, I'll probably continue by simply deleting some of these points (again, we're talking about MOS here, not MOSNUM) as not important enough for the clutter and confusion they cause. EEng09:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Greetings
Widener Stacks Reading Room as final exams approach.
Greetings, EEng. I hear springtime in [name of university location redacted for security reasons] is a splendid spectacle and I do hope you're enjoying the hell out of it, getting full value out of your tuition, and making those lifelong connections. Or, alternative to all that, digging your couch. --Lockley (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderestimate my earthly tenure -- my lifelong connections were made long ago. Sadly, the most cherished of those (see Andrew Gleason) ended a while back. EEng (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. Probably pointed you to this before, but if not... you may enjoy Sacred Cod. Comments invited.
Sandom Fracas
Dear EEng, great quote from the EB: Plutarch relates, that before this, upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
The problem here is that I didn't create this statue; someone else did. I am merely trying to scrape the pigeon excrement off the shoulders.
This all started when someone called me and said they had seen a strange COI notice on the W entry about me. When I went to look, I also saw the COI and tried to engage with Wikipedia's editors to find out why and how it got there. Do you really believe I would make this stuff up about my 12-year-old? Really? I mean, come on!!!!
Nor am I in any way, shape or form worried that the media may see the Talk Page attendant to the Article Page about me. On the contrary, I am in the process of writing an article about this entire affair which I will make sure you get a copy of, if I ever find the time to finish it. Plus, the final chapter of this sage has yet to be written.
However, I did enjoy your Plutarch, in all seriousness. Having spent 7 years of my youth learning Latin (and some Greek), I have a great fondness for the classics. Here is one you may enjoy; it's one of the dicta from the boarding school in the UK that I attended called . . . oh, wait, that information was expunged from the Early Life part of my article. LOL!
Ok, I'll tell you: Winchester College. The saying is, "Aut disce, aut discede. Manet sors tertia -- Caedi."
Well, I'll just have to run that by my Harvard roommate -- he prepped at [elite boarding school] of course -- who naturally was a Rhodes Scholar after graduating summa in a double major combining classics with [other impressive field of concentration]. One time at master's tea just before high table, one of many Nobel laureates who graced our Senior Common Room made a most amusing quip...
Do you honestly not see how immodest you appear dropping lines such as Having spent 7 years of my youth learning Latin (and some Greek)? (All that stuff about my roommate and so on is real, BTW, but I don't trot it out at the drop of a hat -- except when in the private company of elites such as ourselves, of course.)
I sincerely hope you didn't make up the stuff about your daughter, but I have no way of knowing. Certainly many, many people have done such things in similar circumstances. I urge you, for the sake of your daughter, to just withdraw. Drop it. Stop looking at the article. Ask you friends not to look at it and certainly not to talk to you about it. Just forget it.
J.G., the article was created by an IP editor on April 8, 2005, and read as follows at creation:
"Often referred to as the "father of Internet (interactive) advertising," J. G. Sandom founded the world’s first interactive advertising agency, Einstein and Sandom Interactive (EASI), in 1984. It grew to become the largest digital marketing services firm when it was purchased by DMB&B (MacManus Group) in 1994. Sandom continued to manage EASI on behalf of DMB&B through 1996.
From January 1997 through October 1999, Sandom served as Director of Interactive at OgilvyOne Worldwide, where he grew the company from a loss of $2MM to an estimated $100MM in revenues in 30 months, and from 12 “permalancers” to 650 digital marketing specialists worldwide; named “Number One Interactive Ad Agency” – 1999, by Ad Age magazine.
From November 1999 through 2001, Sandom served as President and CEO, and then Vice Chairman of RappDigital Worldwide, the interactive arm of direct marketing/direct response agency giant Rapp Collins Worldwide, an Omnicom Company. Within a year of inception, RappDigital became one of the nation’s “Top Ten” interactive ad agencies, according to Ad Age magazine.
Sandom is also the author of six novels including Gospel Truths and The Hunting Club (Doubleday); the latter was optioned by Warner Bros. for theatrical development. He is currently working on a new novel, The Unresolved, for Penguin/Dutton/NAL."
Jim, what's an IP editor? And I believe you're wrong about the creation date of the Article. I thought it was older. But who knows. That was a long time ago. I can barely remember what I had for dinner yesterday. The article you quote above has several errors in it. “Top Ten” should read "Top Twenty", The Hunting Club was from Bantam - A Crime Line book (not Doubleday, which is, I believe, a sister house), and The Unresolved was a Dutton Children's pub (not a Penguin or NAL book, although they're both sister houses too, I believe . . . but don't quote me on that; they're all consolidated now and there are precious few independents left). Sandom (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sandom, please take my advice. Don't ever look at your article again. Go immediately silent in all these discussions, except for a one-sentence bowing out. It will be better that way. EEng (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Well damn I was finally sifting through the barnstar list to see the most exact, appropriate one today and I've been preempted. If I gave another one, would it come off as excessive? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If we're still talking about Genie, honestly I've hardly done anything really. I started a copyedit thinking Blade was nearly done, but turns out it was just a momentary pause on his part. I think the next step will be the possible split that was discussed a few weeks ago. After that happens (or doesn't) I'll swoop in with my trademark red pencil and overcomplex Brownian sentences. EEng (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. If you're in the market for another article to get involved with, I'd appreciate your taking a look at Phineas Gage. There have been a lot of formatting and layout changes recently, and images added. And there are some special technical problems on which I'm hoping we can get comment from others. There's some discussion on the Talk Talk:Phineas Gage#technical_stuff but it's a bit out of date. Wanna jump in? EEng (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Followup: As predicted, the response from multiple editors at COI Noticeboard was variations on What makes this a COI issue? and I see no reason to look at this as a COI issue. Better luck next time. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
cease your non-stop personal attacks
You have been here way too long for me to have to be posting this in your talk page. Your constant antics and belligerence editing the MX wikipage is not acceptable. Consider this a warning. Whatzinaname (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Multiple editors in the discussion have pointed out your dickishness, and it's not a personal attack to tell you you're being a dick if you are, in fact, being a dick. So stop being a dick. EEng (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
On the content dispute, I am in general agreement with EEng, as I believe that the reliable sources support their point. That being said, I would advise both of you to tone down all snarkish and self-indulgent comments. The dispute is over a very minor point. Tone the comments way down, please. Nothing good will come of it. Thanks. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You have said this before. [3] Really, quit it, it isn't helpful. I have personally been banned for way less (in fact for nothing at all, but that's a story.) And Whatsy? You too. Starting off by effectively telling editors they are idiots and the article they have worked on is a disgrace is not a good business plan. Rumiton (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
An editor who starts out by calling Pulitzer Prize winning historian Manning Marable a "moron" has little credibility for complaining about personal attacks shortly thereafter. Unless one considers Marable fair game as a result of his untimely death. After all, it isn't a BLP violation, is it? Cullen328Let's discuss it05:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, it's Whatshisname, not me, you're talking about. 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
for the giggle. Please go back to that thread and imagine which short posting I could barely restrain myself from responding to with "Only what I read about yo momma!" David in DC (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The article for the Boston massacre was altered today due to the cavs whooping the celtics. I automatically assumed one of these talk page stalkers was responsible, but I guess I'm just biased. Cards84664(talk)03:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, sorry about that stuff on WP:MOS yesterday. I was going to post an off-topic (for MOS) response here, but decided against. (In short, I was going to remark that 270 words is a pretty short "essay".)
