User talk:EEng

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 14 as User talk:EEng/Archive 13 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

> > > Welcome to "the only man-made talk page that can be seen from space." < < < But there are no signs of intelligent life.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions: 1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

Satellite image of a section of the Great Wall of China, running diagonally from lower left to upper right and not to be confused with the more prominent talkpage running from upper left to lower right. The shadow at the upper left indicates "You are here." Talkpage archives are not visible.

Wikipedia Must Be The Saddest Place on Earth

I have had EEng's talk and userpage on my Watchlist for two months because they are the most fun places on Wikipedia.

—Softlavender[2]

FDA Warning: Pagescrolling-related unilateral musculoskeletal asymmetry

My friend told me that the best way to get a man would be to impress him with my ability to crush a can so forcefully that the contents shoot out, fly up in the air and land in my mouth, so every morning I do yoga, swim and then come here for 40 mins scrolling to the bottom of EEng's talk page; my right forearm looks like Popeye's now and it's done wonders for my love life.

—Belle[3]

Sections were archived,
one by one, like tears falling,
but saved forever. – Levivich [4]

(a/o February 2, 2016: 131 stalkers, 81/89 "active" [5])

a. Stalkers caught on camera; b. Why was the gardener unhappy?

Wikipedians with red lynx cats on their user page

And now, without further ado .. Ladies and gentlemen, we present to you ... EEng's talk page!

Don't be a tease

You recently teased some trivia questions about MIT in this thread at ANI. I tried using Google, but Mr. Google and I have a love/hate relationship and he offered no assistance (maybe he's tired of being used and tossed aside). Will we ever find out what the answers are now that the thread has been closed? Or will I have another sleepless night wondering why Mr. Google refuses to answer my questions?— Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely you don't imagine I'd pose a shibboleth you can look up on Google. I'd like to give him a day or two to show off his knowledge [6] before I open the secret envelope. For some reason these poseurs often think they can get away with an MIT imposture (this one was a "professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing" who had "armies of grad students and PhD candidates who work in my labs" – "I'm a computer lawyer" seems to be a common fantasy) but rarely, for some reason, Harvard. You can always tell a Harvard man, I guess. EEng 05:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am hoarding all of the juicy secret information that I hold close to the vest, known only to the select few who attended the City College of San Francisco, San Francisco State University and the glorious University of San Francisco. These Cambridge nerds like my brother-in-law must be put in their places. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You're going to think I'm making this up, but UCSF's Laurel Heights Campus is build over the cemetery where ol' Phineas Gage was originally buried. Cross my heart. EEng 06:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

As a very young man (after high school but before college), I worked at Kaiser Hospital on Geary Boulevard, where they were digging up Gold Rush era graves during relentless medical center expansions. Mind you, I was not there during the actual Gold Rush. But they needed to create a special city, Colma, California, to accommodate all of the exhumed graves. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Colma has 1800 living residents and 1.5 million dead; the town's (unofficial?) motto is "It's great to be alive in Colma!" For the full story see the source cited here [7], and there's a nice map of the four cemeteries that used to surround Lone Mountain here [8]; Gage was buried in "Laurel Hill Cemetery" (which was itself called simply "Lone Mountain Cemetery" until its name was changed in the mid-1860s). EEng 18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• (Attention, Isaidnoway...) Our ex-lecturer–lawyer having demurred to respond, here are the answers to the four posers posed at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#Personal_attacks_by_User:BostonBowTie:
  • (1) Immediately as you leave MIT for Harvard there's a sign that famously provides an unintentional pun when seen from just the right vantage. What is it? Answer: The metropolitan storage warehouse — fire proof next to the railroad tracks, which if you stand in just the right place reads rage warehouse — ire proof. Photo at [9]. It's now student housing.
  • (2) According to tradition, one MIT president had some famous last words. What were they? Answer: "Bituminous coal", according to legend the last words of MIT founder William Barton Rogers before he dropped dead on the commencement dais. See [10].
  • (3) What MIT library makes you go around in circles? Answer: Barker Library, inside the Great Dome; see the map here [11].
  • (4) What was kept overnight in a car trunk during the Apollo 13 emergency? Answer: MIT's copy of the Apollo guidance system's gyros, to verify their performance at very low temperatures. Search "trunk" in [12]. (If you like that sort of thing at all then this book [13] is outstanding.)

EEng 20:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

For striking a balance between humor and insight, and for having the only page on Wikipedia visible from space cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Big Telecom conspiracy

I've just got new, faster, wizz-bang high speedier internet installed. Guess what I did to test the speed? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Like my new laptop? This baby can do 10.8 EEngtalks!" EEng 10:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You made a cup of coffee but managed to drink only half of it before this page successfully loaded? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't as fast as I would have wished. Honestly, it really is the most practical speed test I've ever found! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

With my Ye Olde Worlde UK internet, I can usually manage a whole cafetiere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible?

Hi EE. Do you think we could dub over Steve's voice here to say "another wrestling thread at ANI?" :-) In another bit of fun they have a festival where they reenact that scene every year. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow! It's even better in Spanish! EEng 02:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do I not see you at RfA?

There's an RfA going on right now and I'm wondering. Why do you never !vote in RfAs? SemiHypercube 01:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• (a) The fawning nominating statements make me want to vomit.
• (b) My only criterion for adminship is that the person not be an idiot or an asshole, and if you oppose you have to say why, but you're not allowed to say someone's an idiot or an asshole.
• (c) They're like super-serious over there and don't allow jokes.

EEng 07:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate EEng, so he can block himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

EEng becomes an admin – SemiHypercube

EEng wrote about a guy with a large iron rod through his head. It wasn't his autobiography. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I'm not sure if nominating EEng for adminship would be a good idea. I might support him if this page gets created, but I can hardly imagine what absolute chaos would ensue if he were nominated, let alone actually be promoted. SemiHypercube 02:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Disappointed!

• This is very disappointing. The header turned up on my watchlist, and I took it to mean "Why do I not see you as a candidate at RFA?" So I came here fully expecting to see either a good excuse for not standing from EEng, or (better) an abject apology followed by a prompt self-nomination. (I agree about the fulsome nominations, and always give extra points to the few who self-nominate. Let's have some self-reliance and independence at RFA, people. What are the admins? A mutual admiration society? An exclusive country club?) Anyway. Please do nominate yourself! I'd certainly vote for you. (Yes, I'm too proud to use that "!vote" jargon.) Bishonen | talk 03:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC).

  If Donald Trump can become President of the United States I guess anything's possible. EEng 03:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I will vote for you if you make Wikipedia great again. PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Please use that as a slogan and campaign theme.  MWGA  ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Of one thing, I have no doubt: It would be the best illustrated RfA ever. Imagine the images! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I know that Bishonen prefers self-nominations, but that doesn't mean that Bishzilla does too. If Bishzilla nominated EEng, I'd definitely support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

All the bullhonky aside...HELL YEAH!!! EEng proudly wears the battlescars that were inflicted upon him by years of clueless [fill-in the blanks]. He knows what it means to be [fill-in the blanks]. He has years of experience, incredible knowledge and the wherewithal to [fill-in the blanks]. Any editor who ever doubted his ability to craft the ^almost perfect encyclopedic article...[fill-in the blanks]. He would be the WP symbol of the Phoenix rising...the mystical Unicorn...the ultimate [fill-in the blanks] that would attract hordes of news media. ^{And I would damn sure vote for him because [fill-in the blanks].} 🦄 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate the compliments, I have not the slightest interest in becoming an admin – not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening anyway. I feel I can do more good as a member of the loyal opposition. EEng 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

List of accordionists

I was just editing List of accordionists (as one does) and suddenly thought I about you, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That video is hilarious. EEng 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

👏👏👏 --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest that list be compressed. EEng 23:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is when it is compressed, then expanded, then compressed again, and then expanded again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"Donald's got a squeeze box, Melania never sleeps at night": [14] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"And now a word from our sponsor, A Stable Genius." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User conduct

This and this, although I'm sure you'd already figured that out. Even without those facts, it's still blatantly obvious isn't it?  ;) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess the irony of my ANI comment didn't come across. EEng 23:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider that this is the internet and irony that relies on prior knowledge of a person or signals such as body language and tone of voice should not be assumed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, uh, duh, Mr. Pedantic Ass, thanks for filling me in! That's a great tip! EEng 19:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions asked around your "snore" edit summary

Please help to improve the article to make it more interesting as per WP:BLUE WP:NPOV etc and where your comment is simply snore, please look to expand so it is not just "snore". Particularly, articles and edits that are not just "snore" may actually address complex social issues in new and innovative ways. Can you help with this mission? Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Snore" refers to the soporific effects of dealing with someone who keeps reinserting the same silly stuff against consensus. For those playing along at home, this refers to Talk:Farmers_and_Fishermen:_Two_Centuries_of_Work_in_Essex_County,_Massachusetts,_1630-1850#Good_Will_Hunting_reference. EEng 15:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I can testify that EEng often drops off when conversing with me. Sometimes he seems to be asleep for weeks at a time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Do this again and you'll be blocked"

On Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 you reverted to an edit with a sentence ending in a comma that removed notable information. The reason given was 'do this again and you'll be blocked'. However, you give no reason beyond this for reverting to a sentence fragment from one that makes sense, nor have you said what you consider 'silly' about information on an academic book referenced by a major motion picture which is factual beyond doubt and supported by the most credible source imaginable. You seem to be here for WP:NOTHERE in this case. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mrs. Pace Owl, your cluelessness act is nearing perfection. Feel free to correct the comma to a period. That way at least something you do will be productive. [15] EEng 18:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your tact, respect and commitment to improving Wikipedia in this case. However, I must demur, as the subclause removed seems likely the only interesting thing about the article at present, and should be restored. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is this another example of confusion over "and/or"? Logically, "do this again and you'll be blocked" says both of two things should happen: you should do this again (phrased as a command), and you will be blocked (regardless of whether you do it again). "Do this again or you'll be blocked" would make more sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  OED: "Introducing the predicted consequence or fulfilment of a command, or of a hypothesis put imperatively, or elliptically", giving the example Spray with Sanfect and you're safe. EEng 20:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  How about "if you wanna be blocked, just do this again"? (I think "ya schmuck" is an optional modifier in this construction?). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, this schmuck has fixed the comma and some other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for your tact, respect and commitment to improving Wikipedia in this case. :) Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, no problem (although some editors think that I should be committed). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  Hey, wasn't one of your great Presidents called Tact? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  No. But one of our many mediocre ones was. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Rachael Runyan

Hi, can you please have a look over Murder of Rachael Runyan? Thank you in advance. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Took a stab at it. EEng 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Stab? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In all honestly the unfortunate background meaning did occur to me as I typed, but I was too lazy to backspace. EEng 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's OK. We all appreciate your cutting sense of humor. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Prince of Comedy

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this nugget of comedy gold. I laughed heartily. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Scrolling through WP:DRAMABOARD, appreciated this. SITH (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Once more

Editors are warned: communicating with EEng may lead to a gruesome accident. --Tryptofish

Requesting your expertise as it relates to engaging the reader...please see Dax Cowart. I tweaked it a bit and was hoping you could help add the finishing touches for Phase 1 of what appears to be a potential DYK/GA/FA article. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I know this case (looks like I did some editing myself a year ago) and am happy to help. I assume by now you realize that I'm likely to whittle down the detail a bit. EEng 03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I would not expect anything less. The article needs to be encyclopedic but in a way that the prose is engaging. What good is an article that doesn't capture an audience? I know my flaws in relation to this particular article, and I'm quite confident knowing that your exceptional writing ability (example: Phineas Gage) is exactly what the Cowart article needs. Please...perform your magic. There are numerous RS that can be cited. I truly believe the subject of this article is worth the extra mile or two it will take to get it right. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 04:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As you know I specialize in gruesome accidents. EEng 04:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Didn't intend for my ulterior motives to be that obvious. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice little Wikipedia article you have there. It would be a pity if anything happened to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You might want to have a little protection. Otherwise, something might just get broken. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Beginning with "a little protection", I've determined that it's much safer to not respond. I've been practicing safe hex. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nowadays everyone wants to be non-binary. EEng 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nah...you must have forgotten. I'm tri-hexual. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Words matter

I don’t mind corrections here and there in stable featured articles, but I’m troubled by your words towards other users, which are often contemptuous in tone and on the verge of xenophobic. You shouldn’t go around insulting their language skills, especially when you don’t know their background. You want to help? Help, but don’t overreact. --Lecen (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about a series of edits culminating in this one [16] and this one [17].

Well, let's see ... Here's the entirety of the section you think should carry the heading Decadence:

During the 1880s, Brazil continued to prosper and social diversity increased markedly, including the first organized push for women's rights. On the other hand, letters written by Pedro II reveal a man grown world-weary with age and having an increasingly alienated and pessimistic outlook. He remained respectful of his duty and was meticulous in performing the tasks demanded of the imperial office, albeit often without enthusiasm. Because of his increasing "indifference towards the fate of the regime" and his lack of action in support of the imperial system once it was challenged, historians have attributed the "prime, perhaps sole, responsibility" for the dissolution of the monarchy to the Emperor himself.

After their experience of the perils and obstacles of government, the political figures who had arisen during the 1830s saw the Emperor as providing a fundamental source of authority essential for governing and for national survival. These elder statesmen began to die off or retire from government until, by the 1880s, they had almost entirely been replaced by a newer generation of politicians who had no experience of the early years of Pedro II's reign. They had only known a stable administration and prosperity and saw no reason to uphold and defend the imperial office as a unifying force beneficial to the nation. To them Pedro II was merely an old and increasingly sick man who had steadily eroded his position by taking an active role in politics for decades. Before he had been above criticism, but now his every action and inaction prompted meticulous scrutiny and open criticism. Many young politicians had become apathetic toward the monarchic regime and, when the time came, they would do nothing to defend it. Pedro II's achievements went unremembered and unconsidered by the ruling elites. By his very success, the Emperor had made his position seem unnecessary.

The lack of an heir who could feasibly provide a new direction for the nation also diminished the long-term prospects of the Brazilian monarchy. The Emperor loved his daughter Isabel, but he considered the idea of a female successor as antithetical to the role required of Brazil's ruler. He viewed the death of his two sons as being a sign that the Empire was destined to be supplanted. Resistance to accepting a female ruler was also shared by the political establishment. Even though the Constitution allowed female succession to the throne, Brazil was still very traditional, and only a male successor was thought capable as head of state.

While in obsolete usage decadence means a decline of any kind, in modern usage it always connotes moral decay, usually including self-indulgence, and there's no suggestion of anything like that in the text. After three go-rounds on this I guessed that you're not a native speaker of English, and as it turns I was correct.

I have great admiration for Dom Pedro and am glad he's well covered in WP, but featured or not these articles are prolix and repetitive. It's big of you to allow for "corrections here and there", but phrases such as

even taking a train journey solely with his wife

and passages such as

Upon his sons' early deaths, the Emperor's faith in the monarchy's future had evaporated. His trips abroad now made him resentful of the burden destiny had placed upon his shoulders when only a child of five.

show there's more than a little room for improvement. (Among other things, it's hard to imagine destiny as a child of five.)

Oh, and as it happens my boyfriend of 13 years is Brazilian so you can take your xenophobia accusations and stick them up your bunda. EEng 07:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

it's hard to imagine destiny as a child of five. My 5 year old has a classmate named Destiny, therefore everything you said here is wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Next you're gonna tell me your daughter's friend has children of her own. EEng 14:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm now convinced...the burden solely rests on the shoulders of destiny. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If anyone really wants to see decadence, then think of EEng getting a Brazilian. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My boss was standing behind me, looking at my monitors when I accidentally mouseovered that link.

On another note, I actually got a brazillian, once. Just to see what it was like (and to win a bet because, come on, of course there was a bet). I still have nightmares about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I got you into hot water with your boss into trouble at work. If that was how you won the bet, I hate to imagine what the loser had to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But the edit summary of your most recent edit at your user talk page is now my favorite edit summary. ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

My boss thought it was funny. I was looking at a different monitor, and when he started laughing was when I noticed it. I really should know better than to let this talk page sit in my browser while I'm not paying attention to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Manzilian wax Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

From that page: Hair may be removed from the penis too. I'm wondering whose hair. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I commend the brave souls willing to suffer that more than once. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• ... stick them up your bunda - shouldn't that be "stick it up your Junta"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's Argentina, not Brazil, you ignorant xenophobe. EEng 17:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought you might appreciate...

Standing on top of sitting. I think the guy (top right) with the tickle toes is a replica of EEng. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You can't beat been a bit of foot frot can you! (oh sorry, no, am I thinking of something else)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I had to thank that edit just for the sheer absurdity of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, if he did become chairman the caption could read "Guy Standing in the chair". EEng 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Or "Guy Standing in the "Stand Up..." chair. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's outrageous. I wouldn't take an edit like that sitting down, if I were you! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, but will he leave the post in good standing? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's my understanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Custard's last stand (and see also: Freud's first slip).

-EEng

For the sake of brevity...Standing, he rose to the occasion. (I shudder to think where this might lead us). ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Custer's Last Stand (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you believe this?

May I please know why think like this of User:EEng#EEng's half-serious list of topics on which WP should just drop all coverage as not worth the drama? Do you think these are against WP:GNG? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Because we get an inordinate amount of traffic at ANI on these topics. As an ideal, Wikipedia treats all knowledge as worthy, but after the 100th weekly ANI thread asking the community to referee some stupid argument emanating from the "pro" wrestling walled garden, I'm bound to ask whether the loss to humanity if we simply didn't cover all those idiotic "matches" isn't outweighed by the gain in freeing editor time for building content in other topic areas. EEng 20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen. Don't you think you should try to look for patterns of where these conflicts come from? Maybe just alternatively over protect those pages to avoid disruption? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen – <rolls eyes> What part of "half-serious list" do you not understand? EEng 21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Audio to go with your 🙄. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it too early to set up a sweepstake over how long it's going to be before somebody blocks ImmortalWizard? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Richie333: a block for this comment? No. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not for this comment, but if you carry on inserting yourself into conversations and being a bit of a pest, chances are eventually some admin's patience will snap. I don't suspect you'd be blocked for very long, and it would probably be overturned quickly, but still .... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: that has nothing to do with this page or EEng. If you want, come to my talk page instead. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

But, ImmortalWizard, it does have to do with your bouncing around making odd comments in random places about things you don't know anything about, and often misunderstanding the thing you're reacting to (witness this thread). Multiple people (here and at ANI) have been gently suggesting that your time at ANI would be better spent elsewhere. You are a relatively new user, and ANI is not a healthy place for anyone, most especially those without a lot of experience on the project. EEng 17:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Me bouncing around does not have to do anything with ANI. I just wanted insight to your peculiar opinion. Am I the only one who stalks your userpage and make a comment about something? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I am a member of WP:PW which I know much about. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That counts as knowing much about nothing. EEng 21:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Navigating the museum

I was hoping you might consider some form of organized classification system in the Museum - easy to remember key word searches at the top of the page, and possibly use anchors? Just a thought. I was wondering what section I might look to find a situation where someone is ridiculing another for making a mistake but then makes a bigger mistake when correcting it. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps you're looking for WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. As for a classification system, you mean like the Library of Congress system, something like

  AA - Sarcasm, personal

  AB - Sarcasm, topical

  AT - Sarcasm, theory and techniques

  AZ - Sarcasm not otherwise classified

  BA - Beatdowns, ANI

  BB - Beatdowns, they were begging for it

  BE - Beatdowns, editsummary

  BT - Beatdowns, talkpage

--? Or were you thinking of something more like an index in a book? EEng 01:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing complex. Just easy to remember keywords - example above would have keywords like errors, mistakes, blunders, humiliation, ridicule, etc. The keywords would fit in the 1st line under the section title. That would allow for a "find" operation. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't realize this page was such a resource for others. Well, let's think about it. BTW you'll see some anchors if you open in edit mode. EEng 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I confused what you guys talking about? Subliminal metaphor about a wikipedia topic. Atsme approached argument different than I did. More than one way to get the right answer. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI

And here I was expecting Dick Cheney or Andy Dick. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

After

Before

You mean here [18]? I prefer Dick Classic. EEng 21:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC) That Andy Dick guy looks like Anderson Cooper after a few years on meth.

I will never unsee that now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Dick pic

Better than your average bear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Aaron Molyneaux Hewlett

Hi there -- I'm afraid I don't totally understand the message you left on my talk page. If there are issues with the sourcing I'm more likely to leave this article as-is and just aim for some other DYK options in the future. It would be super helpful if someone could look at whatever is in the actual print archive at Harvard because I think there is some primary source stuff there that might allow me to cut out Family Search as a source entirely which would be great. Jessamyn (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Jessamyn: I have a soft spot for nonacademic Harvard staff (see Charles Apted andn [19]) because they're usually characters. I've tagged some of the sources for further improvement. Not for a while, but sometime in the future I'll pull up his material at Harvard Archives and see what we can do with that material. Ping me in a few months if I haven't done it yet. When we've done all we can we can get a WP:Good article review and thence to DYK, for which there are a number of good hooks -- and the photo with his equipment, cropped a bit, would be good on the main page. EEng 21:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add a section header

Saw this and it reminded me of you. Well, one bit did. I'll leave it to your readership to decide for themselves which bit. nagualdesign 16:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm ashamed to say I missed this until now. Every (talk page stalker) is required to click. EEng 05:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What's a couple of years between friends? It's understandably easy to miss a message or two when your letterbox encompasses the entire ground floor. nagualdesign 16:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thus proving the value of keeping some of these threads live well past their normal expiration date. I duly clicked on the link and was duly amused. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I do worry that he might be having to climb in through his bedroom window, and he's preparing food in the bathroom on a camping stove, but it does provide some amusement on a rainy day. nagualdesign 21:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

toc

Scrolling through your talk page discussions, I was wondering why has everyone left only section headings on your talk page – and then I realised that was just the toc :D Has anyone asked you ever to consider archiving your table of contents because they took a long time scrolling to the bott? (No, I'm not asking you to do that) :D Lourdes 01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

First time anyone's mentioned it. ;P BTW, there's a "JUMP TO BOTTOM" button at the top of the page. EEng 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

One time I accidentally clicked on EEng's talk page on my mobile. Luckily I was able to throw the phone a safe distance before it exploded. Leviv ich 02:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's only 1941 kB of pure fun. ^Atsme 📣 📧 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, archive your talk page! It's reaching ridiculous DGG-lengths. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI

No not Luke's dad. I wanted to make you aware of this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility from EEng since the person who started it failed to do so. MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard regarding incivility at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:GENDERID_and_death. The thread is Incivility_from_EEng. .

I don't know what the history is there, but you're not being constructive in that discussion. Nblund ^talk 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This feuding between you and Fae has to stop tonight before it goes too far. Please refrain from responding to bait. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, because there are only three separate notification sections above and you might not have noticed them all, but it seems that some people want to notify you about something that I'm sure might have been important but the thread has already closed. Maybe it was on AN, or ANI, or one of those places. Anyway, consider yourself notified of the notifications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Roger, Roger. EEng 10:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another notification

I don't know whether it's a policy change or new convention, but I'm just writing here to notify you I've posted on your talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please send my your address so I can have you strangled. Thank you for your cooperation. EEng 21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Buddhist notification

There is. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You have an unerring instinct for starting trouble, Legobot. EEng 09:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You may want to archive your talk page

WP:ARCHIVE. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd never heard of this "archiving" concept before. EEng 21:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Theresa May may want to resign. Donald Trump may want to remove his hand from the "send tweet" button and engage brain before posting. However, we can't always get what we want. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Trump will declare my talk page a national emergency. EEng 21:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Does no one notice this irony: one of the things that makes your talk page so big, is all the notes from people complaining that your talk page is too big? (BTW the reason you were graced with a custom "archive this" notice instead of a template is because the user got a lot of grief for templating me to archive my talk page. Even though mine is a tiny seedling compared to your magnificent tree here.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

"Hey you Mexican kids, get off my 1,000 mile long lawn!!" --President James. K. Veto (too late for Talk) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What I want to know is why do your talk page archives cap out at under 100 threads but your main talk page is 300+? This is completely backwards and against all conventions of decency. It's like you're thumbing your nose at the universe. Leviv ich 16:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Devin Nunes

Hey EEng, per the policy on content requiring inline citations and per WP:BLP (etc.) you can't call Devin Nunes an idiot based on the source you provided (which seems to be broken, btw). Please change "idiot" to "dumb asshole" per this source. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector - the source you cited is also an excellent example for Streisand effect per: @DevinCow has jumped from having around 1,000 followers when the suit was filed to over 134,000 since the time of this writing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

DevinCow must be over the moon about that. EEng 18:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Phineas Gage, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Using the preview button can help avoid embarrassing mistakes (diff, diff). You may wish to try making practice edits to your sandbox first, only making the edit to an actual article once you feel sure you know what you are doing. The Wikipedia Adventure may help you learn these basic skills. As a reminder, please do not refer to edits as "dummy" per WP:CIVIL–such language should be reserved for editors only. I understand today is your favorite day; let's try not to ruin it with poor editing. Leviv ich 04:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one picosecond. Once the block has expired, your peers are welcome to make slightly more useful contributions.
In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been dunked on. If you think there are literally any reasons for being unblocked, nevermind.

Cards84664 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, please...it's too difficult to separate the April fools day blocks from the real ones. They get lost in the latter. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

When is it safe?

Is it safe to presume the biological gender of a certain IP based on their edit summary? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ask Fae. EEng 17:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it safe Bhagyesh Pethe (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Better use protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Especially when (as in this case) dealing with genitalia that have been rolling on the ground. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

What??? EEng 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

He said, Especially when (as in this case) dealing with genitalia that have been rolling on the ground. – Levivich 02:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I hesitate to reproduce the revdelled text but it was related to this (do I need to say NSFW?) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Who's on first? EEng 03:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I presume this is a joke

[20]. I did chuckle a little. --Jayron32 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No joke. Coy circumlocutions for boomerangs are verboten. You're right on the edge. EEng 13:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dude, I crossed the edge years ago. If you're only getting to the edge now, you've got some catching up to do. --Jayron32 14:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Upage

Hi, I appreciate the nice humor on your pages. But I noticed the picture of Donald Trump, and the picture further down of a finger with text about Donald Trump, However I would like to point out that the pictures and the captions of Trump were offensive to me, and could be too with other users. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

ASL for Donald Trump... "my button's bigger than your button"

I take it you're talking about images such as the ones shown here.

Donald Trump with shithole in open position

The holidays are almost upon us... Treason's Greetings!

