2018
Hello
Hi, stopping by belatedly to say hello and welcome back. I stop in here about once a week or ten days or so and never stay long, but have noted your name floating past a few times which was a nice surprise. Hope all is well. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Victoria. I am anxiously awaiting spring weather; want to put this shitty winter behind for another year. I wish the "daily savings time" BS actually coincided with spring arriving where I am; we have really long evenings in the summer, and basically by now, the evenings are already long enough for me--with another three months of lengthening evenings to go. Well it's not often I talk about the weather on wikipedia, so you know. Outriggr (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's ok to talk about the weather this year. It snowed every day last week and is 80 degrees today, but snow in the forecast again next week. The evenings are too long, can't agree more. Great to see you back and productive. Much more than I can say about myself. Noted the message at chez Ceoil re Cranach - I'll take a peek. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that excellent new article. It has long been a gaping hole on our coverage. Theramin (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. Now you see, this is exactly why I hang around here at Wikipedia. I get to learn new things that fill in gaps in my knowledge, in an interesting way. Job well done. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Cross in the Mountains (Tetschen Altar)
On 4 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cross in the Mountains (Tetschen Altar), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the German painter Caspar David Friedrich's Cross in the Mountains (pictured) marked a "decisive break" in the history of landscape painting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cross in the Mountains (Tetschen Altar). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cross in the Mountains (Tetschen Altar)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- A good one! I added it to the stats, WP:DYKSTATS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
DYK for R. D. Lawrence
On 19 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article R. D. Lawrence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Canadian naturalist R. D. Lawrence followed a cougar in the wild for nine months, and spent six months observing a beaver colony? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, R. D. Lawrence), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
dyk
DYK should long have been abolished, is an open invitation for idiots, and so has had to legislate for them. Thus there are a lot of people who have built careers with hammers, and you can guess how they see the world. Forget it; article creation in of itself should be rewarding without the stress of various pet topic lurkers inventing "rules" as they go along. Work towards the FAC standards; the rest is silliness. The R. D. Lawrence article is superb and as well written as I would expect from you. Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- May I just say that it is all too easy to forget why (or if) this place is fun, and DYK and certain folk are especially good at speeding up that process? Don’t let the bastards get you down, seriously. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Melencolia
Your Dürer article is wonderfully written. Very impressed. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oh you are too kind, but then you are a saint now. Outriggr (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have long been a saint, thanks for the recognition, can u update Yoman, I never got the impression he realised. Thinking of a username rename, would you believe common people don't like me constantly drawing attention to the whole sinner/saint dynamic, even when I offer eternal rest, or GTF. Always nice to talk again man. St. Caurgula (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Your FAC review
Yo. I was browsing the pile-up over at the Black Friday article and was impressed by your feedback about the passive voice and "dilutive" phrasing. This sort of sensitivity to writing is rare on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Popcornduff (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you Popcornduff, I appreciate it. It's always nice to hear from someone with a positive thing to say! Outriggr (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
For a friend
[3] - this made me think of you. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- (meant as a compliment. No hidden snark) Kafka Liz (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! [4]
- Also, I have activated a FuturePing, which means at some point you will receive ... something. Outriggr (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- I’m a bit scared now...unless it’s a FuturePing at Sunrise. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
(As in an actual message) for digging in over on Imagism - it's been on my mental "to do" list for only about 10 years. If you have questions, as in sourcing, I do have sources. Some are even at my fingertips - well not quite, but only about three feet away - so easy to get to without too much stress. Oh, that's means they're actual real dead wood books! Have I told you it's good to see you around? If not, a belated "it's good to see you around". Take care, Victoriaearle (tk) 22:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- oh hi! The article has an odd history which has given it a pastiche of references with no clear referencing strategy. It was an early featured article, then had the pastiche of notes added later. As annoyingly they were often unformatted/dumped in. I tried to fix that. I can't say much else about it. Good to see you as well, Outriggr (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what happened. It's good to see it get a polish. I just popped in for a quick moment, saw your edits at the top of my watch and thought they deserve some sort of recognition. Thanks, too, for finding that Ezra pic. It looks really nice. I'm off to bed now, so not really around. Just ghosting in and out. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Moar thanks
flowers, music, balloon |
Thank you for your moderating comments on AE, the worst place Wikipedia has to offer, so I try to avoid it, and will try to do that this round, although my name has been mentioned (without a ping, but I watch it, of course). - In the (collapsed) discussion on the E.P. talk, I was referring to Ceoil's "Thanks Gerda, from one battle weary trooper to another :), although "that several made one" is a weird sentence." I understand "battle-weary" all to well, and wanted to explain what "several made one" means. So I looked (for the first time in that article, which I never edited, nor the talk page) at who had added an infobox when, and made a factual list of the diffs of the additions, with a link to the "who". I was then told those links were canvassing. I didn't mean to, but so it goes. Even if I had known about "noping", I'd probably not wanted to mention users without letting them know. (I didn't look at the diffs of those reverting, for lack of time, and because I didn't want to blame them. Interesting that several of those who had added later reverted others, and themselves.) - DYK that I prepared 10 slots for the diffs of additions, but that was not enough? - I still believe that the unhappy situation could be cured not by blocks and bans, but by assuming good faith. I assume that the 16 who added an infobox didn't come to war, but to improve the article (sure that several didn't even know that infobox wars exist, - and do they exist?). To assume that seems such a hard thing. End of musing.
Take some flowers, it's my parents' wedding anniversary, and the bridal flowers were gladiolas from her parents' garden. I share them in loving memory, with a touch of art. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
ps: the link under the flowers is intentional canvassing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda. I guess it didn't help. I actually had AE watchlisted because at some point I realized that it was the place where the Arbcom rubber hits the road, if you know that idiom. On that page Drmies likens these IB discussions to picking a scab - exactly - and we need to put a head cone on this small number of pages so that everyone can do something better. Look at the time and bad feelings spent on that talk page for "no consensus". Even now another person comes along to say the discussion should continue. I remain trying to figure out what significant problem there is to "solve", that it is worth reams of text, but such is the (modern) wiki way. I suppose the old Manual of Style wars were as bad as IB stuff, but that's all I can think of in terms of importance to project vs. amount of debate. (At least MOS "consensuses" affect the whole project.)
- Coincidence that you have a link to this pianist on your page, when I had visited that article last night as she came up on Youtube's cycle of concerto videos. Do you like Bach keyboard works? I am really mostly familiar with that aspect of Bach (plus related concertos), whereas you write about the sacred music. Outriggr (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
- Music first, a much more pleasing topic: I list Ott with the others I heard this year, more to come, she played Ravel. I don't write about Bach's keyboard music, because Francis Schonken does. We disagree on how to insert the new BWV numbers, - I go for traditional first, he for placing that under "formerly" and "previosly". Edit war and all, sigh. - I love to listen to Bach's keyboard music, play the easy pieces myself, and Brandenburg V will be the next concert at the festival. - Ibox: just imagine for a moment if a newcomer to a page such as E.P. would be told in a friendly way that the main authors agreed to have no ibox, instead of suspicion of warfare and sockpuppetry? I wonder if these wars exist. I got my name damaged for wanting an infobox for Götterdämmerung and Beethoven, and it will probably stick forever. Three years ago, when I survived the last AE (Hallelujah), I turned to writing more articles myself where I'm in control of that editorial decision, leaving the others alone. I review articles such as Debussy without even mentioning that I miss something, a simple collection of when and where that person was born, and died, and why we have an article. I will probably never understand where the problem is to show that structured at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Gerda I think a lot about this also, and have come to the conclusion that we are so far in (years and years deep) that its not not anymore about boxes but deeply entrenched tribes and turf..ie they can become proxy wars (which I totally understand, I could jump in with Shrodo everday, as have a lot of time for Cassianto). I do participate once every blue moon, but really only on odd-ball articles where you have very wide images that an infobox would suffocate. More often than not I use them for new articles, and my general view is....argument is baaaaa. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Music first, a much more pleasing topic: I list Ott with the others I heard this year, more to come, she played Ravel. I don't write about Bach's keyboard music, because Francis Schonken does. We disagree on how to insert the new BWV numbers, - I go for traditional first, he for placing that under "formerly" and "previosly". Edit war and all, sigh. - I love to listen to Bach's keyboard music, play the easy pieces myself, and Brandenburg V will be the next concert at the festival. - Ibox: just imagine for a moment if a newcomer to a page such as E.P. would be told in a friendly way that the main authors agreed to have no ibox, instead of suspicion of warfare and sockpuppetry? I wonder if these wars exist. I got my name damaged for wanting an infobox for Götterdämmerung and Beethoven, and it will probably stick forever. Three years ago, when I survived the last AE (Hallelujah), I turned to writing more articles myself where I'm in control of that editorial decision, leaving the others alone. I review articles such as Debussy without even mentioning that I miss something, a simple collection of when and where that person was born, and died, and why we have an article. I will probably never understand where the problem is to show that structured at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Tom Thomson & conflict resolution
Hey there. You've been oh so helpful guiding me with all of my Tom Thomson related ventures and I ought to say thank you again for giving me that push. Thank you! That's not all I'm here for though—I have a favour to ask because you're the most experienced user I've interacted with.
On the talk page for the Death and legacy of Tom Thomson, I've had an author of a book show up and get upset that I removed his website (twice actually!) from the External links of the page. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed so I was hoping—using WP:CONTENTDISPUTE as my guide—that you could be a third opinion and help clear things up.
All the discussion is mostly present on the talk page there, but it's getting a bit long so here's a succinct run down of my case:
- I've cited the fact that he's violating WP:COI by trying to include the website for his book in the External links. Specifically, the book: Lehto, Neil J. (2005). Algonquin Elegy Tom Thomson's Last Spring. New York: Universe Inc. ISBNÂ 978-0-59536-132-8. He isn't trying to put it back but is talking to me the Talk page instead, so this isn't really an issue any more. The issue is...