But I was initially very tempted to post it on the MOS talk page because of how long it was taking to load your talk page. When other users start to seriously wonder how long they can get away with carrying on off-topic conversations with you on other fora because your talk page is so inconvenient, I think it's really time to start archiving. I got a message similar to this from In ictu oculi a few years back, but I have to imagine my page was only about half the size yours is now...
Just to be clear, this is friendly advice that you can choose to ignore. I'm not "angry" at you or anything. :P
I'll add your note to the archive of people urging me to trim. I do once in a while. Maybe I'll try harder. But I really wonder what people are fussing about. I'm on an ISDN connection with a laptop I bought in 2009, and I have no trouble. The young people today want everything instantly. EEng23:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a suggestion - copy the top 1/2 of your TP posts, and past them in a collapsible section on your user page - title it TP discussions from [date] to [date]. Next time you archive, create a second collapsible under the first, and so on. At the top of your TP, link to those sections. They are clearly museum pieces. Atsme📞📧00:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't change the load times in the slightest, but it might be interesting artistically. I'll think about it. EEng00:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I assume User:Atsme meant to add "...and then delete them from your talk page". If you did that, then it wouldn't change the load times for those who click on the "E" in your signature to get to your user page and then click through to get to talk, but for those careful enough to click straight to talk, it would make this page load faster. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Hijiri88, you are correct. Thank you for clarifying. Move and delete was actually at the heart of my suggestion as a shorter TP would speed up "save changes" when commenting from a slow IP. I've also learned to use EEng's TOC which saves time scrolling. Iridescent posted above how to quickly go from bottom to top on an iPhone by tapping the top status bar where the battery indicator is located. 🤓Atsme📞📧12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was half asleep. You're right. Well, I'll speak to my technical team about it. EEng03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm being dead serious here: This page crashed my wife's (shockingly underpowered) netbook. No joke, thought it is hilarious. I tried it three times, with cleared caches and everything just to be sure it was the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Not so active right now
Thanks for the ping above and the tremendous compliment you paid by pinging me.
As my talk page explains I'm not so active just at the minute, so I'll pass for now on the discussion (couldn't load it on my phone properly. Any chance you can do some archiving? This page took forever to even partially load.) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to join in the pile-on over something so trivial, but as I've said before I agree that the "Wikipedia's longest talkpage" schtick has long since crossed the line into disruption. The issue isn't so much crashing browsers or download speed (although you'd be surprised how many of Wikipedia's readers and editors are still on 28kbps–56kbps dial-up connections—as of 2015 when the normally confidential figures had to be disclosed as part of the Verizon merger, AOL alone had 2.3 million paying dial-up subscribers in the US), but access costs for people in the parts of the world where data usage is metered. For readers in countries like Canada and Germany, your talkpage costs the equivalent of 10-15 cents a time to access; yes, these sums are relatively trivial but they do add up, and readers who aren't familiar with you have no way of knowing until after they navigate to it that this isn't a typical talkpage. (And yes, I'm aware that at the moment my own talkpage generates an even greater bandwidth load, but that's owing to a single long very image-intensive thread which the bot will soon archive, not the standard state of affairs.) ‑ Iridescent16:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Plus, you never know when the 3% will block you for not archiving your page. I am trying to find the user I am referring to, but I can't seem to recall his name, but he's banned from Wikipedia for not archiving his page. But I do agree that the page is way too long to load, especially on a mobile phone, which Wikipedia is horrible enough as it is. Sir Joseph(talk)16:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Assuming it's User:Varlaam you're talking about, he wasn't actually blocked for refusing to archive his talk (his explanation was I have never deleted anything from my talk page or archived it, because that is dishonest), but for general disruption of which the refusal to archive his talk was just a symptom. ‑ Iridescent16:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it was a different user. If I remember correctly, an admin archived his page and he undid it, and there was a whole back and forth and an ANI as well. When I'm more bored, I'll see if I can look it up. It's good dramaz.Sir Joseph(talk)17:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You all do realize, don't you, that "length of page" is largely a red herring? Much or most of the bandwidth is in the images. EEng16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
As Neal Armstrong said, "That's one small step for man, and, holy s--t, I can see EEng's talk page from here!" Anyway, do please keep at it, and remember – finesse matters more than size. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Just curious...if Tryp didn't "continue like this", what are his options Sir EEng seated at the head the noble {tps} roundtable? MjolnirPants - just curious...is it within the realm of possibility to create a "just curious" or "{curioustps}" template using the question mark emoji ?Atsme📞📧01:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I think Tryp's a stenohaline species. Just curious - your user page loads quickly despite being full of images and a spattering of text, so maybe there's a script that's causing the slower "save changes" and downloads on your TP? Atsme📞📧01:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
What I said makes the most sense when you're coming to a page for the first time after a long absence, so nothing's cached. In general images are cached but the html isn't, so if you've visited both pages recently, and your cache is big enough for all the images, then a repeat visit to the talk page (which has large html) will always seem slow compared to a repeat visit to the user page (small html). In the particular case of an save-change to a page (doesn't matter whether it's a full-page edit or section edit) the page always has to be re-rendered. Here again only the size (and to some extent the complexity -- templates and so on) of the wikitext->html conversion matters, and so whenever you edit this page you get a big delay -- the elapsed time is about 3 seconds. So you discussants see the worst of it. EEng02:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Now THIS is the flurry of "that's what she said" opportunities I've come to know and love at this page.
@Atsme: Do you mean just the emoji, with a tooltip* that says "Just curious"?
You never cease to amaze me, bloomer britches...or was it pantalones? You know how hard I try, MjolnirPants, and I truly do appreciate your template genius, especially this wonderfully fun template which I will use repeatedly. I also know you told me how you wanted to be dressed addressed, but I'd have to go back and find your pants comment...on EEng's TP nonetheless...I'd rather have a root canalAtsme📞📧20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC).