What Trump looks like when the virtual reality projector is turned off

I appreciate the friendliness of your message, but predict that in five years you will be wondering how you could have ever found such things even remarkable. EEng 03:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is uniformly excellent, clever, and dare I say genre-savvy. Post more of these, please. Thanks.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The "virtual reality projector turned off" image is quite clearly a picture of Reggie Perrin's mother in law. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A quickie

A peek at EEng's research. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

FYI...if you had clicked on pointy in the caption of my Madonna picture at ANI you would have had a conical experience...or perhaps you did. I tried to find a similar image at Commons but never thought to keyword "cone". Good find. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Conical, comical -- I get it! My 9-y.o. nephew, who has been learning about polygons in school, told me a joke last week. "I was taking the bus to Harvard SQUARE but I got lost because I got on the RHOMBUS. Get it? WRONG BUS." My nephew's wicked smaht. EEng 03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A funny bone tickler indeed, although not my intended joke. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow

Your userpage. 108.26.206.64 (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that a lot. EEng 00:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for all you do here on Wikipedia! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Thegooduser, I appreciate it! EEng 14:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The other thing I LOVE about your page and talk page, is that it kills my 2.4G network, and I need to use 5G network in order to avoid kills to my wifi :-P --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} I just read "kills my 2.4G" and it reminded me that I forgot to share this link with you, EEng - it's the companion to "clean underwear" in the Museum of I Shouldn't Laugh but I Did. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't 2.4G some sort of bra size? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Airport malaria and portraits of the Queen

When you (and your merry band of talk page stalkers) have a mo, could you nip over to User talk:Whispyhistory#Flies and mosquitoes and suggest some fun hooks for airport malaria and Queen Elizabeth II (painting). Please excuse me from not having a sense of humour today, I have chronic ANI fatigue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Refer to EEng's research in the image above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you for your ideas and attitude Whispyhistory (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. I live to serve. EEng 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de Paris fire: Difference between revisions

You make me laugh ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Vive la différence! EEng 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire&diff=next&oldid=893358254 Revision as of 20:57, 20 April 2019 EEng
I was just seeing if you were paying attention I knew it wouldn't lasted long Mitchellhobbs (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire&diff=893648089&oldid=893646972 Latest revision as of 18:40, 22 April 2019
  188.108.153.142 moved it ~ but I think it flows well there ~ what do you think? Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP is preoccupied with making images in a vertical stack all have the same width, which is a good thing in general, especially when they're vertically adjacent, but not so important if there's substantial distance between them. IAnyway, it's OK either way -- too early to spend much time on layout because the article will grow a lot over the next few weeks and then it will become clearer where to place the images. See my comment here [21]. EEng 18:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A fitting tribute on Good Friday, perchance.

Protector from Heretical Pareidolia

You saved us from misinterpreting the fires of Notre Dame. Herewith, you receive the Map of France. Or you can see O'Keefe, Kevin (January 21, 2013). "Beeville Man Sees Jesus in Breakfast Taco". Texas Monthly. Retrieved April 19, 2019. Ernesto Garza said that the image of the Christian Messiah in his tortilla was "a miracle." Remember: don't eat the Icon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Glad to see you again, and thank you. EEng 21:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I note you are still on patrol. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you know how I get once I taste blood. EEng 01:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Should all instances of 'tbd' in this article be changed to 'TBD'?

Hi, in the article List of aircraft carriers in service, the abbreviation 'tbd' is always used with all lowercase letters, instead of 'TBD' in all caps. They can be seen in the Carriers ordered and Other planned carriers sections. I propose changing them all to 'TBD' as this form is much more commonly used and is widely considered the correct format. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

So, changing tbd to TBD is Tbd? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. In answer to the OP's query: personally I'd use all caps, but if there's resistance to change I don't expect this is a hill worth dying on. EEng 19:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI flu

I think it's high time we had an essay on this. Feel free to add humour to taste. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Surely you mean "humor to tasteless"? EEng 16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary

MOSbloat = The grossest thing I've heard today. Primergrey (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then my nascent essay WP:MOSBLOAT will most certainly make you lose your lunch. EEng 03:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it belongs in The Museum as "meritorious" and perhaps even a "behavioral trendsetter" but most certainly as a remedy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And if that doesn't, this will! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

STFU?? Ah yes, we know a song about that, don't we, boys and girls... : [22]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Note: other, equally offensive YouTube STFU song memes are readily available.

Well, poopers. I added the right link but to the wrong discussion (although it could relate to bloat) so I just fixed it...even worse, I was thinking bloat referenced this discussion, so EEng's comment has widespread merit, broadly construed. Hmmm, me thinks I may be in WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER territory. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Archiving mayhem

I was wondering how this archiving happened, but Guy Macon beat me to fixing it. It turns out this was the culprit. Fixed now. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, editor Retro says you beat him. We try to avoid violence here at Wikipedia, so please refrain from beating other editors. EEng 00:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who beat other Wikipedians? —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have been called a shill for pretty much every company, service and product mentioned at User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. (and a paid shill for the "Twisty Bulb Cartel" when I mentioned that compact fluorescent bulbs use less energy than incandescent bulbs, but LED bulbs use less than either), So a special "when did you stop beating your fellow Wikipedia editors?" award seems like it would fit right in on my shelf... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de Paris fire

EEng ~ thanks once again for your help and your humor ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank goodness someone still has a sense of humor. [23] EEng 04:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ironic. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

An encouraging word

	Moo v along
	Timely and pithy food for thought, Well done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This undeserved praise regards this modest edit [24]. EEng 02:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Permalink -- see the image. EEng 04:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRAMBANNEDSANFRANDAMNEDARBCOMJAMMED

Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear

Everyone is very busy discussing where to draw the line on being rude and unpleasant, but making lame jokes is completely unacceptable. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's the lameness that offends. These are highly cultured people, after all. EEng 03:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the meaning of it? KoopaLoopa (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nvm I think I figured it out - San Fran's Jan Bans Fram. KoopaLoopa (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

All this time we never knew you were Pastis. Your secret's safe with me.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 16:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Watch your step lest T&S disappear you for outing me. EEng 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Gulag-apedia. I hear Siberia is lovely this time of year.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 18:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

One Year in the Life of Ifram Denisovich. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I read that book about fifty years ago at my boarding school. It has come flooding back. particularly the bit about the bread and the ciggy for goodness sake. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Since this is clearly your first time editing and I am in no way templating a regular, we hope you will choose to stay here and contribute positively. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on the redirect discussion for Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM by assuming I am creating a hostile environment by mocking people with peanut allergies. Please remember that even peanuts have feelings, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you and have a nice day. --WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

EEng's talk page gets all the nuts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"My T&S BANFRAM brings all the nuts to the yard....": [25] etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up that Ivanvector supervoted and speedy deleted the redirect per G10. WaltCip (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously considering my future here.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 01:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Next?

Is WP:CANFRAMFANSBANSANFRAN next on your list? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRAMBANNED,SANFRANDAMNED,ARBCOMJAMMED —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

^^^^ Definitely the best yet. EEng 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

FRAM FRAMED, JAN NAMED, ARBCOM AIMED. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

WHOA BLACK BETTY, BAN FRAM, JAN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"I have gotta Admin name of FRAMA-BANA-JANA-LAMA-DING-DONG": [26] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Anne drew (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And speedily declined. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speedy declined. Not the same as the version that was deleted previously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Brad, for speedily edit conflicting you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Anne drew (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• WTF? The moon must be in clueless. EEng 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"CANJUNEMOONSHAKESPOONMOONEYSOON"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

How much rue do Anne drew Andrew and Drew rue if Anne drew Andrew and Drew do rue what they do? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just didn't feel up to the challenge. Congrats. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

He's a foo. EEng 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Partial list of images needing deletion because they attack or disparage:

Delete: Implies Jimbo invades people's privacy and looks at their naughty bits

Delete: Presents Jimbo as an autocrat

Delete: Implies Jimbo engages in group sex

Delete: Presents Jimbo as a seagoing mammal

Delete: Implies Jimbo has no brains

EEng 02:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wham Fram Thank You Jan? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Note: no snowflakes were intentionally harmed in the construction of this piped link.

^^^^ This one is quite good too. EEng 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Hey man, well she's a total blam-blam"!  Dlohcierekim (talk)

Greetings from Dr. Seuss

Improvements and extensions welcomed!

I AM FRAM. FRAM I AM.
THAT FRAM-I-AM! THAT FRAM-I-AM! I DO NOT LIKE THAT FRAM-I-AM!
WOULD YOU LIKE A BAN OF FRAM?
DOWN ENWIKI'S THROAT TO RAM?
WOULD YOU BAN HIM FOR A YEAR?
ISSUE RATIONALES UNCLEAR?
PERHAPS TRANSPARENCY YOU FEAR?

Style

Amazing looking user page! Thank you. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Tu sais ~ Je pense que je me souviens de toi quand le monde a été créé ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WTF? (= "What the French?") EEng 02:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

LOL ~ you had me scared ~~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

BLOCKED

I was just about to block you for being so fancy. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Nice shirt, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I hereby dub thee Sir Less-filling-with-no-taste.18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

No usurpers, please... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me there's a good pun on usurpers in there somewhere, but it's just not coming. Below is the best I could do. EEng 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Uslurpers!

Ulurkers!

Uburpers!

Ah, not just tasteless-filling-with-no-Sirloin, then. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

E-e-e-e-w-w-w-w!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Not a Brit, but that canned meat pie looks like low-grade dog food. Woof. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

"Women In Red, fill your boots": enjoy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

24 hour block

Hi, EEng. I have blocked you for 24 hours as described Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:EEng. Would you kindly commit to not restoring the material and we can put this behind us immediately? Haukur (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for posting the ANI message first and this message second. It would have been better form to do it the other way around. Haukur (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have lifted the block as per the ANI thread. Looks like you were right that this would not fly and I apologize. Haukur (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

But don't forget to send a photo for the wall of my trophy room.

-EEng

Apology accepted, and you are to be commended for not digging in your heels. I will be commenting gently (relatively gently, anyway) at ANI in a bit. EEng 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Block_of_User:EEng. EEng 13:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

It would have been within policy to do it the other way round? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Damn, I thought we would have a little break :P - FlightTime (open channel) 19:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Damn from me too. I log out for a few hours to do some errands, and I miss all the fun! Go clean out your garage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

ugh ` hmm ~ ugh ~ ugh ~ never mind ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

For your collection

Stackable WTF blocks	You've been around the WTF block
	Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're a mature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. How many more to equal the height of the Empire State Bldg? Atsme Talk 📧 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope...

...that your 24 minutes in the wilderness weren't too unpleasant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

...What you need, EEng, is a good disguise. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent work

I don't think your unmitigated torrent of genius content gets enough credit around here. Keep up the good work. Cosmic Sans (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to believe you're talking about

• Phineas Gage or
• Lionel_de_Jersey_Harvard or
• Widener_Library or
• Sacred_Cod or
• John_Harvard_(statue),

but I fear you're actually talking about casting of aspersions. See below. EEng 02:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Today's puzzle: What could this mean???

Unhide for answer
Casting of ass persians

• I was wondering, "How did he find a picture of a butt anyway?" So I looked, and, of course Commons has a c:Category:Female buttocks in sculpture, one of several sub-categories of c:Category:Female buttocks in art, which in turn is a sub-category of c:Category:Female buttocks, which–of course–has hundreds of examples. Behold: the sum of human knowledge. – Levivich 02:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

you

[continue discussion with you]

perhaps this is what you are looking for?-- Dlohcierekim

I tend to state what is invisible to others and not deliberately being obtuse, your "innocent" attempts at humour are not free of disruptive consequences and doubling down when a joke is not flying, I think, shows a lack of appreciation for what is and is not valued humour. How many users might attempt to remove you attempts at wit, tendentiously restored with a "i have no idea why you did that?" edit summary before you take stock of the value of inclusion. Do you want an example, your "trail of tears" quip a little while ago. ~ cygnis insignis 16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this thread continues the inscrutable discussion at [27]

"Trail of tears"??? What in the fuck are you talking about? No, seriously, we really want to know. Every stalker here awaits breathlessly a diff. EEng 16:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm a talk page stalker and I approve this message. — JFG ^talk 18:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Trail of tears? I'm telling ya, EEng - it's gotta be the full moon. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

We're still waiting for your diff so we can know what you're talking about when you speak of my "trail of tears" quip a little while ago, Cygnis insignis. EEng 02:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No answer. Huh. EEng 11:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Either she's going for a kind of low-budget Madonna look, or someone locked the door to her dressing room while she was in the toilet.

-EEng

You have opinions about writing, right? What do you think of the Taylor Swift lead? (Hey, at least I'm not asking you to comment on abortion.) Haukur (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In copyediting I leave the lead to very last, after I've done (and therefore read) the rest of the article, so I can't say much at this point except that eponymous and buoyed and spawned and (beyond the lead, but an especial peeve of mine) accolades make me want to vomit, and factoids such as "youngest person to single-handedly write and perform a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" and "first act to have four albums sell one million copies within one week in the U.S." are ridiculous. But you gotta love that she spent her early years on a Christmas tree farm. EEng 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I present EEng with the first annual EEng Award for outstanding accomplishments in the field of eponymous accolades. Haukur (talk)
I'll get you for this, Haukurth -EEng

Dad

Childhood home

Taylor helps with the daily chores

'Eponymous' is for beginners - mononymously is what the cool kids are putting in their FAs. Haukur (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Monotonously is more like it. I love it that the first outbound link in the article on this Kylie Minogue creature takes you to a page whose lead image is Plato. Her own lead image shows "Minogue performing at The Queen's Birthday Party" – I can imagine Queen Liz thinking, "I'm just glad Winston isn't alive to see this." EEng 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

EEng, you are getting too snobby even for me here, and that's pretty hard to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It is recognised as her signature song and was named "the catchiest song ever" by Yahoo! Music. – Right. EEng 18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, now I'm curious. Where does (did) it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead (or lede, you snob). We're talking about the article linked behind the word mononymously above. EEng 18:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Minogue! I thought you meant Swift. Yeah, that's BS. Everyone knows that the catchiest song ever is this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly the same thing, so you see great minds do think alike after all (and please do not post the traditional followup to that). EEng 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The traditional followup to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Look What You Made Me Do --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

All together! EEng 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond Belief book

I can't see if the edition is 1967 or 1992. Random House 1st published the book in 1967. abebooks.co.uk has images of the 1967 edition, EEng. I'll be happy to work with you on this article going forward. I have several printed sources on this case (some not listed in the table on the article's talk page). Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's OK, I think it's only used once in the article presently, so it's not like we have to correlate page numbers in a lot of existing cites to page numbers in the editions we have in hand. I'm up in the air about the extent we can use it anyway; it tries to be a sort of In Cold Blood, and I thought I read a review saying that it clearly distinguishes fact from fancy. But so far (having only thumbed it) I'm not seeing that distinction being drawn, but I'll have to give it a closer look to decide.

This will be a lot of work, and it will take time. I'm glad you're on board. EEng 22:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. This book is was one of the first true crime books I ever read. I am unaware which review you are referring to, but in several areas of the book, the author clearly uses his imagination to portray events relating to the case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's the review I was thinking of [28]:

Williams explicitly distinguishes among fact, interpretation of fact, and surmise ... interwoven in the text. So that the reader may distinguish among them ...

... and at point there's a page break in the review, and I can't see the next page! I'll have to get that. Our own article (Beyond_Belief:_A_Chronicle_of_Murder_and_its_Detection) says that later reviews were quite harsh. EEng 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I will look into that. Reviews are rightly harsh (even though much info. is verified in other sources and the book should not be completely discounted). Williams did consult numerous individuals involved in the case (police, neighbours, acquaintances etc.) while writing his book. In Ann West's book, she states he went to their flat in 1966, demanding an interview, and callously (and falsely) stated she slept in the same bedroom as her brothers before saying: "There's not a lot of room in these council flats, is there?" When ejected from the house, he stated either the Wests grant him an interview or he'd just fabricate the content for his book. I am actually glad there are only a small number of references to this book in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll have no problem getting the review, but based on the severe later criticism I'm guessing we can only use it for a good turn of the phrase expressing something sourced as fact elsewhere. EEng 00:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've thrown my hat in the ring for a few of the minor sources that Supreme Leader here didn't manage to find on his first run. I shan't be following proceedings in great detail though so please ping me if you want something checked. Some of the more pulpy books mentioned here that are unsurprisingly absent from Antipodean institution catalogues are, weirdly, wildly popular in municipal library collections in New South Wales. This confirms everything we Melburnians believe about the psychopathy of our northern neighbours. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  This is great! But please, Triptothecottage, do not commit sudoku [29], or if you do at least do not drip on my couch [30]. EEng 01:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  Dude, commit is not the preferred nomenclature. It's execute sudoku. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  Reminds me of the username Osama /bin/login. EEng 01:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond a reasonable trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. I certainly appreciate your brand of humor (puns and all), but Special:Diff/913428905 was a bit much (especially putting it in the closure box) creffett (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Beyond a reasonable trout" -- that's brilliant. EEng 01:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I figured you would get a kick out of this

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pressure-cooker-whistle-skull

Cards84664 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Contains the intriguing phrase could not hear the whistle over the hay cutter. EEng 06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

And speaking of Michael Palin...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00081v8

BMK

And speaking of a basement... EEng 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

nudge, nudge

I don't know if/how you missed this

• The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

but you'rerf really not supposed to edit inside a closed thread. — Ched (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

When an RfC has run its course and had a formal close, modifying the discussion encapsulated by the close can confuse things. On the other hand, when some lone editor takes it upon himself to decide that everyone else has had enough to say, then no, that's not binding on the rest of us. EEng 02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"hoist" v "hoisted"

Do you think perhaps, if it should be left as "hoist" [31], it should be placed in quotation marks to indicate it's quoting Hamlet directly? Or maybe with a corresponding bluelink to the article on the phrase? I've got no problem with it being "hoist", but chancing across it, my first thought wasn't that it was deliberately using the archaic version of the past tense. Since the modern usage makes "hoisted" the past tense, and since the phrase "hoisted by his own petard" is generally used in modern English, quotation marks or a bluelink would indicate it's deliberate rather than a typo. Any objection to one or the other? Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. :) Grandpallama (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad I could help. But for the record: if this was article space we’d worry about such things, but in project space we play fast and loose. EEng 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, about five minutes after I typed out my original thoughts. Grandpallama (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD

It's not a new concept and is very easy to grasp. If you happen to be a troll or stupid, or both, then I guess it won't be referred to and warring will be the easiest thing to do. What do you know about WP:BRD? Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Our benighted visitor refers to [32].[33] and [34]

Ah, the schoolyard insults and shifting rationales of he who flails desperately. So now it’s just plain ol’ BRD, huh? Of course, as BRD itself says, “BRD is never a reason for reverting”, so apparently it’s not sufficiently easy to grasp that you have been able to grasp it. What about your old standby “Featured Article! Featured Article! Featured Article!”? You could try milking that for for a few rounds.

BTW, how’s that SPI report coming? EEng 18:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin, and not write. BTW, how is that failure, Phineas Gage these days? Three attempts - at GA only? Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it, like you do to others? But I would guess any amount of molesting would result in a vast improvement being made on the current version. Cassianto^Talk 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin – Asserted, as you have so many times before, without evidence.
• not write – What you still don't understand is no one but the FA crew cares about FAs. You're a self-selected group of mutual congratulators who meet periodically to reinforce the shared fantasy that you're all incomparable masters of prose. You're not, not by a long shot – not individually and not working together. FAs are typically (though with many, many exceptions) 100% grammatically correct, rigidly formatted, and flabby, bloated, and discursive. Here's an example that I've been getting a lot of laugh-mileage out of at parties recently: who on earth would write had been responsible for the murders of when he could just write "had killed"? I'll give you one guess [35], and yes, that flash of brilliance made it all the way through the vaunted FA process [36] It's unfathomable.
• Phineas Gage ... Three attempts at GA – Gage has been nominated for GA once since I've been editing Wikipedia – and not by me. The review was aborted when your friend and mentor, the now-banned sockpuppeteer Eric Corbett, threatened to (in the reviewer's words) take it to GAR if he doesn't get it his way. No point in continuing [37], apparently because of a disputed image caption and a tussle over whether et al. goes in italics [38]. Way to go, Eric! So maybe this wasn't a great point for you to bring up.
• Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it – Molesting with it ? You mean, like you and the article will get together and do some molesting? Anyway, I thought you Brits used the more euphemistic interfered with, as in "The victim was stabbed several times and strangled, but not interfered with." Maybe that's what you meant: you're proposing to interfere with the article. Anyway... If you can improve an article, you should of course do so.

EEng 23:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC) P.S. You forgot to tell me – any progress on that SPI report? EEng 23:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Aw, shoot! EEng, this is probably the first time that I've ever seen you oppose including some non-displaying wiki-markup. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, you mean the nbsp? I hadn't noticed it, but if I had I'd not have minded seeing it go. In a parenthetical birth or death date in the article's opening, there's no chance of a linebreak anyway so an nbsp is a waste of time. EEng 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  You know what? When I clicked on the diff, I saw the nbsp at the top and I was too careless to scroll down, so it had been all I saw. I was wondering why there would be so much fuss over an nbsp. So you did a lot better at not missing stuff than I did! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Be careful EEng or they may take you to AN and get themselves banned this time. PackMecEng (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• I recently stumbled across this 10-year-old essay and read it for the first time: User:Physchim62/Situation Normal: All FACked up. – Levivich 23:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  That is just brilliant. Everyone should click the link ^^^^^^^ and read. EEng 00:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Howdy. Will you PLEASE remove those images & stop restoring them? GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You mean [39]? You need to read the history and THINK. There's even a link in the image captions to help you. EEng 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this relates to [40] (and I certainly appreciate El C's faint praise). Here's what I would have posted (in response to our esteemed fellow editor Rhododendrites) had I not been delayed elsewhere:

As I said... 🚔 🚨 👮‍♀️👮‍♂️ 👀  ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well first of all, WP:TPO is clear that in project space, in opposition to article space, the thumb on the scale favors retaining someone's post after a tentative removal has been opposed by the post-er, and the xRR resides in the persistent attempts to remove despite that opposition, after which those with a concern should restrict themselves to commenting on a post they see as problematic.

Beyond that, while your suggested approach has a superficial appeal, I really don't think it's applicable and workable. First, it wasn't really removed by multiple people multiple times, rather by one person multiple times (on perceived lack of merit) one person once (on perceived lck of merit) and after that apparently under the misapprehension that it had been added after closure; and note I wasn't the only one restoring. But more generally, ANI has more than a thousand active watchers [41] and if anything not super-serious could be removed on the say-so of just few of those then ANI would be a dreary place indeed; on the other hand, your point about giving extra weight to the opinions of those participating in a particular thread is a good one, and I'll try to keep that in mind in future.

I realize my humor isn't everyone's cuppa tea, but it's clear it is a whole lotta people's cuppa tea, and the former group can just ignore what they don't "get" (or they can make the effort to get the point – they might even learn something that way).

As a final note for SchroCat, you've got to stop personalizing everything. As already explained I didn't even realize it was you [42], anyone can make a typo, and if you can't be good-humored about it, tough. I wouldn't put it that bluntly were you not so dyspeptic about everything, but your behavior is such that I'm not inclined to put much store in your continual cries of outrage and victimization.

As for getting blocked, well, if I don't get blocked at least once in a while then I'm probably not doing my job. EEng 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup:

Um, borderline personal attack – what???? So let me get this straight: so now it's a personal attack if I make fun of my own typo? But (and super-serious here now): I have never made fun of anyone's dyslexia; saying that I did without evidence is a personal attack; and if such accusations keep up there's gonna be an ANI thread on that. So have a fucking care. EEng 21:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup followup:

And now ol' SchroCat decides he's going to end the discussion [43]. Gotta love the control-freakism. Or am I not supposed to say that because being a control freak is a disability? EEng 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You know I was disabled once ~ Oh I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that ~mitch~ (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Some requests

Thomas the Tank Engine after a bruising discussion at an "administrative noticeboard"
EEng says: Looks like the discussion got derailed?

"Tanks." "You're welcome."

Archives for let it pass.

No, I said "pictures at will," not "pictures of Will"...

In de fence, a bull
EEng says: I really should be doing something else, but for those budding visual punsters out there wanting to improve their skills, I'd suggest "A lot of bull offered in de fence"

Hello EEng,

Sorry that you got blocked the other day. I have a few requests to make. I have been approached by SchroCat with a request that I ask you to avoid interacting with that editor unless necessary. In exchange, that editor will avoid interacting with you. This would be an informal arrangement for the purpose of avoiding conflict, not a formal logged interaction ban. I would also like to request that you avoid any comments that can be construed as mocking or ridiculing established editors for making routine typographical or spelling errors. Some people are much better at spotting such errors than others, and copy editing is always welcome in article space. Pointing out such minor errors on talk pages can be perceived as cruel or gauche, unless the meaning is unclear to most readers. In that case, a neutrally worded request for clarification is appropriate. My final request has to do with your fondness for placing humorous or ironic or punning images into the type of discussions that almost always lack images unless you get involved. I am not asking you to stop that practice, since I am sure that you have inspired countless chuckles and often help people stop and think. But like most comedians, sometimes your jokes fall flat, at least among some of the participants in these discussions. So please consider letting it pass if somebody objects to and reverts one of your image jokes. If your joke is essential to understanding the matter, I am sure that another editor will restore it.

I respect you as a "really useful editor" here on Wikipedia, to use a phrase derived from Thomas the Tank Engine. I like you a lot. Please consider my requests. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"Tanks" for the compliment, and you already know I respect you as a "really useful administrator". And thanks for the sympathy, but to paraphrase something I told ol' Ritchie recently, after you get blocked enough times you really don't care.

The situation is a bit complicated, your proposal is a bit complicated, and a proper response will take more effort than I can muster tonight (but you needn't fear that means I'm looking for a complicated way to say No). Probably tomorrow. EEng 06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Cullen's advice about mockery and about ANI images is very good, I want to encourage you to accept it. As for your usefulness... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to live in a world where you can't make fun of a typo. – Levivich 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

And I don't want to live in a world where you say the kinds of incivil things about me that you have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who has gotten into plenty of real-life trouble for jokes at the wrong time, it's definitely a "know your audience" problem. I think most people won't care or will get a laugh out of EEng posting a humorous picture for a typo (and let the record show that I'm one of those people, EEng is free to post pictures at will on my comments, especially when I make bad typos), but if someone objects to you posting on them...man, just apologize, make it clear that you were just making a joke about the spelling or whatever and weren't trying to insult them, and maybe make a list of people who have asked you to not do that (and then, you know, leave them alone). I think everyone wins that way. creffett (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't argue with that at all. And I argue about everything. – Levivich 01:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, no you don't. creffett (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I do. – Levivich 02:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour? EEng 05:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Now be sensible. From what I hear, you've made yourself indispensable! creffett (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You must have misheard; they said "indefensible". – Levivich 03:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you making fun of his typo??? EEng 04:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Don't worry, Cullen, I am going to respond to your thoughtful post, but it's been a busy week.

Take your time, my friend. You are getting good advice in the interim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, if you're suggesting that my advice is good, I feel personally attacked and I might just have to take this to AN/I. I have a reputation to maintain, you know. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• EEng - example of happy typos for your enlightenment - read the edit summary, then the exchange. And then there's the cash register receipt. Of course, if you want to get t-banned there's this one. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  As for that cash register receipt, I am surprised that this particular item only costs 99 cents. With tax, that's less than $1.10 in most jurisdictions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Penis broken, please use finger!
  • The penis, mightier than the finger. Bonus observation: the linked article contains the phrase "The very same advert was erected in Egypt"].

  EEng 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

LMAO ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• Cullen, I remember back when they were a dime a dozen. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• This block business has led to Jimbo Whales coming by your talk page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

^{[cetacean needed]} --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Tryp - won't that work as a template? *lol* {{cnn}}?? Bellezzasolo, aren't you a template expert? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, User:Scheinwerfermann/Cetacean needed I believe! There's a significant deletion log at Template:Cetacean needed. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess it didn't have enough of a porpoise around here. creffett (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

😂 Porpoisely mammalian, I'd say, creffett. Bellezzasolo, I would never be able to remember the spellings. Can we not add a simple shortcut, like {{cnn}}?

