This is an archive of past discussions about User:EEng. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I heard about it on NPR. He says it couldn't have happened because he is a germ-phobe. (Really, I heard that.) No wonder he has so many divorces. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
While I've got everyone's attention... bearing in mind that the ecosystem of this page includes in- and ex-clusionists and normals, delusionals, and psychotics of every kind and description, I wonder if a few of you might look in on WP:Articles_for_deletion/Pied-à-terre to help break the tiresome stalemate -- whichever way. EEng23:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Just curious...
Am I the only one wondering what it would be like to have an exchange with a parrotfish that has recently been relieved of all parrotfish droppings? Oh, and is this a good time to propose a new WP Project? If so, I propose WP:Project OverSixty, without disclosing what over 60 actually refers to - don't want to box ourselves in. We need all the Scrabble, Euchre, Yahtzee, Monopoly, Go Fish & Shuffleboard players we can recruit to serve as admins and arbs. Don't you think? Atsme✍🏻📧21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope you are the only one. For those following along at home, this is a reference to the colonoscopy I had yesterday. It's over, could have been better, could have been worse. And I'm only 62. Now I'd like to change the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
"This candidate makes personal attacks at RfA when they ...." "Wrong!" ... "...leads to an incivil environment..." "Wrong!" "...admin numbers are dropping...." "Wrong!"
Though I love the bit where he refers to Goebbels as "Skeletor", I actually think this [3] is better. Just to be clear (as you know, but for the benefit of eavesdroppers) I would never seriously compare anyone to Hitler -- that would be a BLP violation. EEng01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely! A purely jocular interjection on my part. I did like the references to Celebrity Apprentice and haircuts though. Robevans123 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I was pinging you in good humor. I'm pretty sure if you hadn't pointed out that it was your first close, everyone would have assumed it wasn't. TimothyJosephWood00:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I've given him a Big Scary Warning. I have better things to do than monitor him for compliance, but if he starts this Dash Warrior shit again let me know and I'll send him on his way. (For someone to reach the point where Dicklyon is complaining that they're too obsessed with imposing their personal stylistic preferences deserves some kind of award in its own right.) ‑ Iridescent19:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I thought an earlier post of yours about the use of Ancestry.com was truly excellent, and I have cited it here [5]. If you are interested, you might want to take a look at the RSN discussion yourself and contribute your own thoughts. I am sure they would be helpful. Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd support something along the lines of "require admins to get re-confirmation every 8 (or 10) years" but don't see how that's related to the Gary Renard case. There are multiple people on both sides with very specific opinions, but the consensus in the last AfD to redirect was clear. And appealing it through something other than WP:DRV is clearly incorrect. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I was only referring to Alex whatshisname. Proposals for admins to have to stand again after a period etc. are perennial, and while I'd support something like that I'm not holding my breath. EEng04:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Unlike the Arthur Rubin and Winhunter threads, there's no reason for anything to happen here. And, yeah, maybe next year there will be a de-sysop proposal. I wouldn't hold my breath either. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree this isn't actionable like the other two, but still he should've put his toe in first instead of diving in. EEng04:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I had a long thing typed out here, but I'll keep it short: agreed with EEng that things should be taken slow for returning admins, but noting that I have been very impressed with Alex's return. He meets my two RfA criteria: have a clue and don't be a dick. Probably should have sat this close out, but my general impression is a good guy and a net positive. Anyway, EEng, feel free to throw in an appropriate image here too lighten the mood. I tried, but was coming up blank. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
An admin upholds one of the five pillars without throwing his weight around.
To answer your question: I literally mean "absolute" and I absolutely mean "literal". Re "every": I said "every sentence", and I absolutely, literally mean it. I do, however, reserve the right to be metaphorical in sentence fragments, ungrammatical asides, test edits where I inadvertently click Save instead of Preview, independent clauses preceding or following comma splices, inarticulate mutterings, text-based renderings of primal screams, random strings of ASCII or Unicode characters generated by falling asleep on the keyboard, and so on. I hope that's OK. RivertorchFIREWATER06:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your removal of my comment on "Civility"...
Per the OP of the request for comments with emphasis on the second portion: /* Discussions: Yes, No, Comments... all are welcome */ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The incomprehensibility of your comment, combined with the fact that you failed to sign it (as is the case with your comment here just now as well) led me to believe it was vandalism. Sorry. EEng23:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the attempt to clear this article up, but scattering the pictures through the sections is weird in a different way for mobile users - they'll click the "Africa" section header and get a picture of Copenhagen, click "Asia" and see Prague. I'm getting the feeling that this needs to be either a single gallery at the end of the article, or a gallery tag at the end of "Europe", given that 11 out of the 12 photos are depicting Europe. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Images, especially generic ones like this, need not be in the most pertinent section. It's certainly better than what was there before, which (as you pointed out) was to have all the images in a single section to which none of them was pertinent i.e. the lead. Mobile layout is pretty much hopeless anyway so all we can do is shave off the worst phenomena, as I did.
Frankly, I think the page would be much improved by simply removing most of the images, which aren't particularly informative or pleasing to the eye: "Oh look, a nondescript building! And another nondesript building! And another building. And another. And another, though at least this one has some architectural interest. And another. EEng20:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
They're generic as buildings, but "Slovenian Embassy in Madrid" is 100% relevant to one section (the one that lists Slovenian embassies in Europe) and 0% relevant to any of the others (we'd never use the Madrid embassy to illustrate text about embassies in Asia)! Agreed that cutting is the way to go, I'll do that now. And add a link to Category:Embassies of Slovenia on Commons for the true connoisseurs of the genre. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I made the change so that during the topic ban appeal that I will make someday (not this year), ANI readers will be able to get more of a visual clue when my intelligent comments are being made. I purposely made the leak myself. I am also glad that you have realized that talk page archives are for sissies. My browser growns every time I refresh this page. Barbara ✐✉20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Gypsy Blancharde image
I slightly restored the original cutline because, as I wrote in my edit summary, the image in question is not a free image and FUC #8 requires the contextual significance of a non-free image to be clear. That seems to have been taken, in the past, to have a cutline that clearly states why the image is relevant to the text next to it, even if this does look like overkill from a purely objective standpoint. I have had people remove images I found and uploaded with scrupulous attention to the fair-use criteria remove said image from an article and nominate it for deletion over less, citing that criterion and saying or implying that the cutline doesn't explain why it's relevant to the article. Since then I have played it safe rather than sorry.