As it doesn't appear anyone's actually notified you…
I realize that VPP isn't ANI and doesn't have the obligation to notify people under discussion, but I can hazard a safe guess who the non-specific editor under discussion here is. ‑ Iridescent17:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfucking believable. Everyone's an amateur expert on bandwidth, browsers, and server performance. But I guess I need to adjust my approach to this before the villagers show up with their torches and implements of husbandry. I just don't have time to screw with this right now. EEng20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll have you know I'm a professional expert on bandwidth, browsers, and server performance—at least that's what my employer thinks. In all seriousness, it doesn't look like it's likely to get off the ground, but it would be helpful if you set up automatic archiving and just let the bot do its job. The way I see it, there's no need to be showcasing 284 different threads on your talk page—literally years of dirty laundry that no one wants to scroll through.
Please just throw this at the top of your talk page:
EEng wrote: "I just don't have time to screw with this right now." I saved him the trouble (and the excuse) by providing a working cut-and-paste solution prepared for his page.
In case my intent wasn't clear: I didn't mean to be condescending or to insult EEng's competence; I'm an EEng fan, which is why I have his talk page on my watchlist. Rebbing00:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Fret not. Your comments were at the top of the good-sense ladder. But the people who measure bandwidth/load/whatever by the wikisource size in the article history -- oh my god! Thanks for the code, but as someone said, I know exactly what I'm doing. I need to find a new way to structure all this, er, content consistent with the page's status as "One of the treasures of Wikipedia". It's tough being a designated cultural landmark, you know. It weighs heavily on my shoulders. EEng00:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
EEng bent under the weight of being a designated cultural landmark –Corinne
EEng - you could also add < !-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) -- > under the sections/images you don't want archived and let the bot do its thing. Atsme📞📧23:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, even on a slow connection this page generally loads much faster than my watchlist. It's not the byte count (which on the modern internet is not much different than any other page) but the back-end processing time. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I have almost a thousand pages on my watchlist, and my list loads waaay faster for me. But I won't comment on anyone's back-end. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, here's [5] LakeKayak's ANI report and here's [6] the discussion that prompted it
LakeKayak, here's a parable I've blatantly stolen from another editor:
There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are dozens of them!!"
As I've said elsewhere, your contributions in your special area of interest could be of great value. But you have to let this go; this kind of indignant insistence just doesn't work in the Wikipedia kind of environment.
EEng03:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I hope you understood that was meant as a pleasant thing for a fish to do (though the jump part doesn't fit the image so well, I guess). EEng21:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
If Wikipedia were a road, I'd suggest searching for which user page to add to list of largest roadside attractions. By not archiving your talk page you may be among other landmarks like...
In Rhode Island, it is commonly said that the Highest Point in the State is the Central Landfill in Johnston. Turns out it's only the tallest man-made plot of land or something like that, but that doesn't stop people from saying otherwise. I think people from RI revel in the state's idiosyncrasies to the point that the weird, albeit sad, idea of a landfill being a key point of interest might have some charm. One of the most recognizable landmarks in the state is, after all, a giant termite.</RIfunfacts> — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
"An editor gives EEng the finger for not archiving his talkpage, but is fossilized while waiting for the page to load." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Something about how strata is lain over eons, then turned sideways by tectonic forces... or something that vandalizes the layers on this talkpage and turns them sideways. not as funny as the other ideas though) Montanabw(talk)20:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Shucks, Corinne, I got confused for a moment - I thought stratum was a biological term, perhaps because they both end in "tum" and sorta sound alike. Thanks for clarifying. I won't make that mistake again. Atsme📞📧22:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no case to be made for John Cochran to be the only Survivor winner without a Wikipedia page.
If you want to be constructive, please discuss my proposal to remove some of the 20-odd Survivor contestants who are obviously not notable, rather than making the same (flawed) argument multiple times. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Since you've seen fit to disturb me here in the sanctity of my talk page, and have been posting here and there complaining that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to notability, I'll just gentry point out that you have only 400 edits against my 40,000, so maybe you should rethink that. See WP:WAX. I made this nom because I stumbled on an article about someone who seemed nonnotable (and whose nonnotability is confirmed by the fact that I'm hearing all the usual WP:ATAs, but complete silence in response to my request for a list of just three independent reliable sources). I don't know anything about some larger plan for the series as a whole. EEng19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you? I've mentioned my proposal for a larger plan several times in the AfD, I was suggesting that you read it. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Look, adjusting the notability criteria for contestants in beauty pageants and reality shows is so far from anything I want to spend time on that it's not even funny. There's something you really need to understand: the topic-area notability "criteria" don't trump GNG. They're just a handy way to get quick provisional decisions. If, when push comes to shove, there are no independent reliable sources, there can't be an article. EEng20:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting that he is on the keep side. He used to be a very staunch inclusionist but lately has become much more likely to side with the deletes. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting that anyone is on the keep side. Have you seen the sources in the article? EEng00:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it very disturbing
... that I thought about you off-Wiki. I saw a TV show in which a character erroneously used the word "mute" instead of "moot". Naturally, this reminded me of you gently teasing someone for doing the same thing, and getting a warning for making a personal attack. I think the person who used the wrong word probably didn't get what you were doing, but I dunno if the admin who issued the warning did or not. In any case, please just get out of my head. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM00:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I'm having trouble coming up with an appropriately suggestive pun on this, perhaps because "Parramatta Eels", "Sydney Roosters", and "hookers" make a frightening combination. EEng (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
So you've got hookers here, and you posted only about adult diapers on my talk page? Be careful your computer doesn't get a virus! (I always knew there was something shadey about DYK.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC) If only you knew... EEng (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
All right, but I'm going to stay neutral regarding various editor opinions about the hook that was run. People have divergent opinions. Perhaps consider adding a new hook as an ALT4 there! NorthAmerica100015:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for linking Far Side, because otherwise I wouldn't have known what that is. Anyway, here's one of my all-time favorite somethings. [7] -- sww "Secrets of the honeybee" story. One day at work they almost sent me home early because I couldn't stop bursting out laughing on conference calls with clients etc. EEng (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hahaha, that is very funny. Although, of course, that's why they're called Bee Featers. But I must stop droning on. Time for me to buzz off, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. helpful captions show how Wikipedia (any many other organisations) work
Hm. I thought they were raven feeders. (Linking raven feeders partly on the off chance you don't know about the ravens, but mostly so you can follow it to find out about Charlie's "ignominious end".) EEng (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I've often wondered which end of a raven is the ignominious one. Now we know. And see last hook here [8] -- probably we'll all end up at ANI.