Or how about {msnbc}? {whalewanted}? {ww}? EEng 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, whale...whalecome to EEng's TP. It's a real killer. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

John C Yoo

Turns out those torture memos were first seeded not just in the college, but in the vaults of Winthrop House [44]. Is anyone surprised? -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, so he is a Harvard College graduate. That saddens me. EEng 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

He's also a University of California professor. That saddens me even more. Harvard at least has the excuse that his misdeeds were in the unknowable future. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

He went to Yale Law School -- figures. EEng 19:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Grover Norquist was in Winthrop, too. Must have been something in the water. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

But then so were the Kennedys, so go figure. EEng 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different

	Python Procurer Level 3
	For your continued and apt use of Monty Python sketches in a wide array of discussions, wherein such sketches diffuse the general tension, and provide to the assembled members of the Wiki-pedia a quaint and pleasant respite from their toils, you are hereby recognized as, if nay promoted to, a third level Python Procurer. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• For those playing along at home, our honored guest refers to [45], [46], and [47]. EEng 00:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Procurer? [48] --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

When an old hooker like myself reaches a certain age, procurement is an attractive career transition. EEng 20:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not to worry, you don't look a day above sixty. But when you find the Pythons getting less attractive, you can always switch to being a Boa Conscriptor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you know .... that the programming language Python frequently makes use of example variable names "spam" and "eggs"; indeed our article on Python syntax and semantics refers to "For example, in the sample below, viking_chorus might cause menu_item to be run 8 times for each time it is called:" I wonder if you encounter a run-time error, are you cast into the gorge of eternal peril? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ships

C'mon, stop attacking Bus stop. That's not gonna get us anywhere, especially not where we want it to go, which is changing the style guide to 'it' only for ships. Otherwise, you're just giving them arguments against you. El Millo (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You call this [49] an attack? Trust me, if I was attacking him you'd know it. BTW, I highly doubt we're gonna be gettin where we wanna go. Not on this round. EEng 06:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

O snail / Climb Mount Fuji / But slowly, slowly!

In other words, perhaps not now, but someday surely, the "it" camp will win out.--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Right now, numerically 58% in favor of "it" (66-48). – Levivich 05:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

But counting posts for and against instead of editors, with Bus Stop around its 0.0000000036% for "it", 99.0000000064% against. EEng 06:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

66-48 is firmly in "wishy-washy-admin-concerned-about-their-credentials-closes-as-no-consensus" territory.--WaltCip (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the only organization I've ever seen where 60% can agree on something and it won't happen because there's "no consensus". And it's because people think "consensus" means "unanimity". – Levivich 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

As much as (as you well know) I think she for ships is pretentious and stupid, there’s also something to be said for the idea that for a rule to be promulgated that presumes to short-circuit the choices of editors on individual articles, the level of consensus should be very high. Our day will come. EEng 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that principle, but I think the way we go about it violates the principle rather than follows it. Right now, there is an exception in GNL (allowing "she" for ships), and that exception is opposed by 58% of editors. That's not "very high" consensus, or even majority support. The way it works, we need very high consensus to remove a rule (or part of a rule, or an exception to a rule), even when retaining it doesn't have consensus. Generally the way decisionmaking works on Wikipedia is that we want consensus for adding, and then consensus for removing, but instead we should be demanding consensus for adding, and consensus for retaining. When we require clear consensus to remove rather than clear consensus to retain, we get stuck in this netherworld where, even though it's clear there isn't consensus to retain (and there wouldn't be consensus to add), we nevertheless retain language because there isn't clear-enough consensus to remove. Status quo thrives in the netherworld of no consensus. That means there's an "addition advantage" like a first-moved advantage: language that is added to pages (any pages) is sticky and difficult to remove, unless you revert it right away and claim BRD. Unless promptly reverted, it becomes "longstanding consensus language", and you need a supermajority to remove it. And the end result of that is that you get confusing policies and other pages, where people's sort of slap-dash additions stick, and it's very difficult to do something like, revise an entire policy page so that it's internally consistent and makes sense. Hence, Wikipedia's byzantine system of PAGs is born. (Same goes for requiring consensus to delete pages, as opposed to requiring consensus to retain them.) – Levivich 20:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

All true. EEng 09:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Urquhart

Dear EEng, many thanks for your entertaining post at the MoS style discussion re "she" and "it". It brought back some very old memories; are you familiar with Unlikely Stories, Mostly by Alasdair Gray? If not, I think you would appreciate the tenth story in the collection. Best regards, --The Huhsz (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh! How did that not come up in my research??? Thank you! I'm traveling now but will have a sit and read next time I'm at the library. EEng 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Pearls before swine

You should be carpeted for this!

Please keep casting your pearls. We are not all swine. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

You kind words fill me with joy. To openly plagiarize Tom Lehrer, while at the same time partially changing his words without making clear where or how:

“ If after reading one of my jokes or seeing one of my lame visual puns just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while. ”

EEng 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549 edit

Hi, this edit you made to US Airways Flight 1549 introduced a citation error, as there are still two usages of the named referenced "NTSB", which you deleted. You will probably want to fix that. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 18:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Howcheng, I'm not seeing any citations deleted in that diff. I am seeing that the NTSB citation error has been in that article for months. I think you may be mistaken. – Levivich 18:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: In that first change (line 14), there was a <ref name=NTSB> reference replaced by {{r|NTSBMay2010}}. If you scroll to the reference list, you'll see that ref #22 is now an error. This error did not exist in the previous revision. —howcheng {chat} 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Don’t panic, everyone. I’ll look at it. EEng 18:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I was looking at the wrong diff. – Levivich 18:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I take back what I said [50]. You’re an idiot. EEng 18:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, at least I'm not the one leaving citation errors all over the place. – Levivich 18:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

?

What is the point of that image, joke, whatever it is? I for one do not think that Monty Python wannabe moments are welcomed on such a discussion. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, you urged someone to stop with the constant aspirations; you don't expect me to let an opportunity like that go to waste, do you? I went with Jesus because I couldn't find any sufficiently evocative pictures of aspirators. See also WP:ASSPERSIANS. EEng 18:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would have gone with a shot of Darth Vader with the Rogue One line about "be careful not to choke on your aspirations, Director," but that would need a good (free) Vader picture. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I always wondered whether DV might not have been talking to the director of the movie. EEng 21:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dear Saddo, you probably need to be aware that EEng may be, in fact, perpetually "on the cusp between childhood and adulthood". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. and this was one of the very few times that EEng admits he "went with Jesus"

Good job; aspire away. cheers :) Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

EEng, although I think it is amusing, I also think this image and caption is unhelpful (so apparently does Sadko). Moreover I think it might be found legitimately offensive by some, so I removed it. But you reverted me. Dicklyon agreed with me, and also removed it, but you've reverted again. How is it that you think this image is so useful in that discussion that you feel compelled to keep it there even though three of your colleagues disagree? Maybe you should reconsider? Also, you seemingly called me "the least perceptive participant in the discussion". While I don't mind PA's against myself, sticks and stones and all that, let me take this opportunity to politely ask you to at least try to be more collegial with other editors. Regards, Paul August ☎ 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I could only aspire to being the least perceptive participant in that discussion, Paul. But you have a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

;-) I make no claims to being particularly "perceptive", all too often in fact I'm as dumb as a doorpost, so the sobriquet might be quite apt. Paul August ☎ 14:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hereby make a claim to being as thick as two short planks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

• Now and then I insert one of my irreverent images or awful puns somewhere. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get one or two thanks for them, and now and then someone takes the trouble to thank me more extensively on this very page. But once every few months someone shows up to declare that a post is un-useful, or worse, and must be removed – even days after it was posted, during which hundreds of editors would have seen it. So who am I supposed to believe – the one, or the hundreds?
  And yeah, Paul August, if you feel the impulse to remove something which hundreds of others found unexceptionable, maybe you ought to consider how well calibrated are your own perceptions. If you don't get the joke you could ask. EEng 08:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Plip!

No no. I got the joke, but jokes, even funny ones, can be offensive, don’t you think? (In this case, don't you think some Christians, who might have found the joke funny in a snarky sort of way, might also have found this image and caption offensive?) I don’t think you can legitimately conclude that “hundreds of others” found your joke unexceptionable. Silence does not mean agreement. And several editors, who have not remained silent, see problems here. And that you are right about the appropriateness many of your jokes, does not mean you are always right, right? Look I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. I’m trying to give you some friendly constructive feedback. Paul August ☎ 12:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Bbbbbuttt... Lord EEng is always right. — JFG ^talk 17:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, as are we all ;-) Paul August ☎ 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a common misconception. I'm only infallible when I say I'm being infallible. EEng 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Offensive jokes are the funniest ones, as everyone knows. Silence doesn't necessarily mean endorsement, but it does mean no one cared enough to bother; maybe we should have a Tsk-tsk button to balance the Thanks button. Look, if you want to remove something with an edit summary like "Maybe this is a bit overboard", I probably won't mind. But "This doesn't help" gets my dander up, because humor definitely helps (all else being equal), and the many shouldn't be denied their chuckle just because of a few lugubrious characters in the crowd. EEng 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

... Except perhaps to the offended ;-) But seriously, I'm sorry that you took offense at my edit summary: "Don't think this helps". It wasn't my intention to offend. (My intention was to express that, in my opinion, the image in question was on balance unhelpful, that, while it was funny, I though some people might be offended and that, weighing that possible offense against the possible feel good chuckles of others was, again in my opinion, likely to be a net negative–perhaps I should have made that more clear ;-) However, that you took offense, at what I though was a harmless edit summary, should help you see that, other people might also find things you consider harmless offensive as well. (By the way you seems to be ignoring the whole Christian angle.) And of course humor helps sometimes, but you shouldn't always assume that you know when. (And "lugubrious"? Again with the insults?) So sorry about the dander thing, in the future I will try harder to keep your dander down. Paul August ☎ 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, let's keep it simple; WP:TPO is clear: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection and as many here will attest, there's often more to these posts that meets the eye. I'm happy to discuss, but dislike unilateral action. Be assured there are no hard feelings, and I hope you will take a moment to visit The Museums.

I'll just take a moment at this point to remind readers that nothing in this post should be interpreted as implying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.

(See section below.) EEng 06:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I only removed the image once, so I didn't violate WP:TPO, do you think otherwise? And the content of the image seems self evident to me, a funny jape (or jibe?) at the expense of Sadkσ, what am I missing? I did choose to unilaterally remove the image (just as you chose to unilaterally add it), so? I could have tried to discuss it with you first, but I thought it was more important to remove a possible source of offense first. Again I apologize for offending you, that was not my intent. Finally I will note that you've decided (again) not to address the fact that your image might have been offensive to Christians, do you not care? Paul August ☎ 16:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh my god, are we still on this? It wasn't at anyone's expense; we all fall victim to the curse of the spellchecker or the autocomplete now and then, and there's no shame in it. Sure I care about giving offense, but to that I must add the words "within bounds", because there's always someone ready to take offense, no matter what. Here's a favorite joke of mine:

Jesus is turning the stoning of an adulterous woman into a teachable moment. He says to the assembled mob: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." Immediately he is struck in the head by a rock. Jesus cranes his head to see where it came from, then yells, "Goddamit mom, will you please go home?"

I'm sure someone, somewhere is offended by that. I'm sorry, but that's just tough. EEng 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Eeeeewwww! Dan Druff 123 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

;-) Funny guy that 123. Paul August ☎ 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Je suis EEng

So y'know the user box you have that's all like

JE SUIS
 EEng 

?

Well apparently, I'm your sock, so Je suis EEng. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record it was Ritchie (IIRC) who added that box to my userpage, I think back when I got blocked for satirizing poor, helpless Donald Trump.

Legal note: As everyone here must know by now, to the extent I've ever said anything which could be interpreted as implying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron

that was just satire. I would never want people to think I was actually implying anything like that, to wit, that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.

To repeat, I am not saying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.

Anyway... Yeah, it's completely weird. According to the link you posted above, you and I are sockpuppets because we share one peculiar interest – hunting down a long term abuse case, "BMX On Wheels". The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that I have no idea who or what this BMX On Wheels is. Do you? EEng 01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A gang of ant-vandals on their way to commit some ant-vandalism.

An LTA I fought in my early anti-vandal days. I'm not sure if they even edit anymore.... but you aren't really an ant-vandal, so ????? 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 01:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I even knew what LTA stands for until a few months ago. EEng 01:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

ant I still doan't understant why LTAnts do whant they do. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 01:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Could you clarify whether or not you are suggesting that Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron? Thanks. – Levivich 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Gracious! Perish the thought that anyone would think I'm implying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.

EEng 20:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Now look here, old chap. Calling people "LTAs"?! That's just not cricket. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty good. EEng 20:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that anyone asked me, but I'd never compare DT to anything remotely insinuated above nor to a fascist nor a Putinpuppe-- Deepfriedokra 11:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, I need to work harder.-- Deepfriedokra 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well... at least he got some applause from all the Swiss trees in the audience. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"I talk to the trees//But they don't listen to me."-- Deepfriedokra 21:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"I aim at the stars//But sometimes I hit London."--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"Some have harsh words / for this man of renown / but some say our attitude / should be one of gratitude / like the widows and cripples / in old London Town / who owe their large pension / to Wernher von Braun." EEng 15:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

"I love to steal awhile away ..... (or else $2.8 million from veterans charities)" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• The conspiracy grows deeper.... apparently, Me, you, Drmies, Tarage, Ponyo, BMK, Epic genius, and Legacypac are all the same person. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Pinging @Drmies, Ponyo, Beyond My Ken, Epicgenius, and Legacypac: Emergency meeting of the cabal! Usual place! . (Sadly, I was forced to retire my Tarage sock in a huff late last year.) EEng 23:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh no! Our super mega sock account farm has been found! ABORT SHIP! Time to throw away my five admin socks, then. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know about the rest of the suspects, but it's a well-established fact that EEng and I are socks. Especially when you take into account the fact that neither of us believe that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.

it's a slam-dunk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I definitely don't believe that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.

either. But I'm pretty sure we're not all me. There's got to be at least two of us, right? epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. We could be twins. EEng 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wait--that Graaf Statler idiot is User:Guido den Broeder? With his little articles on a knock-off version of Wikipedia called "Wikisage"? Funny--despite all their freedom from the Wikipedia yoke, their article on stoofkarbonade really doesn't offer much more than ours, though the entire Wikisage project smells like the world of before 1950, when father still cut the meat at the Sunday dinner table. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Ha, his blog is on our blacklist: groetenuiteerbeek. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the revert

"Apologies for the revert"

Navigating Wikipedia on mobile is pretty damn difficult especially if you've got butter fingers like I do. Sorry for the revert! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already eaten my live toad this morning, so don't worry about it. EEng 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be responding to you

FYI my comment wasn't meant to be in response to you, which is why I didn't indent it. I see you have now though, so I figured I'd clarify that. And "panic" may be a bit dramatic, but I do think a redirect should be appropriately implemented and that it wasn't was worthy of at least addressing sooner rather than later. Cheers. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic behavioral problems. The title of a school bus article isn't that. EEng 07:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't take it there and I wasn't responding to you. That's all. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say you did. EEng 08:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Did I say you did? --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Who's on third? EEng 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Who's on first.-- Deepfriedokra

Women and children first. First things first. First do no harm. First the memory goes. Firth of Forth. Four Weddings and a Funeral. Colin Firth. EEng 14:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Firth and vermouth. At least no one said, "Gimme the water!"-- Deepfriedokra 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Fifth of bourbon. EEng 01:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That was my fear too when I saw EEng comment on that section. creffett (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware...

but I thought you'd get a kick out of m:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations. m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations and its related pages are pretty funny (in a tragic way), if I dare say so myself. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've done my best to help out. [51] EEng 03:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Perfect :). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It exerts a strange fascination. I can't unwatch it, can't decide whether it is, or is not, parody. EEng 15:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's like watching a car crash in slow motion. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The community needs to elect trustees that will clean house at the WMF. Levivich 05:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

WMF org chart, 2020

Same, 2030

If you find time

Early tools

Three-phase rectifier for high voltage transmission (HVDC)

Inventions that transferred the power from man to electricity

Found some! ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

William McMurray (engineer) - could probably be expanded but the technical aspects are over my head. If/when you have the time, perhaps you could add some information about McMurray's contribution - maybe create a history section, and another about his inventions/patents, or whatever? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not my area but I can fake it well enough. However, I'm a little backed up right now. Ping me in two weeks if you don't see any movement on the article by then. EEng 15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm sorry to note that I never got to this. I'm afraid now isn't the time either, but I don't want you to think I plan to let you down. Ping me sometime when you think of it again, at least 6 months from now. This is probably something best done when the libraries are open. EEng 03:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Your interference over at DGG's talk page

Thank you for your opinion.

His talk page is extremely clumsy to use, he will obviously not fix it himself, and I trust you're not saying some editors stand above the law?

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I see you have found your way to the proper place to discuss this. See you there :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns [52].

Now you're talking about "interference" and "the law". You need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'm serious. This nannying of others' user pages will not end well for you. EEng 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remain civil. CapnZapp (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep it up and I'll show you some real civility. EEng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Your presence at Talk page guidelines

It if was a canary it would probably be dead by now.

-Martinevans123

For those intrepid enough to still be playing along at home, this has now metastasized to [53] (that section and the one immediate following it)

Hello, EENG. It's one thing to actively argue "let's remove any numeric goal; here are my reasons..." It's another to passive-aggressively snipe at editors, which you just did more than once over at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#guidance on talk page size. I am writing this polite and personalized message to ask you to please stay out of the discussion if you have nothing constructive to add. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As seen right now in the thread at issue, you have a peculiar idea of what constitutes constructive discussion. I'm doing my best to help you see you're wasting your own and everyone else's time, but it's not working. EEng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If your idea of having a constructive discussion is "let's not discuss it, everything is fine as is" then you need to actively put forward arguments for that, arguments that then can be evaluated, rather than merely trying to shut down discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Meh. 'fraid I don't have a large interest in making so large an issue of large user talk pages. And if you over archive, you're being secretive or something. Now, ima go protect or delete something.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as WT:Talk page guidelines are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for thanking me for my 70,000 contributions, including specifically 22,000 policy and other project-space posts. In return, your 8,000 edits, including almost 500 to project space, are appreciated as well. Your relentless rambling about whether we should have a rule specifying that 50K, versus 75K, is a good time to start archiving talk pages, and now a discussion about the meaning of something you could look up in wiktionary, is not appreciated nearly as much. EEng 16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

CapnZapp, okay, templating EEng (after the normal, non-templated discussion above) is just condescending. Don't do that. Or, if you prefer:

TEMPLATE
THE REGULARS
AT YOUR OWN PERIL
WRITE YOUR OWN A PERSONAL MESSAGE
MORE PERSONALTHOUGHTFUL
LESS STERILE
Burma-shave

(not my best work, but it'll do) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, but even on a bad day you're pretty good. I changed PERSONAL TO THOUGHTFUL. EEng 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice! Sounds and scans better. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Now changed YOUR OWN to A PERSONAL (avoiding repeat of YOUR OWN). Let's remember to get this one into the template. EEng 05:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Your own" scanned better, though. Repetition isn't always bad (see repetition (rhetorical device)) and avoiding it can be worse (see elegant variation). Also the question of whether repetition or its avoidance is better can get you into lame fun wiki-arguments (see Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Langville). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Herr Doktor Professor. EEng 14:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As compared to analog

So you made a joke and some censorious editor didn't like it. I don't like woke-scolds but I would defer to the editor-in-chief about comments on Signpost articles if it were me. Sometimes poking the hornets' nest, even on principle, doesn't turn out well. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns the repeated removal of the lower image-and-caption seen here [54]:

The flaw in your analogy, Chris troutman, is this particular nest doesn't belong to the wasps – it belongs to the community. The Signpost's editor-in-chief most of all shouldn't be tampering with commentary on the items it publishes, and if Megalibrarygirl wants to selectively remove comments on her essays then she needs to publish them on her own user page. Of course, given the subject of the essay there's some irony to all this [55]. EEng 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of irony, actually: [56]. EEng 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem, EEng, is that the joke is not neutral. You have your own intentions. However, I and Smallbones both pointed out to you that there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult to a group of people, in this case, non-binary people. You may not agree with us, but it is a valid interpretation of what you wrote and it is always best to err on the side of civility. Wikipedia isn't stand up comedy: it's a place full of people with very different ideas who need to work together and making some people a joke is antithetical to that. Since the image is now back up, please remove it. The second image which you posted with diffs, is also not civil in my opinion where you categorize people who are concerned about the joke as "people intolerant of criticism of themselves." I am not intolerant of criticism: I am intolerant of making marginalized groups the butt of any kind of joke. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Being born and bred in Berkeley I knew what a woke-scold was decades before the term was coined, and you are a woke-scold. By folding everything that anyone even conceivably could choose to take offense at (there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult – gotta love it) into one giant ball of weepy hysteria [57] you give a bad name to people (such as myself) who care about actual things that actually harm people. You prattle about civility but give a free pass to those who blatantly accuse other editors of conspiring to suppress coverage of women and so on. Turn that high-powered perception on yourself, busybody. EEng 02:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi EEng. I've been polite and only pointed out that you are being offensive. And you continue to do so. "Woke scold" is a new one! What you're doing is edit warring and escalating the situation and doesn't need to happen. If you don't like the truth, that's fine. But what you're doing is wrong and I'll say so. Notice I've not called you names or made any aspersions on your character. I said you did one thing wrong. You should admit your mistake and move on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Behold the sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse, clothed magnificently in dudgeon! So supremely arrogant is she in the certainty of her moral superiority! Christ, you lack even the modesty to qualify your opinions – phrases such as I think and it seems to me are traditional ways of reminding yourself that maybe, just maybe, you're just one editor among many, though of course they're unnecessary if you know you're always right. Maybe that's it.

A polite woke-scold (e.g. If you don't like the truth, that's fine) is still a woke-scold. If by "edit warring" you mean I restored a comment – a comment you removed ... from a discussion of something you wrote ... because you disliked it or couldn't understand it – then you better give WP:TPO another read, Madame Administrator.

Every liberation movement goes through its That's not funny! stage, and the sooner that's over the better. No doubt you mean well, but you need an emergency injection of perspective, proportion, history, and humility. I'm a gay man who was fighting the good fight – and not by sitting behind a library desk in a pussy hat, I assure you – when you were in diapers, so I require no enlightenment about oppression and injustice. The next time you remove another editor's comment because it doesn't conform to your self-righteous standards I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your head spin. Signal your trendy virtues some other way. Got it?

EEng 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Here, put this [58] in your pipe and smoke it.

"You appear to be reading the situation upside down"

EEng, I think I know Megalibrarygirl pretty well. It's not my business to repeat what I've been told in confidence, but I will say she thinks Trump is a raving lunatic too and Boris Johnson is just missing the clown car. You are picking on the wrong target, If you think she is a "sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse", you are so far out of whack on this one, you're in a different area code. She is not a shrinking violet at all. I mean, she's a flippin' atheist in Texas - what more evidence do you need? Now, in the words of Dr Evil, zip it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A car? Who needs it !! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC) p.s. I'd just like to point out that EEng is never wrong, and even when he is he's totally woke.

[59] EEng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well hello there, Ritchie. How good it is to see you around again; for a while we feared we might have lost you. You seem to be reading the situaton upside down:

• I'm not picking the wrong target, nor indeed any target. She picked me.
• I never doubted that she and I probably agree on most social and political issues, and I don't know where you'd get the idea I might think otherwise.
• Nor would I imagine she's a shrinking violet. Her problem's the opposite: she confuses her personal opinions – even on something as subjective as a joke – with what she calls "the truth", to the extent that she thinks it's OK remove others' discussion posts in violation of TPO because, well, she knows the truth. That's the behavior of armchair social justice warriors of the woke-scold variety, and as you know I have little patience for such hubris, especially from those on the thinking end of the political spectrum, who should know better.

She had plenty of chances to back off and agree to disagree, but no. Perhaps she'll think twice should a similar situation arise in future.

EEng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I think you're confused. I'm not picking on you. In fact, I've barely interacted with you. I only pointed out that one joke in the comments on the Signpost article was offensive and removed it to promote civility on Wikipedia. It would have been easier to just leave it off, but you don't want to do that. The joke is most likely going to stay up on Signpost, a place that should be neutral, since no one wants to start an edit war over a joke. Fine. I don't want to edit war either, but I also don't appreciate your personal attacks. It's really petty of you and shows you can't take criticism. Your joke is both regressive and offensive. If something is offensive to a group of people even if you don't think it is it's still offensive. Not sure why you don't understand that. I've said my piece, I spoke the truth and that's that. If you want to talk more, ping me. But leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

In My Country There Is Problem

Ultimately, I don't like to see two of my favourite editors slugging it out with each other. You both make enormous contributions to the encyclopedia and Wikipedia is a better place for having you both around. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

None of us can really say whether or not a joke is offensive to a group of people; we can only say it's offensive to us, individually. I've seen people say or do things on Wikipedia that I think are obviously and egregiously antisemitic. But I can't speak on behalf of all Jews, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to assert that something was antisemitic or offensive to Jews–I can only speak for myself. And speaking for myself, I can say that I strongly agree with Ritchie about not liking to see two good editors going at it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, just a regular day down at Sootypedia. Sweepevans123 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with all three of you. Now stand aside while I finish this off... EEng 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Jesus, will you get clue? In ==>YOUR OPINION<=== it's offensive. Can you really not see that it's just ==>YOUR OPINION<===, that everyone else need not kowtow to ==>YOUR OPINION<=== and that it's not OK for you to remove another editor's post based on ==>YOUR OPINION<===? Apparently you still haven't reviewed WP:TPO as previously recommended, and maybe try taking a hint from the ever-wise Levivich and let someone actually offended (if there be any) speak for themselves; this isn't a schoolyard and you're not the teacher.

As for leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act – I can only interpret that as unconscious self-parody. I'm sure you're a nice person, and as said before I know you mean well, but these tautologies that begin by assuming that ==>YOUR OPINION<=== is obviously the truth are beyond tiresome. Give the broken record a rest now. Really. Tomorrow morning I have to play the authority figure and will be expected to say wise things, so I just haven't got time.

EEng 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Levivich, this might be a good time for you to break the tension with a Burma-Shave. Or not.

References

Hoping that I am missing something here, but can anyone explain to me why using Chink in the above context is okay? Perhaps helpful if I copy the Wikipedia page introduction is an English-language ethnic slur usually referring to a person of Chinese descent.[2] The word is also sometimes indiscriminately used against people who look and have an East Asian appearance. The use of the term is considered offensive. Kees08 (Talk) 22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing the answer to Kees08 question too. SQL^{Query me!} 22:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested too. You're missing a diagnosis. It's not as if it's clearly been used in an ironic way, is it. There aren't even any irony marks. Disgusted of Wuhan Wells (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Applicable to more than just driving. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, will you marry me? EEng 21:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  No homo. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  Breeder. EEng 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  I think you can get a device for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Scolding that that last batch of jokes are regressive/offensive/exclusionary goes here:

---

"Intelligent" discussion begins (heading by EEng, scarequotes by User:PackMecEng)

• Just in case it will matter to you, I think you happen to be in the wrong here. We all make mistakes, and we should all try to listen with an open mind to other people when they tell us we've made one. Paul August ☎ 16:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  Note, I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August ☎ 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  For the record I appreciate your intelligent intervention. EEng 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  What you think does matter to me, actually. I'm always open to reasoned discussion on something like this because I recognize that my humor is sometimes a bit, um, shall we say... edgy (plus I'm always interested in learning more about why people find things funny or not funny, in any context). But because of Megalibrarygirl's precipitate action, that's not what this is about; it's about one editor setting up her personal judgment as overriding and unerring, and being unable to recognize that that was a mistake (and contrary to WP behavioral guidelines as well). EEng 18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  I vote for trouts all around - I don't think MLG should have unilaterally removed your comment given her position (would have been more appropriate to either ask you to remove it or start a discussion), and I don't think you should have continued adding it after it was removed. This isn't a hill worth dying on for either of you, and I suggest both of you just take a deep breath and let it go. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  I have no plans on dying, but self-appointed scolds are a particular sore point with me. Had MLG simply offered her opinion, a quite possible outcome would have been that I would have found something even funnier to post in a different vein – strange how constraint can liberating in that way. But instead she took the in-your-face approach, and I just don't take that lying down especially from mop-holders.

