• 21 Aug, 2019

• By, Wikipedia

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to move, so it's leeky's turn – check back later! (last mover: CopperyMarrow15)

The source for Ewa Ligocka's goose uses the same wording for the story about another mathematician winning a goose as a prize (for which we have photographs!) as for Ligocka cooking the goose. There is no reason to treat this merely as a rumor; it is labeled as an anecdote. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: there's no reason for both sources to report it as a "story" or "anecdote" unless they didn't know it was true firsthand. this is basically lighthearted hearsay. we can call it something other in a rumor, but it can't stay in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not reporting it as something they are not sure of. They are reporting it as something true but incidental to the life of the person they are writing about. The story of the goose prize itself is widely documented and accepted as true (again, photograph!). This is additional detail from the same story, reported as equally factual.

Additionally, elaborating on the true or false nature of the story destroys the whole intended double meaning of the hook, a play on the phrase "to cook one's goose" where the joke is that in this case the meaning is literal rather than metaphorical. If we state it in a way that makes it clearly intend the meaning to be factual but at second hand, then there is no joke any more and no point to running that hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Saying "another anecdote says" she was the one who cooked it is another way of saying "I've heard someone say this is true, but have no way of verifying it myself". Anecdotes, as I believe you've pointed out before, can't speak. It's a way of attributing to another source, and a vague one at that. And this source isn't fact-checked or editorially controlled, it's just a mass email. Would you be okay with adding "according to an anecdote" to the hook? I understand it ruins the punch a little bit, but the sourcing is already very shaky. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said above and will say again: describing the ontological status of this statement, in the hook, destroys the point of the hook. If you refuse to run a hook with a point, I think it is better not to put boring pointless hooks into DYK at all. DYK hooks are not the place for pedantic elaboration, as you should already know. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, well then, pulled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think it "destroys the point of the hook" at all. You lose the pun, but i think cooking another mathematician's goose is still interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the remaining point left, after removing the joke, is: when a group of Polish mathematicians needed some kitchen work done, they selected a nearby young woman to do the work, without regard to her mathematics. Is that the point you wanted to make? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that's a strange takeaway from the story itself. Someone with a doctorate in mathematics kills and cooks a coworker's goose, and the only takeaways from that are wordplay and gross sexism? You wouldn't be the least bit curious why a university math professor slaughtered and cooked her coworker's goose? Seems pretty interesting to me, and it was interesting to the person that sent out that email blast, too. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t read the phrasing as casting doubt on the veracity. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theleekycauldron. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wendy's on Twitter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

In response to the referral to the Arbitration Committee of an enforcement request from the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, where you participated in the administrators' discussion, the Committee has resolved by motion that:

Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom

Motion 2b: Word limits

Motion 2c: Word limits

Motion 5: PIA5 Case

Addendum

In passing motion #5 to open a Palestine-Israel articles 5 case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: Aoidh, HJ Mitchell, and CaptainEek. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

• BilledMammal (talk · contribs)
• Iskandar323 (talk · contribs)
• Ïvana (talk · contribs)
• Levivich (talk · contribs)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs)
• Selfstudier (talk · contribs)
• האופה (talk · contribs)
• AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs)
• IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
• Alaexis (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)
• Makeandtoss (talk · contribs)
• Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs)

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles

@Ealdgyth and Giraffer: I actually have 4 FAs and 2 FLs, not five and one! United States congressional delegations from Hawaii is an FL. Marked with a smaller star, very easy to miss. Sorry to bug! Ealdgyth, I hope to be available enough to answer your question tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out! Giraffer (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theleekycauldron,

I was just reviewing cases at AE and I think you made a mistake in this one. You presented evidence against the editor the complaint was about and then you participated in the Administrator's discussion putting forward a view of how they should be sanctioned. By presenting a statement outlining problems, you were, by definition, "involved" and shouldn't have weighed in on the outcome of the discussion. The admin section is for uninvolved admins only (it states this underneath the header) and I think you should not have participated here. If I had seen this in time, I would have commented but the discussion has been closed so I'm just mentioning it to you here. I think you should keep your AE participation separate from your admin participation in the future. Thank you. Liz 07:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Liz :) I appreciate your diligence on INVOLVED, and of course want to avoid any conflicts of interest in the course of admin work. If you're perturbed by the fact that I both made a statement (which is usually reserved for acting in a non-admin capacity) and participated in the admin's section, I can clarify: I'm not involved with Bohemian Baltimore in any editorial capacity and didn't introduce any new evidence. I only organized some of my thoughts in a statement because it would have been too unwieldy to put it in the admin section. All of the threads and diffs I cited were already available by virtue of other commenters in the AE discussion.

So, my use of a statement section wasn't me double-dipping, airing personal grievances against BB and then acting on them with admin powers: I was just using the statement as an organizational tool to analyze evidence that was already available in a case I'm not involved in, and using that to come to a conclusion on the remedy I thought was best. You can see in the thread that I commented in the admin section that I was going to use a statement to list out the evidence I'd seen and then did exactly that. I hope that clarifies :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sorry. Technically, this diff (which I seem to have cited incorrectly at AE) wasn't cited by anyone else, but it's directly relevant to a merge discussion that was cited by Hemiauchiena and Andrevan, so I think that's within scope. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leeky! I disagree that this is a personal attack, certainly in the context of determining if someone is a good fit for the mop. I reverted but I am too lazy to have a fight so if you disagree you can just revert again. Polygnotus (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Polygnotus :) I'm inclined to revert because I'm not sure why you disagree with me. I left my thoughts on JoJo's talk page; could you take a look at that and let me know your thoughts? Would love to hear you out. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Responded there. Please don't kill me if I misremember a book I read a long long time ago. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]