MPants at work (talk | contribs) |
Nagualdesign (talk | contribs) →Life's too short: new section |
||
Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
::<small>A women (?) walks into a bar and orders a drink. Out of the corner of her ear she hears, "You're devastatingly beautiful." She turns around but no one's there! The bar is completely empty except for her and the barkeep. So she asks, "Did you hear that?" The barkeep points to a small bowl on the end of the bar and says, "It's the peanuts. They're complimentary." <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)</small> |
::<small>A women (?) walks into a bar and orders a drink. Out of the corner of her ear she hears, "You're devastatingly beautiful." She turns around but no one's there! The bar is completely empty except for her and the barkeep. So she asks, "Did you hear that?" The barkeep points to a small bowl on the end of the bar and says, "It's the peanuts. They're complimentary." <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)</small> |
||
:::<small>That certainly fits with the common opinion that I'm part of the peanut gallery. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJ2GVOEVFI Hell, it's just as common a belief that I ''am'' the peanut gallery.] <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 21:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)</small> |
:::<small>That certainly fits with the common opinion that I'm part of the peanut gallery. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJ2GVOEVFI Hell, it's just as common a belief that I ''am'' the peanut gallery.] <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 21:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)</small> |
||
== Life's too short == |
|||
I hadn't noticed your recent hiatus from Wikipedia until you mentioned it somewhere. Looking at your contributions (''creepy, right?'') it seems that you were off-Wiki for roughly the same period that I was. I had a friend with terminal brain cancer and spent a month helping out with his palliative care as best I could, and it's taken some effort to get back into regular editing. It puts a lot of thing into perspective watching a friend slip away. The bullshit and nonsense that people create or concern themselves with seems doubly pathetic. I guess that the reason I'm posting this is because I really respect the integrity that you demonstrate, and wanted to let you know that your efforts aren't just appreciated, they're absolutely essential to redress the balance. Honestly, I don't know where you find the patience sometimes, but if it's ever in sort supply just remember that ''life's too short''. (For anyone else reading this, that applies to you too! Either give your head a wobble from time to time or allow me to give you a friendly, therapeutic, proverbial slap around the chops.) Sincerely, <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em">[[User:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#000">nagual</b>]][[User talk:nagualdesign|<b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b>]]</b> 22:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:20, 30 June 2018
Note to self: Don't trust Notepad++'s spellchecker.
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 6
as User talk:MjolnirPants/Archives/Archive 5 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
If you came here to alert me to the post-1932 American Politics DS sanctions, the BLP DS sanctions or the pseudoscience DS sanctions, rest assured that I remain aware of them and it is not necessary. If I violate them, you may point to this notice as proof that I was aware.
MPants at work
you can find my contributions from that account here
Trouting
If you want to rub my ego instead, feel free.
Image colourizing
I've only just seen the work that you and Hohum did to colourize File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg (3 years ago!) and I have to say, belatedly, that I'm pretty impressed. Colourizing is something I never really got the hang of. If you'd like to share how you did it (which tools you used) I'd really appreciate it. If not, no worries. nagualdesign 06:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Nagualdesign: Well, I started working on a monitor at work with horrible color correction, so me and Hohum went back and forth "fixing" the "horrible" look each other did (my stuff was horrible, his just looked horrible on my monitor). Being an idiot is always step 1 (at least for me). But after I got home to a decent monitor, I used the process I outlined at User:MjolnirPants/Colorizing. I used GIMP for all of it. It's easier in Photoshop because of the brush controls, though. To be honest, I think it could still use more work: her skin tone is too even, the shadows aren't blue enough, it's a little undersaturated and there's a few spots where the color line was much too sharp.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- You wrote all of that just for me? And so quickly too! How wonderful! Seriously though, thanks for the link. I'll digest it with great relish. I've never gotten beyond step 1 when it comes to colourization. I'll tell you what, leave the image as it is and I'll practice on it – it'll give me something to aim for, and if I ever get to the point where I think I've managed to improve upon it I'll upload it for you and Hohum to see. All the best, nagualdesign 06:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- ...That was delicious! Thanks again. I think I'll have a go at it tomorrow. Wish me luck. nagualdesign 07:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Nagualdesign:I'm glad somebody's getting some use out of it. :) I do have a tip or two about practicing, if you're interested. If not, well, just don't read this comment, I guess? lol
- Start with a color photograph that you've completely desaturated. The way the grey levels work in desaturated color photos is different from the way they work in actual B&W photos, and the results look much better if done right (and just as bad if done wrong). Plus, you have a reference image.
- Blow up the saturation in a copy of the reference image to give yourself a reference for shades. Since the time I wrote that, I've taken to using much more saturated colors and then adjusting level opacity more later. It seems to produce better results.
- Old portraits are the best sorts of images to practice on, as skin is one of the hardest materials to colorize, and there's plenty of skin in those.
- Old war photographs actually end up looking the best when done right. I don't know why this is exactly, but it probably has something to do with how cluttered and messy the scenes often are.
- I really hate to say this, because it sounds so arrogant but... Don't follow any other colorizing tutorials on the web. I've seen some beautiful work, but none of those artists have written a tutorial that I can find, and none of the other tutorials I've been able to find document even something as simple as using a different shade for the shadows. Of course, there might be a few out there which are good that I've missed, so if you find one from an artist whose results look good, please let me know! Lord knows I'm not done learning yet.
- Aim for, but don't expect perfection (this is a general tip I know, but it seems particularly applicable to this task). Perfection is impossible, and near-perfection is all but. If you don't believe me, google "amazing colorized photos" or "photos you wouldn't believe are colorized" and look through them to see how obviously and poorly colorized many of them are. Some are amazing, but many of the ones that look brilliant to the average person look like crap to an artist. I think I've seen maybe a half-dozen colorized photos in my life that I couldn't immediately tell were colorized, and 4 of them were in a museum (it was that visit that got me into colorizing). I know most of my best works look a little "off" to me, and most of the time, I can't fix it no matter what I do. But you can produce results that will look great, and most folk won't be able to tell.
- I think that's about it... I was planning on adding a section to that page about the differences between B&W photos and desaturated photos and why they look different, but I wanted to experiment a bit with making the one look like the other to really nail down the differences, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Nagualdesign:I'm glad somebody's getting some use out of it. :) I do have a tip or two about practicing, if you're interested. If not, well, just don't read this comment, I guess? lol
Great guide! The only things I can think of which is worth adding are:
- *Calibrate your monitor carefully*
- Make sure your image looks the same in a variety of browsers plus in your graphics tool. If not, you need to start looking into what colour profile you're embedding in the image, using on your operating system, and have configured for your browser.
- Consider whether colourisation is appropriate (unless you're just doing it for your own entertainment)
- Seek out colour reference images of the same or similar scene as a guide.
- Skin tones are tricky, especially faces - the human visual system will spot discrepancies there above all - my main tip would be to say that skin isn't all the same colour, and you need to work on it almost like applying makeup. (Hohum @) 18:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hohum: Those are all good bits of advice. The bit about skin color is already touched on, but I noticed that I never said anything about the typical slight mottling of human skin (even though I do it). Though obviously the first one is a dig at me, so I'll be reporting you to ANI now. ;) I haven't edited that guide in a while, but I'm planning on doing an expansion very soon, and I'll incorporate all of those. I plan for part of that to be the addition of an entire section about colorizing for Wikipedia, which presents its own unique considerations. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Something else that might be worth mentioning is that for graphics work like this which may take several sessions to complete, save it the format which keeps all the various layers and undo histories, and at the very least, not in a lossy format. (Hohum @) 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the tips and advice. Great stuff. nagualdesign 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hohum: You know, actually that's a good one. It shouldn't be. Something like that shouldn't even be photo editing 101, but rather high school "so you want to edit photos one day" remedial class stuff. But, I know a professional photographer who's been working since the late 90's, who still stores all his photos on camera as jpg's, and re-saves them numerous times during the editing process. I tried explaining RAW to him once and he literally told me to stop talking; it was too complicated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Something else that might be worth mentioning is that for graphics work like this which may take several sessions to complete, save it the format which keeps all the various layers and undo histories, and at the very least, not in a lossy format. (Hohum @) 19:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Hohum: Those are all good bits of advice. The bit about skin color is already touched on, but I noticed that I never said anything about the typical slight mottling of human skin (even though I do it). Though obviously the first one is a dig at me, so I'll be reporting you to ANI now. ;) I haven't edited that guide in a while, but I'm planning on doing an expansion very soon, and I'll incorporate all of those. I plan for part of that to be the addition of an entire section about colorizing for Wikipedia, which presents its own unique considerations. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I like it
Just been repeatedly hitting refresh. Very good. nagualdesign 20:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- lol I'll probably erase it before too long. It's the first functional bit of Lua I've ever written, so it was written mostly to see if I could make it work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I read them in an outrageous French accent. nagualdesign 20:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- The first draft had a "Your mother was an X and your father stank of Y!" option, but I didn't want to write 300 lines of code just to get it working. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I read them in an outrageous French accent. nagualdesign 20:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Prostitution in Oceania
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prostitution in Oceania. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Huh?