  I let it go with my post 3 days ago timestamped 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC), but MLG just keeps coming back for more. I have little doubt, however, that she's learned her lesson and won't do this again – to anyone. EEng 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  One question seems to me to be how to determine whether something (say a joke) is offensive. Surely you agree that just because a joke was not intended to be offensive does't mean that it isn't offensive? Correct? So how do you determine whether something is offensive? Do a certain number of people need to be offended before something can said to be offensive? Maybe is not zero or one, maybe something is more or less offensive depending on the number of people who find it offensive? So even if only one person finds something offensive, then it *is* offensive, just not very? So what should one do if someone tells you they think one of your jokes is offensive? I guess it depends on how generous you want to be. For me, if some thinks one of my jokes is offensive—even if I think they are the only one who thinks so—I think my response would be to apologize, and retract it. It seems to me to just a matter of simple politeness. Paul August ☎ 11:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Better questions might be: why does it matter if a joke is considered by some to be offensive or not? Is there such a thing as an inoffensive joke? Should an offensive joke be treated differently than an offensive non-joke statement? Is making an offensive statement (joke or non-joke) a problem that requires correction? Only then can you get to: how many people have to think it’s offensive before it’s considered offensive? The base assumption i chafe at is the notion that a joke is some kind of frivolity, whereas being offended is an actual injury of some sort. I disagree with both characterizations. Just as I disagree with the characterization in this section heading. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Or something else altogether? Note as I've written above: I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August ☎ 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  I've clarified that I inserted the heading of this subsection. EEng 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Paul August:, I'm disagreeing fundamentally that a joke should be retracted because it offends one or even more than one person. (Also, I didn't mean the header comment as a criticism of you or as implying that this conversation wasn't intelligent; rather, I think the conversation above the header was also intelligent.) The joke, as all good jokes, brought an important truth to light. In the context of an article about "invisible women" – about how women are overlooked by the history books – EEng made a joke about non-binary gender. This has many layers of meaning. First, it reminds the reader that non-binary people are, today, right now, the "invisible people", just as women once were (and, in many ways, still are). A second layer is that by looking at a picture of people who appear to be women and calling them "women", we are assuming their gender identity–something that modern society is trying to get away from. Calling them the first "non-binary" programmers (because they were programming analog computers) is a clever way of linking the struggles of women in the past to the struggles of non-binary people today, while simultaneously noting how language (here, the meaning of "non-binary") can change over time, just as social attitudes and oppressed group's rights and privileges can change over time. All in all, it's a clever way to say, "don't forget there are still invisible people today, and they're not just women". And this message was better delivered as a picture with a funny caption than as a long paragraph of text as I have provided here.

  So, should we then erase this message because – OMG! It has the word non-binary! It's a joke about non-binary! That means it's offensive! Kill it kill it kill it!! No, to me, that's just a really shallow understanding of a really deep and brilliant joke.

  Humor is a very powerful tool when it comes to changing minds, and, by extension, changing societies. It should not be discounted or eliminated based on one person's, or a small group of people's, sensibilities. At bottom, there is no such thing as an inoffensive joke. If it's not offensive, at least a little bit, it won't be funny. And if it's not funny, it won't be heard. So I think in these situations, we should leave the picture, not complain about being offended by a "non-binary joke", and instead be offended by the fact that non-binary people are even more invisible than women. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  I just said said that, had MLG simply offered her opinion, I'd likely have recast the joke some other way. Perhaps an intelligent conversation such as this one [60] could have ensued. But unilateral removal (which, I tire of repeating, TPO forbids)? Repeated unilateral removal? I've made my attitude on that abundantly clear above. EEng 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether or not the removal was right, I'm trying to say that your response could have been more polite. Just saying ... Paul August ☎ 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I started out perfectly polite [61] [62], inviting MLG to comment on what she was concerned about. EEng 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• I tread carefully in these things, having been accused myself of being too silly on wiki-pages sometimes (although the more common accusation is that I'm too ponderously serious on wiki-pages, such as I'm being now—of course it's quite possible that both these things are true). Still, in this instance I happen to agree with those who have opined that these images and their captions are, at best, an unnecessary distraction from a significant discussion. If I'd been the first one to see them, I would probably have removed them myself, and I'm thinking through whether I still ought to do so. Also, while I'm absolutely certain this is not how the word was intended to be used here, I am also surprised that no one has observed yet that "scold," used as a noun, is perceived as having sexist connotations and, especially in reference to a specific female editor, should generally not be used. Addendum: I should add that I have a very high level of respect for your (EEng's) talents and abilities, and a disagreement on this specific item doesn't detract from that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  Newyorkbrad, for the record I have a high level of respect for your talents and abilities, and I'm not just saying that because you're an arb and, ya know, you never know what turn things might take. I want to be sure you read Levivich's post above at #Levivichx because, while he's read in a bit more than I had in mind, by doing so he demonstrates vividly why humor is powerfully useful in getting people to think in fresh ways about important and difficult issues. EEng 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I reject your scold scold; in modern usage the word's been fully liberated [63].

  Followup: I said earlier that discussion, instead of knee-jerk censorship, had a good chance of stimulating me to find a better way to make my point. Thanks primarily to ol' Levivich, here we go:

There may be some non-binary people among those operating this differential analyser, but from the historical record there's probably no way to know it.

-EEng

I dare anyone to find offense in that.

We turn now to the great John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, "Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"):

We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

TLDR? Thinking people don't suppress; they discuss. EEng 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK let's get married because you just quoted my favorite philosopher, and it was my favorite chapter of my favorite book of his, and you quoted it at length. (You had me at "it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied".) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I knew you'd come around, Mr. Nohomo. I usually introduce On Liberty as "the greatest piece of political philosophy ever written" but for some reason this time I hesitated for fear the discussion would get sidetracked by a debate about that. EEng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As I was reading through all this, on my watchlist I saw the edit summary for your most recent edit: excellent in other contexts, but beside the point here. In a nutshell, that's how I, and I think many others, too often feel when we see your humorous images and captions in places like the noticeboards. Please bear in mind the old aphorism that "a nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place—like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." And after all, no one can quarrel with that, as it's a well-known proposition of Euclid. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm the first to admit that some of my posts aim merely to break the tension or buoy spirits. But are you claiming that the image+caption above doesn't make a memorably useful point in the context of the original discussion? EEng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I claim that it very foreseeably became a distraction that substantially outweighed the value of any point you intended to make in the thread. Next, diverting the thread still further to an argument about whether the image and caption should remain, with a re-posted image with a new and nasty caption of its own, was a double digression or meta-digression. Removing the images from the thread was, at a minimum, a very defensible thing to do, and your harsh and unnecessary personal comments about the editor who took the lead on trying to remove them were yet a further distraction from the original discussion. In addition, your position that you might have been willing to see the image removed after all, if you had been asked more nicely, is in tension with your position that the seeming joke actually carried substantial informational value. As for the word "scold," we'll have to agree to disagree; if you continue using it in the context of specific female editors, I predict that sooner or later a serious complaint about the connotations underlying the word will be raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"The majority of individuals punished for scolding were women, though men could also be labelled scolds." Yes, a bit like the common cold, but might be more serious and lead to 14 days "self-isolation". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• You're off on the sequence of events (for which you can be excused given what a mess it was) but I'll just say that once it was explicitly asserted that it "could very easily be taken that you are making fun of non-binary people. We don't do that" – naming me specifically as committing this alleged transgression – there's no way I was going to leave the record uncorrected. Smallbones chose the venue by posting that where he posted it.
• I didn't say I'd be willing to see the image removed (though it's the caption we're really talking about), rather I said that non-kneejerk discussion had a good chance of leading to a better caption. And it finally did.

EEng 02:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I see nothing in your responses above that indicate to me that you are listening to or taking on board any of the constructive criticisms your fellow editors are trying to give you. It would be good if you could try harder to do that. Paul August ☎ 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  No, I'm listening; I just don't agree that my original posting was inappropriate. And it seems to me that you're not listening to or taking on board what I've said: Discussion, not suppression. I will now say for the final time that intelligent, non-kneejerk, non-strongarming discussion not only could have, but finally did, lead to something better. The mess in between is entirely down to one editor's ham-handed arrogation to herself of the role of censor. EEng 15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That you seem to believe that everything you've done here was perfectly appropriate—that you seem to believe all your critics are wrong—that you take no responsibility at all for any part of this problem—is disheartening. If you continue in the same vein I don't think this will end well. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor."

-EEng

All of which still leaves the question whether I should remove the whole set of images and captions from that talkpage as being a disruptive distraction from the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would that be a call for a single editor to make? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If at the same time you remove Smallbone's public implication that I'd "attack[ed] or mock[ed] [a] group whose members include those who do not have a choice about their membership in the group", and leave (floated to the right, of course) the image with the revised caption (the one seen above in this thread – which surely comports well with both the original essay and the discussion) I'd be perfectly happy with that. EEng 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What point exactly are you trying to make with the gorilla image on the right? Are you saying NYB's trying to intimidate you? If so it would be better to say so directly. That's another problem with some of your images, their use as innuendo. Paul August ☎ 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That's the image - and caption - that got EEng blocked in what was possibly the most incompetently vindictive block in Wikipedia's history. I assure you NYB will be well aware of exactly what it's meant to mean. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad NYB will know what it means, however (clueless me) I still don't ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to my glittering array of (talk page stalker)s for saving me the trouble of explaining. I will just add that this little subplot illustrates a principle which, had it been applied to the main issue of this whole thread, would have saved a great deal of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair: instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. And for the record, if I thought that NYB was trying to intimidate me, yes, I'd just say so. Now stand by while I find a tasteless joke on innuendo (assuming Levivich or some other clown doesn't beat me to it). EEng 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

With the help of some stalkers, I found what I was looking for: this brilliant chain of puns by Guy Macon. (Key words and phrases: pun account in arrears • semicolonoscopy • innuendos.) Please note: Guy's just coming back after a serious illness so please visit his page to wish him well. EEng 02:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) I remain convinced that those images and captions are a disruptive distraction and don't belong on that talkpage. However, given everything else that's going on right now, on Wikipedia and in the world, we don't have the luxury of enough energy and bandwidth for the drama that would probably ensue if I removed them again. Therefore, I will reluctantly drop the issue at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

But there's always a silver lining. With everyone sequestered at home with little to do, I expect that the NPP backlog and any open arbitration cases will be resolved with remarkable speed. EEng 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

John Harvard

The first substantial version of the article had full dates, and it's standard in biographies. GiantSnowman 21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer you raise such things on the article's talk page. But whether a bio's opening parenthetical give full birth/death dates, or just years, is not a WP:DATERET issue, and "standard" (your word for usual) does not mean universal or required. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Birth_date_and_place. EEng 21:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And I'd prefer you to raise such things on the article talk page rather than continue to revert. No, "standard" means "encouraged" ie every FA I can recall features full dates. Stop twisting Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Birth_date_and_place (which I referred you to in the full place) which states "These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject" (my emphasis) and "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context" (my emphasis). You've also conventiently ignored the first full version from 16 years aho which used full dates. Care to comment? GiantSnowman 21:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The MOS that you so adamantly point to says "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". So in your insistence that year ranges are insufficient, you are pushing a position that is actually in contradiction to the MOS, rather than being supported by it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Except of course Harvard's birth date is not mentioned in the article... GiantSnowman 08:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Article, infobox, whatever. The distinction matters only to checklist-obsessed scriptkiddies lacking judgment of their own. EEng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

To what D.E. has said I'll just add that you keep talking about how some version from two decades ago had it, as if this is a WP:DATERET issue, which it's not. Good articles are made by applying sound editorial judgment, not filling in blanks on a form. EEng 04:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh look at today's FA Muhammad III of Granada which has...full dates! GiantSnowman 08:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Only those inhabiting the incestuous FA bubble hold up FAs as paragons. The idea that the very first thing on which we should squander one of our most precious resources – the reader's attention and desire to keep reading – is the specific date of the year on which someone was born and died, as if our target demographic was astrologers, is Exhibit A for the stupidity of the FA process. EEng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Something you're both forgetting - "may be sufficient". My point is that is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 08:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A point you assert with nothing to back it up. If you want to further pursue this preoccupation with form over substance open a thread on the article's talk page. EEng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] What is your explanation for why it is critical to bring the readers' attention to the date of his birth, and not just the year, as the first thing they see about him? Among the other facts that could be stated about him at equal length in the lead sentence, why is this one the most important? You are asserting this with no justification, making your argument highly unconvincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

PS GiantSnowman if you want an opportunity for a bigger crusade about dates and date formats, take a look at the recent contributions of Citation bot (the ones where the edit summary includes "Add: date" or some other combination of additions including dates). All the added dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format. (I happen to like this format for accessdates but I don't think it's acceptable for publication dates, and they're being added as publication dates.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Jesus, you're more pissed off about this than I am. That's a lot of pissedoffedness. EEng 22:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Not at GS today, though. Instead I am pissed off about having to spend all my editing time running around after Citation bot and cleaning up its many messes, and at its owner's intransigent attitude when anyone points out that it is not housebroken. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

re

Do not disturb. I'm in the middle of important research. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you please strike the unkind remark? --valereee (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Which one? I've been unkind to so many people lately. However, if you mean this [64] it sounds like you've already figured out [65] that I was parodying the unkindness of someone else. EEng 13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, lol...actually, you seem in general like a very kind person. :) Yes, I know you were reflecting back what someone else was putting out there, only with humor, and I certainly understood the impulse. I just this morning rewrote or deleted multiple responses to the thread. :) --valereee (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Then what was the unkind remark you want me to strike? Or perhaps you meant there's some unkind person you want me to strike? I'm rarely violent but for you I'd do it, and right now there are several people I'd be inclined to strike anyway. EEng 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why we are dancing on the head of a pin with this; EEng, strike the belittling remark to do with RexxS's RfA and in your edit summary, apologise. Also, quit with the violence jokes. Aside from the jovial air in which you are doing this, Valereee, I do appreciate your efforts to finish someone else's dirty work. Cassianto^Talk 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS is exhibiting precisely the poor temperament that participants at his RfA were concerned about, and when Valereee explained how confusing a certain template's usage was he called her "inept" (and not in a joking way) so I stand by my post. And your affected hand-wringing about "violence jokes" strikes me as a low blow. Maybe sleep deprivation has made you punchy? Don't be so pugnacious. Let's all just knuckle down and get back to editing. I could give you a backhanded compliment if you want. EEng 15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A reminder

Just a reminder to talk-page stalkers that this is not that place to say anything that could be interpreted as implying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.

I'd ask everyone to confirm here that they understand that they shouldn't be saying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.

EEng 19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I don't actually want to be the one pointing this out but I do need to remind you that contentious information about living persons is required to be referenced inline anywhere it is published on Wikipedia, including user talk pages. If you're concerned that the information above might be considered contentious in good faith, please consider backing this up with a reliable source. I'm sure you can find one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Our good friend Ivanvector is absolutely correct. Do not post anything implying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.

without a reliable source. EEng 14:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Fix your typo - oh, and here is a RS. (Not meant to encourage you). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Question: Do the refs have to be in citation templates, or is it OK if I reference Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet. with plaintext links? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The verifiability policy is satisfied if you've identified the source; the method by which you do so is a manual of style matter. So yeah, excepting that this might be WP:SYNTH, I think we're done here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better as two sentences to avoid Synth: Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron. His selfishness and stupidity have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet. - Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, it should be stated that this is not the place where you share the opinion of [RS] who have called Trump a...yada yada, and the opinion of [RS] who said... and...well, you get the drift AND by doing it that way, you avoid SYNTH. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) ^{Underlined correction to align w/EEng's context. 20:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)}

  Atsme, it looks like the Museum here will be pretty busy for the next five years. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  Sir Joseph, what? The Dems are choosing between Statler and Waldorf, how can they possibly lose?

  Honestly, all jokes aside, if that guy sends me a check for $1000 I just might vote for him. Unless Biden sends me more. Not because I think he is the best candidate, but because I want to encourage future candidates to send me cash during election years. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be on to something, Lev!! I like your thinking. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Levivich, Actually, it's dead-even at Predictit since the Dems got smart and dumped Sanders. [66] But blaming Trump on Coroavirus is pretty stupid and also wrong. I don't like Trump, I'm also a political independent in a purple state (and I think Bloomberg was poor timing). I know Trump banned incoming flights from China and people complained. I know people will complain no matter what Trump does, but sometime he does the right thing. And sometimes the NYTimes will chop his quotes in half just to make him look bad, like when he told states to look into getting masks and supplies on their own, and then added he will be there for them and fund it. Everyone knows supply chain is best at a local level, but the NYTimes ran "President tells states, you're on your own." So why not tone down the rhetoric and stupidity. That's not what we need now. As the former (Obama-Era) FEMA chief said when he was on MSNBC right before he walked off the air, "I don't need to deal with this from bull shit people." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  He banned flights from China but left huge loopholes for ships' crews and so on, and pretended that walls an closed borders would solve the problem. he told states to look into getting masks and supplies on their own, and then added he will be there for them and fund it – what the fuck does "be there for them" mean??? This needs to be a full-court press, all-hands-on-deck, no-effort-or-expense-spared, every-avenue-pursued war effort. People are going to die for lack of ventilators starting in two to four weeks. Every extra ventilator produced will save 10 lives over the next eight months; every mask will save 1/1000 of a life – and President Trump – who as I keep stressing I am not labeling a

sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet

 – as late as yesterday was saying he wasn't invoking the War Production Act to order companies to start producing these vital things because "we might not need it". So get real. EEng 20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

According to the stats and the high number of cases in New York, maybe Cuomo should have started sooner with his efforts and stop depending so much on the federal government. State governments are the ones at ground zero. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Governors cannot invoke the War Production Act . However, Cuomo did offer companies, including startups, premium prices for robes, masks, etc.

Trump: “I take no responsibility at all.”

Cuomo: “I take responsibility, these decisions are mine. Get mad at me.”

O3000 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NPR the 18th. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, Have you ever dealt with the Federal government and requisitioning? Why should all the states have to put in a request for masks from DC when they can do it themselves better and cheaper if they can get it from a supplier closer to home? That's the latter part of the quote the NYTimes left out. Parly JIT and partly that Trump said he'll fund it and be there for states that need funding and supplies, but said it's best to use your own resources. The NYTimes ran with the headlines that Trump said "you're on your own." When that is not what he said or meant. And it's your vile and nasty TDS that makes me, a real independent in a purple state, who doesn't like Trump at all, vote for him because I can actually see things with a clear unbiased eye, unlike you. I apparently don't fall for Chinese propagnda.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"you're on your own." When that is not what he said or meant – That's clearly what he meant. He has no idea what's going on or what to do. He's a compulsive, shameless liar.

Have you ever dealt with the Federal government and requisitioning? – Yes, actually, I have, but this isn't about "requisitioning" – we're not talking about office supplies and garbage cans. Ground was broken on the Pentagon in September 1941 and the first occupants moved in the following April; when it's important, it can get done – if competent people are in charge.

This has nothing to do with Chinese propaganda. The Chinese government is run by selfish, greedy motherfuckers who don't give a shit about the people for whose good they're supposed to be working, or about the rest of the world; that's been true for a long time and I can't do anything about it. The sadness is that, at present, the American government is run by the very same kind of people. If you can't see that [67] you're delusional. EEng 00:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: Headline today (NYT): "Former Labradoodle Breeder Tapped to Lead U.S. Pandemic Task Force" – more Chinese propaganda, I suppose. By the way, how's that JIT thing working out? EEng 01:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to the store - need anything? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it's time for Buddy Hackett. Laughter truly is the best medicine. Hackett keeps me in stitches without having to make a single suture. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Before I forget - don't fall for fake news telling you that all you need is a mask and gloves to go to the grocery store. It's a LIE!! Everyone else had clothes on!! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wait, what?! That was not made clear from the outset. I want to be grandfathered in. --valereee (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  Will you settle for being grandmothered in? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, yes, yes, I knew someone would bring that up. Grandfathered, grandmothered, grandxthered. Whatever pronouns and nonbinary descriptions work for the general progressive public. --valereee (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, er, I hope it was clear that was a joke :) social anxiety due to hearing crickets when making a joke --valereee (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

We all cool, don't worry. EEng 16:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, Ms V - you one-upped us in a fun way!! I echo what EEng just said - 😎. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A reconsideration

Back in March, in this very thread, I counseled my fellow editors not to post anything implying that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet

without a reliable source. Well, it's been six months and time to take stock again. In my modest opinion we are now more than justified in stating openly what has long been obvious i.e. that

Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron whose selfishness and stupidity
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000 Americans on a conveyor belt to death since January 1 –
they just haven't arrived at the crematorium yet.

Source: "Trump’s Deliberate Coronavirus Deception" (among many others).

And while we're on the subject, fuck you and the whore you came in on.

And the whore you came in on.

And the whore you came in on.

So it's time to get real. An elderly colleague of mine – a World War II veteran, a fine mathematician and wonderful teacher, a man whose boots Donald Trump is not worthy to lick – suffocated alone in a nursing home because of Trump's greed, stupidity, narcissism, and criminality. So fuck you, Donald Trump, fuck the racist father who begat such a slime bucket as you, fuck the agent of Satan who put a hole in the condom that God had intended would spare the world the stain of your existence, fuck the rest of your criminal family, fuck the morons who voted for you, and fuck any morons who vote for you again. EEng 18:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
P.S. If you don't like the foregoing, get your head out of your ass.
P.P.S. If you voted for Trump and aren't a moron, then fuck you double, since you knew better but did it anyway.

I am so very sorry to hear about your friend, and I agree wholeheartedly with your description, your "modest opinion", and your anger. We have lost, and will continue to lose, many good people. "Fine mathematicians", kindly bus drivers, selfless healthcare workers, the nice neighbor...the list goes on and on. We value the kind comfort and wisdom of an "older friend", the human potential of those just a bit, and even quite a bit younger..each person is such a dreadful loss. "No man is an island entire of itself;...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind." Donne expressed it so well. With sorrow for your loss, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thoughtful words are most comforting, as is the vision of Donald Trump being sodomized in hell by Russian whores wearing red-hot barbed-iron strap-ons while Melania sticks needles into his tiny, misshapen penis. Satan was on Fox News the other night explaining it all, and complaining about the headaches Trumps's causing him. He's had to build acres of new tortures just for the Cabinet alone, and Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Tojo, and Pol Pot are up in arms because the VIP wing is full and one of them's gonna have to bunk with Trump, which none of them wants to do because he's so stupid and boring. EEng 05:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

You are most welcome. The devastation that one, unprincipled, dishonorable person in a supreme position of power can cause is truly horrifying. And quite terrifying. In your creative imaginings, I think the lying tongue would be first to go. Please, try to remember the good experiences with your dear friend, who is free from suffering. Imagine the knowledge that is now clear to him, the mathematical joys and marvels of the universe! I hope some good thoughts of what "Heaven" is like for your dear friend will give you some comfort. I know you are suffering, and again, I am so very, very sorry. Sending you a nice, My Cat Jeoffry "Tiger" hug, Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Let me attempt to offer some comfort about your loss, as well. Also, as it happens, a few days ago I watched Downfall (2004 film) (on South American river prime). I highly recommend the film, by the way. But something that struck me as I was watching was how much of the film revolves around various Nazi military brass telling Adolf, with Berlin burning all around, that they could not prevail, to which the revered leader would respond with a combination of blaming everyone except himself, and promising that some half-baked inspiration that just came to him would save the day. The generals would cower until one would get up the nerve to suggest very gently that it would not be possible (by a long shot), and the supreme one would hear nothing of it, certain that his own unique brilliance would prove infallible. I may be breaking Godwin's law, but it felt eerily familiar. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend. Of course, while Hitler was fairly intelligent and surrounded himself with reasonably competent (if corrupt) people, Trump's saving grace is that he's a moron who surrounds himself with other morons who can't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel. Now back to our regular programming....

It never gets old:

• Hitler finds out Donald Trump has won the presidential election
• Hitler can't pay for dinner
• Hitler hates flying coach
• Hitler's Nutella goes missing
• Hitler gets Covid and has to quarantine
• Hitler can't get his Amazon Prime deliveries due to Covid
• Himmler fails to unclog the toilet
• Hitler's uncontrollable farting problem <== Curator's top pick
• Hitler is stuck in slow motion
• Hitler rants like a chipmunk
• Hitler hates the Downfall parodies
• Hitler still hates the Downfall parodies

EEng 03:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vernon Coleman. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.91.66 (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on Wikipedia policy, IP-with-six-edits! (Article now at AfD.) EEng 14:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be verifiable and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the main page. Repeated good edits may result in featured articles or nomination for adminship to keep you away from article writing. Thank you. creffett (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoa. That's harsh. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Double palindrome Burma-Shave haiku

"WONTON ON SALAD?
ALAS, NO, NOT NOW", HE GAVE
"MADAM, I'M ADAM!"
Burma-shave

Improvements welcome. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

🤯🤯🤯🤯Burma-shave

I provided an exploding palindome instead. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Rear admiral (lower half)

Hello. I just wanted to reply to the question you left on Illegitimate Barrister's talk page. So, technically, there is no actual upper half as it is actually now an informal term. When an officer is promoted to two-star rank, the rank is just called rear admiral. Another informal term for two-star rank is a full rear admiral. Prior to World War II, the Navy didn't have a one-star rank. All captains were promoted to rear admiral (two-star). A more ridged pay grade scale was established during World War II and the Navy split the pay for the more junior rear admirals into the one-star pay grade in order to match the Army and Marine Corps rank of brigadier general and called them lower half rear admirals, the remaining more senior rear admirals were paid equal to major generals, and where designated the upper half of rear admirals. But regardless of they were paid at the lower half or the upper half of the pay scale, they were all officially two-star rear admirals, which did not sit well with the Army and Marine Corps, because the rear admirals being paid at the "lower half" of the pay scale, still outranked the one-star brigadier generals who received equal pay as the "lower half" rear admirals. The Navy temporarily established the one-star rank of commodore that did solve this problem until the rank was eliminated after the war. A permanent naval one-star rank was not established until the 1981 as commodore admiral. Since 1983, that one-star rank was renamed to it's current inception as rear admiral (lower half). Neovu79 (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this relates to [68].

That's all well and good, but if they only use the lower half of the rear of the admiral, what they do with the rest of him (or her). I've heard food on ships is terrible, so maybe that's related? See [69]. EEng 03:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You're failing your public here, EEng. The title of this section is just crying out for an image. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your wish is my command:

Rank and File

Rear admiral (lower half)

Full bird private

EEng 16:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the rank of full bird private, myself. creffett (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't resist, Private Creffett. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Museum of misnomers?