Likewise, that picture of the New Orleans hospital ... well, I won't restore it right now as on a purely facial basis you were right, but it's a free image, it was the only one in the article, and if you want to get an article to GA or FA (as I someday hope to with this one) there's sort of an understanding, at least at the latter level, that you have to have at least one free image in it. Ideally, I'd love to have a picture of the Blancharde house (still standing although I think it's been repainted), but I'm not going to be able to get it myself as I'm not driving 2,000 miles out to Springfield to do it and I don't know anyone out there who could, it's not happening any time soon.
This discussion would be better on the article talk page, but anyway... where is the source for the statement that the photo convinced people of such-and-such? That's the real problem. EEng19:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The photo is to show that appearance since it's key to how her mother got away with MbP for so long, as noted in the accompanying text. The photo itself is just an example of that appearance that I was able to find since it was used in a lot of news coverage. It's similar to the fair-use justification where if, say, a performer's appearance at some point in the past was part of their appeal, and we have reliably sourced statements discussing that, a single image showing that appearance is permitted. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The caption now says "made to appear disabled". Where is the source for the claim that she was deliberately "made to appear disabled" in that specific photo? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Slimey wormy thing
I did, in fact I was the first one to do so for the reopened content I'm fine with any of them, although ALT1g starts with the bold link so that'd be my personal preference.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Style discussions ongoing
I don't understand the distinction you're making with "It may very well be canvassing, but it's not WP:CANVASSING." Based on how and why the section was created, and downstream participation of the same set of editors in various move discussions, it looks like a clear case of vote stacking. You've reverted twice on this point, and I think a more substantive explanation would be helpful. Best, Mackensen(talk)16:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I mean that listing ongoing discussions in one place is canvassing in the dictionary sense of encouraging participation, but it's not WP:CANVASSING in the sense of impermissible recruitment of those with a particular point of view I probably should have linked WP:VOTESTACKING instead). I don't know anything about what's happening downstream, but I see nothing partial about the items listed. If you disagree then comment in a subsection below the list; removing another's talk page post is a real no-no except in very clearly defined circumstances -- see WP:TPO. EEng18:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
It's difficult for me (and others) to view the summaries, and indeed the entire section, as a neutral call to action, given the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Style-related RM discussions which led to its creation. There's a clear expectation there that it will lead to a particular outcome, and that's borne out by the downstream move discussions. If the summaries are talk page comments subject to TPO then they ought to be signed. In their current state they don't look like a discussion; they're held out as neutral listing of discussions. Look at the most recent listing: "Gist: Is "OFM Cap FSA Scot FRHistS" five post-nominals, or three? (Hint: it's three.)" This was listed by the person who started the given discussion, who then gave his opinion on the correct outcome in the listing. I walked away from British style discussions a long time ago and have no dog in that fight, but that's crossing a line. Mackensen(talk)20:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
...to believe this. I ask politely and sincerely that the image be left up until the end of Halloween, because that would mark three months that this image has served to represent Rocío Dúrcal. If someone removes it and banishes it from commons and Wikipedia I ask sincerely and politely that we fight like hell, through battlements and blaze, to keep it on commons as a historical example of really cool good faith vandalism. I want to link to how the Rocío Dúrcal looked for three months in the summer and fall of 2018. My theory is that it was a loving act of someone who didn't want Durcal's fans opening up her Wikipedia page and finding a lede image of her crypt. This is much better. I hope this becomes a Wikipedia meme and the original picture is auctioned for as much as a good Banksy. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Illustrating a bio with a drawing when there's no free-use image available isn't at all unusual on Wikipedia. Until he started making foreign trips and consequently appeared in official photos in countries where government works are PD, Kim Jong-un was probably the highest-profile case. ‑ Iridescent21:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, yeah, and there are many thousands of articles illustrated by paintings and other artwork. But there's an illustrative drawing and then there's Rocío Dúrcal. I never saw something like this before, especially on a major high-profile topic, but you provide a good reason to keep it if someone removes it. "isn't at all unusual". I like it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
It's just as well you haven't come across this labour of love, which is in use on no less than three different en-wiki articles and 16 other Wikipedias and makes Rocío Dúrcal look photorealistic. The stricter rules on other language wikis regarding fair use photos means that the always-hilarious Commons:Category:Fan art gets a surprising amount of use—this is how Norwegian Wikipedia illustrates Ginny Weasley, for instance, while this is how our Ukrainian colleagues see Don Johnson. ‑ Iridescent23:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, EEng. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Based on what little I know about you, I'm thinking you'll be making the coal in your stocking into diamonds. Enjoy the holiday season - and remember, if it goes as quickly as it came, what's not to enjoy?!! Atsme✍🏻📧23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi EEng, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,