Alex Shih has been an admin since before Jimbo was shaving! Guy (Help!) 00:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: Yeah, I've said a lot of stupid things this weekend. I confused Alex for someone else and I'm too stupid to even remember who. I have pneumonia and I think the meds are messing with me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Another Daily Mail RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Dresden Files
What do you like about it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- The nerd humor and the author's willingness to embrace machismo in a series in which very few characters are traditionally masculine are the two features which most stand out to me, but the complex and well-researches universe, the careful ambiguity of traditional spirituality and the three dimensional villains all help. When you combine that with a mass-market style of writing; they're very easy to read, with characters that are easy to identify with. Are you a fan? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I've never read it but I might check it out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Best thing I can tell you about it is that it's the literary equivalent a really good prime-time television series. Just deep enough to keep you from thinking it's shallow, but never so deep that you can't take it in bite-size chunks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I enjoyed the TV series somewhat. But it kept getting rescheduled and I dont think I ever saw more than 5 episodes. I didnt actually know it was from books until I saw you talking about it on here a few years ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I had been aware of the TV show when it was on the air, but only ever watched part of one episode. I remember thinking it sounded a bit like spy fiction. It was years later that I ran across the first book on sale for the Kindle and gave it a shot. I've been hooked ever since. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I enjoyed the TV series somewhat. But it kept getting rescheduled and I dont think I ever saw more than 5 episodes. I didnt actually know it was from books until I saw you talking about it on here a few years ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Best thing I can tell you about it is that it's the literary equivalent a really good prime-time television series. Just deep enough to keep you from thinking it's shallow, but never so deep that you can't take it in bite-size chunks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I've never read it but I might check it out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Reply to your message on user talk: Fritz Fehling
Thank you for your extended reply to my unusual edit; I finally found your talk page...
Cross referrals to strongly-related Wiki talk sites should have been systemically embedded by Wikipedia itself, and I hope that you will arrange such general neutral systemic cross referral, independent of my edit...: e.g. on talk: Politics the 2nd or 3rd contribution does exactly the same as mine, referring to another site worth visiting, while my invitation even refers to a Wikipedia talk site that is politically fundamentally more important than politics itself (but strangely receives only a "high" instead of "top" on Wiki's importance scale; I will make an edit on talk: constitutional democracy accordingly, and your supporting input would help...), dealing with the neutral constitutional-democracy foundation that enables democratic politics rather than propaganda.
Thank you for your info regarding "Altruistic Hedonism"; According to my memory it was indeed mentioned as an individual philosophy in that >50-years-old encyclopedia; Even though its 2 constituents are apparently listed independently in philosophy literature, their combination means something quite different due to the apparent inherent contradiction that requires optimisation, much like the related democracy issue. I would like to make a well-adapted edit on Wiki talk: philosophy in the future also using the above, after I have loaded the Universal Democracy Constitution onto Commons for referral. It would be helpful if you could comment on this before I am wasting my time...
It would be more constructive to point at precise shortcomings of my edits for corrections rather than waving them off in their entirety, because I am certain of their relevance at least in part (I am generally not participating in shallow internet talks, as I do not live on the internet...); I do realise that explicit replies are time-consuming for you, but some issues are too important to fall through the cracks of silence that sometimes appear as arrogance. Greetings, --Fritz Fehling (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It would be more constructive to point at precise shortcomings of my edits for corrections rather than waving them off in their entirety, because I am certain of their relevance at least in part (I am generally not participating in shallow internet talks, as I do not live on the internet...)
You may be certain of their relevance, but I (being the far more experienced Wikipedia editor of the two of us) am quite certain of the opposite. I suggest you defer to my judgement. If you don't, I will ask an admin to force you to stop making such posts, and I assure you that my request will be granted. I will cross-post this to your page, in case you aren't watching this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)- (edit conflict) lol have fun --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ScratchMarshall promoting conspiracy theories. - MrX 🖋 18:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Soros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
The Dresden Files
Hi, MP.
I would appreciate if you could go over this. Having consulted the book, I'm positive about the info, though I believe the layout might be challenged.
Thanks! 79.40.43.123 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've consulted Wp:cite and this seems to be the formatting. There are two or three other elements in the "Influence" section that have been removed as unsourced speculation. They look legit to me, but I have no way to check on them. Should they be left out? 79.40.43.123 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've corrected the cite by using the cite book template. You had apparently pasted some extra text from a citation formatting site into it, so I got rid of that. My advice is to always use the basic wiki editor, and to use the cite tool built in. It's rather easy, and the four main templates (web, news, book and journal) will cover 90% of all your citations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you again! Next time, I'll see to it I use the cite template. :) 79.40.43.123 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've corrected the cite by using the cite book template. You had apparently pasted some extra text from a citation formatting site into it, so I got rid of that. My advice is to always use the basic wiki editor, and to use the cite tool built in. It's rather easy, and the four main templates (web, news, book and journal) will cover 90% of all your citations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion
to continue the discussion at Nazi (or something close) at another editor's user page. However by the time I had found it someone else had closed the discussion down (again) and I decided to not pursue it. Should it happen again, or rather WHEN it occurs next I shall try to remember to do that. I do find your "If you don't know" label to be a little strong even if not pointed at me.Carptrash (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- My pleasure; and I hope I didn't sound too lecture-y at talk. For the record, the point of my notice is to be blunt and offensive: basically, I want anyone sufficiently intimidated by it to decide not to comment here to not comment here. I've found that discouraging editors from complaining about my behavior or edits here* helps to encourage them to discuss content at talk pages. While it may offend some people, I've always been of the opinion that offense is free; one can get it anytime one wants, and one can drop it with no appreciable loss of anything (I've also found this logic to hold true for apologies: easy to give out and they cost nothing, so I apologize if I've offended you with it!). So I find that the causing of a bit of offense is a rather small price to pay for a bit of encouragement to stay focused on content.
- *ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to imply that my behavior is all that bad, but rather that I edit in a number of highly controversial areas, and that in these topic, accusations of poor behavior are made against a large proportion of well-behaved editors.
- Oh, not really offended, just more like annoyed at the seemingly indiscriminate nature of it. Years ago I used to drive my daughter to school (part of a larger story) and one day while threading our way through the morning traffic a friend of hers wearing a "FUCK YOU" tee-shirt stepped in front of my car and I said to Kara, "Hmmm. I think I'll run him over." but she talked me out of it. In discussing his scrape with death later she learned that it never occurred to him that someone might take umbrage with it. When you post something like his shirt or your talk page you hit everyone where in reality (another word for "my opinion") you are only aiming at 50% or what ever. But it is not a problem for me, I have a tendency to make public comments on public exchanges. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the edit notice is a sort of filter, and as such it would be worthless if it weren't applied to everything. Note that your comment made it through, and I didn't revert! That means it can't possible be completely broken. Though of course, I'm not adverse to discussing its advantages and disadvantages. It may well be that there's a problem with it I haven't thought of, and I'd want to remove or change it once it was pointed out to me.
- If it helps, I don't mind giving a run-down of things that are "officially" exempt from my "prepare to be reverted!" notice:
- Official notifications, such as ANI reports, etc.