- I'm not sure if it should be included. The guidelines listed on WP:LINKSTOAVOID, specifically #11, say:
His essays come across as blog entries of sorts, and I have done my best to not engage him in debating whether or not he fits the criteria for a notable individual (arguing with a person over this on Wikipedia sounds absolutely ridiculous to me). His book is in the bibliography, but only for a passing mention that his book exists (I put the book in there, after all).Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
I'd really appreciate some help here as I'm not particularly experienced in determining the notability of people—after all, I'm used to editing the articles of dead people!
Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 02:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Zzzz
Do have a rest, but please do come back. Theramin (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Seconded. We miss you man, and there is now a dearth of Canadians. It is hard enough that Lingzi went away. Ceoil (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Outriggr (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- same feelings, thanks for a sign of life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! Outriggr (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
You are missed
Gothic Seasons Greetings | ||
Wishing you all the best for x-mass bla bla. It was great to see you around this year man, and the resulting output was typically brilliant. I miss the auld days, and you know what I think. ps: do u know how to write white text on a black background? (A friend of mine wants to know) Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC) |
Many thanks for the black secret greetings. When do I get the special handshake etc. Ulysses, and time: farewells vs fair walls. Outriggr (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
2019
Thank you for your help last year, including the source review for the TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Best wishes for a happy 2019
== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
Ten years! |
---|
Enjoy resting!. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- ... and again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
John Dennis
So, I think there's a little nuance to how his reports were received. Collins (1970) seems to have believed him, Sykes (1968) seems to have not. More modern sources some gloss between how it was received then, and how it's received now, which I think we need to be a bit careful about. Congress produced a 85k acre reserve based in large part on it, obviously some people believed him. And similarly, the only published analysis of the audio recordings isn't exactly skeptical, rather it's inconclusive (and the author seems favourable to the idea it's true). There's a few sources at Ivory-billed_woodpecker#Evidence_of_persistence_past_1944. I can't seem to access the source you're using (regionalisation issues?), so I'm not positive what it says WilyD 06:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @WilyD: I got that sense from a number of sources I perused either on google books or on jstor. With this fellow, most of the sources I've found are very passing/thin. I do remember that one of the sources even said that his "career was almost ruined" by the amount of contemporaneous professional skepticism he received; and overall I'd say at least four sources talked briefly about the skepticism, both of the recording and the sighting. Someone mentioned that one response to the recording was that it could have been a sped-up "pencil rolling on a desk". There is an overall sense of despondence that Dennis was not taken very seriously.
- When I started this article I figured I'd at least be able to find out his birth year, for example, because he had two major newspaper obituaries, but alas everything I've found since has been thin. Outriggr (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- So I looked again at some of the google books things I looked at yesterday. Here are two, and I've added the Life citation to the article. And the source you couldn't access somehow went 404 very quickly! I found the same article on a different website and changed the citation. Outriggr (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Page 237 of [6] this book: "pooh-poohed ... even ... Dennis... [was] laughed at".
- Life Magazine (full text): ... was skeptical ... his competence as a field man was [questioned], and the experience scarred him". p. 54(?) Regarding the "pencil" re recording above, p. 57: "the recording ... was not accepted ...". There may be more in this article; I'm not going to read it all again. But I enjoyed the 1971 toothpaste ad.
- Well, there were/are a lot of people who were skeptical too. But as the skeptics have won out over time, and there's some ret-conning in newer sources like gallagher (though the Time source is great, and I wasn't aware of it). But the published analysis of the sound recording favours an ivory-bill (without totally ruling out Blue Jays). There's two reports following up on Dennis in the Big Thicket that're contemporaneous that I'm aware of - Sykes (1968) is very convinced he's mistaken, Collins (1970) is pretty convinced he's correct. And, of course, the Big Thicket Wildlife Refuge got made, a lot on his work. So I think there's some nuance here where a number of people took him quite seriously, and a number were skeptical. But of course Sykes was Tanner's student, and Tanner was "the guy" - but we can't really ignore the US Federal Government either, can we? There's some amount of needle-threading to be done (and, even if some thought the recordings were faked - at least the analysis in the literature doesn't say that so ...) Yeah, it's kinda messy. WilyD 06:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- And the Time article from '72 calls him 54 (though, matching the trip to South Carolina, I think the events described were taking place in early '71. Okay, so then he's born in 1916, turn 54 in 1970, 55 sometime after February 1971. WilyD 07:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Hey!
Did the Riggr family get a yellow lab? It is so good to see you around; maybe your appearance will even motivate me to send a Christmas card this year. We'll see if I can get myself organized :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- My name is Porn Star Zombies and I approve this message. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- You'll get yours! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Season's Greetings!
Faithful friends who are dear to us | ||
... gather near to us once more. May your heart be light and your troubles out of sight, now and in the New Year. |
- Beautiful card, thank you so much! I like that song too! Outriggr (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- It seemed topical; one of the few things that can still entice me to engage Wikipedia these days is missing friends from times past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
2020
Viking Age
Hi, happy new year and thx for the acceptance of my edit. I have added some remarks. Idk if I should bother you with this matter here at home ...; if not here, may I invite you to again cast an eye - and comments welcome - on "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Viking_Age#A_few_details ", or, if not you, refer me to an editor that might have this subject within their purview? Thx in advance. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- And thx again :) T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Good Article subsection
Hey, I saw your new {{Good Article subsection}}, and liked it so much I forked it to create {{Featured List subsection}} for WP:FL. You don't happen to know of a good way to have it remove the pluralization for single-list sections, do you? (e.g. "(1 list)", not "(1 lists)") I figure it's a problem that comes up more with WP:FL than the good article sections, so I don't know if you thought about it. --PresN 17:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, Ravenpuff figured out a way- [7]. --PresN 03:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @PresN: Great, thanks for letting me know! I would have offered it to y'all if I knew there was another page with a similarly repeated layout. Outriggr (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Holy wow, this template was such a good idea! Like all works of genius, in hindsight it seems obvious and inevitable. Thank you for making me never again have to try to count the 237 lines of text in a subsection of WP:GA! You're my hero! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0: Thank you so much! I admit I was a little underwhelmed by the response when I mentioned my plan on Talk:GA (which is a much quieter page, perhaps, compared to olden days). But your taking the time to say this I really appreciate! Outriggr (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Holy wow, this template was such a good idea! Like all works of genius, in hindsight it seems obvious and inevitable. Thank you for making me never again have to try to count the 237 lines of text in a subsection of WP:GA! You're my hero! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- @PresN: Great, thanks for letting me know! I would have offered it to y'all if I knew there was another page with a similarly repeated layout. Outriggr (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Always boasting about how cold it is were you live...
...not cool. Boom, hilarious reference to a conversation from several weeks ago as a temperature-based segue into getting you to have a skim through the even colder Australasian Antarctic Expedition. It was Brianboulton's last hurrah, so I've finished it off and put it up for FAC (even though FAC burns us, preciousss). If you do have a look, don't go too heavy; I'm trying to keep it in BB's voice. Yomanganitalk 08:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Valentine's Day thanks
Heartfelt thanks | |
... for your many years of considerable help to make Tourette syndrome the best it can be. Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours! Sandy (Talk) 19:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
Sathi Leelavathi
In the FAC, Laser brain said, "The article needs a complete overhaul from someone who has access to the sources and can create a more cohesive and well-written narrative". Since you had copyedited the lead before, I was wondering if you could do the same for the rest of the article. The statements already match the sources, so you may focus on prose only. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792, I probably won't have time for that. I'll let you know in the next day or two if that changes. Outriggr (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
NYC lead, hello, regrets, wild claim
Thank you for this[8]; have tried a few times to trim that silliness, but was reverted for god knows why, never had the stomac to go and find out why. Euf . Anyways, long tome stranger...its great to see you around and about again. All is pretty much as you left it, except we are mostly 10 years older now. I never did make admin, perhaps my mistake was calling all who sails on an/i a bunch of *?>!s. Oh well, least am free to now say....so YOU AND THE ALSO RETURNING YOMAGAMI ARE ACTUALLY THE SAME PERSON! And to think I though he was the funny, pretty one, vs you. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks. These days I spend a little too much time typing messages to post on places where my name isn't real and it doesn't matter in the first place. And then because I am tired of this pattern, I don't post it. I copy it to notepad and then close notepad down the line. So basically I took your invitation to look at (only) the history page of NYC, then I ranted for a paragraph, and then I deleted it, because fuck it. I've mentioned a similar pattern, privately (and to more than one person, heh). (Which puts me in a new pattern to now get out of.) "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me eighteen times over ten years, shame on me." type of thing.
- It's a shame you and I didn't go in for admin in 2007 when it was easy and we had a chance! (Let's work from that premise anyway!) Then we would have had a social duty to stay shiny and bright, or at least I would have felt that way. Rising to the occasion and all that.
- Here for now. Sometimes I think of the coastal, elite, jet-setting, high culture of you and KL, and I am become envious enough to vote for Trump. You know. That's how it works. Outriggr (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Here for now. Strange, and yet not extraordinary, sad, but true:
Extended content
|
---|
|
- You notice that in all that, I...he...never denied being him...er...me? Yomanganitalk 11:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- How do you suppose your rhetorically complex edit summaries would fly at the modern RFA? By God it would be a fight! BTW, you should ask for your bits back after the long period to test the process. Outriggr (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- [9] The raptor fences aren't out, are they? Yomanganitalk 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Do you know of any RFA where FACcers support but the RFA ultimately failed? I know of two, and you don’t fit either category. But considering the recent need to be active on the deletion rather than creation side, it could be interesting. And lots of editors are lacking in humor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- [9] The raptor fences aren't out, are they? Yomanganitalk 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- How do you suppose your rhetorically complex edit summaries would fly at the modern RFA? By God it would be a fight! BTW, you should ask for your bits back after the long period to test the process. Outriggr (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hangout
So, this is where the cool kids (Ceoil and Yomangani) hang out, but Colin is missing! Well, in that case, I'm here to whine about my aching fingers. :) Because I don't think you all know how much I've appreciated your help, not only with my dreadful prose, but also in bringing better clarity to the article. Here's my whiney whine.