EEng, I don't believe in contractions and hence, don't believe in the essay you mentioned and believe that it is F A K E N E W S.Man, do I ever know how to joke! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk·contribs). 19:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello EEng,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk20:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Trypto, that comment was meant to be a joke, not an attack or criticism. FBDB. Besides, EEng and Martinevans are two people who have linked to sexual content in discussion to each other. His lot was an offhand comment about this talk page and those who frequent it - hello to a lesser extent I gues. That's what I was pointing to. I hope that didn't come out too wrong. Happy to retract or rephrase if EEng likes. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
My reference to "critics" was meant as a reference to EEng's userpage, where there is a section called "What the critics are saying", and it means "critic" in the sense of someone who appraises or reviews, as opposed to criticism as in finding fault. And I posted here because you didn't ping or whatever, so I figured that EEng and the rest of us in the "lot" would want to know. I don't think that what you said there was particularly offensive, although I guess some humorless types will construe it as EEng and the rest of us having a misogynistic sense of humor or something like that. Personally, I found your post at the RfA kind of tl;dr, and kind of not really helpful for an RfA, but your mileage may differ. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Mhmm. Fair enough. I probably should have pinged EEng as I did name them. I didn't mostly because as you call it, it is a "tl;dr" that would leave EEng wondering what I'm on about for about half the wall. I did say somewhere towards the end that this was far more a personal comment than a adminship capabilities related one, so it's value as an RfA comment might be more limited. Thanks Tryptofish for leaving the note to EEng and for the reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh, for those reading if anyone at all. I've significantly cut my post at Ivan's RfA. It no longer mentions anyone by name and I hope it's less tl;dr'y. This is what Tryptofish was referring to. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Am I really some kind of apex predator in the Wikipedia ecosystem? And here I thought I was just making the occasional joke here and there to lighten the mood. I've been thinking of nominating myself at RfA just to find out what people really think of me. EEng02:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, last I checked the definition of apex predator is grabbing them by the pussy without asking permission, so I figure talking about the pussy without asking for permission is quite a way up there. Maybe not apex but definitely in the top 10. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, talking about the pussy of someone in particular, yes, but surely not pussy in the abstract. Anyway, this is all very fine talk comeing from Mr. Nude Dude. EEng03:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks. After reading the discussion I could all but smell fill-in-the-blanks test sheets copied by Hectograph (yes, I've been around that long B^) and by some of the comments, so have others—who draw different conclusionsjoke—gee, isn't 1492 sufficient? Neonorange (Phil) 04:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
T. Y.
It is good to know I have an ally when trouble arises. Thank you for your cogent and temperate support. I owe you other communication. One of these days, perhaps when you have given up all hope. In the meantime, if you would like me to set up auto-archiving on your page here, let me know; I'd be happy to help. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey @EEng: this may seem like a lot to ask, with us not being acquainted and all, but because you've been active at DYK, and have a reputation as a good copy editor, I thought what's the harm in asking?
I recently made a DYK nomination for an article I made, Timber Sycamore. I'm pretty excited about the article because I was surprised, when I began reading about the program, that I'd never heard of it before.
Do you think I could prevail upon you to perhaps review my article, and the nomination?
Just as a quick FYI, every statement **should** be attributed either to the next citation that follows, or occasionally, to the one preceding. Let me know what you think! -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The Great and Powerful Oz has decided to grant your puny request! However, DYK rules forbid the same person from both copyediting (or doing any significant editing) and also acting as reviewer. So which do you want? Personally I'd rather copyedit, as I haven't done much reviewing for a while and I'm rusty at it. EEng14:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to amend and copy edit things now, in advance of any review, but if you'd prefer copyediting, I'd appreciate your eyes, oh great one ;) -Darouet (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB]Use title case when referencing The Wizard, insect! And it's 'O' not 'Oh' i.e. "O Great One". You are obviously in desperate need of a good copyeditor! The Great and Powerful Oz will attend to the task before the end of one of your puny Earth days! EEng14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Haha, please do not end my days O Great One: they are so puny! Why trouble Yourself to even consider them? My days are as grass, they pass like the wind; the storms hurl me from my place, and the tempests steal me away in the night!
Allow me to reveal your destination (at least the pilot knew where he was headed) ;)
"Flight 1549 hit birds on taking off from La Guardia, disabling both engines, but the pilot ditched the plane in the river and everyone survived; investigation confirmed he had made the right decision and he became a hero". ENDS.
...evidenced of course by an appropriate citation.
Although, maintaining an editor's healthy self-criticism, perhaps still the flight number is fancruft? If you had just got out of the sea after a crash landing, would you be bothered about the number? That's another few characters saved!
For those playing along at home, this is about US Airways Flight 1549. IanB2 Well, actually, now that you mention it I suppose we could reduce the entirety of the article to, "Accidents will happen. The End."