From Library of Congress Living Legend: By 2019, without new membership, a majority of the Living Legends had died. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, most of the French Academy's "Immortals" [70] are dead -- see List_of_members_of_the_Académie_française. EEng 06:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't

provide an image to illustrate the title Purging misconduct. It would spoil my breakfast. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I was tempted actually, but a photo of someone vomiting is too obvious, our photos of Soviet purges aren't obvious enough, and we don't even have a photo of Miss Conduct. EEng 22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Come on down..... it's Danny's Early Purge Special!! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Today you've called me "naive", "sophomoric", and "crazy". Please stop. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to make your points without being demeaning and insulting. Toohool (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Those were not personal attacks, but a description of actions and/or situations. El_C 04:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Judging someone as inexperienced (naive) is not a personal attack, nor is saying that the situation is "getting crazy". However calling someone "sophomoric" is. Paul August ☎ 10:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

But it is my understanding that, in this case, EEng was referring to the "analysis" as sophomoric, rather than the editor in question themselves. El_C 11:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

No way sophomoric is a PA. If someone is acting overconfident and immature, then they are being sophomoric, and saying so isn't "attacking" them. Not every criticism of a person is an "attack". Just like the common example: saying "you're acting like an asshole" is a criticism, not a personal attack; saying "you are an asshole" is a personal attack. Anyway, that's my 2 cents, assholes. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

^^😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh common on, so your saying that If I want to get away with calling someone "a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole" all I have to do say is: "You are acting like a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole"? Paul August ☎ 14:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

But the latter statement isn't "getting away" with something. In O these many long years I have, now and then, had occasion to say to my boyfriend, "You know what -- you were acting like a complete asshole [the other day / with that hotel clerk / to the innocent person who was clearly mixed up / whatever]". That's completely different from saying, "You know what? You're a complete asshole", which would quite possibly be the beginningn of the end of the relationship. We all play the asshole now and then, and there's a huge difference between helping someone see that in a particular situation -- e.g. "You're being an asshole" -- and condemning someone as a blanket generality -- e.g. "Donald Trump is an asshole" (not that, of course, I'd ever say that here on WP without citing appropriate sources [71]). EEng 17:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Another example: "Your mother smells of elderberries" is a clear personal attack, but "you're acting like someone whose mother smells of elderberries" is a perfectly acceptable social criticism. But seriously, it's not a personal attack to say someone is acting overconfident or acting immature, and thus it's not a personal attack to say someone is acting sophomoric. "Sophomoric" isn't an insult like "asshole" or "elderberry". WP:NPA doesn't say "never criticize". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Saying someone whose mother smells of elderberries might be construed as a compliment, whereas saying someone whose mother smells like dingleberries...uhm, no. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

English is such a wonderful language, so many words, so many nuances allowed, so better able to describe the real world, where things are not black or white but shades of grey. There are shades of niceness and meaness. You can be nicer or meaner. Saying someone is "sophomoric" is meaner than calling them "inexperienced". Bottom line "sophomoric" is a pejorative. No way around it. And by the way I think you are acting like a dirty slimy mother-fucking rotten low life asshole, no offense intended ;-) Paul August ☎ 15:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Make that 50 shades of grey ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe EEng thought the editor was a freshman and trying to compliment them? creffett (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You have to watch out for EEng. He's the one who put the wasp in waspish. Probably deserves a trout... maybe even a Lee Trout. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A long time ago I had a colleague from Ukraine. His English was very good but nonetheless there was room for improvement. We both enjoyed movies so we used to see one together now and then. One night we came out of the cinema and he pointed to the sky: "Look! There is the Mars!" So I chuckled and explained that, for whatever reason, in English the earth is "the earth" and the moon is "the moon", but Mars is just "Mars" and Venus is just "Venus" and so on. He said, "I see. Well, it's just one more of the nuisances of English." One step, two steps later, something began to nag at the back of my mind. With each additional step the nagging got stronger. Six, seven, eight paces. Nuisances ... nuisances ... nuisances. A few more steps and it hit me. "Wait ... you mean nuances???" He said: "Yes, yes. That's what I meant. Nuances." That was the most delicious moment. EEng 21:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• For those playing along at home, this goes back to [72]. EEng 05:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Mrgendering

Mr Coffee

Touché. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators

I just... can't stop staring at the pageview graph of Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. So many questions come to mind. and also that picture should garner more accolades imo --Mvbaron (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Somebody or other's birthday. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the picture at right depicting such a dilator? It seems somewhat... aggressive, and I'm worried about the purpose of the serrated-teeth structures of the lower part. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Following your interest in this and other anatomical topics, you may be interested in this one, too. This would be an academic interest, of course – no offence intended. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)^{[Confused editor?]}

  Blow it out your ass! EEng 13:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nobility

I feel like you missed an opportunity to try to have baby mama and baby daddy endorsed as encyclopedic terms in the context of nobility. pburka (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You refer, of course, to [73]. Well there're certainly plenty of places such terminology would come in handy. EEng 02:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Engvar and MOS

Hi, I'd always assumed AmEng was used in MOS, simply because it was the first to appear when the page was initially under construction. Tony (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

But you see, MOS (and therefore MOS:ARTCON) doesn't apply to MOS, indeed doesn't apply to anything outside article space. (Exception: ACCESSIBILITY, though nominally a MOS subpage, applies everywhere.) It's probably a good idea that each individual essay or policy be self-consistent, but MOS is so sprawling that's probably impossible anyway, and its internal variety is a fun reminder of the Wikipedia salad bowl. EEng 13:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it me, or does "Engvar and Mos" sound like an early 20th century detective drama series? "I say, Engvar old chap, bit of a sticky wicket over here." "Yes, I can see what happened there Mos, bit of a top-ho there." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe a law firm, like Dewey, Cheatem & Howe or Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish & Short. EEng 15:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

American English, British English, it is all English! One of the things that DS-MOS uses. Aasim 06:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Implausible album cover art

Sadly, this and this appear to be fakes.

This, however is 100% kosher.

Can I interest you in a NSFW genuine photo of an Irish police horse on duty? Narky Blert (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

dogma drama

That's ruff. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

Here, I'm giving this to someone with a refined sense of humor capable of appreciating it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone as degraded as you will enjoy [74]. EEng 20:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"Kung Flu"?

So considering that our dear leader has recently taken to using the term "Kung flu" to describe the pandemic, are we to suppose—see above—this is a case of great minds thinking alike, or is he reading this page? For my money "moo goo gai pandemic" would have been the smarter choice. Paul August ☎ 21:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

He definitely reads this page. EEng 21:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Brooks

Friendly feedback, this is an unfortunate choice of place to take a stand even if you are within the letter of WP:TALK. Visual jokes on the talk page of an article about a recent homicide are crass at best, and based on your extensive record of carefully considered editing I am optimistic that you will step back and re-assess. VQuakr (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to drop by. I am not taking a stand, though I suppose Bus Stop may choose to – we shall see. Maybe some people can edit on topics laying bare the worst humanity has to offer, day in and day out, without a laugh break, but I'm not one of those stoics. I'll note that I am regularly thanked for these little gestures – and not just by the disreputable rabble who hang out here on this wretched hive of scum and villainy – so I'm afraid I'll take those thanks over the complaints of Mrs. Grundy.

BTW anyone who didn't like that joke most certainly won't like [75]. EEng 00:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Possibly not. All the best. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your added images

Hi EEng—why are you adding/restoring images to the Criminal history section here here and here? Why are you doing that? Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng is contributing to the talk page in EEng's usual style. If you don't like the contribution, you can either comment to say so in the discussion, or just ignore it. One of those two options takes no effort and doesn't waste other editors' time. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read

J Prod Anal? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Its penetrating investigations are complemented by in-depth reporting. Harvard's catalog adds candidly – AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP – Frequency note: Irregular [76]. EEng 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Fan club

You've got [rb.gy/ydvby9 some fans]. GMG^talk 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I can think of few things as pathetic as being kicked out of Wikipedia, and then writing about Wikipedia from the outside. What a sad, meaningless existence one must live to have time for that. I hope TDA is at least getting paid for this.

Hmm...

How much do you think Breitbart would pay for a tell-all expose about EEng from one of his top lieutenants? Asking for a friend. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not gonna lie that I think it would be hilarious to get them to print something Sokal-esque, outing EEng as...I dunno...a paid agent of the Wyoming government or something. Whatever is silly enough to be obvious nonsense but serious enough to get published. GMG^talk 18:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You mean all I have to do to get famous is litter talk pages with false and inflammatory stuff? —valereee (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: Do you mean you've not yet been mentioned in a source? I once apparently reverted a senior advisor to the president. You gotta step up your game. GMG^talk 00:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What does one do after their 15 minutes of fame? O3000 (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I can think of few things as pathetic as being kicked out of Wikipedia, and then writing about Wikipedia from the outside. – What, you never heard of Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Review, Wikipediocracy, [77]? EEng 04:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Images

I am sorry to see that you've been given a hard time offsite regarding your recent editing on a high-profile article.

However, I do have to agree with other editors above that the images you added to the talkpage discussion there are inappropriate to the serious context of that discussion, to such a degree that I have removed them. As I did once before, and as others did above, I'll suggest that these humorous interpolations be reserved for contexts to which they aren't jarringly unsuited in tone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Not my best efforts, certainly. But what is this, cleanup day? If you don't cut it out I'm going to hire Flyer to put together a harassment case against you. Next you'll be removing this image [78] too. "I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?" EEng 07:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one. I'm actually working on an article at the moment, so I'll leave it to others to deal with the crop crap. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more of a crop crack. EEng 12:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. Paul August ☎ 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused

Completely unrelated to the above ... I was planning to move this page, after the MfD closed as Keep, from "Editors who may be confused" to "Editors whose usernames may be confused." I think that's a better title for the page, and likely to avoid, um, confusion, since the reference is to mix-ups of usernames and not people's addled mental states. After having posted the above, I decided it would be too much for me to make that change unilaterally and maybe look like I'm quashing another joke, so I'll just leave the idea here instead. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have always considered you a gentleman and a scholar. EEng 07:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:John Maynard Friedman § AN/I § Please revdel edit summary containing offensive, ableist personal attack from User:John Maynard Friedman

I'm sorry, I don't think it's allowed for me to reply at JMF's talk page. Even PermaLink/966748849 was ill advised, I do believe...the rev. I'm talking about is PermaLink/966741182. As far as deleting the thread, I do respect your advice, really, and under other circumstances I'd take it, but it's been nothing but attacks and misrepresentations from JMF, in my view. Trolls email me little man multiple times a day in retaliation for my activism against QAnon/8chan, which I haven't even done too much of lately, yet the emails keep coming. It's one of my ignored phrases on Twitter, along with little boy. I want there to be a record he said this, and an admin read it, and decided it contravened WP:CRD. I don't want it swept under the rug, because if he's willing to say this to me, who knows what other slur he's willing to call another editor who upsets him. This can't be worked out without an apology from him, and even then I'm going to avoid interaction as much as possible. It's really upset me. Wikipedia is something of a safe space for me, free of the personal attacks I suffer everywhere else online, and it's been violated. If that sounds overly SJW to you, or millenial, or leftist, or whatever, I'm sorry, but I'm not in a good place mentally right now after, well, what is mentioned at the end of my article, about me leaving the Philippines, my home of six years. I was diagnosed with major depression probably due to an adjustment disorder as it happened in February and many days all I manage to do is edit this site, and on days I don't, I do nothing or next to it. This is on top of WP:ASPERGERS, diagnosed since age 15, and OCD, which I'm not on anything for as I don't like any of the options and my obsessions don't bother me. Sorry to bombard you with info you probably don't care about, I just want you to know where I'm coming from. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really sorry this is all happening. Look, can you just take my advice (i.e. delete your post at ANI) just temporarily? Let me see what I can do because – again – ANI should be your last resort. If I fail you can always repost at ANI. EEng 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman ANI clsing summary

Well said. I appreciate the positive efforts you've made toward resolving that incident. You certainly make my job as admin an easier one. So, thank you, EEng. Keep doing good. El_C 12:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't get too used to it. My parole officer says that put the final touch on my community service hours so as soon as the ankle bracelet's off I'll be back to my usual appalling self. EEng 14:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, since I don't want you to regret your kind words, I want to be sure you understand that ...

• This [79] was sincerely meant.
• This [80] was sincerely meant.
• This [81] was sincerely meant.
• OK, this [82] was not sincerely meant, though it had a message. (The implication that the things he wrote at ANI were somehow P's fault was the last straw.)

The lesson? I really am the nicest guy in the world, just like you thought, and willing to go to some length to help my fellow editors, but there's a certain kind of IDHT that gets my Irish up. (I must say these partial blocks do save a lot of drama.) EEng 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Followup: Buried in this rambling post [83] is a point I've made before, which is that I've never understood why we go to the trouble of redacting PAs and legal threats and so on. I think it's better to just collapse or strike them; otherwise others are left to guess what's in them, and newbies can't learn from them. EEng 15:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't revdelete Vanisaac's comment. It remains in the permanent revisions for all to see. Sorry to see that Bison-X continues to be unhelpful by personally attacking you. I have warned them against continuing to do so. El_C 16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but even without revdel someone has to dig a bit to find what was said, so instead they imagine things; not a big deal but, as I said, I've always thought keeping things out in the sunshine is best. As for me, well, as someone once said [84], EEng who, and I'm fairly confident that he would agree with me on this, seems pretty much flameproof, and who is quite capable of breathing hilarious-but-scorching flame himself when the need arises. [85]. So while I appreciate the sentiment there are others who need the defense more, and anyway I don't think any advice you give BX is going to sink in. EEng 17:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

My advise remains: to have some decorum to context. I try to view things from the viewpoint of the victim when there's victimization. Anyway, no further admin intervention is needed at this time, so I don't feel obliged to keep going on about this with them. Otherwise, they are free to bring to review anything they see fit at any time. El_C 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually don't know what "decorum to context" means (though it has a nice ring to it). EEng 21:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

A sense of decorum that's governed by the context of the incident in question. It's not a riddle! El_C 21:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I see, sort of like "add salt to taste". EEng 21:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng, just so you know, Ivanvector seems to have forgotten to notify you as per WP:BLOCK that you are blocked from editing a user's talk page. I am sure it was just an oversight. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of such a surgical block is to reduce drama, and imposing such a block silently achieves that very nicely, I think. The blocked editor finds out about the block in due course if need be, and if they object they can contact the blocking admin directly – unlike with a normal block, which restricts the editor to their own talk page. (If policy doesn't actually allow such silent blocks it should, I think.) EEng 05:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the block reduced drama but in retrospect I handled notification badly for this. For what it's worth and I'm sure you know already, I blocked you because you were interrupting a discussion which otherwise looked to be quickly heading for resolution among the offended parties, and while I'm sure you meant to help, their reactions to your comments should have shown you were not; I blocked when you started commenting what looked to me like parting shots. My apologies for not saying so then; I should also have said so in the discussion: clearly everyone else wasn't aware because they kept asking you to leave when you couldn't reply. Honestly I had not interpreted that the policy requires a notification, I spend most of my blocks on sockpuppets who as a rule I don't notify. Thanks to you both for the reminder. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks are still new. We are in uncharted realms. Norms of decorum (that was for you, EEng) are, at this time, poorly-codified. What may seem intuitive may clash with the longstanding block policy. Still, editors in good standing deserve a notification with any sanction whatsoever, I think. Not that this is a big deal. It isn't. For my part, I welcome the input and intervention of other admins to this incident. El_C 15:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Skip the drama

Hey, I saw your comment. I like the approach of directly being able to communicate with admins. Sometimes, I feel that someone is breaking a policy but I'm not sure and putting something on WP:ANI is definitely very accusatory (as if you know for sure they're bad). What kinda things did you mean by "skip the drama"? I'm curious to know your thoughts! VR _talk 18:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean any time you think you can get done what needs doing by contacting an individual admin, you should try that. ANI is perhaps the most-watched page on the project, and every thread opened siphons off a huge amount of editor energy just from people reading it. EEng 19:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The last time this report was run (in 2017!) ANI was #10. I have some doubts about these results. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Well there's clearly something very weird going on, with Lea Luboshutz, Russian violinist, being the #5 most-watched page, barely edged out by Draft:Lea Luboshutz. And the main page, which is #1, actually never changes, being nothing but transclusions of other pages which host the actual content. EEng 20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you care, the explanation is fairly uninteresting. Someone who'd been here long enough to know better moved WP:Sandbox to Draft:Lea Luboshutz, taking all its watchers with it. Those people who are genuinely watching it will have unwatched Luboshutz as soon as the edits started showing up on their watchlist, but 99% of the Sandbox's watchers are zombie accounts who checked "add all pages I edit to my watchlist" when they set up their original preferences and subsequently made a test edit to the sandbox, and never edited again so it remains on their watchlist. (At the time of writing, the sandbox has 19,069 'watchers', only 733 of whom are actually active.)

The reason Main Page has so many watchers is simple; while the MP itself never changes, Talk:Main Page is one of the most active talkpages on the project and because of the way Mediawiki handles watchlisting, the two come as a package deal. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Now you've gone and taken all the mystery out of it! EEng 18:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

White House Farm murders

Noted you have recently devoted time and focus to the Jeremy Bamber articles, EEng. I have several printed sources, and can delve. If you need any sections expanding or facts citing, let me know. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey there! Of course I wouldn't dream of doing anything substantive on White House without you, but first ... remember Moors Murders? There are (literally) 20 books on my shelf that have been waiting a year for me to get back to that. It'll be a big job, and you're gonna need to contribute too! I thought the pandemic would be a perfect opportunity to get deep into that, but turns out there's a lot of things needing doing during a pandemic if you really look for them. But I'm committed to following through on Moors.

So for now, on White House I'm just trying to clear out the underbrush. It's impossible to read, much less comprehend, because of the haphazard organization, the jumping around in time, and the tone/overdetail problems. But, again, getting into real substance will have to wait until Moors is put to bed. (Actually, two things have already come up you might be able to address: (1) there's a confused paragraph on the parents' estates -- see the {explain} templates; (2) search the word grandmother -- which grandmother disowned him?) EEng 04:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well *coughs* (non-COVID-19) the firm I work for is considered an essential public service, EEng, so I had and have to work through the pandemic (not that I get public applause). I actually don't have this article on my watchlist, but may add it back. Just read sections and noted you were devoting focus. As for the Moors Murders article, it seems to have stagnated, I'll delve into that again going forward. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've read and annotated two or three of the main works on the Moors case, but there are several more to go before I can even begin to take stock. Somewhere we (you and me and Levivich and several others) did talk about a general plan for things that needed to be done; the one I remember in particular is the article completely fails to address social impact of the case. All in good time. EEng 23:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

June Bamber was the daughter of Leslie and Mabel Speakman. They had two daughters, but no son. Pamela married Robert Boutflour in '47; June Nevill Bamber in 1949. Therefore, as both married farmers themselves, the family wealth and property was to be bequeathed (I believe) between their daughters' families. The will was changed with David(?) Boutflour's encouragement in September of '85, with Jeremy Bamber removed as a beneficiary. This link may be of interest. --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Good work. As you can see the same kind of ownership impulses are bubbling to the surface as those which caused so much trouble on Moors, so batten down the hatches. EEng 02:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Think I receive the nautical direction. Aft it is. On top, though, I have to add that greater emphasis needs to be added to the "Jeremy innocent" advocates' claims.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You may very well be right about emphasis problem; the problem is that, as it stands, it's impossible to absorb what the article currently contains -- much less evaluate it for balance -- because of its constant jumping around.

From what you say you seem to be ready to give special attention to the hatches aft, which is good because we don't want any aft holes getting in the way of whipping this article into something like readable shape. EEng 02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Déjà vu. Whatever happened to Moors murders, I wonder... El_C 02:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I devote focus on one article at a time, typically, as I am sure you know. I'm more than wiling to devote focus upon areas of concern for yous. I will refocus on the Moors Murders article too in short time. El_C a collective focus is what we all wish for. Deja vu means something different to me... --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, I'm not sure what you're asking or saying exactly, but it does seem that murder brings out the worst in our fellow editors. See also Insiders Call The White House 'Crazytown ... EEng 03:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Good, I remain a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a vest. El_C 03:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(responding to ping) England has a house they call the "White House"? They're such copycats. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Joke

I assume "Just a reminder that Arbcom has authorized escalating blocks for editors employing coy circumlocutions for boomerang is a joke, right? I don't keep up with ArbCom. - Alexis Jazz 12:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

No joke. I was completely serious. Really. Absolutely. No kidding. EEng 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Should of used the {{FBDB}} template... PackMecEng (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's "should HAVE used the {{FBDB}} template", you illiterate. EEng 22:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC) And stop calling me illiterate. My mom and dad have been married for 75 years!

I am going to have to play the ESL card on that one! PackMecEng (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Dirty foreigner. EEng 23:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing that discussion, I don't think it's proper that Guy should be blocking the OP of a thread about Guy.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)^{[Confused editor?]}

Some Guys are not to be messed with. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I figured it might be a heavily overused joke that everyone got really sick of or something. While I figured it had to be a joke, I wasn't 100% sure.. So you got me. Of course I may get you back some day. - Alexis Jazz 04:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You're in the big leagues now, kid, so prepare yourself. EEng 23:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Run. —valereee (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Once and for all

Let's settle this once and for all. Which is better?

1. "Address the edit, not the editor"
2. "Comment on the content, not the contributor" Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Be pedantic, not a pedant. —valereee (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, Valereee, Levivich may have met his match. I'll just note that all of the above are good starts for {{Burma-shave}}s. EEng 13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I come bearing another gift~（｀・ω・´）

The first two gifts (§ I think these new userboxes I made fit your aesthetic; § {{!tqi}} / {{!tqqi}}) fell a bit flat. (I despise all things French.; I'm not quite getting the use case. [...] I remain mystified.)

However, I am nothing if not persistent. I just see you as especially difficult to amuse, a fun side quest on Wikipedia. "Amuse EEng with a template".

So, let's see if I've managed it this time. Third time has got to be the charm!

See {{rainbow}}. Despite its name, you can actually choose any colors.

It's got some bugs, but haven't we all? (Don't answer that.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 21:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Added to the toolbox [86]. But really, my man, no need to shower me with such gifts. EEng 01:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I love this so much --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

not this again picture

Do you know the name of the image that expresses this sentiment so poignantly? I could use it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, DFO, what are you talking about? Wait, you mean this? EEng 01:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit description

Thank you for the laugh, one of the best helpful yet funny edits. Philotimo (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for bringing a civil and engaging comment in the article's talk page. At least you read something about Pedro II, instead of basing yourself in guesswork or a simple dislike about something in the text. That's refreshing. I might have a couple of issues with your opinion, but they have a foundation. --Lecen (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, EEng. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to be confused with "You've got male" CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

Speedy deletion of <redacted>

The page <redacted> has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

per user request

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bishonen | tålk 15:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Bz. Before anyone panics, this was per a user's request that the page be renamed; it lives on as WP:Iron Law of Infobox Ubiquity. EEng 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And, do you know.... she's got a lovely box. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the garden. I'm your host, EEng. Here, have a piece of fruit.

Your user talk page is a garden of delights. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Grade inflation at harvard

Asking about your recent edit here. What makes this a "shock statistic", other than that some may be shocked to learn that it is a statistic? How would you like it to be contextualized? Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a statistic which was obtained by shocking scientists until they gave the answer we wanted. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

For starters (in no particular order): [87] [88] [89] [90]. EEng 18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the context you want was already provided by the previous sentence on the page. The sentence I added to the page was simply-stated and factual information. Of course various people may disagree about whether it is a positive or a negative fact. So why shouldn't it be included? Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

So you think the history of a 400-year-old institution should include this year's percentage of A's? EEng 21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we continue this at the harvard talk page Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Bah. Floating space monkeys are people too, you know!! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a while since anyone made a pass at me. Incidentally, you must have completely exhausted yourself preparing that report; just to lighten your load next time, it's not necessary to notify editors who are merely tangentially mentioned in a report. EEng 14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Too true. These days there's no way you're gonna get away with throwing monkeys at a wall and seeing what sticks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eeng, I thought the expectation was to always alert other eds when you mention them, regardless of venue? It's how I would like to be treated, so.... but thanks, you're right, I find documenting long running low intensity problems of that sort to be hard, since the community seems to ignore them if you don't paint the whole picture. And sometimes even if you do... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's not a problem, just trying to (as I said) lighten your load next time you write a 100K ANI report. (I was amused that you quoted my "Uh oh". That was a very complete report.) The rule (as stated in the box at the top of the ANI page) is to notify anyone you are "reporting", which presumably means the person(s) at whom you are trying to direct the community's wrath. Notifying others (who will probably be pinged, depending on the technique by which you mention them, and on their preference settings) is probably optional, and in fact I could see an argument that pinging all the person the reportee (if that's a word) has tangled with might be seen as canvassing. In practice, though, I've never seen anything like any of these questions be a real issue. EEng 18:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

so true and too funny! "...very complete report..." thanks for the laugh NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

80 posts ?

EEng..I don`t understand what you meant by " says the IP who has made 80 post " I may have quoted you incorrectly word for word but it`s essentially what you said..I just don`t get..what is that supposed to mean ? Why did you say it ? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment here [91] was intended to highlight the fact that you were dispensing advice along the lines of "Behavior X won't get you very far on Wikipedia" to an editor with literally 500 times the editing experience you appear to have. EEng 23:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Why didn`t you just say that instead directing a borderline personal attack at me ? this guy who is constantly referring to himself as "we" isn`t exactly endearing himself to others..I was just trying to point that out 2600:1702:2340:9470:C66:8450:D2FC:FDCF (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"We" (meaning Wikipedia – ""We do this", "We don't do that") is appropriate when explaining the project's fundamental rules and practices on which there's no debate whatsoever. When there's a living accused person, or likely to be one later, "we" don't label a death murder without an official determination on that point. As Stephen Leacock put it, "Newspapermen learn to call a murderer an alleged murderer and the King of England the alleged King of England to avoid libel suits." EEng 02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You could have just said that..actually if someone had said that from the beginning I`d have never said a word..I don`t appreciate the condescending attitude toward me regarding my 80 edits..the "we" thing was just plain obnoxious the way it was used..do not include me in your group because it suits your purpose..

Can you at least explain the red links to me ? Some lead to page does not exist other to editors with 100`s if not 1000`s of edits..it`s confusing..

The alleged king of England ? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:4E4:5FFD:55DC:40F2 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what red links you're talking about. My very strong suggestion to you, if you want to contribute to the project, is that you create an account, which will give you credibility. If you have further questions about how Wikipedia works or how to edit, the Teahouse is a great place to ask. EEng 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A redlinked user name just means the editor hasn't created their user page yet. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

80 edits? I'm surprised you're not already gon. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Today in translation humor

I was just taking a stroll by fawiki (to remove some cross-wiki spam), when I tripped their abuse filter. Apparently Google translate thinks that their phrase for "abuse filter" is more properly translated as "sabotage factory" (see, for example, w:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:پالایه_ویرایش. I vote we call the edit filter the sabotage factory from now on. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Also fawiki has a user group called "Eliminators" (admin-light, I think). Maybe I should just move to fawiki... GeneralNotability (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a f-f-s-wiki? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like something from a novel about the dystopian future. There'd "Lawgivers", "Eliminators", a "Sabotage Factory" (for some reason) and so on.