Besides the arthritis in my fingers, a very big tree fell on me a year-and-a-half ago (beware of hazardous hammocks). I had a subarachnoid hemorrage, along with the rest of what happened to my body, including a T3 compression fracture in my spine and lots of soft tissue damage through my neck and head, which has been the hardest to overcome. My dear adorable patient funny humble kind hunk of a hubby endured weeks of mindless card games with me while I was on the sofa, took over all the household stuff, inside and out, took off tons of time from his practice to drive me to and fro for medical appointments as I was not allowed to drive, and took very good care of me overall. So, I'm not complaining, 'cuz I lived through something that kills 30% of people on the brain injury alone, not to mention had the tree fallen one inch the other direction, I most certainly would not be here.
Anyway, the bottom line for my editing is that when I sit at the desktop, and use a real mouse, I can type without errors and typos, but pay the price because my back spasms all night. When I sit on the sofa with the laptop, my back doesn't hurt as much at the end of the day, but the laptop touchpad kills my fingers. When I use the iPad, my fingers don't hurt, but I can't hunt-and-peck without typos. Long story short, my editing these days is tortured under the best of circumstances. I move between devices, and you can practically tell which device I am on by the number of typos.
In the instance of TS, I neglected the article for five years, and a significant update was needed: medical articles are not static, and those FA writers who can come out of FAC without ever having to add another update make me green with envy. But, with the help of all of you, I wasn't concerned about the needed update, as I knew you'd keep the pro se and clarity up to snuff. But then, after I selected the date and submitted it to TFAR, MEDMOS people decided we should have more content in the psychosocial and gender areas (eg pregnancy), so I have also had to add new areas of content, that in earlier years were not particularly encouraged. I didn't have to add new content, I guess, but since TS is the last medical FA that hasn't run mainpage, I felt like I should get that new content in at the 11th hour, as an example of what a medical FA should be. That, plus a detour into the history of TS to explain one word (by v during) proved to be more than I could handle yesterday.
So, this is my way of saying, again, thank you to all of you, but also to let you know that if editing doesn't become easier for me as the years pass, TS is all yours and you are going to have to maintain it :) :) My edits yesterday were dreadful: my body may be at its limit. Hopefully I've added everything that needs to be added now, but prose cleanup and clarity are still needed, with only a week to go to mainpage. So, I really appreciate all that you have all done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I just completed my final run-through. It's all yours! (And now, for a well-deserved manicure :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
- You are amazingly productive on Wikipedia for anyone, much less someone with various limitations in their computer use. Bouncing between FAC ideas, RFC development, articles, etc... I don't really know how you do it! I get the funny feeling you are like that in all aspects of life: and would leave a person like me in the dust. I would think there would be some kind of solution to using a laptop on the sofa but avoiding the trackpad (I can't stand them; but then I can't stand laptop keyboards either). Now, I am always shocked how few people know how to use keyboard shortcuts, or have any interest in learning them; they certainly save the fingers, and the arm, from swinging back and forth between keyboard and mouse all the time. I'm gonna assume (based on no fewer than three pieces of circumstantial evidence) that your laptop is a Mac, and I don't know Mac shortcuts.
- I'm glad things are improving for you, and that you had plenty of resources on your side. If you want to make friends with trees again, I happened to read The Overstory which is an excellent, accessible book by a 'literary' sort of author. Uh, the point being, it's about trees -- and people. You might check it out, if you read fiction.
- See you again on TS talk then. Outriggr (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think I haven't come up with solutions to the computer issue because the problems have only become exacerbated since the TS update, FAC/FAR commentary and RFC all came together. Once spring arrives, I'll be less trapped inside, TS will have run mainpage, RFC will end, and I hope the typing can be contained to a few hours a day. I am pretty sure the amount of pain will back off if I don't type for days on end, and I'm hoping to start a new round of rehab, now that I've realized my core strength is gone because of the amount of time I was down ... I suspect that building back my core will help with the back pain. Anyway, that was too much whining ! I vicariously enjoyed The Overstory via my husband's bookclub; he was stopping every chapter to ask me if things were true ("is there really an arboretum at Stanford" kind of stuff). I understand it was a pretty hard, but enjoyable, read. I woke up to amazing ces from the Outriggr on TS! I will have to put it in use to address inlines, do Adrian's stuff, etc, so that Colin doesn't start in to the middle of my edits and result in edit conflicts. I don't want to get crossed up with Colin's coming edits. Thanks also for the feedback on talk, Outriggr; I'll dig in after coffee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Digression from respectable or serious content
- "Alexa, write a well-cited and engaging article on..." Get into the 21st century, boomers. (Though I've checked and there is no "Defence against trees" skill, so it can't solve all your problems) Yomanganitalk 09:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not a
girlboomer. Nine out of ten British antiquities experts say you're the boomer!! ("But I am old enough to know which way the wind blows, especially with that loo west of the house!!!"—Bob Dylan, age 11, on the cellar door with pine tar) Outriggr (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)- The first time my sons use "OK, boomer" on me, I"m going to ... ummmm ... let me think about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- No defence against trees? Maybe you should try talking to them. Kablammo (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Is that Clint singing, or was it dubbed? He should stick to shooting people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Or arguing with chairs. Kablammo (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- An important moment; during which the 21st-century version of the Republican party was arguably born! Outriggr (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- See, my stool don't like people laughing, he gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Yomanganitalk 11:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- In me preview pane, I thought you'd gone scatological, Yomangani. Or have you? Outriggr (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I pooh-pooh that idea. Anyway, enough of this crap; lend me your templating skills: what to I add to make a column non-selectable for sort order in a sortable wikitable? Yomanganitalk 12:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Before I answer I'll need some information. Please tell me your operating system, browser, bank account log-in screen address, and the log-in information that you use to log in.
- Now, don't bristol, but the correct answer floated to the surface fairly quickly and I assessed that your litter-box page must be the one with the table in question. I hope that made an impact. A colon: If that doesn't work, I'm stumped. Don't forget that log-in. Outriggr (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I pooh-pooh that idea. Anyway, enough of this crap; lend me your templating skills: what to I add to make a column non-selectable for sort order in a sortable wikitable? Yomanganitalk 12:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- In me preview pane, I thought you'd gone scatological, Yomangani. Or have you? Outriggr (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- See, my stool don't like people laughing, he gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him. Yomanganitalk 11:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- An important moment; during which the 21st-century version of the Republican party was arguably born! Outriggr (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Or arguing with chairs. Kablammo (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Is that Clint singing, or was it dubbed? He should stick to shooting people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- Not a
Next
Who wants to take dementia with Lewy bodies to FAC? I think the disruptive factors have moved along. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
- You're serious? Outriggr (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, if we can get the blooming overcitation out of the lead. But I suspect the Men Who Will Be Boys would rather FAC the Bristol Scale. Shouting numbers from the throne has certainly become an item from the males in my household since that Drmies revelation. They even analyze the poor dog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what the Drmies revelation is (if it involves the, um, "BS", well I don't need wiki revelations for that). Personally, I find the scale simplistic in its assessments, but I should keep that in the water-closet. But you know, it's really not a bad idea, FACing the BSS. [NARRATOR: It was a bad idea.] Outriggr (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Its a great idea. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I searched and searched for the old conversation with Drmies, alas and alack. It started when Alexbrn launched an ANI thread with the heading, "Big mess at colon cleansing". Ceoil, which is the great idea? DBL or Bristol or shouting nos from the throne? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Its a great idea. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know what the Drmies revelation is (if it involves the, um, "BS", well I don't need wiki revelations for that). Personally, I find the scale simplistic in its assessments, but I should keep that in the water-closet. But you know, it's really not a bad idea, FACing the BSS. [NARRATOR: It was a bad idea.] Outriggr (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, if we can get the blooming overcitation out of the lead. But I suspect the Men Who Will Be Boys would rather FAC the Bristol Scale. Shouting numbers from the throne has certainly become an item from the males in my household since that Drmies revelation. They even analyze the poor dog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- DLB would be a great idea. Oh & [10]. Drmies does have a nice way with words, all though there was a clear attack on asses ("unintelligent animals"), which as I'm so dainty, had me reaching for my smelling salts in shock. Ceoil (talk)