Please stay with the discussion if you would be so kind. This is a classic example of the spinning wheel of random DYK requirements, depending on who happens by. EEng (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to explain if you don't know the background. "Longevity" has been target to an amazing amount of POV-pushing and spamming for about 10 years. RY was eventually blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry; see [10] and also [11]. Of course none of that has anything to do with notabilty, except that you can always rely that whatever sources are offered are the most marginal, strained, thin ones you can imagine. There's an overview of the sources at User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#He.27s_baaaaack_(again). If no other sources are added in the next week or so I'll be taking it to AfD. EEng (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. What is AfD again? It's hard to find stuff quickly in Wikipedia's help desk. thanks
"Articles for Deletion", where editors discuss whether a subject meets the minimum notability criteria to have its own article -- see [12]. In rereading that, I find a post by RY which pretty much sums up the bizarre flavor of everything related to him and longevity: he describes himself as "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Eventually he was topic-banned from longevity (see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122) and later blocked indefinitely for continuing to edit in that area via sockpuppets. I believe you'll find that most editors feel that the longevity quagmire, in terms of the amount of community time spent refereeing behavioral problems, has been one of the most destructive and wasteful in WP's history. EEng (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, shut up. Over-indenting an earlier comment (as I've done here) makes clear that I'm responding to you, not to the immediately prior post. EEng (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Qcpsyear4.
For those playing along at home, this concerns the following exchange (which I've had to partly reconstruct, since our brave admin has redacted the "BLP violation"):
To which I say: That's a BLP violation? Are you nuts??? Meanwhile, our brave admin has removed this completely serious comment on the inadequacy of a one-week block for a death threat: [14]. Another member of the "Admin 3%", it seems. EEng10:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
More threats from our brave admin
We're gonna get to Wall real soon now - way ahead of schedule (provided we don't get caught by the speed cameras on the A5 at Hinckley....)
Followup: Now we have this [15]. There's something delicious about an admin, in the context of a matter tangentially related to Donald Trump, obsessing over trying to control criticism of himself/herself. EEng18:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Are we talking about Trump? Making fun of him is so easy, and because he appears to lack a sense of humour (eg: Alec Baldwin skits) he's the gift that keeps on giving. I seem to remember a conversation about ten years ago where Jimbo Wales said that George W Bush was a typical example of somebody who BLP wasn't designed for, because "he's seen it all". (Do I have to get the diff?) So as your neighbourhood friendly admin, I say - fling those mud pies at the orange one! Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Haven't read anything here in awhile, had thought that "stalkers" were welcome as non-stalkers, just hanging around every once in awhile, but came back for this one because it sounded like you were under threat. I read the above section, then looked at and read the linked discussions, and had several of my biggest laughs while on site. Still laughing as I edit this. Randy Kryn22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Then this section is doing its job. Bullying, narrow-minded, autocratic admins are best dealt with in the same way as bullying, narrow-minded, autocratic presidents: by letting their own absurd words and actions indict themselves via laughter among the afflicted. Don't forget to stop by The Museums, and of course you are always welcome. EEng22:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. On a Wikipedia lawyer-level, the second comment probably was a blp violation, unless we formerly exclude Trump from the BLP rules and regs. Anyone who reads it and keeps up with both news and non-news would get the reference. Does Trump rate high-enough on a ridicule scale to separate the topic from BLP can be argued both ways, and the admin was erring on the side of caution, as you point out. On a non-wiki lawyer level, I've gotten pulled into and then involved in too many wiki-political discussions not to be able to bs like one from time to time, it is hilarious. And the admin can probably see that point-of-view as well. Randy Kryn23:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
In all seriousness, how would this be a BLP violation, given that Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording explicitly carries the quote, "And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy"? Are jokes about the admitted behavior of public figures now forbidden? EEng23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I guess the BLP example excluding George W. Bush sets a precedent, and the BLP question concerns if Trump is now included in that precedent, which can certainly be argued, and easily argued, both ways. The surreal-Trump image created by both conceptions and misconceptions probably comes close to that point. It's close enough that it's probably protected your great user-page, one of the treasures of Wikipedia. Maybe the question is about drawing a line on unrelated talk-pages or some such. There is no way that comment should draw a ban, or even further comments, because the defining reasoning behind such a ban threat is under question. Randy Kryn23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
In case an admin is following this section, I've come to confess. I've called Donald Trump's hair a work of art in a discussion. Mention of this work of art, unburdened by known recent proximity to pussy, stands as a testament to hairstyling expertise but may also be insulting to the man upon who's head rests both the crown and the hair. Randy Kryn14:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, who knows, we may get to ANI or Arbcom on the subject of high-handed administrator overreach, so I thought it best to keep the record as intact as possible. I'm looking forward to comment from our brave admin, aren't you? I'm always trying to better understand project policies and guidelines, so it will be a real education to learn at last how any of this violates BLP. EEng02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not messing with anyone. I just expect admins to exhibit basic good judgment, and explain their actions. Refusal to do so is corrosive to the community. EEng03:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you 100%, I've also found that at least for me, commenting about admins gets me blocked. Look at my block log for why I don't mess with Coffee. Sir Joseph(talk)03:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure your the backgrounds to your situation and to mine are comparable. But regardless, snap judgments by those in authority are (again) corrosive. Anyway, we're all still waiting to hear what our brave admin has to say. EEng
Yet even more absurdity from our brave admin
Remembering that this thread is especially intended for connoisseurs of high-handed administrator overreach, I really cannot recommend this highly enough [17]. EEng23:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe we should point our brave admin at this unexpectedly-contentious GA review, where removal of some personal attacks could actually be helpful. On the other hand, if he gets overenthusiastic and blocks everyone in sight, I won't be able to get the participants to make the edits needed to complete the review process... I'd warn them to shut it down myself, only (as the reviewer) I'm too involved — I don't want to take a confrontational position as I think it would work against getting the GA to go through.—David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you're pinging. Coffee never responds. EEng23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC) How exactly did a GA review on ballpoint pens veer into a discussion of pedophilia?
