@MετάEd Yes.

Hi.

Also, I read your answer and I liked it.

Hi @Jasper.

Thanks, it's cozy.

I'm surprised you don't have one.

That's OK. Hat liking is not required.

room topic changed to English Language & Usage: For English language enthusiasts: meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/chat-faq (no tags)

room topic changed to English Language & Usage: For English language enthusiasts; meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/chat-faq (no tags)

It's coming along nicely. We'll have a well-ordered chat before you know it.

@JasperLoy There will be more, but I figured that's enough to get started.

@MετάEd Yes!

But would it be terribly annoying if I had more?

@JasperLoy I did not see what she did there. Really. What's the difference?

@JasperLoy link?

@MετάEd I'm thinking maybe a link to the Use-Mention distinction on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinction

@Mitch I think 2 is covered in your other post, about what chat is for. But maybe that should be linked to and maybe those things should be called out more.

@JasperLoy I agree with your answer and se that deadrat's is just wrong. But how to say that diplomatically?

Also, @MετάEd, I'm thinking that we should have something like "idle chatter is OK, as long as you don't mind being interrupted by serious, on-topic conversation."

@KitZ.Fox Yeah. You had closed it before. When I tried to reclose, it said I had already voted to close it.

Or something like that. It's OK to be off topic, but on-topic takes precedence.

@tchrist Weird that's not in the timeline.

What did I close it for?

Dupe.

The timeline should have my close vote if it's going to tell me I have one.

@KitZ.Fox @Mitch Would it be too much bother to put those suggestions in the comments on the answer so I can find them later?

Would someone else who agrees with me mind doing it? Because of my involvement in chat reform, I don't want to come across as a puppetmaster.

And if no one agrees with me, then just don't post it as a comment. no harm, no foul.

@KitZ.Fox @MετάEd I don't want you to have to write an essay there, but I feel many points (not all) need nuance. eg pseudonym (do you mean always use a false name instead of your own or change the default to a memorable one.

@KitZ.Fox yes. I want that said explicitly.

@Mitch Maybe you could ask questions for clarification on specific points?

@KitZ.Fox You might as well do it. There's a record here of you pulling strings anyway :-]

the Do/Do not trope, while a useful simplification, cn be interpreted, who said it here recently, stalinistically if it's not prohibited it is mandatory

Um. OK.

@KitZ.Fox @MετάEd I will. (It's just a nunber of points that I'll go through.)

Except I didn't you know, actually write it. I'm overthinking it, aren't I?

THere's no end to thinking

@KitZ.Fox when I grow up I want to be a sockpuppetmaster

@MετάEd yes...sometime this evening.

@Mitch You know I know about your socks, right?

gasp WHAT!?

@KitZ.Fox I will link in the use-mention distinction article but I will neither use nor mention Strunk & White who are, sadly, referenced in the article.

I'm surprised those aren't deleted yet.

♫ please delete me, let me go ♫

Would you like me to take care of them for you?

@JasperLoy Well, I think there's still an autoscript that looks for that.

I will delete them if you want.

Oh I wouldn't get in trouble for it. I can confirm that they belonged to you and you are telling me you want them deleted.

You could also request to have them merged into your current account.

@KitZ.Fox No sock smell shaming in chat.

@JasperLoy I can be 100% sure, but I will wait until later to do it.

[ SmokeDetector ] Few unique characters in answer: Word for giving animal characteristics (esp. physical ones) to humans by Grace on english.stackexchange.com