- If you all are interested in DLB, first, I would need a break from typing after TFA 3 March to see if my fingers stop aching, and second, we would have to tentatively wade in there to see if the same kind of antagonism that was there two years ago from WPMED re-surfaces. At one point, Yoman waded in with his ever helpful and fun inlines, and a now-banned editor swept in with a complete absence of humor to obliterate them. And the other issues on talk. If that is the environment, not worth it. And I won't take an article to FAC with that kind of overcitation in the lead; it constrains the writing too much. And finally, I need to make the one-hour (each way) drive to a nearby medical library to see if there's anything new. I can get a good idea with what I can access online, but would want to check with library before digging in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can we start by delinking the lead if the claims are expanded upon in the article body. As a casual reader, the sea of blue makes me think....Johnbod's Law, as an editor, uuuug, unnecessary html mess. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be wise to do anything to the lead until we determine if WPMED people are going to object. That would start things off on the wrong foot. The problem driving all of this (and the end of medical FAs) can be seen at WP:MEDLEAD. There was recently a trend towards ignoring the bodies of medical articles, and making the leads stand-alone so they could be used for off-Wiki projects (Internet in a box, translations to other languages, and more). So, MEDLEAD is at odds with WIAFA. Whether others will object to changes to the lead remains to be seen; I suspect the most disruptive forces have moved along, and there is now a greater understanding of the damaging effects on content, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- PS, have a look at the sources in this lead which passed FAC to my surprise on two Supports, and whose author was active on DLB talk. That is what is going on at WP:MED. Could anyone please tell me how that text is verifiable to those lists of sources, or why and how that represents Wikipedia's best work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can we start by delinking the lead if the claims are expanded upon in the article body. As a casual reader, the sea of blue makes me think....Johnbod's Law, as an editor, uuuug, unnecessary html mess. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- If you all are interested in DLB, first, I would need a break from typing after TFA 3 March to see if my fingers stop aching, and second, we would have to tentatively wade in there to see if the same kind of antagonism that was there two years ago from WPMED re-surfaces. At one point, Yoman waded in with his ever helpful and fun inlines, and a now-banned editor swept in with a complete absence of humor to obliterate them. And the other issues on talk. If that is the environment, not worth it. And I won't take an article to FAC with that kind of overcitation in the lead; it constrains the writing too much. And finally, I need to make the one-hour (each way) drive to a nearby medical library to see if there's anything new. I can get a good idea with what I can access online, but would want to check with library before digging in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to some compromise if there is a greater good...ie the benefit to clarity that an FAC drive and review would bring. "how that text is verifiable to those lists of sources, or why and how that represents Wikipedia's best work" may not be applicable to DLB, after some work. ps...Hi Outriggr, dont mind us, but well be staying here for a few days. Any room service? And can you put a pic of a cat up at the top, rather than a dog. You can take it down again in a few weeks, when we leave. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Noooooo ... I love that yellow lab almost as much as my brown who departed us ten years ago! Compromise is OK ... it is just that looking at that lead leaves me not knowing where to start. I cannot write a free-form, flowing, know-what-the-reader-most-wants-to-see and will compel them to read on lead if I am constrained by a) the need to cite every clause, b) the need to write for nine-year olds, and c) a forced order of narrative. Why should I write a lead this dumbed down, if the CDC has already done that? sample Let them read the CDC if that is what they want. And the best flow for the lead is not necessarily the section order: look at how that messes with TS. I do not know how to fix that lead without starting over. How to approach the talk page of that article with the idea of starting over on the lead which won’t be shot down? DLB should be featured, but I can’t get beyond the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- "I can’t get beyond the lead" - thats the opposite of how an article should be constructed, and many people leave the lead to last, give how and all its supposed to be a summary of the body. hint. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- What I mean is, I wrote the article, and I can't stand to read it, because I can't get beyond the dreadful lead, which is just what WPMED wants. (PS Outriggr, please don't start ceing DLB now-- I am very worried about what mainpage day will be like with all the fuckity-fuck-fuck vandalism, and don't want to have more on my plate just yet.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- You should create a user sub-page with your original lead, that would be handy as a reference point to work backyards from. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I did that on TS, when I had to get the lead back after WPMED fiddled with it. At DLB, what frustrates me is that I never had an original lead, because I was never allowed to just summarize the most important points in my own words. I was forced to a certain order, short sentences, and full citations because of having invited collaborators. I would have to start over. And when I look at what is there now, knowing that if I rewrite it I will probably be reverted, I just give up. Ever so seriously, this is what is wanted by WPMED these days, and I can't write an FA like that. Tiny words, no sentences longer than 12 words, no words that don't translate easily, and a forced order of the narrative, every piece cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, so now you are in "to do" list territory...scale down the tasks and dont be overwhelmed by the enormity of it all. Myself and Vic do this often, many people do, create a scratch pad of random, bulleted points to be addressed. Lets go through the lead as a start...then vs now. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I need a week off after TFA week :) Srsly my fingers hurt, and they aren't going to stop hurting until I rest them for a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, so now you are in "to do" list territory...scale down the tasks and dont be overwhelmed by the enormity of it all. Myself and Vic do this often, many people do, create a scratch pad of random, bulleted points to be addressed. Lets go through the lead as a start...then vs now. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- I did that on TS, when I had to get the lead back after WPMED fiddled with it. At DLB, what frustrates me is that I never had an original lead, because I was never allowed to just summarize the most important points in my own words. I was forced to a certain order, short sentences, and full citations because of having invited collaborators. I would have to start over. And when I look at what is there now, knowing that if I rewrite it I will probably be reverted, I just give up. Ever so seriously, this is what is wanted by WPMED these days, and I can't write an FA like that. Tiny words, no sentences longer than 12 words, no words that don't translate easily, and a forced order of the narrative, every piece cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- You should create a user sub-page with your original lead, that would be handy as a reference point to work backyards from. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- What I mean is, I wrote the article, and I can't stand to read it, because I can't get beyond the dreadful lead, which is just what WPMED wants. (PS Outriggr, please don't start ceing DLB now-- I am very worried about what mainpage day will be like with all the fuckity-fuck-fuck vandalism, and don't want to have more on my plate just yet.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- "I can’t get beyond the lead" - thats the opposite of how an article should be constructed, and many people leave the lead to last, give how and all its supposed to be a summary of the body. hint. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Understood. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, locked and loaded for March 3rd, Universal Standard Time, though I will likely be a few hours late. Outriggr (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Well, I selected the date around National Advocacy Day ... which was cancelled!! So we will not get the traffic I hoped for. Grrrrrrrrrr ... they switched it to a write your legislators campaign, apparently for too many no-shows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- What a dud ... nothing like the olden days, where we had to whack vandals from the moment an article went TFA. Why am I awake? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hm. I was wondering this myself, then realized the page was (and presumably always had been) semi-protected. Was that supposed to be the case for TFA? In my Wikipedia policy head-canon, as the kids say now, it's not allowed for TFA to be semi-protected? Outriggr (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I asked that question at WP:AN a few weeks ago; [11] apparently, TFA can be semi-protected now. But I expected spillover to the rest of the suite of articles. Curiously, it is only dear old George who is getting hit, although someone made a lot of changes to the main TS template as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hm. I was wondering this myself, then realized the page was (and presumably always had been) semi-protected. Was that supposed to be the case for TFA? In my Wikipedia policy head-canon, as the kids say now, it's not allowed for TFA to be semi-protected? Outriggr (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- What a dud ... nothing like the olden days, where we had to whack vandals from the moment an article went TFA. Why am I awake? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! Well, I selected the date around National Advocacy Day ... which was cancelled!! So we will not get the traffic I hoped for. Grrrrrrrrrr ... they switched it to a write your legislators campaign, apparently for too many no-shows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Noooooo ... I love that yellow lab almost as much as my brown who departed us ten years ago! Compromise is OK ... it is just that looking at that lead leaves me not knowing where to start. I cannot write a free-form, flowing, know-what-the-reader-most-wants-to-see and will compel them to read on lead if I am constrained by a) the need to cite every clause, b) the need to write for nine-year olds, and c) a forced order of narrative. Why should I write a lead this dumbed down, if the CDC has already done that? sample Let them read the CDC if that is what they want. And the best flow for the lead is not necessarily the section order: look at how that messes with TS. I do not know how to fix that lead without starting over. How to approach the talk page of that article with the idea of starting over on the lead which won’t be shot down? DLB should be featured, but I can’t get beyond the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Ceoil and Outriggr, I picked up seven new reviews on DLB, three of which are usable, and there are some new developments. Because MEDRS asks us to use the most recent sources, it will be useful for me to go through and upgrade all citations to the latest ones, even in the cases where the text doesn't change. Then I will work in new text. Then I will re-phrase some things that I understand better today than I did when I wrote it two years ago. Then I will try to re-jig the lead. In other words, I probably have another two weeks of work on DLB before it's ready for the kind of fine tuning you all did at TS. Unless I'm run out of here sooner, I should be able to do this, still in time to get outdoors and enjoy the spring. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Georges
And it turns out to be Georges Gilles de la Tourette that is causing the most headaches. After struggling for a half hour to fix the simplistic notion that he died from a seizure, dear sweet hubby ordered the Walusinski bio for me. I had not planned to spend any more time in that article, what with my sore knuckles! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Delusional parasitosis
I've done all the damage I can do at delusional parasitosis, in case you want to look at that, or matchbox sign or Jay Traver. First reading this article which is freely available will give you background understanding that will be helpful in addressing my dreadful prose. Now ready to move my focus back to Mr. Lewy! (I got the Georges bio which is a goldmine ... for another day.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
That's "his" bitch
Whichever dog that is, he's a masculine dog. Does he look "prettiest" or "biggest" though? Yomanganitalk 12:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, at least I got Afra right. Besides I didn't want you to think I ("he") was making you my bitch. (I imagine you'd insist on a duel first.)
- It's an interesting and original bit of research you got going on there. I will be following DOG ID successes closely. Outriggr (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
reply to B.
Buidhe, I spent some time replying to your FAC talk page comment. Then I hit my usual wall of not wanting to post it in a potential "debate section". So I am posting the reply here on my talk page, to get it out of my system. (And then like an idiot, I accidentally posted it to FAC talk thinking I was on my own talk page. So you'll get two pings...) A middle ground between not posting it at all, and not posting it on FAC talk. Here it is.