I hope your comment doesn't hint at concealed resentment. I do feel strongly that too much detail of interest only to the select few made the article a very hard slog for those who wanted a generalist's understanding of what happened, with only such technical information as impacted directly on the event. One technique would be to move such stuff to sections of their own after the main narrative, or to footnotes. See Phineas Gage to see how I've used both techniques to control an abundance of ramified detail on a single subject. EEng02:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. I am enjoying the gusto with which you are trimming the article. And wanted to wish you a merry Christmas. If it enabled me also gently to make the point that you occasionally throw someone living overboard, that was a bonus ;) IanB2 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
On the stuff you have deleted about the fire service respond, I would suggest restoring the citations and attaching them to the following sentence in the article - the citations provide links to extra stuff on the emergency response, for those that want to research this, and only show as a tiny number on the article so don't delay the casual reader. IanB2 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
it's almost christmas...you didn't die this year...someone on the internet put two and two together and posted something about it...so...maybe things are finally starting to look up TimothyJosephWood19:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to make something cynical, after seeing a dozen or so people posting season's greetings on...two or three hundred talk pages each. Seems like it might fit in here. TimothyJosephWood20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Harvard University 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 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) 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You're always good for a laugh. Like I keep saying, if you want this material removed [7], take it to talk. EEng23:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm shocked to learn from the header of this talk section that students are edit warring at Harvard University. They need to stop it, and go back to studying. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This guy never learns (see multiple sections here [8]). He came back from a hiatus a year ago and since then 10% of his edits have been related to this preoccupation with Harvard. EEng03:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm deeply sorry that I didn't immediately realize that Your Preciousness was above the rules of this project. I must have missed the section of 3RR which clearly stated that you were exempted. All I know is that two separate editors have disputed your edit - and you've reverted them more than 3 times - with zero discussion at talk. But instead of you initiating that discussion, it's their job, right? You revert, but they must initiate talk? Because it's... you - or by your comments above, because we dared infringe on your illusory fiefdom at the Harvard article? Well, although other editors are clearly amused by you - your sense of special privilege and entitlement bores me. If you could simply condescend to follow the same rules which the rest of us unwashed and unworthy lower castes do, then further unwanted interaction with Your Preciousness would be unnecessary. X4n6 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you suffer from amnesia, incompetence or just an aversion to the truth? It wasn't my change that you originally reverted. Also curious, is your invocation of BRD - not only because you obviously haven't read its first paragraph - esp. the sentence in bold - but because you have still failed to perform the "D" in "BRD" at the article's talk. So your bleating here means nothing. X4n6 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstand who does what in BRD. Someone else removed this longstanding bit of content; I reverted, and they apparently were happy to leave it at that. You stepped in a day later to re-remove the content, and I again reverted. At that point you're the B and I'm the R, and it was up to you to initiate the D, if you cared enough. Instead you simply tried to edit-war in your preferred version of the article with the content removed. EEng19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
While clearly needed, I realize a disquisition on policies and correct practices would fall on deaf ears. Although your concession, that you have reverted two editors w/o talk page discussion, is useful. Beyond that, I'll simply point out that the rest of your response is moot - as I did start the conversation - and you have still failed to respond. So your choices are to either respond and discuss there - or refusing that - I'll do a little BRD of my own. X4n6 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It's your job to open a thread, make your case for change, and get consensus. What you posted is so vague that apparently no one even knows what you want to do, much less why, which explains why no one's responded including me. In the meantime for some reason you're spending your time here entertaining my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng22:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You've been on WP how long and you haven't looked up words for "ponderous walls of text"?
No arguments here. Do not mistake my recognition of slang which I'm probably too old to use in real life for an endorsement of the way it's used by those who often do.
No joking though, you should address the crap on the article's talk page, since "take it to talk" generally implies "I'll meet you there." Although I know well and good that you probably don't need told that. TimothyJosephWood23:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course. But this guy has a history of trolling on this article, and I'm not inclined to put myself out helping him get his act together. When he explains what he wants and why he wants it, then I'll respond. EEng23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but engaging in discussion is kindof an implicit obligation in reverting, and they did post a response on the talk in accordance with instructions give in your last edit summary. TimothyJosephWood23:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes he did... eventually. But he phrased it as a requirement for others to explain why his change shouldn't be made, instead of him saying why it should be made, and like I said I'm not in the mood to do him any favors. Anyway, the estimable David Eppstein has cut the Gordian knot, and discussion is underway. I have no doubt it will be a complete waste of time like every other discussion this guy has opened on this article. EEng23:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) I think the batteries are about to run out.
Also when did <html formatting> become standard to imply action, and at some point does <small> actually break or does it just continue rendering text smaller until it's less than a px? TimothyJosephWood23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I shutter to ask...unhinged...in a storm...in Key West...after visiting the 100 bars...one of which Jimmy Buffet frequented...or was it Hemingway? I'm THERE! What was my question? No, wait, no question - just a comment - enjoying the break afforded me by the famous "bar keepers friend"...although I think maybe that refers to a different bark eeper...ohhhh, did Tryp get a lobobotomy...my head hurts, said Phineas. And now I shall mount my trusty motorcycle, wait - thought I rode up here on a horse - anyway my iPhone has GPS which I'll set to HOME as soon as I can find where I put it...not my horse, my iPhone - hope I trained that sucker to read GPS - not my iPhone, my horse. I'm pretty sure it's here somewhere, and will let you know when/if I arrive home...or if I don't. (I hear spanking next door...but wait, there are two adults - do we have an article on that?) Atsme📞📧00:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thx for all the well wishes. I actually fell off my bike laughing after reading the following very real AfD for which Jytdog awarded EEng a well-deserved barnstar: I find no road trip is complete without a stop at one of the better retail establishments for some steel wool. I find the No. 000 especially... soothing. Great for exfoliating. Now it all makes sense why I received a phone call from Cargill here on island. They are justifiably concerned about EEng's promotional statement considering exfoliation is a big part of their business (aside from road salt). Cargill's sea salt scrub for women who believe the R-complex may dominant their triune brain as they age is a major income producer, and warrants serious concern over the competition they'll now be facing from Brillo as a result of EEng's statement. Atsme📞📧01:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm offended...nobody got a rise out of responded to my humor. Guess it's back to hero worshipping for me.23:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Atsme📞📧23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, nice - now you've resorted to torture. I'll be dreaming about a hero (or is it spelled gyro?) for the next 2 months! It's like one of those songs you hear that refuses to vacate your thoughts...perhaps a dose of Pepto Bismol would help clear the mind. You may be thinking, well, Atsme, such torture is not unlike a relentless (talk page stalker) who fills one's TP full of rhetorical bull💩 during Happy Hour...although ...💡💡💡💡... FOUR VOILAS!! (not intending to throw FourViolas off-base because of the close spelling). We don't have heros/gyros on this island, so it may be a worthy business endeavor I am now inspired to pursue. Ok, I will depart quietly and leave this page to the whims of....whatever. I hear an active crowd cheering a guy who is playing a guitar & singing the Bee Gees song, "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart". Atsme📞📧02:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
misplaced comment?
I'm pretty sure this was a mistake: [9] So I fixed it here: [10] I don't normally alter other people's talk page comments but this seemed pretty clear-cut. Sorry if I've misinterpreted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Just came from some admin's TP with some (pithy) support for you and the general situation at a certain MOSsy talk page.