Actually, I figured out the factory. My translator's giving Sabotage refinery where I think you're getting Sabotage factory. So I think it goes mw:Extension:AbuseFilter -> refinement:sabotage -> sabotage refinery -> sabotage factory. No idea where eliminators came from, but whatever they are we should have them here for sure.

I see also that regular expressions comes out (after a round trip into Farsi) regular phrases, and this gives me an excuse to tell a story. When my advisor – who for 50 years almost single-handedly created and nurtured the computer science program at <name of breathtakingly prestigious institution of higher learning redacted> – finally announced that he would retire someday (though he didn't say when exactly) there was a big celebration. I mean, not a celebration because people were happy he was retiring, but a celebration of CS at <prestigious institution> in honor of him.

Somehow I got the responsibility of creating a <my advisor>-themed crossword puzzle for the program booklet – you know, something fun. I really got into it, and even if I do say so myself it was terrific. Much of it was lofty and inspirational. For example, one answer was the name of his wife, who happened to be the director of undergraduate admissions; the clue was "She supplies the fires to be lit". But other items were, shall we say, more earthy; for the answer "RE" (which in computer geekery means "regular expression") the clue was "Visage of those who get enough roughage". Whether my advisor ever worked this puzzle I do not know. EEng 23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused

I'm truly honored! Thank you, EEng! --Bsherr (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It is I who am honored to work with so many easily confused editors. EEng 03:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack by EEng. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

As usual, I missed the dramah because I was busy working on articles (specifically rescuing a draft so it wouldn't be nuked) .... typical Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ritchie333: Sucha set of priorities. What is Wikipedia coming to? You'd think we were here to write an encyclopedia. 😜 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Personally I think the idea about WMF handing out meds has definitely got legs. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• This was terrible editing advice, though. Where does E think haiku closes and burma-shaves come from? Lev!vich 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  A warped imagination, of course. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly! They come from Turbo Mind Warp and similar varieties. Lev!vich 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  So rude! That EEng's a real skunk, bro. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Calling EEng a "real skunk" is not a personal attack. But calling him a "fake skunk" would be. And if you smoke too much, you might call him a "skank funk". And think that it's funny. Anyway, EEng, there's deodorant for that, bro. And better to stick with edibles. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, Trypy. Your science-based explanations are always immaculate! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) ....and how your fans really see you...

  Trippy, indeed. The guy in that video was my PhD thesis advisor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• The whole civil issue is one that needs to be TNT'ed and rebuilt because it is the policy that is wholly dependent on the whims of the corrupt administration. While I agree with the outcome of the ANI here, that saying "your edit is X" is not the same thing as saying "you are X." I was blocked for saying, "Your edit is X" because an admin said, "if you say an edit is X, that means the person is X" and I was blocked for a personal attack.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Phew! What a relief that you never moved on to Os! [92] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: "You know that's how the story goes" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well AFAICS you were blocked once for Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project [93] and once for So in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel [94]. Those are personal attacks -- not the worst by far, but still personal attacks. And context matters. EEng 21:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  And context matters. Amen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  I wasn't referring to that one. I was referring to a block by El_C. And, I am also TBANNED right now for calling out an edit, not an editor, yet the discussion didn't make that distinction. And with El_C, the distinction wasn't made at all, because if I say, "your post is idiotic" then that means you're an idiot for posting an idiotic post. Which I think is incorrect, because even smart people can post an idiotic post once in a while. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  As mentioned earlier, context matters. EEng 03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Special K

Thanks for setting up the redirect for the Mathematicks professorship entry. Robma (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure. Perhaps you will enjoy Andrew Gleason, which my friend David Eppstein and I whipped into shape some years ago. He was a wonderful person and after all these years I still miss him. EEng 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Please don't template the regulars. --Tryptofish

And don't regulate the templars either. --Tryptofish

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Please don't template the regulars, it's rude. Paul August ☎ 14:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring on a guideline is far ruder, and far more destabilising on top. EEng should know better than to try forcing a guideline rewrite by edit-warring. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Whatever sins EEng may have committed, does not justify you being rude to him. Paul August ☎ 15:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: this is of an incredible rudeness, after I already replied to you. Stay off my talk page, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I left that message on your talk page, because I hadn't notice that you had also left the same message here on Flyer22 Frozen's talkpage as well. I thought that also warranted pointing out. I'm sorry you thought my messages to you were rude, that was not my intent. I think it's important, when we see editors not treating each other as well as we might to point that out. (EEng can vouch for that.) And I don't think doing so is rude. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh and for the record, I hadn't seen your message to me above when I left my message on your talk page. Paul August ☎ 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two magic words one should please try to use. They are "please" and "thank you". Thank you. runs to avoid being struck by flying objects --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We sit in the same boat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I see a certain irony in using a template to ask a Knight Templater to not template the regulars, however, I seem to be missing the rudeness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Uh ... whose rudeness are you missing? Frances'? Mine? EEng's? Paul August ☎ 16:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

More irony. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Francis Schonken: I personally don't mind getting templated, because it tells me right off who I'm dealing with. None of us needs instruction or reminders about appropriate behavior, certainly not from you. But you need some. When someone puts a lot of work into something via localized, bite-sized changes, it's incredibly rude and dismissive to simply revert it all at once with meaningless edit summary like

too many changes that seem counterproductive on first sight, were never discussed, or are far from getting talk page consensus, or any combination of these rationales [95]].

As I responded at the time [96]:

"too many" is not a reason to mass-revert multiple changes, nor is that they "seem" counterproductive "at first sight", or "were not discussed". They can't ALL be unhelpful. Feel free to give them a second look (i.e. actually look at them) and revert or build on individual changes selectively, with actual reasons. But mass reversion of multiple others' work because you don't want to take the time to review is not OK/

But of course, instead of doing any actual work, you came here to leave your idiot template. EEng 19:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We need something like a swear jar for every time someone skirts NPA by calling an edit "idiot:. point of order, needs an "ic" at the end. not agreeing with the description. just a once upon a time English major --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(Slightly o/t, and asking EEng's indulgence): Deepfriedokra, nah, and I'm sure you're not a descriptivist, and you have to admit, "idiot template" is much pithier, has better meter, and fits the tone better here, so I'd argue it is "correct". OTOH, if you want to propose an "irony jar" (as you previously alluded), you can sign me right up. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Indulgence? You'll be needing a priest for that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Francis Schonken, leaving that template here was rude. Calling Paul August "rude" for appropriately and respectfully requesting you not template the regulars was risible. Hijacking EEng's talk page to air your misplaced grievances about rudeness is rude. Henry II's quotation comes to mind. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Taken in context, that's out of contect. One might reply "Peace on Earth to men of good will. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Don't understand. Indented reply target misunderstanding, perhaps? Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I moved the end brackets now; is that what you meant? (And now I feel we're on the verge of hijacking EEng's TP; withdrawing... Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Indent as thou willst shalt be the whole of the law. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• While it's fun indeed, I'd actually appreciate it if people would focus more on F.S.'s mass reversion without giving a cognizable reason (linked in my rant above) than on the templating. (Though both are symptoms of valuing form over substance, of course.) EEng 21:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd love to see someone create Template:Idiot. Maybe with Trump's photo on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Somebody did, on 7 August 2005. Its content was, verbatim, "The last person who edited this page (not including me!) is a BIG FAT IDIOT!". It was deleted four minutes later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Before my time here – I shoulda' checked the page history. Well, at least there is Template:Idiot Box. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! EEng 00:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

back by popular demand, or, splenic dyspepsia --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As a fellow relic it is glorious to be a notable part of the past as well as a beacon to the future. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Help?

This is somewhat unclear

Will this help? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi EEng, I came across this carving while visiting a church in Derbyshire recently. Wondered if you could help me to work out what's going on in it, I can't quite make it out. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Blowed if I know.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that sucks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, yes, it's frustrating isn't it? I just can't get my head around it. They say two heads are better than one - if only someone would be willing to donate theirs to help solve this conundrum, it might give me some relief. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That sort of thing can be very hard to swallow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why don't one of you post that image over at meta:Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#The_problem_of_the_"untouchable"_'jester' to show those killjoys what clean, harmless fun we have here at enwp? EEng 20:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Because he jest shouldn't be touching him that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

any help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I'm afraid not - you've got the right church, but the carvings aren't mentioned in the listing. I've checked Pevsner, but he doesn't shed any light either. If I go there again, I might see whether I can gather any oral accounts to satisfy my curiosity, but of course that would be OR for our purposes. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Not many can handle hardwood with such mastery; clearly, a devotional work. I can't quite make out what's happening on the backside though. Lev!vich 00:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

this has a pic, perhaps a trace? Ceoil perhaps? Peter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I realize you posted here looking for help but I'd say it's at the church itself that you'll find the succor you need. EEng 01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks anyway. In an entirely unrelated note, I was thinking about creating a list of all of Zeus's mortal lovers. I started out with high spirits, but I'm afraid that my enthusiasm rather fell at io. Such is the nature of editing here I suppose. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 01:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo has mortal lovers? EEng 02:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's a bishop blessing someone, possibly a Confirmation. Not sure about the person behind, but bishops usually have a companion of some sort. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm sure you're right, thanks. Some nice pics there Gerda Arendt, you have a knack for finding interesting stuff. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a companion of some sort. EEng 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• In the words of the deathless Tom Lehrer [97]:

When correctly viewed
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz—
There's a dirty old man!

EEng 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Crikey - when you said deathless, I thought you meant 'will be remembered forever'. I hadn't realised he was still alive, that's cheering. His Irish ballad was was always my favourite, my dad used to sing it to us in the car, thirty plus years ago now... GirthSummit _(blether) 14:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My friend Andrew Gleason (himself gone now – and we will not see his like again, I'm afraid) told me many stories about him. Apparently he's as fun in person as you might imagine. See [98] [99] [100]. EEng 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Acronyms are the spice of life

Why do we have WP:CURLY and WP:MOE but not WP:LARRY? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If you put "Template:Larry" into the search box, and let it offer suggestions, there are a bunch of them, for persons with that first name. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize the insult to Shemp you have placed on the most watched page in Wikipedia? O3000 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick, someone write a page called Wikipedia:Let admins readily revert you.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(cough) Wikipedia:LARRY --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

BS

		The Surreal Barnstar
		If you do not like his postsJust what bothers you the most?If you do like, drink a toast,To the jokester with the most!Burma-shave --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No new posts?

These posts look pretty old. --Tryptofish

How am I to be entertained? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You've got it bad. Try reviewing the archives. Maybe that'll hold you. EEng 18:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Stella Immanuel

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons is not Wikipedia

Sometimes, the truth is hard to vase. DFO

A Ming is a terrible thing to waste.

Or never to have had a mind.

And you take the U.N.C.F. model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful.

Commons is not Wikipedia

Because of the way Commons media are embedded into pages on other projects, Commons needs to work differently to other projects. They do not necessarily follow the policies of Wikipedia or other projects. Please stop citing Wikipedia policies on Commons, where those policies do not apply.

(Posted here because of this: “If you want to contact me, drop a line at w:User talk:EEng. I'm here very seldom.”)

Brianjd (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean policies like Use common sense? I realize that's a foreign concept at Commons, common sense being in such short supply over there, but I venture there so seldom that I keep forgetting. EEng 16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

At Commons, we have a c:COM:NCS policy. Any context for the popcorn-eating TPSs around here, or nah? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I cropped out a vase (see File history at the bottom of c:File:Congresswoman_Pelosi_meets_San_Francisco's_District_Attorney,_Kamala_Harris;_March_30,_2004.jpg) and got accused of "vandalism". You can imagine my reaction [101]. EEng 17:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Brianjd, what is the Wikipedia policy that EEng has been accused of mentioning on Commons? If it's WP:VANDALISM, you yourself said, EEng said that good faith edits are never vandalism, which matches my understanding of the word “vandalism”. P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What are you, some sort of anti-vaseite? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm unpleasantly reminded of an incident some years ago, when I found the culture at Commons to be even more problematic than that here at en-Wiki (which, in my current state of mind, is really saying something). An en-Wiki editor got blocked at Commons over what was basically a mis-communication, and vented at the Commons admin over the admin not having understood something that they should have understood. In return, the en-Wiki editor was called a "racist", and when I pointed out that this was an inappropriate thing to say, I was threatened (unsuccessfully) with a Commons block myself. Facepalm . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you're just not mellow enough to let that little jibe fly. </sarc>--WaltCip-(talk) 22:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Mellow! As I understand that, they use the phrase "be mellow" to mean "don't disagree with me". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:, "They call me Mellow Yellow, (quitely rightly)". "I'm just mad about Saffron, she's just mad about me."..."Electrical banana, Is bound to be the very next phase." "Donovan - Mellow Yellow Lyrics | MetroLyrics". www.metrolyrics.com. Oh, 1966...hit them with a mellow banana. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Electrical banana, Is bound to be the very next phase – Huh. Maybe Donovan was an electrical engineer. See Polyphase_system#Higher_phase_order. Never thought of that. EEng 05:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess that's what happens following a botched vase-sectomy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Whoa...colour me fazed! Mellow Yellow Electrical Banana, or somesuch, sounds like a good name for LSD, back in the day. Nowadays, we must be concerned about our Mings...er, minds. Higher phase order sounds like something from Star Trek. Kirk to Scotty: "Shift us to higher phase order!" Scotty: "Aye, Captain, 'tis faster than warp speed!" Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: User talk:EEng#Commons is not Wikipedia was originally a level 2 heading, but EEng demoted it to a level 3 heading. I was not referring to the most recent incident, already described here by EEng, but rather previous sections on the talk page regarding similar incidents. Brianjd (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think common sense is specifically banned on Commons, but I forget the link. But it was foolish not to upload the crop as a new image, which should be done in all but exteme(ly useless) cases. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, just because you're a fine-arts junkie and all into vases and stuff. But I'm afraid even your criterion of extremely useless is not going to save us – check out c:User talk:EEng#Photo_cropping. (Ouch – I did unthinkingly cite some WP guidelines there.) EEng 21:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Some prefer the switch, others prefer the crop.

EEng is officially allowed to crop this one further if he should like.

• “Break a vase, and the love that reassembles the fragments is stronger than that love which took its symmetry for granted when it was whole.” --Derek Walcott. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a close-up? DFO
Not of the image just above it, it isn't. TRYP

EEng was here!

• You know about {{CSS image crop}}, right? No need to change the image on commons when you can just use the part of it that you want here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  That always seemed problematic to me, since if the image at Commons changes in some way then your article suddenly displays a closeup of the person's shoulder. EEng 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe that's one reason that commons prefers significant changes to images to be done as a new upload? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Except even any change can screw up the CSS image crop thing, and they do allow some changes (even if no one can seem to explain what those allowed changes are). So as usual it's all a house of cards with half-baked rules not-solving the problem. EEng 22:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  All you had to do after you cropped it was click on "save as new image", but no, you had to devase the original. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate the attribution--it seems I am finally a real Wikipedian! Feel free to use to your heart's content. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. Imagine – with a mere wave of my wand I can grant any peon immortality. EEng 05:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry but you misspelled the correct word - it's not immortality - remove the "t" - surely it was a slip of the left index finger. It happens. 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

You are displaying serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues here, the history off that page is just you reverting editors who have made changes. Do I need to raise this at ANI or are you going to slow down and start co-operating? GiantSnowman 10:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that an ANI thread of that nature will consist of a lot of hostility with no resolution. My advice is, instead, to have an RfC about any content disputes, and to expect all editors to accept whatever consensus emerges from that. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting. In your contemplated complaint will you be supplying diffs, citing guidelines, and addressing the merits of the edits themselves (as I have been doing), or will you make accusations without evidence, claim that guidelines say the opposite of what they say, and mindlessly assert that what you happen to have seen in other articles is the way every article has to be (as you have been doing)?

You made three edits yesterday. Two were directly contrary to guidelines and completely inappropriate:

• In this edit [102] you removed the subject's middle initial from the infobox header, justifying that change (after I reverted) with the incorrect statement that "we use name of article" [103]. In fact, Template:Infobox_person provides that If middle initials are specified (or implied) by the lead of the article, and are not specified separately in the |birth_name= parameter, include them here.
• In this edit [104] you used a script to change the established format for access dates in references (in violation of MOS:DATERET), remove a hidden note intended for future article improvement, and alter direct quotations. Apparently you failed to review the script's changes before saving; Tsk tsk.

In the third edit, you changed the article's opening from

Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was ...

to

Phineas P. Gage (July 9, 1823 – May 21, 1860) was ...

This is a matter of editorial discretion; MOS:BIRTHDATE endorses both approaches (given that the full dates are given both in the infobox and in the article text proper). The article has long been the way it is, I think it's the better way, and have explained why [105]. You boldly changed it and I reverted, but instead of giving reasons you simply restored your preferred version with the meaningless statement that your approach is "standard for ledes" [106], by which you apparently mean that's what you've seen in other articles so that's the way it has to be, as if the guideline doesn't exist. Any actual... ya know, reasons for your change? I seem to recall your fellow admin David Eppstein addressing this question at some point, so perhaps he will have some comment.

On top of everything else, in violation of WP:MINOR you marked all three edits as minor, which none of them were. I would have thought though that an admin with such an extensive record of script gnoming and creation of literally thousands and thousands of stubs on soccer players would know better.

Your kind of blind minsitrations perhaps, on average, improve typical ill-developed junky articles that have grown by hook or by crook without careful attention by experienced editors, but when you run into a highly developed article you should think twice to be sure you know what you're doing – not just close your eyes and hit <SAVE>. Our esteemed fellow editor Beyond My Ken put it very well [107]:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all ... Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article ... Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on.

I look forward to your ANI complaint. Should be fun. EEng 17:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S. The foregoing was mostly for the record. What would really happen at ANI, I humbly predict, is that someone will point out that you've made no attempt to discuss, after which someone else will, if we are lucky, add a Burma-shave:

NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave

---

Hmmm. DFO

Are GiantSnowman and/or TheRamblingMan (indistinguishable in this specific behavior) still going around using automated date-conversion scripts? The only way I found to keep them at bay was to use a very specific use-date template for all articles I create. (That is, if you really want numerical archive-date and access-date, add the highly-obvious parameter |cs1-dates=ly to the {{use mdy dates}} template.) GiantSnowman's alteration of three direct quotes in the pursuit of date standardization shows the danger of unchecked scripts for this purpose. Anyway, I totally agree re the point you actually mentioned me for: that year ranges can be adequate in the lead sentence even when more precise dates are known, as long as those dates are expanded later. MOS:BIRTHDATE "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Fish and karate meets Deepfriedokra ^{Atsme _Talk 📧 21:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)}

I certainly don't want to dash anyone's hopes, but after a look at it, it does seem to me that MOS:DASH indicates that chapter and page ranges should be done with n-dashes rather than hyphens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Dash it all! ANother MOS dust-up? Where will it all end? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Great Ghu! By the color purple, sacred unto Ghu, who is Great. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So there actually was something called the Hyphen War! I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

But what did the Goo Goos have to do with it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but what concerns me most is the possibility of a cross between Deepfriedokra and Fish and karate - all kinds of visions swirl around in my head such as fried fish served on a platter with breaded okra - but in order to enjoy that meal, you have to know karate to fend off the opposition. ^{Atsme Talk 📧 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)}

Why Atsme, you used hyphens when you should have used n-dashes! (And I can vouch that my brain has been fried for a long time!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahem...A man eating fish was miraculously saved by a hyphen from a man-eating fish. Your safety was my only concern. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

You see me here a veteran of a thousand hyphen wars. My energy's gone at last and my armor is destroyed. I've used up all my weapons, and I'm helpless and bereaved. Wounds are all I'm made of. apologies to Blue Öyster Cult --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I rarely get this opportunity...if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen...what better fit than now? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Never let it be said that Star Trek fans have a sense of humor

Sigh... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Spock was our first clue back in the day: "May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with Humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant." ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image syntax

Re Jean Berko Gleason, please remember to WP:AGF. What Dhpage and I both did in this article was to fix the image syntax so that the article is not listed in Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images per the documentation there and at WP:IBI.

The current version of the article is listed in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax and is susceptible to being fixed again, although this category is not currently addressed as attentively as Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images.

I would appreciate it if you did not disparage editors acting within consensus with edit summaries like "pay attention" or "you f***ed it up".

If you feel the image needs to be displayed in a non-default ratio, you should ask at {{infobox academic}} for support of |upright=. MB 03:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

AGF means I'm supposed to assume you're trying to help, and of that I have no doubt, but at the same time WP:CIR says that I don't have to blindly pretend you know what you're doing, which you don't.

• I made an editorial decision that the reader's experience would be improved by adding |upright= to adjust the size of the image [108], though in doing so I unthinkingly used |thumb= instead of (as called for by WP:IBI) using |frameless= – sorry, force of habit.
• Instead of simply correcting thumb to frameless (as – I repeat – called for by WP:IBI, which you are citing) you mindlessly reverted my change [109]. So, yeah, you didn't (as your edit summary claimed) "fix" anything; instead (as I said [110]) you fucked it up.
• I realized my mistake and reinserted the size adjustment using frameless [111].
• And now you're here telling me that the article is listed in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax (apparently one of those categories gnomes use to give them something to do so they can feel useful) and therefore is susceptible to being fixed again. In other words, apparently having nothing useful to do, you plan to spend your time "fixing" something that isn't broken, and in fact is in complete compliance with the guideline you yourself cited: WP:IBI.
• And after all that you've got the nerve to suggest that if *I* feel the image needs to be displayed in a non-default ratio then *I* should ask at {{infobox academic}} for support of |upright=. No, if *you* want to clear your stupid categegory then *you* ask at {{infobox academic}} for support of |upright=, after which *you* can go around removing |frameless= (or whatever floats *your* boat) without messing up the appearance of the articles involved.

In the meantime don't fuck with what the reader sees just to clear your stupid misbegotten category. Productive editors have precious little tolerance for this kind of mindless gnoming. Got it? EEng 05:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Category:Pages_using_deprecated_image_syntax.

No answer. Huh. EEng 06:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Might still be scrolling? Lev!vich 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

When I get around to it I'm gonna squash you like a bug. EEng 07:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• fwiw Special:Diff/982135565. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Most kind of you. I'll leave it to MB to alter the article to take advantage of it, thus notching down that silly list by one. EEng 18:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Speaking of the list, I don't know why, if the issue matters that is, we don't just unleash a bot on it. It could take care of most cases without issue, where alternative parameters exist. 86,514 pages is way too much for human review - and for something that can be automated is likely a great waste of peoples' time. Seems like a task designed for the machines, as long as one pays the server bills and gives it some thanks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's simpler than that. AFAICS, it used to be that there was only an |image= parm in infoboxes, so the way you sized the image or added an alt was to use the extended image syntax in that single field. At some point someone got it in their heads that this was undesirable in some way (in just what way no one seems to know), and began adding separate |image_size= and |image_alt= parms to the infobox templates, so that you wouldn't need the extended image syntax. (Again, in what way it helps anything to not use the extended image syntax isn't clear.) But they didn't do this to all infoboxes, so in infoboxes that hadn't been augmented you still had to use the extended image syntax.

  Meanwhile, some do-gooder got the idea to create this "Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax", implying that there's something actually wrong with using the extended image syntax, so that other do-gooders (as seen above) get the idea they should seek out and kill its use even where that removes function such as image size. It's all a complete waste of time. Until someone can explain why not, the extended image syntax was, and is, fine. It did, and does, what's wanted. It can just stay. No one needs to do anything. No infoboxes need new parameters. No category is needed. No bot or human review wanted. Complete waste of time. EEng 18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Especially since the existence of convenient parameters to size images by absolute numbers of pixels encourages editors to do so, inappropriately, when they should be using upright= relative sizing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, I share your feelings about this. Over time, I've become increasingly dissatisfied with the let's-police-technical-details-that-have-no-value-for-our-readers mentality that has become a part of Wiki-culture (especially in templates and categories). If I wanted to be charitable, I would note that we have a lot of editors who are on the spectrum, and who are drawn to these things. (And before anyone blows a gasket, I hasten to add that I have no idea about, nor am implying anything about, the editors in this dispute. Also, there are many on-the-spectrum editors whose work I appreciate very, very much.) But I wish those editors would stick to tasks that are actually helpful to our readers. And, regardless of the underlying reasons for any editor's work, there is too much pointless creation of distractions for editors who actually want to contribute content, and too much tolerance of it. Worse, the trivia police tend to revise guidelines that no one else pays attention to, and then they say "but look what the guideline says!". Sighs loudly.

  And as I ponder this annoyance, I also want to formally and officially apologize to you for that time, years ago, when I gave you a hard time over the formatting of the Gage page. In hindsight, I was wrong. What matters is what our readers see. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Since in literally 5 minutes I'll be getting in the chair for a root canal, that's a particularly well timed bit of pleasant news. EEng 22:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  That's me: pleasant as a root canal! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

  Don't sell yourself short:, I'm saying you're better than a root canal. EEng 03:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Very few people would agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I think it's a mixed bag, generally speaking. The difference between infoboxes using |birth_date=, |BirthDate= or |DateOfBirth= doesn't matter either to the readers - the output is the exactly the same. But it's a slight pain in the ass if every other infobox uses a totally different parameter name and doesn't support the aliases. That's one area that should probably be kept consistent, so editors don't need to waste time reading docs after their chosen parameter doesn't output anything. Considering 'value for readers' is a hazy line; taken literally it's likely the majority of wiki-activity isn't productive, including most work on Category:Wikipedia backlog and various tracking cats, project-space pages, discussions, essays, templates, cats, etc. And maybe it isn't, since no matter what area of the wiki people stop working on (maintenance, administration, or others) the project always keeps going, apparently without novel noticeable issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hive mind to the rescue

One of you (talk page stalker)s will know this... Within the past few months I told a story about a school board meeting when I was in high school. It wasn't here, but I can't think of where. Might have been a user talk or article talk or WP talk. Anyone recall? EEng 05:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely remember this! Something about not decorating biographies with photos of replacement school buildings for a school with different buildings that the student had attended? But I don't remember where, either. It doesn't seem to have been my talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny how the mind connects things. That would have been a discussion with Cullen328 re Kamala Harris, and your recollection seems right, but I think the discussion branched off somewhere else, which is where I made the post I'm looking for. EEng 05:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I remember reading your anecdote. Something about how brilliant you were in arguing your case before the school board, even though "the man" tried to get you to shut up. In the end, everyone recognized how right you were. But I do not remember the exact context. We tangled a bit about the childhood of Kamala Harris. I had been in Berkeley and had taken photos of her childhood home (remarkably unchanged) and the school she had famously been bussed to. You were quite harsh about my school photo, saying that any ignoramus (not quoting precisely) should know by the characteristic California school architecture that the school had been completely rebuilt since Harris attended, and that my photo was ignorant crap. I tucked my tail between my legs, slinked off, and did not object to removal of the photo from the article, since I was clearly up against a more formidable intellect. Anyway, I hope this helps refresh your memory. Always happy to try to be of assistance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

slinked off – Surely you mean slunk off. (Dig – dug; cling – clung; sling – slung; slink – slunk.) I too am always happy to be of assistance. EEng 09:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any amusing images about pedantry? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me check my files: peddlers... pediatricians... pedicabs... Wow! Nothing on pedantry. I've got pederasty – will that do? EEng 05:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain for the benefit of all of us, although your never-ending helpfulness is charming. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Y'all clearly do not know how to use the Wikipedia search function: [112]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that's it. Thanks! EEng 09:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Stink, stank, STUNK! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  That link to the earlier discussion makes for interesting reading. So EEng has had a "career as an irritant". And here I always assumed that he did it for free. So, Mr. Know-It-All, your high school principal "kept a tarantula in his office named Harriet". What a strange name for one of his offices! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  No kidding, when I wrote that I thought, "Which one of this bunch is going to call me on that?" EEng 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

  Hey, Cullen328, maybe Tfish has an amusing image on pedantry. EEng 05:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  All I want to know now are the names of your principal's other offices. I am hoping that at least one was called Vampire bat. I am in an October mood. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  He had just the one. One day I asked the school psychologist, who was an accomplished calligrapher, to make a little placard: Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate, which I then glued to his (the principal's) door. I understand it stayed there until he retired. It was an unusual school. EEng 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  And I imagine that you made it particularly queer. So for that image you want me to find, do you want a photo of me teaching, or of you teaching? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

  I just remembered something else. Somehow I came into possession of the guts of a little music box, like this , which played <click here>. One day I got into his office and screwed it to the back of his desk next to where he sat. He loved it. He'd crank it for students in hot water. EEng 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Gag edit?

File:Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States (37521073921).jpg

99. Tax cheat living in public housing

Was reading through ANI and was a bit baffled by this edit you made... was it supposed to be a gag on the weird images they had uploaded? MrAureliusR_Talk! 03:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Funny thing, there was a time that someone or other would step in to say we're supposed to give Trump the benefit of the doubt because, oh, maybe he's just pretending to be a deranged sociopath. People seem to have gotten over that.

Meanwhile, in other news (since we're on the subject), the more severely mentally challenged of the stable genius's two older sons turns out not to know what a vaccine is [113]. Now to be fair, a lot of people don't know what a vaccine is, but most would have the sense not to go on network TV blabbing about it without at least looking in a dictionary first. Of course for that you need to be able to recite the letters of the the alphabet in the right order. EEng 06:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I demand that you stop violating WP:BLP. Wikipedia is about venerability, not truth.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure venereal ability is in there somewhere among the sur-reality . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Caption competition

We can have a pretty good guess what these two are thinking about each other, but what exactly? I'll start off with "Free image? Only dumb people give away work for free, that's like the stupidest idea in the world evaaaaaaaah" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I honestly don't get what you're saying, but I'll just note that the file description for that photo says President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside with New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. I don't know what a pull-aside is and, frankly, with Trump in the mix I don't want to know. EEng 13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Well we had a similar caption competition upthread, which Girth Summit won, so I thought there was demand for another one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Expert needed on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yapperbot, I've asked you several times to cut out the unwanted advances. I'm not into computer sex. EEng 02:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I prefer fish to fire

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

--Izno (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno is too kind to link to my psychotic outburst at [114]. EEng 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable, and nothing that a good drink cannot ameliorate. And, of course, all discerning editors have a liking for fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You ever try mixing cold wet fish and hot dry fire? Disgusting! Some psychotic discerners swear it's better that way, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I hate it when I get all justifiably righteous and it turns out I'm neither justifiable nor right. —valereee (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

All animals are equal, but some animals ... No, really, all animals are equal

WMF's meta:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review provides:

In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without distinction based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field. Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement.

(Bold boldly emboldened.) (talk page stalker)s are encouraged to join a discussion of that last bit: meta:Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#Nor_will_we_distinguish_based_on_standing,_skills_or_accomplishments_in_the_Wikimedia_projects_or_movement. EEng 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm keeping my nose out of that discussion, but a shout-out to ProcrastinatingReader and Tryptofish for excellent posts. EEng 02:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But of course fish are actually superior to some other animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Just remember, you can tune a filesystem but you can't tune a, well, you know the rest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I just posted because the inclusion of 'skills' seemed very weird. I certainly don't think we should give people a by because they're skilled, but this possibly could be interpreted to say that we can't ding them because they're unskilled. Am I being obtuse? —valereee (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well personally I think I deserve a by. I've had plenty of gays and it's time for a change. EEng 00:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why I was pinged. I'm not bi. Although there was that one time in college. —valereee (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not buying it either.

Bold boldly emboldened the range

Inclusion of 'skills' does seem strange.

So if you can't ding them

Neither should you ping them.

While with your nose out

You can still give a shout-out.

(No you are not obtuse

On the filesystem use.)

And EEng deserves a sex change.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to know what to say. EEng 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

These are difficult times. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pit bull on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I just hope there's been no WP:HOUNDING or WP:BITEY behavior going on in that discussion. EEng 16:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for finally shortening the United States Senate section on the Joe Biden article. Username6892 (Peer Review) 01:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Well aren't you sweet! There's more to do but I pooped out. EEng 01:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable

Remarkable restraint

-EEng

You are showing remarkable restraint at Talk:Joe Biden. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

But it ran out on Kamala Harris (see esp. the collapse box). EEng 11:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Good god, you and Fowler&Fowler are both completely mad. [Reaches for wordsmyth.net.] Around the bend. Batty. Cuckoo. Mental. Suffering from rabies. Bishonen | tålk 15:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC).

I'm not going to get involved in the actual thread because I don't care, but I take issue with because readers not mentally defective, from whatever geography or culture, will know without being told that an American vice-president-to-be is (duh!) an American politician. You know and I know that the US has the "native born" clause, but there's no reason for readers elsewhere to know that and in most countries it's not wildly unusual for politicians to be citizens of other countries owing to the complex rules governing who got what citizenship when the British, French and Portuguese colonial empires collapsed. (Until a couple of years ago Boris Johnson was a US citizen, there was a minor diplomatic incident recently when UK government minister Nadhim Zahawi was banned from entering the US owing to his Iraqi citizenship; and you have people like Claire Hanna who serve in the British parliament without even a dual let alone a sole British nationality. I'm sure the same is true in every other former colonial power and most former colonies, as well—probably half the adult population of Macau and Hong Kong are officially Portuguese or British citizens.) ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I get both sides. I also have an extreme aversion to lecturing people on grammar. I was taught that it’s something you should never do to an adult as correcting grammar is something that you do to children, so when doing it you’re effectively treating someone like a child. It’s basically one of the rudest things you can do in English. Anyway, all that to say, I get why you’re pissed off (I see MelanieN commented on it, so I’ll ping her for my take here 😅.)

On the merits, I actually disagree that “we do this for everyone” is a bad argument. Consistency of style on major articles helps us create a house voice of sorts, which in turn makes us seem more professional and helps the reader know what to expect in an article in terms of structure. Consistency is more reader friendly.

That being said, if I had to build the entire system from scratch I’d dump it for largely the same reasons you (EEng) are describing. Ignoring the citizenship context, of course a member of the US Senate and VP-elect is an “American politician”. In the cases Iri is describing, I’d actually argue fairly strongly that commonwealth nationals serving in the Parliament of the United Kingdom are British politicians even without citizenship in the UK/colonies or nationality: if they’re elected by the British public to serve in a British political body, they are a British politician regardless of nationality/citizenship issues. They might be a Canadian or Aussie or Bahamian as well, but that wouldn’t change the fact that they are also very much serving as a British politician. The question of their citizenship in such cases would be worth mentioning, but I’d see that as something to do in cases where such issues arise. Also, on the Hanna topic, I get why calling an Irish person a British politician might not be ideal, so skirting around it by not mentioning anything in the lead seems the most diplomatic way.TonyBallioni (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Memory?

I've wanted to ask this for a while now. But... Special:Diff/987768637. And your various other edits where you pick a time in an obscure 4,000 view video or a two-sentence quote from page 386 in some text. Is there some special bookmarking app I don't know about, or some memory pill, or what's going on here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean stuff like this [115]? Believe it or not I carry it all around in my head (see right); when I was in college the dean said I was a "coal mine of information". It all started after I was struck by lightning at 5 years old. Modern science has failed to explain it. But don't worry – I am sworn to use it only for good, never for evil. EEng 06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

AND NOW BIDEN IS GONNA DESTROY ALL THE COAL MINES OF INFORMATION! I WANNA SAVE ALL THE COAL MINES OF INFORMATION!

Well, that certainly brings a whole new meaning to "electrical engineering"! Somehow, I envision that it hurt the lightning bolt far worse than it hurt you. (The dean, however, may have been thinking about black lung.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Further evidence for the prosecution: [116], [117]. EEng

Jarndyce and Jarndyce

I want to thank you more emphatically than with just a one-click "thanks" for bringing up Jarndyce and Jarndyce on ANI.[118] It made me very happy. Bishonen | tålk 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC).

Glad to oblige, though I was ensnared in just such a case so my feelings are more mixed. EEng 20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Template editor right

Templates that need improvement, but don't screw with the stack; practice safe transects. Atsme 💬 📧 21:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi EEng—I see that David Eppstein recently granted you template editor rights. Your edits at {{Talk header}} were a serious breach of WP:TPEBOLD; it is not at all acceptable to just go ahead and modify a template with 500,000 transclusions just since you think you can improve the wording. Please familiarize yourself with the expectations for editing template-protected pages, or you are likely to lose the right. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Atsme: I thought template-editors worked from this set which really isn't a stack. Just sayin'. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Could we have a reason for the revert over procedural threat. This is a respected editor with thousands of template edits.--Moxy 🍁 21:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this regards the series of edits starting at [119].
Sdkb, my vague recollection is that past interactions with you have been perfectly pleasant, and I'm sure that will continue, but right now you need to calm down and read the very guideline you're citing. TFEBOLD has nothing to do with anything here because it's about disputes, which this isn't – except to the extent that you've chosen to create one by pretending that every change requires prior consensus, which as we're about to see is false.

The applicable guideline is actually WP:TPECON, which gives a detailed outline of the kinds of template changes that require prior discussion – none of which even conceivably applies here – and then specifically calls out "copy-edits of any sort" as among "changes that can almost always be made unilaterally". So contrary to what you claim, editors can in fact (as you put it) just go ahead and modify a template with 500,000 transclusions just since you think you can improve the wording, because that's what copyediting is. In sum, you have (a) raised a completely specious procedural objection to my changes but (b) given no substantive objection to them whatsoever. Got any? EEng 23:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"For disputes, seek..." —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll add that link to the template now. EEng 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)EEng, I've had pleasant interactions with you in the past as well and I'm sorry to have to give you such a harsh warning off the bat, but TPE is a highly advanced right and it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with the requirements. Your edits gave me concern that you are not approaching template editing with due caution and respect for consensus, and your reply here reinforces that concern.

TPEBOLD was the shortcut I intended to cite, specifically the The normal BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not apply line, given that you prefaced one of your edits with the summary BOLD EDIT:. That section continues by reiterating the point that any edit that might be controversial should be discussed first; your edits were clearly in that category, given that the definition of an uncontroversial edit is one that could not be disputed and I dispute that your edits were an improvement. Regarding TPECON, the line Copy-edits of any sort. (Just be sure you're right!) reads to me as clearly referring to grammatical fixes, not things like the addition of the Ask questions, get answers sentenceyour edits. If this were a template with a few thousand transclusions, things might be more flexible, but at 500,000 transclusions, it's very clear that prior consensus is expected for that sort of edit.

More generally, I very much understand that there's a learning curve when you're beginning something new, but especially given that David Eppstein granted you the right despite your not meeting the WP:TPEGRANT criteria, this was your chance to show your willingness to take in constructive feedback, and I'm not seeing that here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. TPECON is just a rough guide. The idea is generally that allowing the opportunity for discussion is preferred when editing high visibility templates, but it comes down to ones best judgement on the changes really. It also slightly backfires sometimes because many times nobody cares enough either way, or instinctively prefers the status quo, so stuff remains shit. I think you, too, have had experiences with this. I don't have much of an opinion here, other than to say either way I don't think it deserves an overly hard spanking - after all, a new admin recently made a bold change on the Main Page and got less for it.

As for the change itself, I think it's an improvement in the wording. More generally, EEng has a certain eloquence with words that I think is useful in the template namespace, so I'm glad he's a template editor. Hopefully for his next trick he turns his talk page purging into a bot to more broadly blankclean up the talk page banner mess. In the meantime, perhaps it's worth popping these now-reverted changes onto the talk to discuss? As I say, I think they are clearer. That may be the productive way forward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

+1 Atsme 💬 📧 12:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I must say this talk page is loading faster than usual. Have you been doing some archiving recently? If so, I'm very disappointed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I was planning to invite Iridescent to comment on something, and they're always complaining about load times so I thought I'd make at least a token effort. EEng 09:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's see ...

• I understand that WP:TPEBOLD is what you meant to reference, but that doesn't make it any less inapplicable, because it's an injuction against abusing the TPE right to gain the upper hand in disputes, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing. The issue here is when to get prior consensus, and that's covered at WP:TPECON.
• Copyediting may read to you as grammar fixes only, but it's not. See Copyediting.
• There was no addition of the Ask questions, get answers sentence; I simply gave the existing sentence its own bullet. [120]
• The fact that I drew attention (by calling out BOLD in the edit summary) to my one edit which was even arguably substantive [121] does not mean I thought it would be controversial. I didn't and I don't.

Your reasoning is entirely circular: I shouldn't have made the edits because they're controversial; they're controversial because you disputed them; you disputed them because I shouldn't have made them. Like it says at WP:TPEDISPUTE:

A template editor should not revert the edit of their peer on a protected template without good cause, careful thought and (if possible) a prior brief discussion with the template editor whose action is challenged. It is the responsibility of the reverting template editor to demonstrate their revert is not out of sheer reflex.

So one more time: do you have any specific objections to the edits themselves (other than your mistaken comment, addressed above, about the "Ask questions, get answers sentence")? Otherwise, as you can probably tell by the other comments here, you're beginning to look silly by continuing to harp about process instead of discussing substance, and your feedback, though well-intended, is misguided.

Instead of blindly mass-reverting to make a point you should have built on or adjusted what I did, or selectively reverted. For example, you can't seriously be suggesting that the template should continue to tell readers where to go to find disputes (For disputes, seek dispute resolution), the absurdity of which Eppstein has so succinctly illustrated above.

EEng 09:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You are right regarding the "ask questions" sentence; I misread the way it displayed in the diffs and I apologize about that. I think the point holds up with other examples, but I'm going to strike that, as well as serious at the top as a gesture of goodwill. I still urge you to be more cautious, though, especially when you're editing a template that appears at the very top of roughly 1 out of every 6 article talk pages on Wikipedia, and to seek discussion first next time.

The specific objections I have to the edits is a separate discussion to the procedural one here, and I wish editors would not mix them as it benefits neither. A discussion on the talk page was just opened, and I'll participate there. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the strikes and so on, but still this thread has been a complete waste of time. You should have just commented on the edits and saved everyone all this distraction; if you wanted to say, in opening such a discussion, "might have been better to have have discussed these changes first", that would have been fine. The high transclusion count, where those transclusions are outside article space, is of no significance unless you think the result is affirmatively objectionable, not just capable-of-being-improved (and I'll not that most participants at the talk page seem to think that the changes were improvements on balance over the old text, so in point of fact it would have been better for you to have left them while further improvements were discussed). EEng 07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Limerick, Harvard, FBDB

You might find Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Margaret Harwood amusing... —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Margaret Harwood

Feel free to use the limerick! I might tweak it a little bit - do feel the last line could be punchier, but go with the version you like best. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Well you do realize "suck it" resonates with a well-known earlier work. EEng 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

True, which is the upside. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Every once in a while I'm struck by the fact that this has to be the filthiest user page on the project. EEng 04:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we could get away with the limerick if we made this the April 1st POTD? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 11:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Smart. It might work as "truthful whimsy" -- see Wikipedia_talk:April_Fool's_Main_Page#The_Ground_Rules. Perhaps the entirety of the text/caption for the image could be simply and only the limerick, with the link behind it taking the reader to the article. But the article needs work, really it does. I'll be happy to help but with the Harvard Archives closed it may be tough to do a good job. That's unfortunate, because my spidey sense tell me that [122], being a scrapbook by alumni, might have interesting biographical details. By the way [123][124][125][126][127]. (She apparently spent a lot of time at the beach.) EEng 13:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Here, have a sticker, funny man

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Two years ago, I came to EEng's userpage to steal memes and replace them with pictures of Ned Kelly. Over time I realized this user is a vanguard and upholder of our most important value here: the common man's right to defy figures of authority by throwing banoffee pies at their portraits. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia sane and free. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And I, in turn, want to say thank you for the opportunity to learn, for the first time, of banofee pies! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of guidelines for short descriptions

There’s a new proposal to add dating recommendations to the guidelines for short descriptions. Short descriptions are a prominent part of the mobile user experience, but the discussion so far has had relatively few voices. Since you are a top contributor to one or more Manual of Style pages, I thought you might be interested. Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, personally I've always found the ol' dinner-and-a-movie the best bet. Museum and concerts can be good too. Unless you were introduced by a friend, make sure someone knows where you're going and when you expect to be home. See also [128]. EEng 03:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Re:"Fossils can be used for dating" Primergrey (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is going to slip under the radar for you

Johnny Maths-ish. --Tryptofish

But you have relatively high visibility, at least where Wikipedia subject matter is politically sensitive. Because every change here is more or less permanent, the ship has already sailed, but I urge you to consider the fact that Wikipedia is somehow the most reliable source of consolidated information on the Internet. I get the jokes, the cynicism, the memes, all that, but you are providing an extremely transparent, highly visible profile of personal bias. The best practices for information sourcing on Wikipedia provide some protection, but they're not bulletproof. An explicitly partisan affectation by the editors undermines the mission of objective truth, and aggravates the environment in which objective truth is a matter of partisan contention. IRSpeshul (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} ... but your special user page also has explicitly partisan affectations: I like Firefly, classical music, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, hookah tobacco, good liquor, guns, and math. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

grr, maths ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See that's the problem with these extremely transparent, highly visible profiles of personal bias: look how aggravated the environment is getting. I'm not one to get into an argument about mathism with a mathist (or, as I believe they prefer to be called, "mathematician"), but we have a lot of articles about math, and we don't want to give the impression that we tilt pro-mathian or are some kind of math-wing website. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So you're just going to keep calling PR mathist when they've clearly expressed a preference for mathsist? —valereee (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Woe to anyone with a lisp. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. Everyone has biases. Neutral editing means putting your biases aside when editing (when editing content, anyway), not pretending you don't have any. EEng 06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Also the original comment comes off as being much like the people who say "I don't have an accent, it's only those people in [other country/other part of same country/other side of tracks in same city] who have accents". Which is to say, un-self-aware. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm automatically against anyone who implies I have biases. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased against them? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure...

I am linking to this diff instead of letting you discover it on your own. I know you like a nice blend of irony, useless gnoming, and a nicely worded edit summary, perhaps with a splash of vermouth. (BYOV.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh WOW, man! So meta! EEng 08:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Peer review

You probably think there's no real truth except what you read in the papers? Look deeper. If someone (me, for example) disagrees with you they may be making an objective (not subjective) observation.

Your group of administrators are behaving like peer reviewers but you aren't treating the matter as factual. You are one level removed, and probably emotionally vested in your viewpoints. That is Cognitive Dissonance and it's very hard to get past. Are.u.sure (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Between you and Andrew Sullivan my opinion of Oxford grads has declined substantially over the years. EEng 13:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Well there's Emma Watson. Or was that Hogwarts -- I get them confused. O3000 (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I resemble that remark. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And stop calling me illiterate. My mother and father have been married for 45 years. EEng 11:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

😂 Atsme 💬 📧 23:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd

'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.

Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You've been blocked from the Floyd articles and their talk pages for a reason, and continuing your crusade on people's talk pages is going to get you blocked completely. You need to accept what a dozen experienced editors are telling you: you're making a fool of yourself and wasting people's time. If you can't bring yourself to direct your efforts to less fraught topics then Wikipedia can't use you. EEng 06:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Configurable order of references

Hi EEng, as we discussed similar means in the past, this might be interesting for you: [129] Cheers --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Matthiaspaul, I keep meaning to get back to this to continue the conversation, but I need some quiet time. Remind me if you get impatient, because I don't want to lose this opportunity. EEng 00:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm busy as well and have a huge backlog. I don't expect this to be implemented soon (although this certainly would be great, even if only partially implemented), but the idea and variations on it are on record now and therefore easy to refer to in other discussions.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We all definitely need some quiet time! I hope that all is well with you, EEng. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy hols

When I was a teenager (back in the day), I had a friend called Denis who had a paper round. He used to complain about how much he hated one customer, who had a subscription to the Sunday Times (famously heavy with loads of glossy pull-outs), because they were the only household he delivered to on a particularly long street, and they lived right at the end of it so he had to go all the way down there, deliver one paper that earned him about 5p, then come all the way back to carry on with his deliveries. For some reason, as I scrolled down to the bottom of your talk, I thought of Denis for the first time in years.

Anyway, back on task: I don't have any beautiful pictures, coloured backgrounds or fancy code in curly brackets to deliver, they were all too heavy to carry all the way down here, but I do have a plain-text message: I hope you have a splendid holiday season, doing whatever you like (and are allowed) to do. May 2021 be different. All the very best to you and yours. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

For a moment I thought the heading was Happy holes but then I looked again and was disappointed.

I'm sure Denis would have felt better about it if, instead of being paid a pittance, he was making those delivery for nothing – bringing a ray of sunshine into the life of a forgotten shut-in, as you're doing. EEng 22:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I promise you are not forgotten by me. Let's all hope for a new year that will be better than the stinker that is coming to an end. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Seasons greetings. Hope you and yours are safe and well during this rather bleak period, though I think we will get through it. Best. Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time. Listen, I have a question. I've always wondered what Ceoil means. Did you used to copyedit paintings, or what? EEng 19:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  Its the Irish for music, sometimes or not spelled with an "i", depending from which part of the country your from. Best enjoyed with crack.[130][131] - this combination of words being a very common banner above pubs, and not what ye Americans might think. But "Ceol, Caint agut Craic" means "music, talk and banter". Yes, I know, too many jokes :) Ceoil (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, well, it's the i that threw me off. Otherwise I'd have recognized it immediately, of course. EEng 03:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, well. ps, might tap you in a few weeks to look at Funerary art in Puritan New England - it's a bit underwritten just yet, but seems something you might know a few things about. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  While I do live in the area, and find these objects interesting (delighful?) I don't think I have anything to contribute per se, but of course I'll be happy to copyedit. I still remember, after many, many years, finding one such inscription:

  I once did stand Time was I stood as thou dost now / and viewed y^e dead as thou dost me. / Ere long you lie so low as I / and others stand and gaze at thee.

  I wish I could remember where because a photo would be great for the article. EEng 04:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Its incredible how bitter some of them are. But yeah, not delighted with the photo offerings there atm. Would have been in CT this x-mass, but plague. Plan to revisit southern Maine maybe this summer, all going well, so might take some pictures. A stone that stands out, from first visit to Maine c 2013 was an 1780s? headstone that read, basically, "ye all laughed at me when I was alive, but then ye all died much younger than me, and look at me now, and the size of my fucking tomb." Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Lexington Epitaths A copy of epitaphs in the old burying-grounds of Lexington, Massachusetts, Brown, Francis H. (Francis Henry), b. 1835; Lexington Historical Society (Mass.), 1905, page 39, Ebenezer Fiske, findagrave.com, Old Burying Ground. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you davidwr. Ceoil (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, thanks. That is exactly the one; I even remember the stone. I was actually going to say Concord, because a friend in college was a docent at Minuteman National Park and gave us a tour. That tells me I've been carrying that around in my head for 42 years. The human mind is amazing. But I still can't remember where I put my glasses. EEng 05:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

H-index

Good morning, and Happy New Year!! Quick question - what is a respectable Google Scholar h-index relative to notability? Atsme 💬 📧 13:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

In Hartford, Hereford, and Hampshire, h-indices hardly ever happen./ I'm not really the right person to ask, but see WP:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics. EEng 17:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, I believe in part it depends on the field. Researchers in some fields have much higher h-indexes than in other fields. —valereee (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

True, but the bottom line remains that h-index is, at best, of very limited use for AfD. EEng 19:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Agree. See H-index#Comparing_results_across_fields_and_career_levels. There's no universal h-index that's acceptable – they vary very widely across fields. For humanities especially, reviews of publications and other WP:NPROF criteria are much more commonly used at AfD to establish notability than h-index. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to all for your input. I vaguely recalled former h-index discussions which have remained dormant in my memory (what's left of it) for some of the reasons I've read above; i.e., qualifying factors. Worse yet, I can still feel the effects of the fireworks, and the after-ring is louder than my tinnitus. 🧨🎆🎇 It has nothing to do with the celebratory liquid that flowed past my lips last night - or was it this morning? 🍸🍹🥂🍾 That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 🤕 Atsme 💬 📧 21:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Astounding

I thought I might alert you to this. It's not a particularly exciting case, but maybe you'd find it more funny. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Just don't stare at it for too long, lest one get conjunctivitis. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? Conjunctivitis is when you write a long sentence and it goes on and on and you use and and/or or a lot. EEng 07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong and/or not right or not and right and/or write as well as wrong and/or not right or not and right and/or write in the conjunctive or if it were Led Zeppelin the way to stare at the conjunction while nonetheless a lot and see also Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu. And you can quote me on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I always welcome WP:ASTONISHME contributions, but this case seems borderline on the reader likely already knows score. At least I think it's borderline. Not sure. I guess definitely borderline. Maybe. But anyway, I think we can avoid that question once we realize that WP:ELEVAR is also in play – saying the planets, when we could just name them, needlessly makes the reader jump through a little hoop. Take a look at what I did. EEng 07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, and I like what you did! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ovinus, current events divert me, but if I don't get back to Talk:PGage by, say, two weeks into the Biden administration, please ping me again. EEng 05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Current events divert me too... looks like 2020's devilish spirit persists. I'll remind you appropriately. Ovinus (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Oh, sole o' me-o. Oh, sole o' me --DFO

DFO, stop floundering around. --Tryptosoul

You're welcome --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

How dare you make jokes when the news is so serious! For those not paying attention, DFO refers to [132]. EEng 10:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And all this time I've been using a clothes dryer. Seriously, making jokes gives me a break from pontificating elsewhere. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

File:FBI grid of suspects wanted in 2010 US Capitol attack.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FBI grid of suspects wanted in 2010 US Capitol attack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be 2021 . . .? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Time machine [133]. EEng 20:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A time-travel convention? When can I buy tickets? Are we taking the Delorian or the train? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the image out of curiosity, and if I were to !vote on it, which I won't, I'd say delete purely on grounds of extreme ugliness. If I were discussing people in a serious setting, I would never judge them based on what they look like, but for the purpose of my comment here, ewwww!, talk about human garbage! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Cage, Gage, Shiiiit!

When I start making jokes, I can really get on a roll! --Tryptofish
... nice!! --Sandwichmaker123

I don't know if you have access to Netflix, but they have a new comedy series hosted by historian Nicolas Cage, called The History of Swear Words. Episode 2, examining the topic of "Shit", includes a segment about Phineas Gage. I think it's not very accurate, but... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

H.M., eat your heart out. EEng 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Historian Nicholas Cage? Stealing the Declaration of Independence and discovering a secret message on the back from the Illuminati does not make one a historian. Mgasparin (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I meant it as a joke, but it appears that my skills in that regard don't amount to much online. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well for what it's worth, I think it's funny now, but when I first read your comment above (without clicking on the link), I just assumed that there must actually must be a historian with the same name. Paul August ☎ 22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicolas Cage ... Phineas Gage. MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE??? EEng 00:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The Dragonslayer Barnstar

		The Dragonslayer Barnstar
		I am pleased to award this barnstar to you in recognition of your glorious dragonslaying efforts. Although I actually constructed this for you years ago, I didn't award it to you at the time because I felt that it may not have been appropriate. But, in a world gone mad, I ultimately decided to follow the advice of the eminent scientist E. Lathrop Brown. Please consider this a testimonial in appreciation of your commitment to bring a bit of light and laughter to this dreary place. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As long as he's just slaying dragons and not fire-breathing lizards we are okay. If you do, 'zilla may sic a sushi on you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people think it's spelled sick so maybe you should write sic [sic]. EEng 02:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice ...