- "Personal" questions in the sense of asking me something that doesn't belong on an article talk page.
- Requests for help (like the section above) or input on an edit.
- Considered criticism (see the section #Sexism above: I disagree with the criticism from Dr. Fleischman, but it was considered and worth engaging with).
- Anything from Legobot because it's basically a request for input.
- Pithy, witty comments.
- Anything that doesn't meet one of the above criteria but which nonetheless interests me in some way (this would include such truly cringeworthy complaints as the one by Kudpung above that just beg to be responded to).
- Serious question: Do you think I should put that list in the edit notice? Would that improve it, from your perspective? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Serious answer. Studies have shown (something I remember from my life as a librarian) that people don't really read much of what gets posted, so I think including your points would be . . . ....pointless. People do "read", can't help reading, things such as your cute drawing of flipping the bird and probably can't avoid the "Fuck Right Off" in bold either. It seems that you know what you want and I'd say that you have already achieved that purpose. Carptrash (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd make a remark here and... yikes. That strikes me as needlessly aggressive and confrontational, but I guess it's up to you what kind of impression you want to convey. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Serious answer. Studies have shown (something I remember from my life as a librarian) that people don't really read much of what gets posted, so I think including your points would be . . . ....pointless. People do "read", can't help reading, things such as your cute drawing of flipping the bird and probably can't avoid the "Fuck Right Off" in bold either. It seems that you know what you want and I'd say that you have already achieved that purpose. Carptrash (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Oh, not really offended, just more like annoyed at the seemingly indiscriminate nature of it. Years ago I used to drive my daughter to school (part of a larger story) and one day while threading our way through the morning traffic a friend of hers wearing a "FUCK YOU" tee-shirt stepped in front of my car and I said to Kara, "Hmmm. I think I'll run him over." but she talked me out of it. In discussing his scrape with death later she learned that it never occurred to him that someone might take umbrage with it. When you post something like his shirt or your talk page you hit everyone where in reality (another word for "my opinion") you are only aiming at 50% or what ever. But it is not a problem for me, I have a tendency to make public comments on public exchanges. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyvio link removed
Please don't post links to youtube video's unless they are by the copyright holder. I removed the link you posted at WP:AN. Such links are not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fram: You'd better go get the policy changed, then. Our policy does not say anything about not linking to material not owned by the host, only linking to to a site "...carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". Hell, we wouldn't be able to use wikilinks if that were the case, for fuck's sake, beecause the WMF owns the site, but not the content.
Alternatively, you could try to figure out the difference between Fair use and a copyright violation: The copying of a small portion of a work for the purpose of criticism, commentary or satire falls into that category. You know commentary like the fucking comments section? Or the response to my link? Or satire like exactly what I did with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything about youtube being the copyright holder, I said "unless they are BY the copyright holder". Youtube is carrying that work in violation of the creator's copyright. Using a one minute film clip just because the discussion is about waking Bishzilla from his slumber is not satire or fair use, it is pure decoration. Please remove the link again. Fram (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- @MPants at work: See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. This is policy (one of the most fundamental policies we have in fact). Fram (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Did you even read my comment? I've already linked to that exact policy and quoted it to demonstrate the disconnect between what you are claiming here and what the policy says. Unless you can find a policy which states "Do not link to youtube videos unless the channel which uploaded the video is operated by the owner of the copyright on the content from which the video was derived, even if the video itself constitutes fair use." or something materially similar, then we are done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The Exodus
The Exodus: — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC) The majority of this article is offensive, one sides, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian. How can you call the history of the majority of the worlds faith (Abrahamic faiths including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and the history of the nation of Israel a "foundation myth." The author of this article uses untrue and nonobjective generalities like saying "most scholars agree, many scholars agree, a consensus of archaeologists". Being myself a theologians and holder of a masters and doctorate on the subject matter these are just not true. I do not know the best way to edit this post but my attempts to make them objective have been denied. Please help me to know how to make the appropriate corrections so that it can include both sides of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 19:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Partially addressed on user's page. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Your edit notice
The following discussion 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.
(discussion as per the ANI thread)
While I feel your current edit notice is probably allowed, it's certainly distasteful and ill-advised, and Leaky caldron's comment that you need not consider RfA is accurate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Why would I consider RfA? I have no use for the tools. Hell, if I did pass an RfA, I'd probably be desysopped within a week for topic banning 90% of the editors in American politics and insta-blocking every editor who I saw pushing a conspiracy theory. There would be 3-4 threads calling for my mop popping up at ANI every day and my talk page would explode with whining and complaints. I can be pretty stupid sometimes, but not that stupid.
- For the record; Leaky Cauldron is now on his third thread following me around to complain after I once referenced an admin (on whose talk page LC was edit warring personal attacks back in at) and LC decided to interpret that as a claim that I was an admin. So don't put too much credit in their appraisal of me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are a liar or deluded. Or both. You attitude and approach is indefensible. People will put their own interpretation on it - they don't need to be instructed by you. Leaky Caldron 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Should I start making a list of all your personal attacks and go to ANI with them, or do you want to take the advice in my edit summary and fuck off? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've only just realised that this is about the pithy finger on the red background with the "for goodness sake use your brain" warning? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- LMAO! Yes, that's it. Dramaqueens with no sense of humor like to take offense and get all worked up over it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've only just realised that this is about the pithy finger on the red background with the "for goodness sake use your brain" warning? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Should I start making a list of all your personal attacks and go to ANI with them, or do you want to take the advice in my edit summary and fuck off? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- You are a liar or deluded. Or both. You attitude and approach is indefensible. People will put their own interpretation on it - they don't need to be instructed by you. Leaky Caldron 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aren’t we all here for the same purpose, i.e. to build an encyclopedia? Sometimes it helps to be reminded of that so we can put aside our petty differences. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay but seriously though, can you really not see that you were out of line? You got into a minor content dispute.[1] When the editor showed up on your talk page, they were immediately greeted by your shockingly uncivil specifically directed at users you revert, telling them to "fuck right off", with a middle finger, saying that you refuse to explain any reversions beyond the edit summary. When they left a message calling you out,[2] for having an uncivil and uncollaborative edit notice (presumably because you already took the position that you'd refuse to discuss the content dispute), you responded by banning them from your talk page.[3] So, having been banned from your talk page, they called you out on the relevant article's talk page. While it's not the right place for a behavioral complaint, I don't see that as a "call to arms" and certainly think it was disingenuous to claim that they're attempting to harass you. In my view, they're attempting to redress their legitimate problem with what appears to be textbook tendentious behavior. You have the limited right to set up your own userspace, and if your edit notice was meant as a joke no one would really care. The problem is that it came across that this is genuinely your attitude, and that's not okay. You don't have the right to tell editors to "fuck off". You don't have the right to refuse to explain your edits. You don't have the right to refuse to collaborate and communicate in good faith. The recent edit notice modification that you did turned things from what could be construed as lighthearted fun, to outright disruption, and this whole incident was the direct result. I can count about seven different conduct policies that the edit notice flagrantly violated. You presented yourself at ANI as a perfectly reasonable person whose intentions are good. If that's the case, please try to do something about this going forward. Otherwise it's only gonna end with you being bothered by administrators a lot more. Swarm ♠ 18:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That first diff contained an accusation that I "do not respect talk page guidelines" and an ultimatum to remove my edit notice within 24 hours or else. This, coming in response to me suggesting the editor "take it to talk". Note that this contradicts your claim that
"presumably because [I] already took the position that [I]'d refuse to discuss the content dispute"
. I was (and remain) perfectly willing to discuss the content. I can't think of any possible reading of "take it to talk" that would suggest anything but "I'm willing to discuss this". While it's not the right place for a behavioral complaint, I don't see that as a "call to arms" and certainly think it was disingenuous to claim that they're attempting to harass you.
Allow me to quote from the edit, then. "My interest has shifted. Go to page User talk:MjolnirPants and press the New Section button, as I did to discuss the unfriendliness." This editor explicitly called for more editors to come to my page and complain about my edit notice because they didn't like it. If that's not a call to arms, then I don't know what is.You don't have the right to tell editors to "fuck off".