I have loved CS Lewis's children's books all my life. But, even as a kid, I thought Aslan (that's you) came off as a bit of a self-righteous prick a lot of the time, despite (or maybe because of) his unassailably pure intentions. But what they fucking did to him, no joy in that. Chin up, buddy. Primergrey (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Good God! I guess I didn't read up far enough. I stopped after the funny bits and missed all the drama. (I recall once telling you it wasn't your strong suit.) I wish I'd seen it in real time. I would've advised you to claim some sort of strong, recent, interest in all things Canadian. We throw pricks around left and right and no one feels too hard done by. Primergrey (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Personal Attacks (2)
You have repeatedly engaged in unreasonable and offensive personal attacks on me, including in terms of how you refer to me, in violation of Wikipedia consensus. Please do not do this in the future and focus only on any problems you have with what I have done or am doing. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Does that mean that you admit the IP edits inserting your name in those articles are "what [you] have done or [are] doing"? Further, accusing me of having a "vendetta" against you is impugning my motives, hence it is a personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The placement of this clearly indicates it is not directed to you, which indicates either a serious misunderstanding, or a whole new kind of misconduct. And your question is really nothing I can understand how you could get out of what I wrote, to the extent that one would have to question its sincerely absent an explanation. Obviously this is not the interpretation, but for anyone who is pretending not to understand, the meaning is clearly a general one that could be applied to anyone, that all discussion should focus only on what I did or didn't do, not on ad hominem attacks. Further, when one set of principles is applied to one topic or person and another to everything else, if there is no vendetta, it is only natural to wonder what is the other explanation. I believe that, for example, for nothing that does not involve me is notability regarded as relevant to details of articles, and the relevant guidelines say the opposite. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
TLDR (though I believe that, for example, for nothing that does not involve me is notability regarded as relevant to details of articles, and the relevant guidelines say the opposite deserves some kind of prize). Daniel C. Boyer, I admire aspiration, but despise poseurs. And you, sir, are a poseur. [13]EEng04:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
You are engaging in further personal attacks on me in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please refrain from these or I will feel that the best response is to escalate. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Your response is a little bit weird, as what I wrote doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that could possibly be an attempt to fool anyone, and indeed, I'm not trying to fool anyone. The thing about Harvard Summer School that you, who from evidence here, like Beyond My Ken responding here and your using the same phraseology on multiple occasions, seem to be a sock puppet of Beyond My Ken, is a ridiculous non-issue. Nowhere did I or anyone claim that Harvard Summer School was anything other than Harvard Summer School, so it's extremely difficult to know what you're talking about. It's really an issue of material about me being treated differently than material about anyone else. If material about Chirac is treated one way I, while making no specific argument about how material about me should be treated, would tend to think that material about everyone else should be treated the same way. I also think that these discussions should deal with Wikipedia and what is good for it rather than the personal failings or character defects of any one man. Your link to my varied career doesn't seem to link to anything relevant, and I don't know the relevance to anything, but the answer to your question is, essentially all my life, primarily in the early nineties, and back in the mid-aughts. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk)`
(talk page stalker) Ah right, "same phraseology", eh? Stuff like "totally sham", "shameless self-publicist" and "self-obsessed egomaniac", yes? Shame on them. I'd be interested to see what the response would be to an accusation of sock-puppeteering, if you'd really care to make one at this desperate stage. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why you think that these are the phrases in question, or is it that you simply think that the "two" of "them" are self-confessed egomaniacs. What I have not seen is any response to anything I have said, my valid points, outside of insincerity and sarcasm. I would like to. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess they've managed to bridle their incessant egomania within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, for the past 10 years. But I'd suggest you need to pop over to here, Daniel, where your valid and sincere input is patently awaited, with bated breath. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
And all these years I thought it was baited breath. One of these days I'll add a section on my TP including my rendition of lyrics to songs, like 'Good for you' by Selena Gomez and me thinking the lyrics say "I'm farting carrots' instead of 'I'm 14 carat"...it really does happen.Atsme📞📧20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Baited breath would be when a cat eats some cheese then waits for the mouse to smell it. EEng04:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)#2 - 😂😂😂 - forgive me, [FBDB], but I haven't gotten "beyond" "like Beyond My Ken responding here and your using the same phraseology on multiple occasions, seem to be a sock puppet of Beyond My Ken" 😂😂😂 - no offense to EEng or Beyond My Ken as I adore & respect you both, but back on point...who is covering the outfield? 😂😂😂. Atsme📞📧19:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The context is WP:ANI#User:Daniel C. Boyer, where it turns out that Boyer and his sockpuppets have been pushing to include his non-notable autobiography here since at least 2004 and he is only now on the verge of being banned from talking about himself so much. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Daniel C. Boyer, I need to ask you to stay away from here now. You're upsetting the children and animals. EEng21:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) and Knight errant If anyone wants a load of Soramimi, you could try this at your peril. I actually enjoy boyth the English and original langauge versions, but this was preety funny, even is some people need to clean out there ears. there are 5 mistakes in this sentence L3X1(distænt write))evidence(01:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
All that remains of an editor who tried to navigate the page, but did not survive (or, one fewer dodo editing Wikipedia) --TryptofishDr. Tryptofish explains to veteran navigators the hazards of scrolling EEng's talk page unless looking for the name of an admin. They all nodded, having forgotten why, after all these years, they were scrolling his page. --Atsme
...Is among the least navigable pages I've ever encountered in my decade as a Wikipedia editor. It also happens to be one of the less boring ones. Nice work. :)
Just to be pedantic (this is WP after all) that was your talk page. I did come to your talk page this time, saw this section, read your user page, then promptly forgot why I came here. Wondering now if there should be a "user page of the day" on the front page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar except for the bit about my mom, I guess, but she's sympathetic to your issues. EEng20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all, cannot doesn't scan (it should be can't) but more importantly, the way it goes is: "You can lead a hor to Tory, but you can't make her Conservative." EEng20:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
You know, I've been saying it with "cannot" for years, but a search shows that you are right (don't let it go to your head!). Anyway, you can't tune a fish, at least not me. And Immanuel can't either. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I love it. (Damn, why did Commons have to delete that photo of an orangutan I used to have on my user page!) I can see it now: Category:Animals that look like Donald Trump. (Uh-oh, I created a red category, so the category police are going to come after me now.) But maybe that would raise WP:BLA (biographies of living animals) issues, because that really is an awful thing to say about those animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Knight errant having returned from jousting refinery towers comment I disagree with 2 examples on that page. Re: ISGM theft, I would keep the Vehicle part, as sometimes escaping on foot when the 5-0 have surrounded the place is going to be easier that trying to drive off in a bullet riddled van, and good robbers (don't ask won't tell:) tend to use a different vehicle for escaping with the loot then the arrival vehicle. While in that particular case all was quiet and they escaped in the same way whence they did come, I don't find it redundant. Re: the rug in Mary Lee Ware: Some rugs are hung on the wall, esp. if it is going to be ondisplay in a public building such as a library. Excepting those two, I pretty much agree with the entire essay, and think it should be moved to the Wiki-space. Thanks, L3X1(distænt write)17:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
On (so to speak) the rug, if the text said "rug on display" I could see some readers wondering whether that's a horizontal or vertical attitude, but "the rug in the library" I really don't think admits any realistic ambiguity. I'm on the knife edge about the vehicle; you make good points but let me think about it.