My expectation is that he notices, though. I have no idea! I thought it was just an innocent GA nomination about writing devices! —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi EEng, I just found out that the administrator in question has had some absolutely awful things happen to him in real life. (Apparently, I am very much late to find out about it, and I don't want to comment on the details here, but what I am talking about can be found at the Wikipediocracy forums.) Really, heartbreaking. Please let me suggest that you archive or otherwise hide this talk section. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
At 4:21 on July 12th you archived my Edit War/Personal Grudges/Impasse entry. I'm wondering why, and how this affects resolution. There was only one comment under my request for review -- which although it was from someone who seemed to agree with me, I assure you it wasn't me, and I can see people having issue with things said in it. I just want to make sure my complaint will still get attention, as long as being in the archives doesn't prevent admins from addressing then I don't have an issue with archival, I'd just appreciate further clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6448:E200:49C:3E20:2B0F:D891 (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
JamesG5, I didn't remove your comment. It appears there's some bug in the archiving bot, which made an edit around the same moment you added your comment which somehow removed that comment. [19] I've restored your comment to the thread, and I'll leave a note for the bot operator. EEng11:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, I was reading thru the diffs trying to figure out what happened to my comment and it looked like yours overwrote it, I was confused by that. Guess I'll just go eat cake. JamesG5 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello EEng. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Went to see my optimisticomalogist yesterday, and after a 15 minute exam, I left with free samples, and two dilated pupils - nobody you college profs would know. He said to make an appointment at the front desk for a check-up in 18 mos. I thought, wow, I'm good to go....until I started reading the above and thought maybe I was having a delayed reaction to the dilation (presented by Eppstein). Apparently, one of the side effects is uncontrollable laughter followed by a measure of concern for the few unsuspecting new editors whose articles will be tagged Db-hoax[FBDB]. --Atsme📞📧19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
That Captain Beefsteak video is my new favorite video! I sure could have used it back in my early editing days, when I spent so many edits trying to NPOV the animal rights pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein, in the New Pages Feed, when I click Review I'm taken to the article, but I don't get the Page Curation Tool, nor can I see any way to tag or mark or whatever. Any idea what's wrong? Something in my preferences, maybe?EEng18:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Wait, I found it! I have to click Curate this article in the left sidebar. I have to say the directions and stuff for this process are far from ideal. EEng18:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
(Totes, Atsme! We Brits know that all American men are really like Captain Kirk. Did you know that all British men are really like Mr Bean?) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Surely you're referring to the character, Kirk, not the actor, but I actually didn't know all British men are like Mr. Bean. I know of at least one in particular who guided my trip into the Andes Mountains. I liken him to Indiana Jones. Ahhh...Peruvian-Patagonian adventures I hope to never forget...the people are so polite - they'll even help you onto the bar to dance. The mountain climbing was physically stimulating indeed - at times I thought my lungs would collapse - but there was Indiana Jones to rescue this damsel in distress. The trip was memorable but totally lacking academic stimuli. I doubt that had anything to do with nationality and more to do with O2 levels at 12,000 ft. Atsme📞📧20:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You just did, but eureka suits you better, and on that note I'll leave you without further delay (and encourage you) to learn all about your amazing new powers. Atsme📞📧20:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It should by default pop up on most articles you review from the new pages feed that are not reviewed (and for me it pops up on any recently created page, reviewed or otherwise). I also thinkthis meant to watch out for people who link to external sites in the prose (like the diff I just linked to). Also, genuine thanks for your taking time to help out with this. We need all the hands we can get :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, TonyBallioni so I have a suggestion. I have to admit that I'm cherry-picking articles to review – those in topic areas I feel comfortable with. So that means I just scroll until I see something that catches my eye. Unfortunately, when working from the oldest end of the list ("newest" is obviously problematic) when I return to the task an hour later, I have to scroll past the stuff I'd scrolled past last time. It's very annoying. It would be very handy to be able to ask the feed to show you a random list of articles drawn from those in, say, the back 1/2 of the age list. Or, a way to jump to a specific date would be fine. No need to tell me not to hold my breath. EEng20:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Should you want to pester the WMF to encourage development of this widely desired feature, you can do so at T167475, where I have requested that feature from them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
If you can tell me how to do that without creating an account, I'll be happy to. It's amazing how disconnected these people are from reality – how could they not have foreseen this obvious use case? EEng20:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
You should be able to login through MediaWiki without having to create a new account because of global unified login. You can also add any suggestions for new features at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements. Pings to people like MusikAnimal there also tend to get responses, but from my understanding, creating a Phabricator task is the way to get things fixed. I use that page to get feedback/consensus before putting requests in. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see now there's a little button to import my account or something. But apparently I still have to wait for some kind of approval. Ping me in a few days if I still haven't added the anticipated comment. EEng20:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Will do. I don't think you have to wait for approval so much as go to MediaWiki to approve your own account using Phab (too many steps IMO). You can find instructions at this page Whenever I do it, I just have to click approve on a MediaWiki dialogue box and I can get in within a few seconds. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
They can send men to the moon, but they can't make it so I can just log in without all this mishegas. Right now I'm stuck at a step that says, "Your account has been created, but needs to be approved by an administrator. You'll receive an email once your account is approved." EEng20:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Me thinks they may have sent the wrong men, prolly cuz they intended to bring 'em back. NASA needs an endif C++ command for future moon shuttles. 👩🏻🚀🌚🚀 Atsme📞📧00:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Account creation on Phabricator had to be disabled for a while due to spam. If your account still hasn't been approved I can poke some people about making that happen. Anyway, indeed Phabricator is where we track bugs, since the wiki is not really a suitable platform for this. However if you are unsure on whether a task should be created, or need help creating one, just ask :) — MusikAnimaltalk09:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You are widely famed for your forceful and clear teaching style.
I am failing dismally to educate the audience about upright=scaling factor syntax here. Help! BushelCandle (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
He was not the founder. The Colony decided to create New College. Harvard's will gave some (half?) of his estate to the endevor. In return, the colony named the college for him. Read the article. - Denimadept (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The facts are correct as far as you state them, but you misunderstand the use of the word "founder" in the context of John Harvard. I've augmented the article to cclarify [20]. EEng (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Dispute
EE, I really don't want to get into a public dispute with you, but you're making it difficult. I have a good cite at Harvard Bridge. You can't say the same about the one at John Harvard. - Denimadept (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You apparently didn't read my edit summary [21], and an article on a bridge article shouldn't be discussing who founded Harvard College anyway. This has been elaborately explained elsewhere as well [22], plus additional citations were added this morning which you seem to have overlooked [23]. EEng (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Advice, please...