- I agree completely, Buidhe. To me, what you point out is "The Most True Thing About FAC That No One Feels Comfortable Talking About" (although it's been coming up a bit more lately? User:F&F, for one). It is way way harder to achieve a Featured Article that has any particular breadth or degree of abstraction, especially in the humanities. It's not just a "nominator-end" problem, where some argue that few people are willing to research such broad topics and present them at FAC. This is true. It is equally fair to say that Wikipedia editors, on the whole, and including me, are more uncomfortable evaluating articles on more difficult topics. This is also true. But it's a "FAC-end" problem too, because by refusing to recognize that harder articles are harder, FAC preferences what I would call boutique topics. (Please note that I am not criticizing other people's choice of FAC submissions: my major FA was about a 70-line poem.) Non-military history and other humanities topics especially suffer under this system. An article on a period of US history (FAC 1, FAC 2, FAC 3) most recently received two prose reviews and my 50% source review. (And it was supported before that, but somehow it doesn't matter.) Humanities topics with any degree of breadth—bigger than a defined event, object, or biography—tend to get crickets at FAC. Another that comes to mind recently is Right of abode in Hong Kong (FAC 1, FAC 2), which is very specific in one sense, yet still abstract enough as a law and policy topic to pass through FAC very quietly. (I am afraid to mention the series of Bengal Famine FACs, where an article that was apparently good enough for a famine historian was not good enough for FAC.) And for each of these, we might say there is some unique problem. But the tendency to rebuff these topics, I maintain, is real. The preceding is not a criticism of people, but my view of a decade+-old system. The bottom line for me is simply that I wish FAC could take into account that more difficult topics are difficult. After a point, nobody can criticize a heavily researched article on an object, a day in history, or a person whose name a graduate-level student in that subject still wouldn't recognize. Anybody can criticize things that are more difficult to write about, because the surface for criticism is orders of magnitude greater. What would I do? Loosen what is considered 'consensus' for more difficult articles. But I know that won't happen. Practically speaking, there is no path to that; FAC wouldn't feel like FAC to those who are most engaged with it. The other thing that I would be curious to try is a "pre-flight" area for collaborating on future FAC submissions, meant primarily for new submitters but even more so for people looking for engagement with their future FACs on more difficult topics. This would be a period where the FAC submitter is asking for collaboration and comment, and expects others to edit the article directly; a collaborative process that has the weight of FAC behind it. (I never see new WP:Peer reviews because the way that page is set up, new requests don't show on a watchlist. I never think to check peer review requests.) When they arrive at FAC proper, these articles would be subject to up-or-down supports or opposes, with up to a paragraph to explain why. No lists of sentences to improve. No copy-editing by proxy. But I doubt that's a good idea either. (For one, people would claim it could be "gamed". But this is the problem, the sort of overriding "paranoia" of Wikipedia.) Where am I coming from? I have always believed in a more collaborative model of FAC, which is why I like the idea, but I think most people want it to feel more like a bullring (with some other dynamics thrown in; the bullring aspect is definitely diminished when nominators are Regulars Who Are Reviewed by Reviewers Who In Turn Are Also Nominators). I still remember ~13 years ago being accused of having a COI because I had copy-edited a bit of an article after the FAC started, and then supported it. That kind of thing you don't forget. I hadn't done anything wrong other than follow the wiki model. If FAC was more collaborative, at least in my proposed "pre-flight" stage, I'd participate in it more. Probably the only way to deeply change FAC at this point is from the ground up. A new term, a new process, a new consensus to show that material on the front page. Etc. In turn, my thoughts on FAC relate to the following issue: I don't believe in the model of "minute perfection" that has taken over the Main Page, because the side effect—the censure of otherwise appropriate topics based on perceived quality of their article—is a sort of bias (and not a "random" bias!) that I find much more important to avoid than whatever "problems" are being avoided now. I could segue to the other FAC bias I see—that non-Western topics tend to need more work when they arrive at FAC, and as such are usually rejected; here a "pre-flight" FAC collaborative review would also come to the rescue in a collaborative model. Or not. Outriggr (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with this. And I'd agree with you that there's no good solution. Sadly peer review and FA mentoring, which are supposed to provide this, rarely work out in my experience. buidhe 15:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- One thing though re micro topics, wrt to the humanities, I far prefer to read about the work than the artist. The works draw interest in the man/woman, not the other way around. Also what draws you to to their work is best examined in the context of that work, and not necessary in the context of their life story or bio...which in wiki hierarchy is a level up, not least of all in a broad survey of their perceived gendre (ugg). For example, there is far more (potential) value in the article on Madame George than in the bio of the very difficult, infuriating, protestant, Van Morrison. The minute, specific reasons why I have been a fan for 30 years are in the song articles, not in his life and times broad overview. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Totally. What I have enjoyed (I think like you) in terms of my own better contributions on wikipedia is how exploring a "work", an object, in art or literature or whatever, naturally explores the history of that period, about the person who made it, and so on. (Yet I would argue that Wikipedia's default style, and its overall lack of interest in settling on a useful "humanities voice" that the taggers won't tag, makes biographies much more boring than they need to be.) (As you know well, some of the people who did this well in the early days were basically driven away by the technocracy that developed here. By 2010 loads of people who made wonderful contributions in literature, etc., were gone. Gone gone. We still miss them, those of us who know!) (Try to find anything about a poet's poetry in the average biography... bloody hard.) Well, I'm gonna cut this and keep it short. have a good weekend... Outriggr (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- You too man, but to reiterate, the blood that drives particular works can only be explained, in detail, in an article that describes that work. When you go up a level to the bio, wiki creed enforces hand-waving. The eg that most strikes to mind is the early sexual tension between Black Francis and Kim Deal when they were the best garage band in late 80s Boston; ok to say on the Sufer Rosa album article; when the pixies article was at FAC - was cut in favour of tour schedules, release dates and other silly things. ps, its always facinating to get your perspective, you are uniquely insightful and on the nose, alas shy with it also. Best as always my friend. Ceoil (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Totally. What I have enjoyed (I think like you) in terms of my own better contributions on wikipedia is how exploring a "work", an object, in art or literature or whatever, naturally explores the history of that period, about the person who made it, and so on. (Yet I would argue that Wikipedia's default style, and its overall lack of interest in settling on a useful "humanities voice" that the taggers won't tag, makes biographies much more boring than they need to be.) (As you know well, some of the people who did this well in the early days were basically driven away by the technocracy that developed here. By 2010 loads of people who made wonderful contributions in literature, etc., were gone. Gone gone. We still miss them, those of us who know!) (Try to find anything about a poet's poetry in the average biography... bloody hard.) Well, I'm gonna cut this and keep it short. have a good weekend... Outriggr (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- One thing though re micro topics, wrt to the humanities, I far prefer to read about the work than the artist. The works draw interest in the man/woman, not the other way around. Also what draws you to to their work is best examined in the context of that work, and not necessary in the context of their life story or bio...which in wiki hierarchy is a level up, not least of all in a broad survey of their perceived gendre (ugg). For example, there is far more (potential) value in the article on Madame George than in the bio of the very difficult, infuriating, protestant, Van Morrison. The minute, specific reasons why I have been a fan for 30 years are in the song articles, not in his life and times broad overview. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please forgive me jumping in to this conversation, but this is something I think about a lot too. There are three topics I've written FAs about: broadly, they are Anglo-Saxon history, sf magazines, and archaeological methods. If anyone were to bring to FAC a high-level summary article in any of those areas -- i.e. history of Anglo-Saxon England, science fiction, or archaeological methods, which doesn't even exist as an article but probably should -- I'd be able to provide at least a partial subject-matter review. There are a handful of other topics I am more qualified than most editors to review -- some mathematics, science, and IT topics, perhaps. Beyond that my only contribution as a reader/reviewer is "can I understand this material, and is it well presented?" When Ceoil brings one of his art articles to FAC, I am always hesitant to review because I don't know much about the history of art, though I enjoy reading the articles. I imagine most other FAC regulars are in a similar situation -- more than happy to bring their expertise to bear on articles that come through FAC, but rarely having the opportunity to do so.
- So one problem is having reviewers competent in a subject area, but this goes both ways -- even though I'd be able to help with a relevant review, I wouldn't be able to write any of those three summary articles I listed above. Probably the broadest article I have the resources to write in full would be something like history of science fiction, which is still a very minor leaf node on the tree of knowledge. I've been slowly going back through FAC history and collecting statistics, and recently read through the FACs for Catholic Church. There was plenty of participation, but what struck me about reading the FAC was how few of the participants were able to genuinely speak to the scholarship. This is not to say that the reviews weren't valuable -- they were (or, as usual, most of them were) -- but most of them were knowledgeable in the same way that I'm knowledgeable about Offa of Mercia, not in the way Simon Keynes is knowledgeable about Offa. This is no way to write, or to review, an article of that scope.