There is a long history of closed complaints at ANI which say otherwise.You don't have the right to refuse to explain your edits.
Considering that I've never refused to explain my edits nor indicated that I would refuse to explain my edits, I don't see why you feel the need to mention this. Edit summaries exist specifically to explain edits. My statement that I would not explain any reversion to my talk page beyond the edit summary is not a refusal to explain at all, and in any case: reversion of an edit to a talk page is generally taken to mean the message has been received and acknowledged. This is a common practice here, and as such, I don't even strictly need to give an edit summary because there's a built-in explanation. But if you look at the page history, I almost always do, anyways.You don't have the right to refuse to collaborate and communicate in good faith.
My contributions pages are right here and here. Go through those and try to tell me with a straight face that I've ever refused to collaborate or communicate in good faith. Hell, I've spent 10,000 words discussing and collaborating (often with combative and uncivil editors without ever throwing a hissy fit about it) on a 10 word edit before. In fact, the majority of the time, I try to get a discussion going before making any edit. The only times I jump in and edit first are when my edits are completely uncontroversial, or when I'm reverting something that goes against an obvious consensus.The recent edit notice modification that you did turned things from what could be construed as lighthearted fun, to outright disruption, and this whole incident was the direct result.
Funny, I had thought that had something to do with an editor calling other editors to harass me at my talk page. Let me show you something: check this diff out. That's from right around the time that I created the edit notice until now. 402 edits: assuming only 1/3 of them were by others (which is a conservative estimate, as I generally only respond once), then that's 134 edits to my talk page. Out of those, only 4 or 5 even mentioned my edit notice (and not all of those mentions complained about it, either). That's about 4%. So for the vast majority (96%) of people who come here; it's no big deal. Hell, look at the two comments above yours. But when someone ready to issue ultimatums, hurl personal attacks and try to canvass others into harassing me comes here; it's a "serious" problem. That's not the characteristics of a cause of drama, that's the characteristics of an excuse for drama.I can count about seven different conduct policies that the edit notice flagrantly violated
And I count zero. Cursing is not de facto incivility. Banning others from your talk page is perfectly acceptable. Letting someone know before they edit your talk page that if their purpose here is to whine and complain that they're just going to get reverted is arguably the opposite of incivility.You presented yourself at ANI as a perfectly reasonable person whose intentions are good. If that's the case, please try to do something about this going forward.
I don't know that I present myself as "perfectly" reasonable, but I try to generally be as reasonable as I can. And yes, my intentions are good. My intentions are to improve the project, not to make friends with overly sensitive editors, not to please others with my edits, and not to engage in avoid pointless wastes of time. In service to that last part, I put up an edit notice that was specifically designed to make overly-sensitive drama seekers not want to edit here, and in case they were too stubborn to avoid it, to make it clear that they were not welcome to edit here. If you have an idea for a different edit notice that would accomplish that, and which people are actually likely to notice: I'm all ears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- MjolnirPants, I've deleted the editnotice. You said in an edit summary that the upside down TOC has been explained before. Explain it to me because all I see that it makes your Talk page less accessible to users.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bbb23:It puts the last section (the one most often clicked on) right there at the top. And it only takes an extra second or two to read upside down text. And it's funny and unique. And while I will be recreating my edit notice, I'll forgo the finger because there are obviously too many people complaining about that to ignore, and I'll consider not recreating the heavily emphasized "Fuck Right Off". Though it will contain the same directive that I will revert unhelpful and unwanted bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with @Bbb23: regarding accessibility. Please consider that not all editors are young people with excellent vision. These skewed or upside-down TOCs are something of a fashion, but with moderate vision impairments I find these nonstandard TOCs a challenge -- not just "an extra second or two." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not particularly young myself, nor are my glasses particularly thin. But as I already pointed out: click on the top link to get to the last section. If you're looking for something which you know is in the middle, Ctrl+F will find it quicker than browsing a TOC will. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I can see the utility in having the most recent section at the top, but I agree with SBHB that it isn't easy to read upside down, whether you're young or old, unless, of course, you're the Read Upsidedown Man at the circus. I don't suppose you've verified that it's not possible to have a reverse chronological TOC without upside down text? As for recreating a milder version of the editnotice, I don't see why you need any editnotice that presumes the person posting to your Talk page is doing so in bad faith, but if you are determined to have an aggressive editnotice, short of it being overly offputting, that's up to you. Remember, you don't own this Talk page. You have limited rights to control it, but it's intended to be a vehicle for collaboration with other editors, not an a priori battleground.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't suppose you've verified that it's not possible to have a reverse chronological TOC without upside down text?
Nominally, yes. But extensively? No, I haven't searched every corner of the meta:help:space for something that might do that. I suppose it's possible for me to write a lua module that would produce a reverse-ordered table of contents. That doesn't effect the "it's funny" bit, though. Quite a few editors have mentioned that they did a double take and laughed at it, and that was a big part of it. But, as I said to Swarm, I always try to be as reasonable as I can. If at least two other editors whose opinion is worth something to me (in addition to you and SBHB and not to imply that either of you are outside of that group) opine that the upside down TOC is a pain in their butts, I'll either replace it with a custom module or just flip it back around. Feel free to ask around among the signatures on this page, I don't think canvassing would be a problem for something like this, and I don't think there's any real way for you to target editors likely to object.I don't see why you need any editnotice that presumes the person posting to your Talk page is doing so in bad faith
See my talk page history. A rather large percentage of it consists of bad faith accusations. I edit in mostly controversial topics, and it's normal for an editor who truly believes they're right to get upset when someone points out a major flaw in their reasoning, or makes a clear statement of fact that they interpret as offensive to their world view. It's also apparently normal for such editors to come here and accuse me of being [insert your favorite denigration here]. Even experienced editors do this. After a while, I got sick of it and started reverting. And then I started getting reported to ANI and having those reports thrown out. It got old. Since I put that notice up, I've had a thread about me opened at ANI precisely twice (though I've opened a few, mostly undramatic ones, myself). I've also noticed that the frequency of editors complaining here has gone down, presumably because they saw the edit notice and decided I wasn't worth it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I can see the utility in having the most recent section at the top, but I agree with SBHB that it isn't easy to read upside down, whether you're young or old, unless, of course, you're the Read Upsidedown Man at the circus. I don't suppose you've verified that it's not possible to have a reverse chronological TOC without upside down text? As for recreating a milder version of the editnotice, I don't see why you need any editnotice that presumes the person posting to your Talk page is doing so in bad faith, but if you are determined to have an aggressive editnotice, short of it being overly offputting, that's up to you. Remember, you don't own this Talk page. You have limited rights to control it, but it's intended to be a vehicle for collaboration with other editors, not an a priori battleground.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not particularly young myself, nor are my glasses particularly thin. But as I already pointed out: click on the top link to get to the last section. If you're looking for something which you know is in the middle, Ctrl+F will find it quicker than browsing a TOC will. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with @Bbb23: regarding accessibility. Please consider that not all editors are young people with excellent vision. These skewed or upside-down TOCs are something of a fashion, but with moderate vision impairments I find these nonstandard TOCs a challenge -- not just "an extra second or two." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bbb23:It puts the last section (the one most often clicked on) right there at the top. And it only takes an extra second or two to read upside down text. And it's funny and unique. And while I will be recreating my edit notice, I'll forgo the finger because there are obviously too many people complaining about that to ignore, and I'll consider not recreating the heavily emphasized "Fuck Right Off". Though it will contain the same directive that I will revert unhelpful and unwanted bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That first diff contained an accusation that I "do not respect talk page guidelines" and an ultimatum to remove my edit notice within 24 hours or else. This, coming in response to me suggesting the editor "take it to talk". Note that this contradicts your claim that