Yes, you read the subject header correctly. An IP showed up out of nowhere at this file and a rather lengthy discussion ensued regarding non-free/fair use on the TP. As one can see by my closing remark after the dust settled, I tried to encourage not discourage the energetic plebe. So what happens next? This. Is this editor harassing, trolling, or just being annoying? It's like the guy at the bar who won't take no for an answer. Oh, and feel free to thank him for all the wonderful TP MOS info he shared. Atsme📞📧17:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amset: It's not meant to discourage you, but to educate you. No offense. A question, how would you have liked me to express my concerns to you? (Hint: Your latest edit to the file talk page was after it was formatted, and subsequently "fixed" again.) The correct definition would be wikihounding. (talk page stalker)2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Though I'll comment in passing that I really don't think Wikipedia needs multiple grainy images of horses fucking, I assume you're only asking me about the tail end of this saga i.e. the stuff about talk page formatting. No one but technogeeks pays any attention to this the semantics of : and * and so on. The argument is always that "screen readers can't handle it". I've been hearing this for ten years. So fix your broken screen readers. Insist that the manufacturer attend to the problem. Switch brands. If it can be presented on the page it can be read out. Period. This idea that < u> should not be used for underlining is completely ridiculous. It's the same people who argue about whether < br> needs to be < br/>. Nobody cares. (The preceding applies to talk pages, of course. We shouldn't be using : in articles anyway, and * only in very regimented ways, so these issues don't come up. < br/> has little or no application in articles either.) If there's something else you want me to comment on, I will. EEng00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess that images of horses fucking (that's a hilarious characterization!) are a sort of respite from all the (presumably human) penis pics that 14-year-old white boys keep uploading. Atsme, the IP is neither hounding nor harassing you – you need to take this less personally. For the most critical issues in this drama (the ones I apparently was unable to resolve), I suggest asking for uninvolved opinions at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Tryptofish but I already sought advice from a "pro" and provided my explanation on the file's TP along with WP policy - and yes, it was tl;dr but necessary nonetheless. I used to deal with these issues on a regular basis in RL, and now, occasionally with WP editors who don't understand why their images are deleted on both Commons and en.Wikipedia. Hmmm...why does that sound familiar? Anyway, moving on - I shouldn't have asked the question here - clearly the wrong venue - and if EEng is of the mind to archive it, I would applaud the move. Atsme📞📧00:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
To clarify my comment above, I didn't intend to imply that EEng or Tryptofish weren't "pros" or that I don't appreciate their input. I wouldn't ask for it if I didn't appreciate it. I'm thinking sometimes an [FBDB] notice is needed for a lighthearted comment that could be misinterpreted and that may have happened at the file re: a lighthearted remark I made to Tryp - my apologies. Anyway, my reference to "pro" was to someone in the legal profession who validated my interpretation of non-free/fair use criteria per US copyright law. WP's policy is quite clear about the non-free/fair use criteria as it pertains to the inclusion of such material in the encyclopedia, so no further explanation was necessary. I included the relevant portions of the policy in my response at the file's TP so if your interested here is the diff. Scroll down a few paragraphs from where the bickering begins, and you'll see the meat & potatoes of the policy. It's useful information for anyone who deals with media on WP. Atsme📞📧04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
An anthology of pros
Oh, no offense taken. I had assumed that "pro" was slang for an editor who is a regular at WT:NFC. But if you meant an intellectual property lawyer, you would be better off at NFC, because Wikipedia policies are not the same as what would happen in a court of law. And if you are going to take the legal route, please be aware of WP:NLT. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish, oh my gosh, no!!! The thought of it becoming a legal issue never entered my mind...and absolutely would not. I was simply trying to obtain an expert opinion to validate my interpretation of WP policy and their references to legal aspects so I could help others understand. As you know, we have legal experts who are editors the same way we have medical experts, and I've collaborated with a few on some articles. In the future I'll use the term "expert" in lieu of "pro". You know that I wasn't the one who pinged you to that discussion, right? I didn't consider it an issue that required a 3-O, and it wouldn't have been if the IP has simply believed what I was saying. He apologized, it's bygones now, and I say let sleeping dogs lie. I knew that what I was explaining to him about non-free/fair use was correct. The validation I sought from an "expert" was for my own benefit. As I suggested in the tl;dr...everyone could just relax...and I even borrowed EEng's quip, "switch to decaf" or something close. I thought maybe there was a clause or policy I had overlooked, and just wanted to make sure I had it all straight in my mind which is why the "pro" part came up. Bygones now, and I'll be quite happy if it stays that way. And EEng, it wouldn't bother me in the least if you archived this discussion and made room all the fun stuff. Atsme📞📧03:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I removed some style elements from your div tags that causes disruption to the interface. It is EXTREMELY annoying to have your images in the margin. If you'd like, you can put your images elsewhere, but in the navigation column, no. I hope you understand. Someone else told you earlier about the disruption.
This user came to my talk page seeking advice on how to "deal" with your user page. Normally, it's not disruptive, but when you load up the mobile site onto a mobile device, your margin contents completely blocks the user's access to navigate Wikipedia. Just a friendly heads up, would you be willing to maybe somehow disable that when being viewed on mobile devices?—CYBERPOWER(Chat)15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
He has a point, actually. When I try to view your user page on the android app on my phone, all I see is the words "This book was stolen from the Harvard College library. It was later recovered.", the top of the head of a statue, the top of the head of someone's black and white photo, and a fish. They're fixed in place, overlapping each other, and covering the screen so that nothing else is visible, even when I scroll. Perhaps that's your commentary on mobile devices but it's not a very informative or useful view. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
While the top of the head of a statue, the top of the head of someone's black and white photo, and a fish... fixed in place, overlapping each other, and covering the screen seems like an appropriate summary of my user page, if either of you knows a way to selectively disable content in mobile view, I'd like to hear about it. EEng16:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
If the pictures were floating to a bad position one could do something by adding class="mobile-float-reset", but they're not floats so I suspect that won't help. If they were floats it would unfloat them and make them full-width. So far that's the only piece of coding I can find to distinguish mobile-view from the regular view. It would have been entirely possible for the Wikipedia CSS to be set up to allow some things to be visible only in mobile and others only in non-mobile, but it appears not to be and there's no way to modify the CSS coding in your user page source code. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, Template:Template display suggests it's possible. But satisfying Mr. Busybody is only worth about two more rounds of this conversation, at most (unless it interests you in some way). EEng23:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't. And I warn you that you'll probably get static about using something like this in an article -- unpredictable behavior and so on. EEng16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Should we italicize "M" in deference to SI style?
I wonder if you might have some pertinent comments on the application of SI style. A question has come up on whether we should italicize the "M" (sometimes "m") in the labels for earthquake magnitude scales (such as ML, mB, Mwp, etc.). I believe the argument for is that the M is "quantity symbol" which, per SI recommendations, should be italicized. (I note that some journals italicize, but others do not. I note also that seismologists seem to think it is not necessary, unless a publisher requires it.) I can hardly believe that the vast sea of WP discourse has not slopped over this kind of topic before, but I don't have a clue where I would find it. Your thoughts? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being dense, but I have no idea what you mean by M is "quantity symbol". I searched the MOSNUM archives for earthquake and found nothing on point. Where has this earth-shattering issue arisen? EEng05:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Richter magnitude scale. And yes, sometimes the M is italicized and sometimes it isn't, but as long as the article is internally consistent I really can't see how it matters, since there's no possiblity of confusion with anything else. ‑ Iridescent11:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, at Talk:Seismic_scale#On_formatting_M and Template_talk:Infobox_earthquake#Magnitude_notation. In both cases editor DePiep argues that "M" should be italicized per SI standards for a "quantity symbol". (Some explanation at Physical quantity. The ISO "Quantities and units" standard all this derives from can be found here.) This has come up because I have developed a template – {{M}} – to provide easy and uniform formatting of various magnitude scales in accord with recommended seismological usage, and I have raised the question of whether we should italicize, or not.
In hindsight (!), MOSNUM seems a good place to look. Thanks for checking.