I moved the page to user space because someone found the crack about the gay version of the classic pancake breakfast "potentially offensive" [19]. Perhaps this would be a good time for a broader discussion of that. Opinions?EEng17:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Talk page stalkers' opinions solicited on move from user to project space
See post just above
Support I'll boldly claim the status as the first non-EEng to promote this around the wiki, I support moving to this project space as I just cited this in a GA review. The issues with the gay risotto dinner might need to be addressed, but given, we do have a user who is trying to promote that word to mean happy, so EEng might be part of a trend. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
the first non-EEng – You make it sound like I'm a species or class of organisms, like "the first non-mammal". But seriously, is there really a problem with the gay pancake breakfast? I mean, they could serve Log CabinSyrup, right? EEng18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Intentionally awkward turn of phrase on that one . I could go either way: you clearly meant it as humour, but there are some who might be offended by it. I could go either way on if it was appropriate for project space. I doubt Chuck was serving log cabin syrup, but who knows? He and the Donald are on good terms these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Gay pancake breakfasts seem like a pretty mainstream subject these days. If some readers get the vapors from seeing pianos with unclothed piano legs (or whatever the modern equivalent of that is), I don't see why we should have to cater to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Support (talk page watcher) - I wasn't going to say anything about the "gay dinner" quip, but if other users find it, er, astonishing, then maybe best to clean it up before promoting. My issue is that I would prefer if you didn't joke about suicide - you could have said seppuku and everyone would know what you mean (probably). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Now hold on. Why is ritual suicide a problem, but seppuku OK? How about self-immolation? Would that be OK? If so, why? C'mon, we're adults here (even if we don't always act it). I think I'd like supports or opposes simply on the essay as it stands now. If we keep going the way this is going, we'll end up with just another not-so-enjoyable attempt at amusement (and enlightenment of course, but amusement is the great enabler of enlightenment). EEng18:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I don't want to start a thing, I know you and I don't share the same views on saying things for the lulz that some people have issues with; depression and suicide happen to be serious and sensitive issues in my environment. That's all I've got, really. I think your essay makes some very good points. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I totally can't respond after seeing the image EEng just added to depict my date night. The vapors fogged-up my vision. Atsme📞📧20:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)And I demand catering.
Meh. If you do move it, please keep in mind that other editors will change it, and you will probably have to go along with changes. Having the discussion here tilts the survey population to your enablers friends, so the wide world of other editors may not be so amused. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
E, on one hand, Tryp has a point; on the other, this isn't your first rodeo. Compare page view stats and if you think it will get more exposure in outer space than it would orbiting planet earth, go for it. Atsme📞📧01:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Principled opposition to this abominable sampling technique per Tryptofish; your talk page stalkers, thank God, are not representative of most editors. Seriously, it's a fine essay, but the risotto joke should be about Podesta instead, and I believe it's actually not obvious that authorised firearms officers would be at an M.P.'s low-key meeting with constituents. FourViolas (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Oh FourViolas, you soph-o-more, the armed officers didn't attend the surgery, they "attended the incident" i.e. were dispatched to the scene of the attack. Listen, there's a freshman I want you to show the ropes to. You up for it? EEng03:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Do what you gotta do That is, keep on keeping on. It is what it is and it ain't over till it's over. InedibleHulk(talk) 00:55, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
Support - I love the fricken essay. I caught myself referring back to it when proofreading my FB posts WP edits last night. Seriously, it needs to be a project page. Atsme📞📧17:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Weak support. Essays in Wikipedia-space have a tendency to become like everything else in Wikipedia-space, bureaucratic and humorless, and keeping this where it is might help stave that off. But this is definitely worthy of being used as Wikipedia essays are used, as a mystifying capital-letter edit-summary shortcut. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Some pancakes for you
For the insatiable
Hello, EEng! Tryptofish has cooked you some pancakes. Help spread Wiki-Love.... oh, fuck it. Given how you cannot bring yourself to let go of the "gay pancakes" formulation at that assemblage of puzzlement, here's a plate of them (and [FBDB] you know which orifice to put them into). If you want to move the thing out of userspace, I'm trying to do you a favor. If you insist on having it your way, well, I tried. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, come on now, I'm not "hung up", but I could just as well assert that you are, because you so strongly resist any attempt to change it (WP:OWN, perhaps?). But let me give you a serious – and sincere – explanation. This discussion thread seems to be about moving it out of userspace, where the larger community will start looking at it, and there will inevitably be editors who will disagree with you, and a lot more ardently than I am doing. When you say that no one else seems to care, that's just no one else from within the rarefied little world of your talkpage admirers. There's nothing at all wrong with "pancakes", of course. But putting it in terms of a gay pancake breakfast will strike some users as insensitive to gay people, as in what makes gay pancakes distinct from straight ones, and why would gay ones be funnier than straight ones. And it is so unnecessary, since it's only part of a joke. If I left it alone and you moved it out of userspace, sooner or later someone else will start edit warring with you about it. I'm not saying they would be right, but I'm just saying that it will happen. But guess what, my pancake-craving friend? Tryptofish thought of a wonderful solution, wherein you can eat your pancakes and have them too! You're welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, maybe someday. He came up in some research and so I stubbed him, but he doesn't particularly interest me. If I haven't done anything in a month you could try reminding me again. Or you could follow the source link and use the material there. EEng12:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Longest bogus file content I've ever seen
Your user page, User:EEng, has the longest Bogus file options lint error I have ever seen, 34073 characters long. It starts out
[[Lionel de Jersey Harvard|{{center|Lionel Harvard]]}} ]] *''... that eight years after rowing a [[Sinking of the RMS Titanic |''Titanic'']] lifeboat and honoring [[Harry Elkins Widener|her drowned son]] with a [[Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library|Harvard library]], '''[[Eleanor Elkins Widener|Eleanor Widener]]''' waited on a yacht while [[Alexander Hamilton Rice, Jr.|her new husband]] fought "scantily-clad, ferocious cannibals"?'' *''... that at '''[[History and traditions of Harvard commencements|Harvard commencements]]''', bagpipes herald breakfast, bachelors are welcomed, sheriffs on white steeds preserve order, and [[President of Harvard University|Harvard's president]] occupies a "bizarre" chair prone to tipping over?''
and ends
==Museum of Yummy== ::''From the article [[Pontefract cake]] (apparently a kind of candy){{snd}}which includes this image:'' [[File:PontefractCakes.jpg|thumb|left]] The term "cake" has a long history. The word itself is of Viking origin, from the Old Norse word "kaka". {{clear}} ==Museum of Leaden Irony== ::''From the change history for the article [[Linotype machine]]:'' (cur , [[Special:Diff/779828760|prev]]){{spaces|5}}{{small|🔘}}{{spaces|2}}[[Special:Diff/779828760|03:01, May 11, 2017]] [[User:Benh57|Benh57]] ([[User_talk:Benh57]], [[User_talk:Benh57|talk]] , [[Special:Contributions/Benh57|contribs]]) '''m''' . . (28,937 bytes) (-1) . . ''(typo)'' ([[Special:Diff/779828760|undo]]
That fixed it. I hope you don't mind, I fixed the remaining lint errors except about 40 obsolete tags (<font> and <center>). If this makes you unhappy, feel free to revert. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Lint errors? What? Did you clean-out all of the lint errors including his naval lint? Hopefully you decided to keep the lint just in case you need to start a fire and don't have any kindling on hand (not to be confused with Kindle at the eBookstore). I hear lint collection is a favorite past time for "preppers"...not to be confused with peppers as in Jalepeño. [FBDB] It's Happy Hour, and it's Saturday - need more be said? Atsme📞📧21:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
TOC limit 3 would suppress ====-level headings needed in the very large === sections such as Dates, months and years. But Time of day is a small section, and there's no point in breaking out Time zones separately within it. On this page, as on all MOS pages, every little bit we can do to reduce distraction and navigational complexity helps. EEng11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized later that it was you, which is why I removed my comment about it. I actually don't mind you doing it, I thought it was one of my prosecutors, and I was a bit touchy. Overall, no problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
GRuban, look carefully at my edit summary, including the diff link contained in the edit summary. At the bottom of the diff I said, in exasperation, that the next time Zazpot removed my posts I'd simply roll back. I'm not obliged to spend my time surgically undoing his removal of my posts while preserving his subsequent posts. He's in the wrong and needs to get a grip. EEng22:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I wonder how many more editors are going to have to tell you to get a clue before you get a clue. When you're new to a social environment, you need to make it your job to learn what the norms are. You're wasting your own time and everyone else's, and have been doing so for some time now. EEng03:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Even odd couples are even numbers
Turns out I actually agree with Zazpot on something: that "couple" should mean "two". On the other hand, I am also aware that my preference for this specific meaning is not universal. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware it had another meaning, I've always used it as two. For example: I had a couple of edit conflicts when trying to close that ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Authority control
No clue; sorry. Note the second sentence in Authority control on the term's derivation from "authorized". We use authorised titles in numerous settings, and it makes everything easier. This is illustrated by the fact that publisher names aren't authorised: I'm constantly having to deal with non-controlled publisher names. I'll get Taylor and Francis Group, Taylor & Francis Group, Taylor&Francis Group, Taylor and Francis, Taylor & Francis, Taylor&Francis, T&F, T & F, T and F, CRC Press, Routledge, plus occasional typos — and they're all the same company. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump baby balloon
[[:File:Trump_Baby_Balloon_at_protest_in_Parliament_Square.jpg|upright=1|thumb|"When Trump visits the U.K. on Friday the 13th of July, we want to make sure he knows that all of Britain is looking down on him and laughing at him."
—Leo Murray, London activist
“But the people of the UK, and I’ll bet if you had an honest poll, I’d be very strong,”
-Donald Trump, angry baby
"I am just saying I think he would be a great Prime Minister. I think he's got what it takes."