- I was trying to talk to you as a colleague, rather than as an administrator. It's always easier and more pleasant to try to reach voluntary agreements, and I figured diffusing the situation in the easiest way possible is what you would have wanted. However, if you're going to dig your heels in over this, I can change my approach: you are already in blockable territory. Don't confuse our generally lenient civility enforcement with a lack of enforcement of non-negotiable policies. If you're under the impression that we're going to play games with you, you're wrong. You've established a serious behavioral problem, and I will be blocking you if it continues. Since you're unaware, the seven conduct policies I see you violating, in letter or in spirit, are: WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, WP:EW, WP:EP, WP:NPA, WP:OWN. In addition, WP:NOT, specifically, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NOTWEBHOST in regards to your use of userspace for this purpose. And, WP:5P4. As it stands, your behavior is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project, and I'm not going to be spending my time arguing with you about it. You either need to do something about it voluntarily, or you're going to lose your good standing over this. None of this combativeness is going to be tolerated. Swarm ♠ 19:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Swarm, the thing is, when you come to my page and accuse me of stuff that's demonstrably untrue, make statements about community standards that are demonstrably untrue, and tell me I'm being disingenuous for saying something that a large handful of other editors (including at least two who have been otherwise critical of me throughout this) agreed was true, even if you've got some legitimate points mixed in there, any response other than pure obsequiousness is bound to look combative. This is not a condemnation of you, just me noting a simple fact of psychology. But if you go back and re-read my response, you will see that I have addressed the substance of your comments with substantive points of my own. I did not dismiss your complaints out of hand (though I have every right to dismiss demonstrably untrue accusations), but responded to each and every one of them. If you still see that as combative, then go ahead and block me. But it will be a contested block, as you can see from below. And if you decide, instead to take a step back and look at something like my discussion with Bbb23 above (noting that Bbb23 unilaterally delete my talk page notice and made an edit to the format of my talk page with which I stridently disagree), you can see that I'm making a point of not being combative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- MjolnirPants, with the exception of Swarm's comments about Evensteven, I largely agree with everything he says. I think you're wikilawyering this to death and failing to acknowledge how your conduct is subpar. I can't speak for Swarm, but I'd rather not block you because in some ways this is more a tempest in a teapot than truly blockable conduct. I just wish you'd not fight this and move on. As for your supporters, you're a controversial enough editor that you're bound to have your supporters and your detractors. I doubt many of them on either side is particularly objective. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- If either of you expect that you can put an experienced editor on blast for trying to keep time wasting (and frequently policy violating) crap off of his talk page (while making demonstrably untrue accusations about that editor) and not encounter any resistance, then both of you need to take a break and try to get back in touch with reality. People don't act the way you seem to expect them to. And if you think me offering to leave the "offensive" bits out of my edit notice, and offering to change my TOC if enough people think it's problematic is "combative" in any way whatsoever, then you should turn in your mops because you don't know what "combative" means, and that's an important thing for an admin to know. Also, check WP:LAWYER. I'm not wikilawyering anything. I'm responding to a mixture of untrue accusations and genuine concerns with substantive points and offers of compromise. Maybe you need to write an essay prohibiting WP:WIKINEGOTIATION, but I doubt that would get community support. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- MjolnirPants, with the exception of Swarm's comments about Evensteven, I largely agree with everything he says. I think you're wikilawyering this to death and failing to acknowledge how your conduct is subpar. I can't speak for Swarm, but I'd rather not block you because in some ways this is more a tempest in a teapot than truly blockable conduct. I just wish you'd not fight this and move on. As for your supporters, you're a controversial enough editor that you're bound to have your supporters and your detractors. I doubt many of them on either side is particularly objective. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Swarm, the thing is, when you come to my page and accuse me of stuff that's demonstrably untrue, make statements about community standards that are demonstrably untrue, and tell me I'm being disingenuous for saying something that a large handful of other editors (including at least two who have been otherwise critical of me throughout this) agreed was true, even if you've got some legitimate points mixed in there, any response other than pure obsequiousness is bound to look combative. This is not a condemnation of you, just me noting a simple fact of psychology. But if you go back and re-read my response, you will see that I have addressed the substance of your comments with substantive points of my own. I did not dismiss your complaints out of hand (though I have every right to dismiss demonstrably untrue accusations), but responded to each and every one of them. If you still see that as combative, then go ahead and block me. But it will be a contested block, as you can see from below. And if you decide, instead to take a step back and look at something like my discussion with Bbb23 above (noting that Bbb23 unilaterally delete my talk page notice and made an edit to the format of my talk page with which I stridently disagree), you can see that I'm making a point of not being combative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- "I was trying to talk to you as a colleague, rather than as an administrator. ... but if you don't take my comments collegially, then I will block you." I understand the sentiment, but that completely undercuts your efforts. Wearing the admin hat makes your participation here inherently authoritarian. You can't take the hat off and put it back on whenever you wish and expect folks not to act defensively. If you really want to talk to MjolnirPants collegially, you have to commit to it by promising not to exercise your admin privileges. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- meh don't take his impotent threats seriously. Swarm isn't going to block anyone. It would be overturned in less than an hour. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Guys, while I appreciate the support, please don't pile up on Swarm. He's trying to be a good admin here, he's just frustrated. Believe me, I can sympathize with that completely because I'm frustrated with Swarm, myself. If anyone else wants to object to Swarm's threat to block me, please do so in a way that will try to reduce the tension, not add to it. But again: I really appreciate the support. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ok but I'd like to throw in some common sense here. I take no position on whether MP's notice is a blockable offense, but before any admins take action--either to block them, or to force them to remove the notice--consider that the notice has been up for a long time, and many admins have seen it and not taken action. There is no emergency. Perhaps it would be prudent to put the matter before the community before exercising their coercive powers??? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
(Sorry, edit conflicted)
Not trying to pile on here, because I think we both know we appreciate each other's posts. That's partly why I've stayed out of it until I had the opportunity to go through everything (but that opportunity hasn't come up, and it's clear by now that enough will happen while I tried to catch up). Speaking as a friend who has been on here a few more years (not as an admin): a lot of the fight (both sides) was over stuff that's not worth winning. I had been meaning to speak to you about the notice (again, as a friend), but I also think that Evensteven was completely out of line for suggesting that users spam your talk page (on principle). That said, I couldn't care less about the TOC and don't see why that is even an issue. I hope that once the content dispute is resolved, you and Evensteven can just avoid each other except where both of y'all can keep a cool head (not a real IBAN or anything, I can tell y'all'd just rather not talk).
I'm gonna take a look at the original article, see compare both sides of the discussion, and try to find some sort of way to bridge opinions there, or at least develop a more solid consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at Doug Weller's talk page. EvenSteven has indicated that they're currently willing to discuss content, and I'm all for it. I really don't see any good faith discussion going their way (hence why we conflicted in the first place) as the content is highly non-controversial, but EvenSteven seems to think it is, so there's no reason not to let them make their case.