It does matter, because magnitude scales vary (as much as a whole unit, or more), and even an isolated event can have multiple values for "magnitude". Even within a single, isolated article, if an editor does not (explicitly or implicitly) specify which scale then it is like saying "dollars" without specifying American or Canadian, or something else. When comparison is made to magnitudes in other articles, or external sources, it is all the more important that the bases of such comparisons are equivalent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's my advice: I don't think you're going to get enough participation on this to form a consensus that you can be confident won't be challenged sooner than you'd like. So what I'd do is design that {M} template as flexibly as you can (choosing either italics or not, for the moment) and make the documentation clear that you're inviting comment. Then -- slowly at first -- start converting articles to use the new template, with a pointer in the edit summary to the template documentation. Hopefully sooner or later you'll attract attention for a good conversation on the formatting. EEng21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
For now I'm just trying to see what kind of issues and past history might be involved, and if there is any general guidance. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but yes, "mansplaining" is frequently used unironically. Often justifiably, although in this case the editor was truly out of her depth and didn't even know the sex of "Murph9000". Which I suppose makes her comment ironic in a different way. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Just curious…
Regarding that mile long GREATWALL on ANI from July 2nd by that IP: you said to try decaf. Now, they say vampires can be dealt with a stake to the aorta, and that trolls turn to stone when sunlight hit them. Is it scientifically proven that decaf defusesrunaway ranters? Or is this more OR [FBDB]!!!?!? I will probably start keeping a tank of decaf next to my STiki gear. Thanks, L3X1(distænt write))evidence(14:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a tough time with this one -- all the vaginal steaming may have sapped my creative energies. If you can get it DYK-eligible let me know and maybe an idea will germinate within. EEng02:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Based on subsequent comments, a shrunken head is the least of your concerns. Heads-up - #23 is next. Actually, if you'll start at the top of this page and scroll down one sentence at a time, you won't even notice how long it takes b4 your # is called. Atsme📞📧15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of scrolling...EEng, is it possible for you to include a "page up" button at the bottom of your TP that works like the page down button at the top of your page? And if you could add an up and down button mid-page, it would be helpful, too. Atsme📞📧16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
You all don't have keyboard shortcuts to jump to the top or bottom of a web page? On my computers it is command-uparrow or command-downarrow respectively. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It works, Iridescent...it works!! You win a prize named after you - the Iridescent Ribbit Award: Hope EEng doesn't mind me giving prizes on his TP and will consider the gesture a worthy cause since he removed the jump to the top code. Atsme📞📧20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to hand out prizes. FTR I removed the jump to top code because the one data point we had confirmed my fear, which is that it would end up buried mid-page as visitors added new threads at the bottom. I'm sure there's some way to special-code some kind of "footer" or something, but that's out of my pay grade. EEng20:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OMG!! L3X1, you earned being knighted or damed, and added to the 1st position on the honorary roundtable - (as soon as EEng figures out where to mark the 1st position on the table since he isn't quite sure how to add an up command for his TP - and no, EEng, "up yours" is not the same as an "up command"). Anyway, I'm sending you a gigantic THANK YOU!! All I need from the EEng (talk page stalker) is a smiley for the idea whereas L3X1 deserves an overwhelming show of appreciation!!Atsme📞📧22:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's Happy Hour on my little island so here's my disclaimer for anything I may type that may be construed as offensive....Pffft!!...did I spell that correctly? [FBDB]Atsme📞📧22:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's a fun fact: On many or most iPhone applications (browsers and more) if you touch the clock at the top of the screen, it jumps to the top of whatever page you're looking at. I don't know if there's something analogous for jumping to the bottom or whathaveyou. EEng22:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's prolly analagous to having a fat finger, so while you think you're touching the clock, you're actually touching the url bar which reloads the page. Trump might get away with it, but not you Harvard boys...or so I'm told. I think the concept you enlightened us to is an excellent one. In fact, I would truly appreciate a clock in the top menu bar that would take us back in time to whatever date we prefer. Atsme📞📧23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Uh-oh, I hope that doesn't catch on. I've been called a lot of things, but Tryptofart is a new one. (Kinda catchy, I'll admit!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Possibly, Marteen...hmmm...I seeeee...I forgot the "e" when constructing the esocelese triangles that comprise the sides of the pyramidical anagram for Tryptofesh.....as did EEEEEeeeeng. Atsme📞📧23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Never fear, Dr. Tryptofish...snark just keeps things on a level playing field so that our handful of witty Harfart geniuses can better relate to us lowly Peppermint Pepperdine dreamers who laugh at salad steaming and flatulance jokes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 00:09, June 15, 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my God! I just looked at that article's talk page to discover I've wandered into a Cassianto-owned minefield! O cruel fate! EEng19:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's on a time-delay fuse [25], so check back in two months. It's a bit disturbing, because I just ran into that gang a few days ago [26][27]. Maybe it's the moon. Or Satan. 20:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Neoplastic procedures for pleonasms eschew neoplasms and plastic spasms. I dare you to say that three times fast! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
...because I actually am an editor who is biased toward reality, and here is one such reality: mistakes, conspiracy theories, and partisanship are not unique to any one political party. Unique is when editors recognize that fact. Atsme📞📧14:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
No, but I've eaten tripe, which makes for tripe in Tryp. (BTW, see the bottom of my user talk for a great DYK opportunity!) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
...every time one of your minor edits to the MOS is reverted as a result of someone thinking that every edit to a guideline must be hashed out for decades. If there's an actual downside to this change, please say it. I feel like your current input is giving unwarranted credence to what is essentially a knee-jerk pushback. And if you run into Miss Snodgrass, tell her that just because one of her "rules" happens to fit with a description of an actual, useful, and non-excluding practice, that don't mean I regret putting those tacks on her chair. Primergrey (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I really wish Corinne hadn't opened that thread. Half the discussants seem to have US and British usage backwards. I'm staying out of it starting now. I hope you weren't offended, but if we start indulging ENGVAR debates in MOS itself, we're doomed – see User:EEng#A_rolling_stone_gathers_no_MOS. EEng11:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunate that my edit (actually, my revert-based support for someone else's) got used as a jumping off point for an ENGVAR debate. On a related note, is it wrong that I feel a bit of a gleeful jolt when I see the chaotic melee that follows an edit meant simply and earnestly to clarify? Primergrey (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I've learned my lesson. I will not again open a discussion on anything to do with differences in US and British English. Every time I do, the discussion goes nowhere. I am, though, like Primergrey, amazed at how easy it is to start a discussion that takes off, goes in all different directions, brings up all sorts of unrelated things, and accomplishes nothing. It's kind of fun to see it happen. – Corinne (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Every flavor of MOS issue seems to have a different natural history. Disputes on units almost always need a discussion before they'll be resolved, but US/UK issues mostly fizzle out if you just leave them alone. I don't know why this is. Anyway, your motives were pure. EEng17:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Without wishing to sound like a patronising prick (and/or any other epithet you wish to deploy against me), respect. A version of the classic cliche works for me too, I "know gay people, they're like me only they have better dress sense, better skin, can dance, have more empathy, are less patronising, have a great sense of humour, and far too many girl friends". Of course, this will doubtless lead to my indef ban on Wikipedia (thanks to the stalkers!), but hey ho, it was good to go out with a beautiful rainbow chasing my sorry ass.