- I've argued elsewhere that the only way to write summary-level articles is to find a way to get academics involved; I won't repeat the arguments and ideas here, but I still think that's the case. I don't see it happening, though, and I don't see a good way to make it happen. I think summary articles are going to remain a major weakness of Wikipedia for a long time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with this. And I'd agree with you that there's no good solution. Sadly peer review and FA mentoring, which are supposed to provide this, rarely work out in my experience. buidhe 15:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Mike, snap. Personally, in terms of utility, when I use Wikipedia, its to read about narrow topics, usually checking a fact or otherwise trying to figure what a specific album or painting trying to say. That is, as a reader I am as narrowly focused and as an editor. Its very rare, for example, that I consult wiki to learn about..eg the progression of goth rock overall, or say what actually is milk. Ceoil (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, Mike, that as I started reading your post, right away I was thinking, "Catholic Church", and sure 'nuff, you came around to that. Two thoughts: that was such an atypical situation because we had advocacy and little scholarship from the writer (read the talk page for the real torture), with others struggling to explain scholarship to the writer. I wonder how differently the whole thing might have gone if it had been tackled by someone grounded in the scholarship. The other thing I recall is that Marskell kept insisting that the only way to write an article of that magnitude was to adhere to very strict summary style, and keep it trim-- otherwise there will always be too much for someone to nitpick. I believe if his argument had been allowed to prevail, we would have had an FA there. I have a whole 'nother perspective on what happens in some cases when we get experts involved. The ugliest scenario I had to deal with-- where all kinds of charges were flung at me-- is something I hardly discuss to avoid "speaking ill of the dead", but we had a COI situation where a topic expert was working their own theories into a literature FA, until two other literature experts of equivalent weight emailed me to explain the COI that was going on. The COI editor put the article up at FAC while the other two were curiously away on announced travel breaks, even when we had a rule in place that main editors had to be consulted before coming to FAC. That all worked out (the traveling editors returned, the issues were corrected, the article later passed FAC), but with a lot of nasty things said about me on talk because I pulled the FA while the two other editors were away on break. We see similar often in medicine-- topic experts sometimes want to use Wikipedia to advance their own pet agendas. It's a different kind of problem than lack of experts, but a problem nonetheless. In the cases where medical articles go out and get topic expert external peer reviews, they find problems that need to be addressed in articles, but they rarely understand encyclopedic writing, tone, scope, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 7 4March 2020 (UTC)
- Mike's post above hits home, and I think about it a lot also, to the extent that it keeps me awake at night re what am I doing, where did I come from where is this going. In the end I very much like working on individual works or buildings rather than grander topics - because that's what I read about when holding books. As Outrigg hinted above, aesthetics are very personal, and somewhat mysterious. But he wrote about Tennyson, me was about van Eyck; so fairly mainstream subjects for people who read more than the first sentence of the lead; so all is not lost. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for writing, Mike Christie. I think there has been a tendency, when this breadth topic comes up at FAC etc, of noting the most extreme ends of the spectrum—the highly specific and the amazingly broad—and missing the vast middle ground that is available when it comes to "topic breadth". I was not around when you successfully nominated Ice drilling. I noticed its status later, and believe it or not, I mentally noted that article as a perfect example of the middle ground I'm speaking of. It is vastly more broad than the average FAC topic, and yet still much more defined than "history of Anglo-Saxon England, science fiction, or archaeological methods". I suppose part of my wish is that FAC operated more often at the level of "ice drilling" ... for the sake of accessibility to the average reader exposed to FAs. {excised stuff} ...But you know, maybe it does? The March archives for TFA are by my estimation 33% around that level; another 1/3 just a bit below it, and the last 1/3 in the category I tend to think of as dominating FAC. That being said, TFA does (by my perception) de-prioritize that last 1/3 of articles, so there is some selection bias in that experiment. Anyway, out of fear that despite all the stuff I've written, or written and thrown out, I might be tilting at windmills, I'm gonna stop here. :-) My first comment was only considering breadth as part of a larger pattern in what seems to me "missing from FAC"; and how that came to be, or if it could be changed, is of most interest to me. Outriggr (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- One thing that can eventually happen even with the detailed articles is a gradual movement up from the leaf-nodes of the tree to summary articles, as the leaves are filled in. For example, battleship is an FA, and so are some of the articles in Template:BBhistory, all of which are themselves summary articles. The related WikiProject group has made long-term progress to improving a huge number of articles; when they're done (probably twenty more years) a big chunk of naval warfare will be covered, and a ton of summary level articles will be written. The same thing could eventually happen in some other areas -- Wehwalt and his collaborators might end up writing summary articles about US commemorative coinage, or about US coinage overall; and you can probably name other possibilities -- hurricanes, for example. Ice drilling is not quite in the same class -- it's not really a summary style of lower-level articles at the moment, though I suppose individual articles could exist on the different ice drilling methods.
- If every nominator at FAC worked like this -- gradually moving up from leaf-nodes to summary articles -- I think the only complaint would be the pace of progress. We have enough history now to make time estimates -- perhaps two decades of work to fill in the leaves of a small area like US coinage; more time is needed for a bigger subject, such as hurricanes, and less time is needed if multiple nominators are working on the same area. Not every nominator does work that way, but perhaps we can still be optimistic and say that they're still filling in leaves that will save time when someone else gets to them.
- However, at my most optimistic I still think this is too slow to do much in the way of creating the mid-level articles you're asking for. A few years ago, I spoke to a law professor who gives his students assignments to improve articles on important legal cases in intellectual property law -- copyrights, patents, and trademarks. In a sense, he is curating that area of Wikipedia: he looks to see what articles are missing and assigns his students to fill the gaps. (Of course he doesn't take them to FA, but that doesn't matter -- we care about quality more than about measures of quality.) I suggested to him then that he treat it as a conscious role: rather than simply looking around till he's found enough missing material to provide assignments to his students, he should look holistically at Wikipedia's coverage and treat his students as the tools by which that coverage can be improved. He was interested but non-committal.
- I think something like that could work, but the missing component is motivation for the academics involved. If assigning students tasks on Wikipedia is an attractive enough way to get students engaged with a topic, then perhaps more academics will start thinking along those lines. That carries its own risks, of course -- there have been some spectacular disasters from educational assignments. There have also been real successes, though. When I'm optimistic, that's what I'm optimistic about -- that Wikipedia will evolve towards a niche in academe that leaves its "anyone can edit" ethos intact while providing the overview knowledge that only academics have. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having the law class fill in gaps is excellent, and that approach shows much more coherence than that of most Wikipedia education assignments, where, as best I can tell, students are choosing articles randomly. That is based on the sampling I've done over the years, anyway. I haven't seen much or anything that approaches what jbmurray did in Latin American literature 12 years ago, and a few days ago it was once again up to SandyGeorgia to "report" that an English class had chosen two medical Featured Articles for their assignment. This is what I mean by random! It's not helpful to Wikipedia or arguably to students, who will likely suffer (educationally and/or on Wikipedia) for their undirected or poorly directed editing choices. Outriggr (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, no educational assignment has yet replicated what Jbmurray achieved; he could do what he did because he was an active editor. The rest of the profs are generally not Wikipedia savvy themselves-- the blind leading the blind, creating extra work for regular editors. I thought of this discussion today, since poetry is back at FAR for the 80 gazillionth time. The problem with the broad articles is that they turn into black internet goo faster than the rest, because everyone wants to edit them. Without some serious FA "ownership" over a long period of time, it seems to me that the broader the topic, the more it turns to brown goo on Wikipedia, while the smaller topics are easier to maintain. Look at the big articles in big trouble: Germany, Japan, poetry, we just lost Big Bang theory ... major depressive disorder and schizophrenia are a constant struggle, British Empire is back on the FAR list. I suspect that most editors know that attempting a broad topic isn't a good use of time, because you have to then spend your life keeping it from turning into brown goo. On the other hand, I can take a small topic (like delusional parasitosis) and pretty much write the article in a day, and make a difference to the world of people suffering with Morgellons, one of our medicine warzones. Anyone remember what Casliber went through trying to write major depressive disorder-- a huge topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Having the law class fill in gaps is excellent, and that approach shows much more coherence than that of most Wikipedia education assignments, where, as best I can tell, students are choosing articles randomly. That is based on the sampling I've done over the years, anyway. I haven't seen much or anything that approaches what jbmurray did in Latin American literature 12 years ago, and a few days ago it was once again up to SandyGeorgia to "report" that an English class had chosen two medical Featured Articles for their assignment. This is what I mean by random! It's not helpful to Wikipedia or arguably to students, who will likely suffer (educationally and/or on Wikipedia) for their undirected or poorly directed editing choices. Outriggr (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, and I kind of cry a little inside every time one of those larger topics shows up at FAR. One of the things I didn't write two days ago was:
I don't think it's a coincidence that FAs of greater breadth were more common in the earlier years of FAC (by my observation, which could be biased). To quickly name some examples: DNA, virus, Big Bang, Shakespeare, attachment theory (forgive me for not looking through WP:FA and former FAs for more examples). Of course there are counter-examples but I'm talking about a tendency.
(But if it's true that people brought larger topics to FAC in the earlier days, it is at the moment an aside.)