- As for the rest of your comment: I pretty much agree. None of this is worth the drama it's produced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hillary
Re [4], what do you think still needs doing for GA? Pinging in Tryptofish as well. I realize we need to get going on this. EEng 06:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Starter for ten - I'll assume you can see the tags already, some of the sources (eg: tv.com) don't look reliable, and a lot of the article is picked off news reports. I prefer to go off books if I can, because they tend to summarise the information at a later date and are hence easier to take as raw source material. High Adventure: The True Story of the First Ascent of Everest needs page numbers. I had a quick look at Britannica's biography before coming here, and the one thing it touches on that our article doesn't really is that Hillary was a very humble character who didn't really understand why he was being praised to the skies. I don't know what "Edmund Hillary - An Extraordinary Life" is like as a biography, but you might want to check it out as it may present a good idea of exactly what balance is required. Then of course the whole article needs a copyedit; if I had to pick somebody who can do a really good job on the prose in this article, it would be SchroCat. Anyway, that's my advice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Ritchie. If Hilary needs a copyedit before any sort of process, I'm happy to help. Please let me know if and when it's needed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- I saw this on my phone while I was out with my kids for the day (I've been waiting for the chance to expose them to A Wrinkle in Time). Ritchie's point about the sources is entirely my fault: I had been working on the sourcing whenI got distracted by other things. I'll get back on it tonight and maybe say some more here then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Huh. Firefox for android will show the elder futhark runes in my signature when it previews the edit, but not live on the page. Bug report time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I already substituted out the tv.com cite, but overall I really need some help with this. If you and others can take the lead on evaluating sources, I'll take the role of obtaining any sources you decide you need access to (print or paywall, I can get almost anything). Remember, we're only going for GA. EEng 19:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. EEng previously told me that he'd like me to have at Hillary (ahem) when the page was getting close to being ready. Just send me a ping or a note when you're ready for me to do that, and I am at your service (lucky you!). By the way, the little trinity of hooks looks splendid. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, since April 1 this year also happens to be Easter, I thought a trinity of hooks would be especially appropriate. EEng 18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- And aren't you glad that I steered you away from Easter egg links! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, since April 1 this year also happens to be Easter, I thought a trinity of hooks would be especially appropriate. EEng 18:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- On a much more somber note, it occurs to me that there is a real risk of trouble-making as those hooks make their way through the prep area and queue. It's possible that someone (particularly an unfriendly admin) who has a misguided view of BLP and a defective sense of humor may try to take advantage of the rapid process to modify the hooks in ways that would spoil the work that has been put into them. It may be necessary to have eyes on the prep and queue, preferably admin eyes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been thinking about that. I wonder if we should have yet one more come-one-come-all discussion at Talk:DYK, this one of the full trinity, and after that remind one or two or three of the admins participating there to stay available. I think we should make it explicitly clear that since the move from prep to Q is an administrative action, an attempt to reverse that action without discussion may constitute wheel-warring. Honestly, with these three hooks grouped together someone will have to be willing to pretend to be especially obtuse to claim that anyone can fail to see that this is all just fun. Nor can anyone pretend with a straight face to see it as partisan.
- Hey, I've got an idea for a 4th:
- ... that Mueller recommends changing your hair color if you're depressed?
- But that might be pushing it, and somehow it feels watered down when we move beyond presidents and presidential candidates. Don't even ask what I had in mind for Jared. EEng 19:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- About admin actions, I could also envision someone rewriting the hooks and then full-protecting. I'm not sure whether WT:DYK would be the best place to post about it. Maybe AN? Or maybe just reach out more quietly to several friendly admins individually? It's worth some thought in advance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Did you know that Jared from Subway went from selling foot-longs to trying like hell to avoid them? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, what'cha got for Stormy's pyjama party with Trump? [5] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Has anyone else noticed that Stormy and Ivanka look similar to each other? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- ...from the neck up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, what'cha got for Stormy's pyjama party with Trump? [5] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, I've got an idea for a 4th:
Back to topic, I've got some Google Books previews of some of the material, and gone through putting page numbers where I can accurately verify the information. It's a ballache though; some sentences cited "High Adventure" where the information is spanned over about 3-4 pages. Other books need page numbers too, the whole thing is unfortunately a bit of a dog's breakfast. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just going to put this here. Y'all make of it what you will. I'm about to cook dinner for my kids, but after they're in bed, I'll be back and I'll hop on Hillary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Give me a list of the sources you want handled, and I'll get hold of them and supply the page numbers. EEng 02:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Er, won't Bill object to that, or will he just think it natural karma for hopping on Lewinsky? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to respond here with something witty about Bill getting jealous (to replace my original joke about Bill not being upset for long because I'm secretly Robbie Williams) but when I did a google image search for "jealous Bill Clinton" the first hit was from this blog which just talks shit about Clinton while hosting a pretty racist image of Obama and links back to this page, which accuses Clinton of "creeping" on a young woman because he took a picture with her. 14 years after he left office, and he's still getting mindless rage-hate from the right. That's funnier than any wisecrack I could make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry about last night, there was a mini-emergency involving a 4 year old and poop. You don't want any more details, trust me. I'm looking at a diff showing all the changes made yesterday and damn... I don't know what else to do with it. It looks great. I'll go through the sources and list all the ones missing info like page numbers. If I can't find it myself, I'll post it here with a ping to Eeng. An Eeng-ping, if you will. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- If there's a book source or two that you think will be needed, and can post them here by 4pm Eastern (US) today that would be nice. We're having a blizzard tonight so I may be away from the library for a few days, and it would be nice to be able to move forward while we're snowed in. And thanks for your work on this. EEng 14:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I should be done with my pass through by 4, no problem. I'm finding a lot of the stuff myself, too, so don't expect much of a list (if there even is one).
- No need to thank me for improving an article, by the way. That's kinda what I'm here for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- If there's a book source or two that you think will be needed, and can post them here by 4pm Eastern (US) today that would be nice. We're having a blizzard tonight so I may be away from the library for a few days, and it would be nice to be able to move forward while we're snowed in. And thanks for your work on this. EEng 14:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Okay @EEng:, my list consists of 1 item: Ascent: Two Lives Explored : The Autobiographies of Sir Edmund and Peter Hillary. It needs a page number for " Hillary saw a means to wedge his way up a crack in the face between the rock wall and the ice, and Tenzing followed." I'm pretty sure the rest are done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've got it -- turns out it's a 1992 reissue of Two Generations (1992). I've also got Nothing Venture, Nothing Win (1975) and View from the Summit (1999). I'll hold onto them until the DYK appearance, in case any questions come up.
- You told me not to thank you, so no thanks to you! So where does this leave us for GA, do you think? Shall we call in Tfish and Schrocat for them to make a pass? EEng 23:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yup. Let's get the "clean up crew" in and see what they do with it, then we'll all get mad that all of the prosaic changes we made get removed, argue with each other for several days, hurl a few insults, then eventually get over it and show up to !vote at DYK and agree with each other like nothing happened. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking as the Clean-up crew (aquarium), I'll have a go at it tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- And I just realized that Clean-up crew (aquarium) absolutely sucks, so I guess I'll work on that one, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking as the Clean-up crew (aquarium), I'll have a go at it tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yup. Let's get the "clean up crew" in and see what they do with it, then we'll all get mad that all of the prosaic changes we made get removed, argue with each other for several days, hurl a few insults, then eventually get over it and show up to !vote at DYK and agree with each other like nothing happened. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The images in the "Expeditions" are a bit bunched up - I can't think of creative ideas of where to put them though. I wonder if anyone else can? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Girder Arson and Haywalking…
I am already lining up AFDs and CFDs for the coming 1st. Did anything crop up in the last year that needs to go? We could run Obama again but that might make everyone sad. Putting up Trump will probably not wise though. Earth, gravity, the US, and oxygen will be rehashed content. I have crime, boats, and Category:Living people. (seriouser side note, can I ask you your opinion on the possible notability of a subject?) Thanks, Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 01:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Kindly ...
Kindly review your reversion in light of your of course forgivably rushed parsing of my syntax. I'd be pleased to consider your second thots, instead of just templating you with something like WP:Look before you leap.
--Jerzy•t 06:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
geany syntax highlighting for MediaWiki Markup
geany uses Scintilla lexers for syntax highlighting . Will your MediaWiki Markup plugin (mediawiki lang npp) work for geany ?
also :
- http://www.cab.i24.cc/projects/wikieditor/
- https://geany.org/manual/hacking.html#syntax-highlighting
- https://www.geany.org/manual/current/index.html#custom-filetypes
- https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins
- http://www.scintilla.org/SciTELexer.html.
- http://www.scintilla.org/Lexer.txt
- http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/commun/userDefinedLang/ImprovedMediawikiMark-up.xml
- http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/commun/userDefinedLang/MediaWiki_userDefineLang__Obsidian_Theme_.xml
- http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/commun/userDefinedLang/Mediawiki_SL.xml
- http://docs.activestate.com/komodo/4.4/udl.html
- https://github.com/jacobslusser/ScintillaNET/wiki/Automatic-Syntax-Highlighting
69.181.23.220 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikibreak?
Hey, where did you get to? I miss you. Wikibreak? Bishonen | talk 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC).
Hello?