Not sure if you're aware of this over in the US but to 'celebrate' Trump's visit to the UK a blimp will be flown over the River Thames and other locations. I'd heard about it but didn't really think anything of it, but as he's arrived here in in the last few hours they've just shown it on the evening news, and it's pretty hilarious. A great example of British humour. I won't link to a particular article or website but I encourage anyone who likes laughing to search for trump baby balloon using their favourite search engine. You won't be disappointed. nagualdesign17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I knew about it but couldn't find any Commons or WP image that I could use at the Museums. No doubt my ignorance will soon be remedied by a member of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng01:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Done No doubt there will be baying hordes of users over on the Commons poring over the details of the license to ascertain its veracity. nagualdesign02:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the deletion request has been extended to cover all images in that category. And although the image appears on a CC-licensed web page, I think they copied it from the web site for the blimp's funding campaign, which presumably is the actual copyright holder of the image and does not say anything about Creative Commons. (It doesn't magically free an image if a non-owner steals it and claims that they're posting it under a free license.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't magically free an image if a non-owner steals it and claims that they're posting it under a free license. You don't say! nagualdesign00:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I was going to respond – but by the time I walked down to the bottom of this page, I forgot what I was going to say. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, Buddha (or Emerson) may have been wise. But they didn't have to travel through three Windows updates before the end of their journey. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I choose to use Windows as opposed to Linux as I feel a duty to experience the pain and suffering of my fellow humans. Besides, I don’t wish to start another Thirty Years’ War. O3000 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Trump has all the best balloons. They are balloons like nobody has ever seen before. These balloons are so good that you are going to get sick of all the balloons. Hillary's balloons are all crooked. Lock them up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The bullshit continues
Practical parenting
All images featuring the Trump Baby balloon have now been deleted on Commons by a self-professed "qualified lawyer" on the grounds that they feature a copyrighted artwork (the balloon), while no effort is being made to simply ask the copyright holder, Matt Bonner, or allow anyone else the time to contact him (see here for details). Not only that but Ritchie's photo, File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg, was marked by one user to be transferred to the Commons, was subsequently transferred, then the same user chimed in to a deletion discussion to quote COM:FOP, and the image was deleted from Commons! Thankfully it's still available here.
This is notwithstanding the fact that there are thousands of images on Commons of copyrighted objects, such as artworks, commercial products and even large balloons of copyrighted artworks, but he's a qualified lawyer so he knows his onions, right? Either that or he's another big, angry baby that didn't like us limeys taking the proverbial out of the pwesident, and thinks that he should do whatever he can to put a stop to it. Honestly, I've never witnessed such pathetic claptrap outside of the YouTube comments. You were right, EEng, the lunatics really have taken over the asylum. nagualdesign01:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
So, no offense to anyone a large quantity of dental enamel is being eroded on a discussion predestined to be No Consensused on day 1 over the SEW, while this goes on on/at the Commons. I am shocked, shocked, I tell you. (no need for WP999, my family has removed all forks and shut down the power to my household, I writing this on neighbor's wifi, quite safe tyvm) If it weren't the fact that this canvassed rabble rouser only has 83 edits I'd run for sysop over there. IIRC, the only times a photo of something copyrighted is a copy-vio is when you are a selfish artist who steals others' Twitter and IG photos and stick them in a for-profit gallery. /rant Thanks, L3X1◊distænt write◊02:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I feel your pain, but since Wikipedia accepts fair-use arguments, why keep beating your head against the wall at Commons? Someone once called Commons "the English Wikipedia's penal colony", where people unable to function in normal society take refuge, and it's true; and when you throw in the self-appointed experts and Tower of Babel malapropisms, it just a complete circus. So stop casting your pearls before swine and upload here. EEng03:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Being that most of my contributions to Wikipedia over the last few years have actually been images hosted on Commons I feel like I have a vested interest in cutting through some of the bullshit that I encounter, or at the very least shining a big, bright light on it. Having said that, recent events have made me reconsider, and I've already decided never to upload there again.
This isn't really about fair use though. It's about Wikipedia having a better culture of people with common sense and the ability to cut through any bullshit being thrown around by a small minority. The reason Ritchie's image won't get deleted here is because it's perfectly legal and appropriate not to. nagualdesign03:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I watched what happened at Commons over that, and can observe two things. One, the closer of that discussion is an admin over there, but was long ago desysopped here. Two, technically, that admin was correct according to the "rules" for Commons. (The equivalent of WP:Burden over there is that it's not enough to say that someone else needs to contact the copyright holder and let's wait for that to happen, but rather that the file must be deleted until the copyright holder has said it's licensed.) And that doesn't mean that Commons is "right", but that discussions there can be a waste of time. If a file is going to get nuked at Commons but it's still a useful file for en-Wiki, just upload it locally at en-Wiki. Life is short, and it's not worth it to try to win arguments over there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
But on a cheerier note, this recent related comment by our very own Martinevans123 is my choice for the most perfect talk page comment in recent memory: [26]. Well played, sir, well played. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Done —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Just curious...
(I hear spanking next door...but wait, there are two adults - do we have an article on that?) Atsme📞📧 00:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
EEng 02:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
once or twice, undeservedly of course. Lil 😈 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I may be mistaken about your intent but haughty Tory reminds me of this. Perhaps it's a generational thing? Atsme📞📧 22:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
. I could go either way: you clearly meant it as humour, but there are some who might be offended by it. I could go either way on if it was appropriate for project space. I doubt Chuck was serving log cabin syrup, but who knows? He and the Donald are on good terms these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Oh FourViolas, you soph-o-more, the armed officers didn't attend the surgery, they "attended the incident" i.e. were dispatched to the scene of the attack. Listen, there's a freshman I want you to show the ropes to. You up for it? EEng 03:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No doubt there will be baying hordes of users over on the Commons poring over the details of the license to ascertain its veracity. nagualdesign 02:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