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised that the "regular" wiki processes are not enough to protect FAs like Big Bang theory, and, well... I was going to write the rest of the list you gave above, but in truth, I'm not surprised. Big Bang theory has science going for it. The others don't. There is no way "Poetry' wouldn't deteriorate because most Wikipedians aren't interested in watching it and in keeping it in a summary style (a much more involved job). The wiki is not nearly as good at keeping humanities stuff from deteriorating, or anything else, like countries, that can accumulate cruft ("random information"). I think everyone with even a light interest in FA ought to be adding more of the FAs to their watchlists. But the reason I don't watchlist many these days is the same reason I don't review much; I really don't want to watchlist another 500 highly specific articles--and anyway, as you point out, those articles don't have the deterioration problem that the broad stuff does anyway. (No, I don't remember what Casliber went through with MPD, so I looked at the FAC. I have no memory of writing this, of course, but at least I'm consistent (lol) because it reflects my argument here in 2020:
- Support. Meets FAC criteria and is among the site's best work. Good job Casliber et al. Articles on substantial topics will always have areas of contention. On an open and anonymous project, no one will ever unilaterally agree on the exact presentation of any topic of importance, and someone will always have one more thing to "improve". None of this affects the greater notion that this article is among wikipedia's best work. If FAC takes the endless-laundry-list approach to even broad-topic articles, we will never be able to feature the site's real best work. Feature it and keep working on it, if you like. –Outriggr § 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Best, everyone. Outriggr (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
It is the best of all possible worlds (leave that in an edit summary)
(hoomour below this line)
- "two other literature experts of equivalent weight" Did they all weigh the same or did the weight of the two others combined equal the weight of the first one? I'm trying to uncover who they are and need to know if I'm looking for three people of the same size or one very fat person and two average-sized people or one average-sized person and two skinny ones. Yomanganitalk 14:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Our beloved Fat Man was not involved :) (And to avoid misimpressions about the departed, neither was Brainy Brian :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- The fat man is welcome in any Cork pub, anythime, anywhere. Jesus he got even funnier as Obesity on wikireview, and he is unconditionally beloved from here. This Yomangani guy however; trims filofax - hmm. I remember a Yomangan (a smart alec as I remember, seemed to knows too much, invented DYK), but a bit baffled re this Yomangani (who is a bit of a smart alec, and knows too much, except about about DYK).[12]
- Our beloved Fat Man was not involved :) (And to avoid misimpressions about the departed, neither was Brainy Brian :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- "two other literature experts of equivalent weight" Did they all weigh the same or did the weight of the two others combined equal the weight of the first one? I'm trying to uncover who they are and need to know if I'm looking for three people of the same size or one very fat person and two average-sized people or one average-sized person and two skinny ones. Yomanganitalk 14:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, look where Wikipedia took me today! Holy Mother of All Things Horrid that Stood for Eight Years!! I end up fixing that wreck because an ongoing medical war at Morgellons led me to fix delusional parasitosis, led me to fix Jay Traver. Wish I hadn't seen that mess just when it was bedtime! SandyGeorgia (Talk)
- Nice work! That's the difference between you and the other 50 people who have 'edited' that article since it was substantively written by one person and then stayed that way forever. At the least it wouldn't have taken any time to remove the excessive editorial stuff... and I found some life dates the hard way though they were on Wikidata the whole time... Outriggr (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- I liked the old version. It made a refreshing break from the house style and didn't feel the need to be bound by the so-called "Policies of Wikipedia". Yomanganitalk 10:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- At first I couldn't even tell what it was saying. Several hours later, I know the whole story. I wonder if the Women in Red would like a new heroine? Riggr, I don't know how you find data on Wikidata, and PLEASE DO NOT EVER TELL MEÂ ! Â :)Â :) But thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Dont worry, its not because your brain isn't big enough. And I suspect (or more precisely, hope) Riggr doesn't know either. The whole point of wikidata seems to be to set up an inscrutable but indispensable google database, alien to mankind, that its proponents can then offer services for navigating. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, I do know... I went through an editing streak or two on Wikidata to get some "Canadian content", broadly construed, on there. But you're right in your assessment. Whatever its value, it has very little place on English Wikipedia. (It is creeping in around the edges despite what I thought was consensus against using it anywhere but, say, authority control template gibberish, which is gibberish whether it's accurate or not but absolutely must be placed on a million articles). But I do care about garbage like this: [13]. (I changed it, so that's an old version.) Anything with an "editing pencil" beside it comes from Wikidata (and in this case all the links). Note the "owner" field -- which makes Wikipedia look fucking stupid -- which is coming from Wikidata in some field related to who donated the work to the museum, and is being construed by the infobox design as "owner". But the person who put the wikidata version of the infobox onto that page when it already had a fine infobox[14] obviously doesn't care whether any of it is useful or even accurate. They snuck them onto a few dozen articles on paintings despite not otherwise being involved in Wikipedia VA. Forgive me if I'm telling you things you already know... I find it so ironic tha while I havew few objections about infoboxes any more (as long as they don't go nuts on unimportant fields)—now they have to go further, so now I dislike the newer, worse infoboxes all over again. And why obscure where infobox text comes from? It's confusing to all but the initiated, which I think is entirely the point. Outriggr (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Dont worry, its not because your brain isn't big enough. And I suspect (or more precisely, hope) Riggr doesn't know either. The whole point of wikidata seems to be to set up an inscrutable but indispensable google database, alien to mankind, that its proponents can then offer services for navigating. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- At first I couldn't even tell what it was saying. Several hours later, I know the whole story. I wonder if the Women in Red would like a new heroine? Riggr, I don't know how you find data on Wikidata, and PLEASE DO NOT EVER TELL MEÂ ! Â :)Â :) But thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ps, stay safe and at home my friends; this whole thing seems like 9/11 x 100(?). I'm on indefinite work from home duties, and IRL to US airports are very near to shut down, which is a bit difficult, but crystallizes a lot of thing also. Society is a lot more fragile, and mother nature cruel, than we though. As positives, when all this is over, maybe we will look at experts and the scientific method more positively than demagogues and fools. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks... You too! Outriggr (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, its too late for me obv, reading Trumps take on Europe and what have you, but can you look after Yoman at DYK please man, hes such an innocent, bless. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's never too late it's never too late to start all over again.
- I saw Yomangani claim he invented DYK. I don't know if this is true, but it feels true. Apparently Yomangani had quite a reputation in the early days of Wikipedia before pulling a Saint Francis move. Now he arrives at DYK in his palanquin and the kids don't even know who they're talking to.
- True story: I never did click on the youtube link you put up there a while ago because there was so much going on, people like me ain't used to hosting. I'll do it soon. And Sandy is trying to do something serious and I'm not even replying. If you read about delusional parisitosis and you're a bit OCD is that dangerous I wonder? There are some things on here that are best kept out of mind. (Well, millions, really.) Outriggr (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, its too late for me obv, reading Trumps take on Europe and what have you, but can you look after Yoman at DYK please man, hes such an innocent, bless. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks... You too! Outriggr (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Needs new section
- gravitate is a fancy word for bored. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I hate the daily outrage. Any time I'm in the mood to go apoplectic all I have to do is look at the crap DYK has on the mainpage. The main idea appears to be to defame people. And that template was too much for my brain even back when it worked. Riggr, it's a very long ways from a little-bit-OCD to full-on delusional psychosis of bugs growing in your skin. The good news is that the delusion has an average length of three years, so I keep thinking if I can make the article make sense, it can reach some of those who suffer miserably with that illness, and show up at Talk:Morgellons. Go do your Riggrmarole on it! Well, really, I'm just stalling because I don't look forward to digging back in to DLB just to update the citations. Maybe tomorrow! A week of social isolation and I'm already bored as an oyster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- TBH, dealing with the constant thought that various bodily experiences might be COVID symptoms is anxiety provoking enough (I've had two rounds of that already; I like to think my body fought it off already), and we'll (I'll) be worrying about it in myself and others for months. I don't think I'll read about delusional sensations right now!
- Do oysters make pearls because they're bored? I haven't heard that one before. Outriggr (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I understand. I hope you are all well. Thanks to being ahead of the curve because of Wikipedia editing, hubby and I hunkered down early, and hope we can stay safe. I don't believe he would survive the virus if he got it, so we are well prepared and taking all precautions. I guess I would be mostly worried about Liz at this point, since the East Coast is in Very Bad Shape :( I go at dementia with Lewy bodies in spurts, as I've been focused lately on Introduction to viruses, and utterly dismayed at how non-MEDRS content has found its way into most of our coronavirus articles. And I worry horribly about my son, as I don't know how he will pay the bills while under shelter-in-place :( Take care all of you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, if by Liz you mean my beloved wifey, they are in lock down, her father is separately ill, but his nurses come in wearing protective clothing akin to the moon landing, which is dramatic but cool and helps us sleep at night. Liz gets it, and we are trying to hammer home to all it only takes one slip up. My own parents are receiving visitors via the kitchen window only. Seems wise to me. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, my :( :( May Kafka and family be safe, and yours, too, Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Same to you Sandy and to your loved ones. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- My father is 88 and in California. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to read these last few comments. The worry is overwhelming (our family is separated, no chance of seeing each other until it's over, and one is now out of work) but sending good thoughts to all of you. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Worried about you, pls keep us posted. The economic fallout is just devastating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to read these last few comments. The worry is overwhelming (our family is separated, no chance of seeing each other until it's over, and one is now out of work) but sending good thoughts to all of you. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- My father is 88 and in California. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Same to you Sandy and to your loved ones. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, my :( :( May Kafka and family be safe, and yours, too, Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, if by Liz you mean my beloved wifey, they are in lock down, her father is separately ill, but his nurses come in wearing protective clothing akin to the moon landing, which is dramatic but cool and helps us sleep at night. Liz gets it, and we are trying to hammer home to all it only takes one slip up. My own parents are receiving visitors via the kitchen window only. Seems wise to me. Ceoil (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I understand. I hope you are all well. Thanks to being ahead of the curve because of Wikipedia editing, hubby and I hunkered down early, and hope we can stay safe. I don't believe he would survive the virus if he got it, so we are well prepared and taking all precautions. I guess I would be mostly worried about Liz at this point, since the East Coast is in Very Bad Shape :( I go at dementia with Lewy bodies in spurts, as I've been focused lately on Introduction to viruses, and utterly dismayed at how non-MEDRS content has found its way into most of our coronavirus articles. And I worry horribly about my son, as I don't know how he will pay the bills while under shelter-in-place :( Take care all of you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I hate the daily outrage. Any time I'm in the mood to go apoplectic all I have to do is look at the crap DYK has on the mainpage. The main idea appears to be to defame people. And that template was too much for my brain even back when it worked. Riggr, it's a very long ways from a little-bit-OCD to full-on delusional psychosis of bugs growing in your skin. The good news is that the delusion has an average length of three years, so I keep thinking if I can make the article make sense, it can reach some of those who suffer miserably with that illness, and show up at Talk:Morgellons. Go do your Riggrmarole on it! Well, really, I'm just stalling because I don't look forward to digging back in to DLB just to update the citations. Maybe tomorrow! A week of social isolation and I'm already bored as an oyster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- Victoria, this is a world changing event, and economies will have to adopt; we cant have millions of former service industry employees now suddenly destitute. In Ireland, there is a freeze in cases on loan repayments and house reposetions, which I suspect is only the start. Home delivery is now the new thing, mostly low paid, and for getting to the eardly, volunteer. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Visited today and touched to see folks and well wishing on my talk page. :) I hope K.L. and her parents will be OK Ceoil. And you and your families too, Victoria and SandyGeorgia. Re the moonsuits... I personally find the occasional photos (from Italy) of ICUs with both patients and staff all wrapped up in plastic to be evocative and the single most disturbing "media" aspect of this situation so far. They are real but need not be splashed everywhere, I think. Managing panic is vital. Anyway, I don't suppose I'll be editing much lately but will be visiting daily. Take care everyone. Outriggr (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Also I take a bit of comfort for now in the fact that less (fewer) than one percent of over 20,000 tests in my area have been positive. This would seem to indicate a low community spread. By comparison New York state has done 2.5 as many tests (with six times the population) and somehow, 22% are positive there? Ouch. (Source: Wikipedia...) Outriggr (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the pictures of moonsuits, people need to be made aware to the reality of what we are dealing with. We are still talking lows %s here, unless there is widespread complacency, then people should become very worried indeed. That said, what do I know. I'm sure viralogists have spent most of their careers thinking about social control in an emergency. Which seems to be seeping out fine overall, but perhaps not in the UK and US where there is weak, populist, anti expert leadership. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
March 28 weekend
- We are in total lock down as of midnight last night. No one can travel 2km from their home with out a permit, and heavy police enforcement (lads, lads, ye cant be doing that). Only hospitals, pharmacies, supermarkets and off licences allowed to stay open. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Shit.