A simple "hi" would suffice. Please? Atsme📞📧 22:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Hi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- THANK YOU...whew!! I was getting worried. Feel much better now. Atsme📞📧 03:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jessica Valenti. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Pizzagate GA nomination
I'm going to nominate the article for GA. Seeing as you've put work into the article before, I'm informing you of this.💸Money💸emoji💸💴 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Racism redux
A recent revival of the "how racist is Donald Trump?" discussion has reminded me of your eternal words: Jesus fucking christ, you people can bring this to ANI if you want, but I'm a fucking liberal who hates Trump and I agree with motherfucking Breitbart right now that you fuckers are bending over backwards to push you POV into this article instead of making even the slightest good faith effort to be an encyclopedia.
[6] You may wish to visit Talk:Donald Trump for a laugh. One editor even has a soul connection to Trump: We don't need to get inside Trump's head to know his true soul.
[7] — JFG talk 11:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- He's a soul man, nananana nananana.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JFG: I'm sorry to disappoint, but that laughably naive sentiment was expressed in support of a rock-solid position: If a source says "birtherism is a dog-whistle for racism" and then says "Trump was a birther", then both statements "birtherism is racism" and "Trump is racist" are inescapable conclusions of the article, and perfectly valid summations of it's statements. Birtherism cannot be a dog-whistle for racism without being a form of racism itself, and one cannot hold racist views without being a racist, seeing as how "racist" is a person with racist views.
- Pretending that inescapable logic doesn't exist in order to undermine a point of view because that POV is occasionally held by POV pushers is no better than -and possibly worse than- straightforward POV pushing.
- In other words: the existence of anti-Trump POV pushing invalidates neither the existence of pro-Trump POV pushing, nor (necessarily) the legitimacy of any anti-Trump content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah. The same Mr. Pants. OK then. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thor's hammer in action. Damn I wish I had said that. O3000 (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of company registers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of company registers. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Personal favor
Hi! I would like to ask you, along a couple of the editors I know, for a personal favor. I choose you because every time I see something that you have edited I have been impressed with the quality.
What I would like you to do is to help expand our article on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This topic is something that Jimbo has been pushing on his talk page,[8] and there may (or may not) be a SOPA-style blackout of Wikipedia to try to influence the EU legislators.[9]
As a personal favor to me, could you please help with this article? I am offering double the normal pay... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: I'm not sure someone as abrasive and mostly absent from WP is really the best to help with that. On the other hand, given the potential political involvement of WP, maybe a little distance between editors and the project is called for. But even so, I was completely unaware of the directive until just now, so I would, at the very least, take some time to get up to speed. Regardless, I'll take a look at it, maybe do some googling tomorrow or during the week. No promises, though. Sorry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked infinitely
Nom de plume: | MjolnirPants |
Real name: | Friedrich Nietzsche |
The good: | Responsible for Bacon, The Original trilogy and Hamburgers. |
The bad: | Responsible for those damn The Real Housewives of... and Kardashians series, the Star Wars Holiday Special, Nickleback, Comcast, NASCAR, and Scientology. |
Verdict: | Infinite banning, followed by death by mob justice. |
Thank you for taking responsibility but all the good work you've done cannot cancel out the bad. I've therefore blocked you for infinity. This block may be controversial but once everyone realizes you're responsible for those damn The Real Housewives of... and Kardashians series, I'm sure it'll be unanimously upheld. --NeilN talk to me 18:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- No excuses. This was a good block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- You closed that just in time. ScepticismOfPopularisation had just about convinced me – that Nietzsche was the founder of Western civilization. O3000 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN:I won't appeal, but you should really block Objective3000 for outing me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Don't be upset, whistle britches - some of us have outies and some have innies...and we ❤️ you just the same. Atsme📞📧 19:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN:I won't appeal, but you should really block Objective3000 for outing me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- You closed that just in time. ScepticismOfPopularisation had just about convinced me – that Nietzsche was the founder of Western civilization. O3000 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a community ban (and possible off-site mob justice) in response to you creating western civilization. The thread is MjolnirPants responsible for the Star Wars Holiday Special, Nickleback, Comcast, NASCAR, and Scientology. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Wait, wait - he just got back - he hasn't had time to do anything that could get him blocked into infinity...besides, there is no such thing as infinity beyond the infinite belief of it - just ask Captain Kirk. Infinity is the point at which scientists and mathematicians simply got tired of thinking. Atsme📞📧 18:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I'm concerned as to what flavour of infinity is being imposed with this block. If the block extends both into the past as well as the future then there's a causal paradox that means joints will not be smoked and Western Civilisation would not have been founded. Unless of course we ask Jesus to kickstart things. nagualdesign 18:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, why not, if Christians actually followed His teachings, history sure would have gone differently. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I'm concerned as to what flavour of infinity is being imposed with this block. If the block extends both into the past as well as the future then there's a causal paradox that means joints will not be smoked and Western Civilisation would not have been founded. Unless of course we ask Jesus to kickstart things. nagualdesign 18:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- All of this recrimination, and not one of you mentioned Hitler. Godwin would be disappointed in you guys. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Or infoboxes! *shakes head* nagualdesign 21:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hitler never existed. Find one person that knew him in school or had his house wallpapered by him. Fake new. Fake news. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was the Democrats who invented Hitler, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have met someone who met Hitler in the 30's. They have been dead for 20 years though, so I cant get them to verify.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was the Democrats who invented Hitler, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, I’ve reviewed your new image and caption. But you’re too modest: You should include more of your accomplishments in the realm of Western civilization:
- I realize you invented the Gutenberg press, to give people paper cuts.
- I know you invented the Internet, in order to SPAM credit card offers.
- I know you invented dogs, so folks would enjoy the pleasure of stepping in dog poo.(chewing gum too).
- Telephones so you can be put on hold
- You invented toes so people could stub them.
- Scotch tape and toilet paper where you can’t find the end.
- Gas, so you could run out of it in the middle of nowhere and enjoy new discoveries.
- Large hats so spectators in back of you could enjoy them.
- Ppl who use txt 2 spk on d net
- You invented doors for encyclopedia salesmen.[10]
- Editors that show up on your talk page to post silly nonsense. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know, it's true what they say: There's no such thing as a non-controversial infobox. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're responsible for infoboxes (and thus the infobox wars), too. Oh man, I should just take away talk page access and be done with it. --NeilN talk to me 13:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea. I mean, let's not forget Gamergate, imperial units, mansplaining and those little tabs on top of soda cans that always pull out your mustache hairs one at a time when you drink from them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Did someone mention infoboxes? Atsme📞📧 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)§
- We're giving away free infoboxes! You get an infobox, you get an infobox, everybody gets a free infobox!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if you’d like to add an image of the originator of dangerous boxes, we have one of Pandora: [11]. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I always thought that was Khorne the Blood God, Lord of Skulls, the Chaos God of Blood, War and Murder. They certainly seem right up his alley, anyways. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if you’d like to add an image of the originator of dangerous boxes, we have one of Pandora: [11]. O3000 (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- We're giving away free infoboxes! You get an infobox, you get an infobox, everybody gets a free infobox!!! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Did someone mention infoboxes? Atsme📞📧 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)§
- Probably a good idea. I mean, let's not forget Gamergate, imperial units, mansplaining and those little tabs on top of soda cans that always pull out your mustache hairs one at a time when you drink from them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're responsible for infoboxes (and thus the infobox wars), too. Oh man, I should just take away talk page access and be done with it. --NeilN talk to me 13:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know, it's true what they say: There's no such thing as a non-controversial infobox. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! You'd think you were working from a photo! With some pathos, though, Darwinbish thinks it's a faithful portrait of her. Sad! Bishonen | talk 19:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC).
- [With hope, and pathos: ] Is faithful portrait of Bishzilla? bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC).
- Oh yes. It was difficult to get a good eye on you from inside your pocket, but I did it. I actually made the silhouette in Microstation, in case you find that fact as amusing as I do (though I did most of the work in GIMP. The waist is exactly 1.487 survey feet across (about 25% larger than life size), and the overall figure is exactly 9.6657 feet tall, not including the halo. Closer to comic book proportions than real life proportions, but still an accurate representation of 'Zilla's sexy curves. I've been brainstorming a grand warlock in Photoshop at home, but nothing that looks workable, yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the image, me thinks a Photoshop razor may be in order...Atsme📞📧 21:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- What can I say? I always had a thing for hippies. I even married one. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Snopes.com
Hello, regarding your Snopes.com article revision, could you provide a little more detail as to why you reverted? I'd like to know how to improve as an editor.ChrisD Strummer (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @ChrisD Strummer: No problem. I made two comments, first that your edit "broke the article" and second that it "looked POV", so let me address those in order.