EEng, you're alright; I wish we could ever meet in reality, I think you might even realise I'm not a 100% prick, just 97%. Keep on keeping on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I've always felt that (perhaps like me) you're only 80% a patronising prick, the other 80% being not a prick.[FBDB]EEng23:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
EEng, please do not take even the slightest offense at my temporarily removing the Robert Black article from my watchlist. It is nothing to do with yours, John's or any other editors' edits or adjustments: with these seizures I have had and which have increased dramatically since Feb. the increased medication is debilitating me and I find it difficult to maintain interest or focus (even in conversation) for extended lengths of time - THAT is why I have temporarily removed it from my talk page. I should have explained that in the edit. You, DendroNaja, MartinEvans123, John, and a few others have always been polite (and humorous while maintaining professionalism) with me. I loathe having this neurological condition - it is ever present in my life and the medication levels I am on are the maximum. I was actually nearly in tears when the paramedics injected me with an anticonvulsant when I stated having a second seizure while in triage on 25 April. I thought I had it under control to roughly one seizure every two years and was saving for a car. See the talk on the temporal lobe epilepsy page and my most recenly archived talk page. In fact I will re-add the Black article now; I can do little bits here and there.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Kieran, I am so sorry to hear this! I wish I knew some way to help. If there's ever anything I can do to make Wikipedia an easier place for you to operate in and enjoy, let me know. Good luck, and let us hear from you now and then. EEng20:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Nothing aside from hospitalization (again) will keep me away from Wiki.,EEng. Thanks for the kind words though. :) --talk
That's a shame. Seems like Wikipedia would be the perfect way to while away the hours while in the hospital. Other than the rise in blood pressure, of course. EEng21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
For your expert work with me over the last year, and your patient explanations whenever I become taciturn or defensive. Appreciated--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
... and talking of "arcane and subservient rule", I thought I'd get in quick with my cheery li'l "Good Luck, America" wish. Us folks over here are all busy comparing The Ronald with The Donald right now. Seems you folks over there decided to go from a B-Movie to something even more... definitive ..... "Well the first thing I wanna say is "madate by ass!" Martin Royle 123 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017
"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I build them very inexpensively .... because I have a B&Q card." (aka "Block & Quayle" card)
Oh great, just great. Wait until Trump gets wind that "Also, it is noted that N. donaldtrumpi male genitalia are smaller..." The entire NSF is going to lose its funding. EEng20:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't believe it. It's already been a DYK, and the hook was about the stupid hair. No one even suggested the small genitals -- see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi. Honestly, DYK is completely hopeless. Imagine, it could have said
Did you know ... that donaldtrumpi has a scaly yellowish head and small genitalia?
Agreed. But cheer up! The article talk page is almost entirely taken up with a content dispute about exactly those parts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have an idea. (talk page stalker)s, if we all troll that discussion relentlessly, then with luck in 3 to 6 months there can be a Signpost item announcing that "Arbcom has made its decision in the donaldtrumpi small-genitals case." We'll need to pick sides. EEng21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
What if we don't discriminate by genital size? Do we get a prize?
In all seriousness though, I laughed at the idea of this ending up at ArbCom for a second; then the most timid, "Please don't . . ." thought is now stuck in my head. The GMO holy wars were enough excitement for one lifetime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I still can't believe no one at DYK pinged me when this article appeared in the pipeline. Obviously my days as the project's premier hooker are behind me. EEng02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
For a good time, get your wallet, go outside the fence, and look for EEng. Premier service, even if past his best days. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
License to female
Re: DYK prep 2. I was told - by the horse people - that "female" is a term better suited to animals than women, was just invited to a project "women writers" and see that term in a category. How about "licensed women architect?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Wait... are you saying there's a viable (new, etc.) DYK in there? Or just trying to whet my appetite? I've mostly been tinkering hooks in prep for grammar, fmt, and plain good fun-ness. For a while I when through new noms offering modified hooks but it's too taxing, especially because of the stupid system under which noms are organized by the date the article was expanded etc., instead of simply by when the nom was posted -- so you have to search for new things among a week of old stuff. Have you been watching the idiotic discussions about whether to increase the burn rate? [30].
Listen, on PG, it would be really nice if you could participate. There's a detail of Tfish's proposal he's going to have to mock up so we can see it, but after that, when the two approaches are clear we could really use a 3O. I feel he and I are talking past each other somehow (I just don't see what problem he's solving, and there are clearly downsides to what he's proposing) so could I ping you when he and I have agreed the two approaches are being presented with crystal clarity? EEng (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Tfish and I never really had a problem. I think I pissed him off because I didn't knuckle under to the know-nothings in the interests of the greater good, as he saw it, plus I lost my temper a few times at you-know-who. EEng (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was because you won't knuckle under to the know-somethings. But I agree we never really had a problem between us. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who says that a caption can't say "Note detached bone flap above forehead" on the grounds of a complete misinterpretation of MOS:NOTED is a know-nothing (in the sense of someone who wants to pretend that they don't know, or don't understand, something when they really do -- and just can't bear to admit it.) I think you missed the origin of all the animosity from this crew over this past year, which started with a string of discussions like [31]. This was my first exposure to the high-handed, semi-informed, hyper-rigid self-certainty of this particular breed of editor. (And note -- oops, there's that word again! -- I only made the OP and the contraption came to life all on its own!) EEng (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, EEng, how are you? Would you mind if I amend the wording of current closure (such as pages -> edits) to address the current proposal, so that we can close that thread and focus on the current thread re-opened by the editor? Thank you, and regards, Alex ShihTalk17:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I've lost track of who's doing what. I think the topic ban should be very broad, though (I'm afraid not everyone sees) my proposal was a bit tongue in cheek in its expansiveness. Do whatever you think will help bring this nonsense to an end, with some kind of appropriate topic ban for J. EEng18:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme📞📧 20:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Rumiton (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
?Atsme📞📧 01:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
In all seriousness, it doesn't look like it's likely to get off the ground, but it would be helpful if you set up automatic archiving and just let the bot do its job. The way I see it, there's no need to be showcasing 284 different threads on your talk page—literally years of dirty laundry that no one wants to scroll through.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. LakeKayak (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
the world's largest ball of twine
like the world's largest fake potato
like the world's largest office chair
.jpg)
. --Atsme📞📧 19:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I dream of Trippy with the Vulcan ears... --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 22:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
![[13]](http://www.iizcat.com/uploads/2017/03/zchxa-fs8.jpg){kind=link}