Can we talk about something else? - I figure you're the man for this, re the founder of "an influential proto-punk band": I had somehow never heard of Jonathan Richman until earlier this week. His 1992 album (where he does not sound like a 40 year old) came up on Music_Service and I was taken by it. Old hat for you? Outriggr (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) We are under stay-at-home restriction, but law enforcement isn't enforcing. My little town is not seeing climbing numbers (maybe because someone-- MOI-- was screaming loud long before the governor put restrictions in place so people paid attention early on). I actually wish law enforcement would crack down, because people are too complacent. I suspect my son still on the East Coast will be under quarantine soon. Ceoil, how is Liz? Do you all realize we haven't heard from Yomangani for eight days? Since he speaks Spanish, I sure hope he is not in Spain, but fear he could be. Outriggr how are you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- We love this guy: [15]. (I've shared that before with Ceoil because he's Irish.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Even though I'm a straight white guy, I can appreciate there is something going on there, musically and otherwise. Its Great. Riggr, talk about some thing other than Convid? Feel a bit exposed, but only thing can think of is that Shana spent 10 yrs odd in Boston, so of course am versed in Richmond. Peopbaly repeating myself, as I LOVE the Rammones, but this gig is unusually refreshng [16] (the bseline has to be heard to be believed). After that, I got nutting. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- We love this guy: [15]. (I've shared that before with Ceoil because he's Irish.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Shit.
- We are in total lock down as of midnight last night. No one can travel 2km from their home with out a permit, and heavy police enforcement (lads, lads, ye cant be doing that). Only hospitals, pharmacies, supermarkets and off licences allowed to stay open. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I did notice; had assumed "people in the know" know where Yomangani resides. ;)
- I'm OK Sandy, thanks for asking. All of my problems pre-date COVID19, and I hope I can continue to say that. (Knock on wood. Need an emoji for that.) I worry about senior-age parents. Bouts of anxiety come and go. I have a lot of ... thoughts ... but don't really have an outlet for them. Screeds.
Writing at strangers on the internet is not productive[not referring to people here as strangers], but neither is polluting this talk page with Serious Business. What to do? More Parties in the USA?—a dude in a "simpler time" singing about another "simpler time". We have lost simplicity, and this is the root of it all. Outriggr (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)- I have been digesting the odd feeling ... and just found this. Now it has a name. [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- After 15 odd years man, we are hardly strangers. Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not referring to people here as strangers. Realized that risk, tried to fix it with "or on this talk page". Outriggr (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Either way, chatting or blowing off steam is always good. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ben Kyle has five kids :). Love those songs. If I knew where Yoman lives, I forgot, or it is back on my old yahoo account. I think about my Wikifriends all the time. Hubby wanted to cross the pond this spring, but I guess that’s out. We have lost a lot and methinks we cannot ignore it away. I am trying to force serious conversations with my boys. Like ... take the damn china, crystal and silver now or I am selling that shit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Meh. Just sell it - just don't expect too much cash for it. We don't do much entertaining, so when I asked my son if he wanted it, his response was "You have fancy china and crystal???" Like you, Sandy, I was telling people way back in February that this thing was going to be bad, real bad; my pantry and freezer were stocked by early March and we've only had to pick up things like milk and bread since then. We're doing a lot better up here in Canada because we had better preparation (we learned that from SARS and took the lessons seriously), but even the pandemic stocks weren't designed for this intensity over a long period. The novelty of the virus and the fact that nobody has any real level of immunity, the ease of transmission, as well as the length of ICU treatment people require, is really pretty close to "worst case scenario". My, aren't I cheerful! Nonetheless, I get the intellectual boredom. I've become a whiz at online jigsaws, and did manage to spring a few books out of the local library before it shut down. Hubby has built a wonderful video collection over the years. I always find something to keep me busy. Outriggr, feel free to pop me emails if you are in the mood for a rant; I'm pretty good at them. Hello everyone - stay safe. Risker (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Another favorite ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f93vQD9rNcc&feature=youtu.be SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, and from me [18], seems very apt, has a strong maternal echo. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ben Kyle has five kids :). Love those songs. If I knew where Yoman lives, I forgot, or it is back on my old yahoo account. I think about my Wikifriends all the time. Hubby wanted to cross the pond this spring, but I guess that’s out. We have lost a lot and methinks we cannot ignore it away. I am trying to force serious conversations with my boys. Like ... take the damn china, crystal and silver now or I am selling that shit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Either way, chatting or blowing off steam is always good. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not referring to people here as strangers. Realized that risk, tried to fix it with "or on this talk page". Outriggr (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
For the record
Regarding my arbitration comment in agreement with SandyGeorgia: we know each other, but my comment is independent. We haven't discussed arbitration, medical content (other than whatever chat is on this talk page about COVID etc) on or off wiki.
I just remembered you don't like pings, so NOT PINGING YOU! As you know, I like talking to myself... Outriggr (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Dreamy Jazz, it looks like there may be several errors in your notifications. For example, I don't believe either Iridescent or Outriggr are listed parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, I forgot to add party=no. My mistake. I have corrected nearly all of them. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
DLB
Wow, those are seriously good copyedits at dementia with Lewy bodies. I will more appropriately thank you at a time when I am less shell-shocked by all that is unfolding around me. Always always always appreciate your help with my dreadful prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oh thank you! To be honest I was hesitant to get into that article, but figured it was the least I could do (in a larger sense). I wanted to ask: I assume this [20] was not my mistake, i.e. that's what it said before.
- I'm sorry you're feeling shell shocked. I can't blame you though!! Outriggr (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that was my mistake, which I fortunately noticed because of your copyedits. I will put up some ideas of how to repair the lead when I next find time. If I next find time. Tonight's events on the other front left me reeling; I thought I was immune to that by now, but I'm not :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Three things Outriggr
- Well done on DLB; have expressed admiration on the talk to each member of the current team, lots of credit due there, was a pleasure to see, watch and learn
- Was upset to see you note re discomfort and concentration, sending best wishes as always, you are an old and greatly appreciate friend
- I see the man has deleted your user page, again. I still have the password to the Ottava account, so if you want me to raise hell on an/i, just send a sign, maybe by not replying to this post in the next hour. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately my adventures on an/i didn't go as well we hoped, and you are now blocked for 1 week. Will open an arbcom case, and maybe plead to the foundation. Ceoil (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Freak me out with that, Ceoil! When we go to FAC, we will put Outriggr's name on the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just worried and trying to cheer up yer man. I realise my reputations as hard as nails, but I do have some humanity. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Great to hear from you both. I appreciate it very much.
- Just came to say that... Expect I'll be [even more] low key for a while [21], just reverting stuff on my watchlist. Good luck with your next FAC noms, though you hardly need it! Outriggr (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- All we have ever had is now, but now we know it better, so we have to make now the best it can be. Surrounded by good people, life is good. Be well; mi casa es tú casa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just touching in to see how are things. For me the novelty has gone, haha, and now in the serious boredom phase. Myself an Liz planning two weeks in Maine as a second honeymoon after all his is over; gotta have things to look forward to. Have spent absolutely nothing in last 5 weeks, so a fancy holiday seems plausible, before we wake up to the inevitable, massive, economic crash. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
How are you all doing? Don't like it when you go silent :( Outriggr, could you give me the green light here to list you as a co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sandy, Outriggr isn't being silent; we decided to chat on the above offline as it not really, or at all, wiki related. hope all is well. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Australasian Antarctic Expedition
Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Greetings of the season
Happy holidays | ||
Dear Riggrs, For you and all the Riggr family, "Let there be mercy".
|
Special:WantedTemplates
Hi, I have been helping with an effort to clear up false-positives in Special:WantedTemplates and found that 7 of the entries can be traced back to User:Outriggr/script/formatgeneral.js. For example, if you check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:(?:end, you will see that the server is reporting that User:Outriggr/script/formatgeneral.js is transcluding that template. Clearly this is a quirk in how the backend software parses javascript pages, but it makes it harder to find the real problem pages. It would be great if you could put
// <syntaxhighlight lang=javascript>
at the top of the script page and
// </syntaxhighlight>
at the bottom of the script page. Since these are commented out, it won't break the javascript, but it will prevent the backend software from parsing the {{(?:end
as a template transclusion. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Dementia with Lewy bodies scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Dementia with Lewy bodies article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 21, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Sasha (DJ)
I have nominated Sasha (DJ) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
FAR nomination
I have nominated Great Fire of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
A somewhat premature New Year's greeting
John Vanderlyn, Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (c.1812), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts |
Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2022. | |
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Moral lesson: John Vanderlyn was an American painter who studied in Paris, and his life-sized Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos was one of the first large nudes exhibited in the United States. Peddling the poison as well as the cure, this overtly sensuous work was presented to the public as a moral lesson on the consequences of lascivious behavior. Visible in the distance is the ship of Princess Ariadne's secret lover, Theseus, for whom she has betrayed her people by helping him to escape the Labyrinth and slay the Minotaur. Ariadne's bliss will come to an end when she awakens from her post-coital reverie, only to discover that the faithless Theseus has sailed away without her. |
FAR for Torajan people
I have nominated Torajan people for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia Canada Education Program courses, 2012 Q3 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedia Ambassador Program courses, 2012 Q3 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)