- Broke the article:
- You moved (while rewriting) information from the body to the lede. Specifically, the following original passage:
As of December 2017, Snopes.com's web traffic rank in the world stood at 3,798 with approximately 72% originating from the U.S. with web traffic declining from previous months.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.similarweb.com/website/snopes.com|title=snopes.com Traffic Statistics|website=SimilarWeb|language=en|access-date=2018-01-29}}</ref>
...was deleted and the following new passage:
As of 2017, the number unique American users Snopes drew reached as high as 12.4 million and another 3.7 million around the world.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4819108|title=Snopes.com: Debunking Myths in Cyberspace]|date=August 27, 2005|accessdate=August 27, 2005|publisher=[[NPR]]}}</ref>
...was added to the lede (with the ref used being pulled from higher in the lede).
Per WP:LEDE this is not how the lede should work. The lede (the part above the first section title) is intended to summarize the body of the article. It should never contain information that is not found in the body. As a further, minor note, claims in the lede usually do not require sourcing, although in this article it's expected (I'll explain in a bit).
- You moved (while rewriting) information from the body to the lede. Specifically, the following original passage:
- Looked POV:
- You changed the wording in the lede from It has also been seen as a source for validating and debunking urban legends and similar stories... to It has also been seen as a source for weighing in on matters including politics, urban legends, American popular culture technology and health. That looks like (notice that I'm not saying it is) an attempt to undermine their credibility; the source supports the claim that they validate and debunk urban legends and popular memes, but doesn't really support the claim that they "weigh in" on American pop culture, technology and health[12]. The latter statement would be better applicable to a blogger, who frequently opines on those subjects. Snopes is more focused, taking urban legends and doing their best to either confirm or debunk them. They rarely (if ever) offer any opinions or views, point out facts or logic that aren't obvious or really do anything else generally associated with "weighing in".
- The movement of the funding section to a subsection of History looks like an attempt to draw attention to it. This is a frequent tactic of those attempting to blackwash this article.
- Now, the reason I keep saying it "looks like" a POV push is that your editing history looks exactly like an editor trying to get into editing an encyclopedia, as opposed to an editor attempting to "fix" Wikipedia by "correcting" it's POV. So I have no doubt that you meant your changes to improve the article. But it's a problem with this article because this is a particularly controversial article. Some people may not know this, but snopes.com is -like many fact-checking sites but to a much greater extent- frequently maligned in right-wing political circles, and the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. It is an article that bears very close scrutiny by dedicated editors, because it attracts many editors who are there to push a political agenda. It also frequently requires that we source statements in the lede, so your use of references in the lede was on point.
- So my revert was based partially upon the circumstances of the article, and not entirely upon the qualities of your edit. If you want to make a case as to why you think I might be wrong about something I said above, I am fully prepared to hear it and consider your argument. Or, if you're satisfied with my explanation, then I wish you happy editing. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- ^ The exact quote from the source is: The most widely known resource for validating or debunking rumors, myths, hoaxes and urban legends in popular American culture is the Web site run by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson at www.snopes.com, also called the "Urban Legend Reference Page".
Serious question
Regarding this statement here: "You are not the only editor I think should get the hell out of AmPol, and I don't think you're entirely to blame for why you should get out."
and your entire statement to admins here, please help me understand how your support for sanctions against Atsme are not a betrayal when you claim to want the atmosphere at political articles to improve when you've not named anyone but her as being the problem. Not to mention the fact you didn't mention a WP:BOOMERANG for the filer, who is one of the worst offenders at the AMPOL articles. I guess I would take your disclaimer more seriously if you had done that. And I'm 100% serious about wanting to better understand your comments/statements and how they are going to help anything in a general sense, because at this point, I really don't. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that you don't understand my comment, else you'd not have quoted me essentially saying the opposite of what you just accused me of saying. Why don't you try asking again, only without the bullshit accusations of bad faith, kay? If you can't suck up enough pride to actually humor me by asking again, then it's obviously not so important to you that it actually needs an explanation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Dude, please take my question in good faith, because that's how it was intended. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to understand. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- You were "trying to understand" by casting aspersions on MrX and questioning my stated intentions intentions. That reads more like the other thing you mentioned.
- You're lucky I'm such a sucker for a chance to expound on something I said, so fine.
- The only reason I mentioned Atsme by name is because she was already mentioned by name. I could name half a dozen other names, but I'm not about to spend weeks of my time digging up hundreds of diffs to show that they're POV warriors when it comes to politics who should be topic banned. So the reason I didn't mention anyone else is because I'm not a fucking hypocrite: I tell people not to whine and bitch about shit that's not worth taking to the drama boards, so I don't whine and bitch about shit that's not worth taking to the drama boards.
- As for my "support for sanctions against Atsme", that was conditional entirely upon her ignoring my advice, and is pretty much exactly what I plan to ask for for myself if I find I'm getting back into AmPol.
- As for why I didn't request a boomerang? Because read above: I'm not a fucking hypocrite. Maybe MrX needs to get the fuck out of politics too: I don't think that I would agree with that (There are far worse editors still in AmPol), but I'm sure as hell not about to spend a week digging up diffs to figure it out and then spend another week make a case for it at AE. If you think it should be done, get off your ass and do it yourself; don't try to guilt trip me into doing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Please know I'm not trying to guilt trip you into anything. That's not something I do or attempt with others. When I have something to say, I say it. No reading between the lines necessary with me. Aside from that, thanks for taking the time to answer my question(s) and further explain. Colorful as it was. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Dude, please take my question in good faith, because that's how it was intended. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to understand. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen: I present the single dumbest and most clueless comment ever left on my talk page
Since I think this is closer to a trout than a whine I'm posting this despite the large stop signs. I think you should consider striking the comment (and I'm sure, devastatingly beautiful)
as a non-sequitur and frankly inappropriate comment. How Atsme looks should have no bearing on how her Wikipedia efforts are judged and the attempt to include it as a complement degrades the quality of the other nice things you say about her. A women's looks shouldn't matter in anyway in this context and thus shouldn't be commented on, speculatively or otherwise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I respect a good title. O3000 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- A women (?) walks into a bar and orders a drink. Out of the corner of her ear she hears, "You're devastatingly beautiful." She turns around but no one's there! The bar is completely empty except for her and the barkeep. So she asks, "Did you hear that?" The barkeep points to a small bowl on the end of the bar and says, "It's the peanuts. They're complimentary." nagualdesign 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- That certainly fits with the common opinion that I'm part of the peanut gallery. Hell, it's just as common a belief that I am the peanut gallery. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- A women (?) walks into a bar and orders a drink. Out of the corner of her ear she hears, "You're devastatingly beautiful." She turns around but no one's there! The bar is completely empty except for her and the barkeep. So she asks, "Did you hear that?" The barkeep points to a small bowl on the end of the bar and says, "It's the peanuts. They're complimentary." nagualdesign 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Life's too short
I hadn't noticed your recent hiatus from Wikipedia until you mentioned it somewhere. Looking at your contributions (creepy, right?) it seems that you were off-Wiki for roughly the same period that I was. I had a friend with terminal brain cancer and spent a month helping out with his palliative care as best I could, and it's taken some effort to get back into regular editing. It puts a lot of thing into perspective watching a friend slip away. The bullshit and nonsense that people create or concern themselves with seems doubly pathetic. I guess that the reason I'm posting this is because I really respect the integrity that you demonstrate, and wanted to let you know that your efforts aren't just appreciated, they're absolutely essential to redress the balance. Honestly, I don't know where you find the patience sometimes, but if it's ever in sort supply just remember that life's too short. (For anyone else reading this, that applies to you too! Either give your head a wobble from time to time or allow me to give you a friendly, therapeutic, proverbial slap around the chops.) Sincerely, nagualdesign 22:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)