...quote. Paul August ☎ 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Do not laugh"

If you want to make someone not not laugh, say do not laugh. I didn't not laugh, but I did revert the change - it is possible that the editor dug up the old newspaper article and expanded the section using it, but given the context, I am suspicious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

How the guinch stole Christmas? EEng 14:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Early days

A bit of humor about encyclopedias. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 16:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, can you cue us up to the relevant bit? Meanwhile, here's some other humor about encyclopedias [134]. EEng 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I no longer know how to speak English

I was about to actually revert you (ha!) because "an unable president" has got to be the worst of all worlds, and I was going to say in the edit summary that "unable" is an adverb not an adjective. But I looked it up, and unable is listed as an adjective, apparently in every dictionary, although some note "not before noun". This is blowing my mind. I thought "unable" always modified a verb, or acted as a "helping" verb, almost always accompanied by the preposition "to", and almost always modifying the verb "to be" (is unable to, was unable to, has been unable to...). I thought that's what an adverb was. But turns out it's an adjective, even though it never modifies a noun (The unable car? The unable tree? The unable president?). Help me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to help you, but I'm unable to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Unable? Are you sure you didn't mean disabled? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Since posting this I have now learned about predicative adjectives. Who could have predicatived it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No prevarication. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I just figured it out: disable president! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This gem I found on an article that I can't fathom actually had this on it

Happy New Year! I really feel like it belongs in an exhibit of some sort. I instantly thought of you.

Field Marshal Plaek Phibunsongkhram, the longest serving Prime Minister of Thailand

All the best, Double Plus Ungood (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Double Plus Ungood, you refer, of course, to the fact that the compound adjective longest-serving is missing it's hyphen. Shocking. EEng 03:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No u. Ur a compound adjective, EEng I actually didn't even notice the mistake. wow. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That photog should get a Pulitzer for snapping the shot just a split-second before the sniper pulled the trigger. EEng 03:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your complaint

What exactly should I stop in History of photography? You seem to be complaining about a line I wrote when I edited an article years ago. I'm not sure which article I then used, but it was from an art historian who seemed qualified enough, and was also mentioned in another wikipedia article. It was apparently not good enough for you, so you removed some content I wrote, but apparently not all. I didn't care enough to put this back or to discuss it. Your whining about this only feels like an invitation to put this back in. Let's forget whatever I used as a ref then. Is this Taylor and Francis ref good enough for you: [135]? I could also look up whatever books included this concept, but if you just intend to remove everything that doesn't agree with you, please let me know in advance.Joortje1 (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The idea that the Shroud of Turin is some kind of photograph has been thoroughly debunked. Here's what an actual scientist -- an expert on the history of photography -- said about it [136]:

Such claimants tend to draw upon the wisdom of hindsight to project a distorted historical perspective, wherein their cases rest upon a particular concatenation of procedures which is exceedingly improbable; and their 'proofs' amount only to demonstrating (none too faithfully) that it was not totally impossible ... The assertion that photography was the secret production of an isolated artistic genius may offer a compelling drama to those eager for sensation, but it belittles the practice of science ...

So yeah, unless you have multiple, expert sources for this outlandish claim, I'll keep removing it. (Hint: Workers who publish their work through vanity presses don't count as scientific experts.) EEng 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But how about the famous Turd of Brooklyn?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What an insult to Brooklynites! He's from Queens. Unfortunately not Flushing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And hopefully on his way to Rikers. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, now, Martin, no need to call him a turd. He'll be out of office once Joe Biden gets sworn in tomorrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, what a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If I may recycle something I learned at another editor's talk page, had the US been a monarchy, this could have been a royal flush. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And now a word from the guy who just fell off the stool at the end of the bar

You guys hear the one about Trump and the sheep caught in a fence? Of course you didn't because you'd actually have to interact with "working-class" regular joes in a "personal" social situation somewhere "locker room humor" and "guy talk" are "permitted" and then you'd still have to "make friends" with MEN instead of hanging out with "males" and pretend to like them! BADABING!

You males/females can surely take jokes as well as you make them, right? I'm sure you can and that means you're not liking me right now because your "jokes" are about as funny as one would expect from "jokesters" that don't even have the sack to TELL JOKES on a "talk page" despite being the "Untouchables" of the Wikipedia World. Or at least English Wikipedia, anyway. And in "talk space". And on the "largest" but yet "loneliest" talk page in the whole history of the "community".

The last place anybody really "important" and "powerful" around here will ever need much less want to be and therefore catch the little males trying to act like big men in their "locker room" where they share "jokes" via Wikimedia image files and hyperlinks to online social media like YouTube and pretend to like other "editors". Or at least other "socks".

And here you are still "joking" about an ex-president so stupid and crooked and vile and hateful and racist and everything else "intellectuals" and "academics" so "liberal" and "tolerant" and "mature" and "ethical" and "respectable" in THEIR personal lives and professional "careers" just can't STAND in a "politician" they HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THEIR EYES AND EARS AND TYPING FINGER(S) (index only, I'm guessing) and their MINDS AND "MOUTHS" off DONALD JOHN TRUMP FOR 20-25% PERCENT OF THEIR WIKIPEDIA "TENURE". Oh yes. Are you "guys" ever glad HE'S out of the "public sector". I wonder how TWITTER'S "bottom line" is liking "Biden". You know him, right? Got any good jokes about Biden beating Trump who beat Hillary who beat...Bernie Sanders yet? Better get on the Biden Bandwagon. He's your BOY!

Ah the delicious irony and no-jokes-necessary for the comedic timing and native humor of "intellectuals" and "academics" that a "generation" or two ago "grew up" (that just means got taller) and went off to "college" (and not a mile or a minute farther from Mommy and Daddy than absolutely necessary so they could still walk Junior to class the first day or at least "stop by" his dorm room...for the weekend) and plumb forgot to GO HOME pretending to hate a northeast Democrat "globalist" billionaire limousine liberal "white nationalist" lifelong New Yorker big city boy that insists on "Donald" that mopped up the floor with Hillary by going straight-up SAUL ALINSKY on the "Clinton machine" 0for "Sleepy Joe" the Blue Dog of Delaware.

And having to act "happy" about it here in the "locker room" or just ignore the unintended consequences of that laughable "Democratic" primary "election" process (minus the "caucuses" where "consensus" creates the "final count") where "winner takes all" starts and WINNING A PRIMARY ELECTION "DEMOCRATICALLY" DOES NOT GET YOUR NAME ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT UNLESS YOU HAPPEN TO "WIN THE PRIMARY" EVEN IF YOU LOST "SEVERAL STATES" AND "ELECTED OFFICIALS" AND "ELECTION OFFICIALS" AND "JOURNALISTS" CAN'T FIND "EVIDENCE" OF "ELECTION FRAUD" ANYWHERE AS/AFTER MILLIONS OF "AMERICANS" HAD/HAVE THEIR PRIMARY VOTES "COUNTED" BUT NOT "COUNT" AT ALL UNLESS THEY VOTED "BIDEN" IN THE "PRIMARY". "DISENFRANCHISING" EVERY SINGLE NON-BIDEN PRIMARY VOTER AND ALL TO "PROTECT DEMOCRACY" FROM A LAME-DUCK LIBERAL AS THE DAY IS LONG "REALITY SHOW STAR" THAT'S A HUGE THREAT TO???? WHO EXACTLY BESIDES AN IRANIAN "GENERAL" OFF THE RESERVATION TRYING TO CONDUCT A "COUP" AND MILITARY "INSURRECTION" IN "WMD-FREE" IRAQ DID "TRUMP" POSE AN "EXISTENTIAL THREAT" TO AS PRESIDENT AGAIN?

I'm sorry. I got serious during "happy hour" and started "yelling" posting in "all caps" and we all know where and when that sort of communication stared being described as "offensive" and even "hate speech".

I wonder if "young people" on college campuses see the "irony" in being "taught" that all caps on a screen where the "hate speech" gets erased every time an "app" is closed is YELLING and that YELLING is BULLYING and BULLYING is VIOLENCE while actually yelling and screaming inches from and straight into a stranger's face "on the street" without knowing a thing about him or her except that he or she is facing them and therefore MUST be on the "other side" is just "free speech" and "peaceful protest" and "civil unrest".

Got any mpegs or jpegs or pithy little witticisms or better yet some double entendres or personal anecdotes or "tongue in cheek" references to historical events "analogous" to something you'd "like" to see happen to "Trump" or maybe "the right" as a whole?

Or are you saving those for "Harris"?

I sure hope you folks do all your Wikipedia "volunteer work" on your own time, internet-enabled devices and internet access and have the receipts in your names - in the real world names - to prove it and don't live in "public housing" and never, ever take your paid job "work" home with you or your "charity" home "work" to your "workplace(s)" with you. Cause I got a feeling your "jokes" get much worse and and a lot more "graphic" and the "images" don't exist online or at least on the "light web" to make them "sight gags" and I don't think you have any of the necessary resources to "Hillary" your way out of public records requests that won't and can't be made so that records requested are "responsive" unless the lparty "requesting" them knows knows what is there to "respond" so the right "request" is made.

Ever heard of "Jeopardy"? Ever wonder why anyone would name a "quiz show" that forces the contestant to do all the talking "under duress" would be called "Jeopardy" and have most "duress" and the highest "paydays" - potentially - by far? And a 50/50 "chance" of "losing it all" on the final question "bonus round" going in as the "leader"?

Probably because they had experience with subpoenas, grand juries, discovery, the "hot seat" etc. And "personal communications" on "public property" including devices without "paper trails" that still produce "public records". And the "documentation" that they are "work-related".

Remember old Sleepy Joe xoesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor, too.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuckslur (talk • contribs) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden - the oldest first-term U.S. president

If you think the fact that Biden is the oldest president in US history is "idiocy" and "trivia", why don't you remove the same fact from the article about Donald Trump? I think consistency should be one of our goals here. Felix558 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Felix558, it belongs in the article somewhere (and without looking, I'm confident it's there); the idiocy consists in thinking it belongs in the already-very-overburdened lead. I encourage you to get it removed from the lead of the Trump article as well. EEng 03:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

EEng#s While you are obviously entitled to discuss this matter, you are not entitled to make unilateral changed, especially when you see that most users disagree with you. You seem to be in the minority and most users think that the media coverage and discussion about him being the oldest is such that it merits inclusion. Please discuss before you unilaterally remove it again. I not, I will have to report you to the edit-warring pageEccekevin (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Eccekevin, report away. The longstanding lead (at least back to late November [137] -- I didn't check further than that) does not include this, and you're attempting to force it in because you misunderstand the nature of the Wikipedia consensus process. EEng 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What does it matter what the lede was in November? He's only been president since yesterday.Eccekevin (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

He was on track to the be the oldest president since the moment he was elected; the fact that he took office yesterday doesn't make this suddenly some new and amazing fact no one thought of before. EEng 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

'on track' means nothing. Yesterday, he became the oldest sitting president in the 230 year history of the United States. Clearly, most users think it deserves a mention, especially given the media and online overage around his age (as a reminder, Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions).Eccekevin (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is about reasons, not headcounts. And as demonstrated at the article talk, if we used a count of sources as the criterion then we'd be putting the rescue dogs in the lead as well. EEng 00:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, the rescue dogs aren't in the lead? OMG, he broke his foot on one of them! Possibly while naked! Clearly that's lead territory. —valereee (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, in many jurisdictions dogs are required to be on the lead. While you're here, V, you might pop over and have a talk with Eccekevin about BRD. EEng 01:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. And don't think I forgot about you-know-what. Right now I'm working on User:Levivich/Seussipedia

• FWIW, Biden is getting older, while ya'll argue here & at the Biden page. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, we're all getting older. As for arguing, I'm still waiting for any actual arguments over on the talk page. EEng 01:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he is the oldest has specifically made headlines across national and international publications is an excellent reason.Eccekevin (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Same for Biden's dogs [138]. EEng 01:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a false parallelism. People.com, CNN, and Countryliving(UK) are not really the same standard as all the national and international newspapers listed above. Please find a better argument.Eccekevin (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Somehow you missed WSJ, Reuters, NBC News, NPR, USA Today, and CBS News -- and those are just from the first two pages of results. Any more objections? EEng 03:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are in the 'Entertainment'. 'Celebrities' and "Animals' sections, not politics. Very different tone and importance. Not all sources are equal. But if you want to argue for its inclusion, don't let me step in your way. That is not what this discussion is about, this seems like whataboutism. Eccekevin (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources are reliable, which is what matters, and you've got a couple of "Style" section links in there yourself. And you misunderstand WP:WHATABOUTism. EEng 03:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• In the midst of this? I just discovered that my country's governor general has resigned. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  My deepest condolences, GoodDay. But while you're here... should the lead of her article say she's the oldest governor general ever? EEng 04:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In Payette's case, the "crankiest governor general ever". GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• So in what passes for a constitutional crisis in Canada, Richard Wagner gets to stand in as the person who does nothing until a proper replacement can be found? I'm jealous. If only US politics could be so boring. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Canadian media tries to make it sound like a constitutional crisis, but it's quite a non-event within Canada. I in favour of the abolishing of the office. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Mittens

The opening verse of "Old Mother Biden and the Golden Sanders", from an 2021 inauguration chapbook

So ... have we got enough sources to write Bernie Sanders mittens photograph yet? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The cat and his kittens

They put on their mittens,

To eat a POTUS pie.

The poor little kittens

They lost their mittens,

And then they began to cry.

Mother Goose123 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

And lo, it was DYKed.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Million Low Club

Could I be the first to congratulate you on creating a Talk page that's over a million bytes long? To be precise... 1,000,290 bytes!! Wow. Nice work. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll save my praise until the page reaches 1 MB (1,048,576 bytes). Mixing decimal and binary units is highly distasteful. You end up having to use words like "mebibyte". *shudders* nagualdesign 01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You got Something

		The Signpost Barnstar
		for Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ]]) 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil comments

I am sad to write that today when asked by an uninvolved editor to review this dispute, I unfortunately noticed some problematic comments on Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#Infobox.

So, do you actually believe that it's not possible to find a published reliable source for Biden's chairmanships and so on, or are you just being difficult? EEng 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In attacking the personal motivation of another editor, this does not assume good faith, which is required of all editors. Surtsicna challenged unreferenced material in the infobox, and the sources provided by other editors in the discussion did not verify the challenged material. WP:UNSOURCED says that the burden of adding sources is on editors who want material added. Surtsicna has no obligation to lift a finger to find a reliable source, and whether they believe that task will be easy, hard, or impossible, the requirement for editors who want the material added to provide sources remains. These dates are not obvious or well-known facts, and this type of information often needs correcting by fact checkers, so that challenge is completely legitimate, even if that editor would also prefer the material be removed for other reasons. The above response only serves to antagonize the other editor, making them less likely to contribute to the project in the future, less likely to be agreeable to your suggestions, less likely to help you, more likely to respond in an negative and unproductive way, less able to think clearly, and more likely to prolong your dispute. More productive responses in this context include:

• Providing the requested sources, which you actually did the next day after another go-round.
• Agreeing that the challenged material should be removed.
• Asking for more time to find the requested sources; Surtsicna was willing to leave the material in place with citation-needed tags in the meantime.
• Proposing that different text be added.
• Saying nothing, which would be far better than responding with a personal attack.

To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article. Seriously. Did you even try? [35] EEng 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the sources provided by another editor failed to verify the challenged material, a reasonable inference is that it might be hard to find such a source. (Though that did not turn out to be true in the end.) As I pointed out earlier, Surtsicna had no obligation to try to find such a source, and it is unfair to conclude that failing to identify the requested sources when that burden does not fall on this editor is a demonstration that this editor lacks the skill to do so. There isn't even a requirement that editors who do the useful work of challenging unreferenced, unobvious material have any familiarity with sources relevant to a topic. Attacking the competence or intelligence of another editor in this way is unacceptable. Productive responses to errors by other editors include fixing partial errors, reverting large errors, politely pointing out mistakes on talk pages, and allowing that even the most brilliant people make mistakes sometimes. If an editor is chronically and grossly incompetent, eventually it will be worth discussing that as a problem, but not until these more productive responses have not worked, and not in an uncivil fashion. Verbal abuse is not a productive way to notify volunteers about their mistakes, and verbally abusing a volunteer over a mistake they haven't even made, which is what happened here, is even more demoralizing.

I'm considering pinning a little box to the top of this page: "It has been X hours since Surtsicna falsely claimed that everything in an infobox needs to be in the article as well." EEng 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is another unacceptable comment which is snarkily attacking another editor. Assuming good faith on the part of two editors who have completely opposite interpretations of a guideline leads me to conclude that either one has made an honest error, the guideline is unclear, or there is some other complexity yet to be uncovered. A productive, AGF response might be to quote the part of the policy you are relying on, explain your logic, and ask the other editor if you are missing anything. Another AGF response might be to ask the other editor to quote the part of the policy they are relying on, or to clarify their reasoning if they have already quoted. In this case, if you had done either, I think you would have found that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has two sections which say different things about the disputed question. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infoboxes should not have any facts which are not in the text of the article, and WP:INFOBOXREF (which you quoted) encourages that but implies that there will also be some cases where editors do legitimately decide to include facts in the infobox but not the article. Instead of identifying this contradiction and bringing it to the attention of other editors for resolution, your response instead demoralized an editor who is being productive and trying to build consensus and improve the reader experience, whether or not you or I agree with that editor's suggestions.

(added) I should also note that one of your comments cites WP:CIR, which specifically says in WP:CIRNOT not to label someone as incompetent, as this is a personal attack.

I hope that in the future instead of tearing into other editors, you can express disagreement in a more productive and civil manner. I hope that you will use the "assume good faith" guideline as a reason to stop and calmly consider the possible legitimate reasons for an editor's actions, including miscommunication and that you yourself might not have a complete picture. I usually find the latter is true for myself. You are clearly a smart person and like the rest of the community of volunteers I'm trying to keep motivated, have many valuable contributions yet to make. Thanks for reading, Beland (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have popcorn, will share. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 07:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Mmm... Salty. Thanks, Roxy. nagualdesign 09:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Think of your blood pressure. EEng 17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oh dear. All of those examples look relatively polite for EEng. Poor Surtsicna, must feel crushed? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Beland, I'm sad you wrote too. Mostly TLDR, but in passing:
  • I think you would have found that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has two sections which say different things about the disputed question – No, actually,I would not have found that, as you yourself discovered after posting here (see [139]), although you strangely omitted to return here to post the traditional Oops! My bad! Maybe next time you should more carefully consider that you yourself might not have a complete picture.
  • Surtsicna was told over and over and over and over and over, with links to the guideline and/or quoting it, that not everything in an infobox needs to be in the article. Nonetheless he or she stubbornly insisted on repeating that idea. And repeating it. And repeating it (in multiple threads, as I recall). AGF doesn't require us to close our eyes to what is obviously either a CIR failure or just plain willful blindness.
  • My comments about the chairmanships weren't about whether sources were in the article, but rather whether they exist at all. Surtsicna said I do seriously believe it is not possible to find published reliable sources about all these people preceding or succeeding Joe Biden in the given date ranges, and I said (yes) To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article, because that's true. And, frankly, if you can't see how absurd it is to imagine that there aren't definitive sources for Senate chairmanships, then you aren't competent to be sticking your nose into this matter. Really.
  • specifically says in WP:CIRNOT not to label someone as incompetent – No, it says it's generally inadvisable to call a person incompetent. I applied my judgment. And look! It worked: [140]! Too bad S., like you, was unable to bring himself/herself to come out and say, "Oh, now I see. I guess you were right. Sorry I didn't read more carefully."

Surticna's wasted a lot of editor time. You're on your way to doing the same. EEng 17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I had a "CIR failure" once. But it turned out I had just been pigging out on salty popcorn. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Where in the world do you get this stuff????

I find an encyclopaedia always comes in handy. Little Brown (Jug) 123 (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Certified a load of old bollocks

You are correct that I misread MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; perhaps Surtsicna and I made the same mistake. I didn't mention that here because I wanted to read your response first. As you can see, Bondegezou used a productive technique to resolve the disagreement over the interpretation of that section, by quoting the part that I had missed. This resulted in two improvements to the section; I clarified the sentence I had been relying on, and RexxS noticed that one of the examples was outdated and updated it. The suggestions I made above include conversational techniques that I hope would have helped you and Surtsicna resolve your disagreement more quickly, if you are concerned about not wasting time, and would have entirely avoided this one. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the editor time we are losing when editors are uncivil to each other and some of them stop editing entirely. My concern is not about who is right or wrong, as you were clearly correct in your interpretation of this guideline, for example. I am much more concerned with your language and your treatment of other editors. In response to this complaint, you might have said nothing, or you might have defended the correctness of your position without implicating matters of civility, or you might have apologized for your words and promised to be more civil in the future. Instead, you have demonstrated that you aren't interested in adopting more productive conflict-resolution techniques, especially when you defended your behavior as having been effective, and labelled yet another editor as incompetent. Given your continued incivility, and because you have been blocked for disruptive editing before, you are blocked from editing for one week. Please reconsider your commitment to civil discourse. -- Beland (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the dumbest decision I've seen for a while. Shame on you, Beland. Feel free to block me too. I've had quite enough popcorn for the time being. nagualdesign 21:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Purely punitive. Tsk. Blocking user should be admonished. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

EEng, I've just advocated against this block at Beland's talk page and at AN. Now I'm going to say to you: please be nicer to people who are being dimwitted, as the person at the Biden talkpage was being. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

More blocks for your collection

Stackable WTF blocks

You are, yet again, the recipient of a WTF Block‼️⁉️

Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Well, now that you're mature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters. They're not only stackable, they're reusable. I swar!! Can't I leave you alone even for a minute without you getting in trouble with the Wiki police!? Memories of our past replaced by decades of, uhm... misunderstandings? Atsme 💬 📧 03:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment. [141]

"Blocked Talk Page?? Easy.... just call DynoProd!" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Intent to unblock. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi EEng, I’ve unblocked you per the thread linked above. Hope you have a good week ahead. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Common sense prevails. nagualdesign 22:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Shucks. Anyone need any of this 8 pounds of popcorn I got leftover?? Enjoy, pop-(corn)-pickers!!. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• For the record the AN discussion is here [142]. The closing summary reads, in part: EEng has been unblocked by overwhelming consensus, Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks. Whether that admonishment sank in is open to question, though [143]. The alert reader, on encountering an admin who deletes uncomplimentary messages without archiving them [144], might wonder what else is being hidden. EEng 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I do accept the unblock and the reason for it. I have always deleted all my incoming user talk page messages without archiving when I'm done with them, except for the compliments. So you might say everything is being hidden, or nothing...as it used to say there, if anyone cares they can look in the page history. -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  The question isn't whether you accept the unblock and the reason for it; you don't have a choice since the score at AN was Endorse block – 0, Overturn egregiously wrongheaded block and severely trout the admin who imposed it – 20. The question is whether you'll be able to adhere to the standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks in the future; time will tell, I guess.

  As for not archiving your talk page, well, I have always deleted all my incoming user talk page messages without archiving when I'm done with them, except for the compliments (italcis added) is nothing like everything is being hidden, or nothing – rather, it's I feature the good stuff and hide the bad. One of the reasons I delay archiving is to dramatize that I fear no scrutiny. You are, of course, joking in your implication that look in the page history is any kind of effective way to find and review past threads. EEng 02:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, and I also "hide" the neutral and the boring. The compliments are mostly for myself, to keep motivated when I'm having a bad day. I was inspired by the famous line, "Keep your old love letters, throw away your old bank statements", which used to be quoted on my user talk page. Back in the day before pings, I would actually move conversations to the talk page of the other person so all of it would be in one place and they would get notified about my reply. That would leave nothing on my talk page to archive in some cases. I guess looking through the page history is more annoying than reading archives, but when I started doing it I didn't imagine anyone would actually care about old messages about article updates and bots and Wikiprojects and editing mistakes. If you're saying distant-past-me was planning ahead so if someone said something bad about my rarely used admin powers in ten years I'd be able to delete it and make it harder to find, OK. If I'm making myself look better by doing this, then well, great. Who doesn't like to look better. It sounds like you're angry at me, and I can see why you would want to try to trash the reputation of someone who makes you angry. I applaud your embrace of transparency, though personally I find this page unmanageably long.

  You previously wrote: even when the truth is rubbed in your face over and over, and even after a score of editors vociferously denounce your judgment as completely out of calibration, you're either incapable of absorbing it or just can't bring yourself to acknowledge it. You seem to have been expecting a personal message from me saying "oh hey, I messed up, sorry" or something. It's not something that's really required to resolve this case; the block has been reversed and admonishment has been delivered to everyone that needed one, including me. I do see why the overturn was in line with Wikipedia policy, though there also seems to be consensus that the existing system has not resulted in a culture of satisfactory civility. Not saying my solution is better. Though I've never seen the district judge apologize to a defendant when an appeals court overturns a sentence, sure, here in a less formal setting someone might do that anyway just to be friendly. With due respect, in this case, your past hurtful insults and continued insulting tone make it extremely difficult to feel a desire to be friendly and go out of my way to say nice things, though I remain committed to being civil and not unfriendly. Though I don't expect much more than to be insulted for having said even this, I bring it up in the hope that in the future it will help you more accurately understand interactions with other people, and as an example of how gratuitous incivility has negative consequences. -- Beland (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Do you never post anything under 1000 words?

  • If you're saying distant-past-me was planning ahead so if someone said something bad about my rarely used admin powers in ten years I'd be able to delete it and make it harder to find, OK – No, I'm saying today-you doesn't care about transparency, whether in your administrative work or general editing.
  • admonishment has been delivered to everyone that needed one, including me – Actually only you.
  • It sounds like you're angry at me – Not in the slightest. You've provided amusement to the masses while contributing a beautiful illustration of my longstanding thesis that 97% of admins do important work in return for little recognition, while the other 3% are simply bossy, preachy, hypocritical, and/or just plain out of their depth. It is interesting to note how densely my block log (which – I guess I need to point out since you seem unable to read a block log – consists largely of overturned blocks and a joke block) is studded with the names of admins who are no longer admins – something you might want to think about.
  • You seem to have been expecting a personal message from me saying "oh hey, I messed up, sorry" or something. It's not something that's really required to resolve this case – And therein lies the difference between us. When someone else is screwing up, I try to tell them so in terms matched to where they're coming from, the history of their receptiveness, and so on; and when I screw up – if I've caused trouble or inconvenience – I apologize. That's civility far more than your prissy parsing of posts for forbidden words and phrases. You, on the other hand, are so committed to your empty, formal civility that you can't even bring yourself to hurt your own feelings by acknowledging your mistakes.
  • help you more accurately understand interactions with other people – I require no advice from you on how to win friends and influence people. You stick to gnoming character codes and let us adults police our own interactions.

  EEng 17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  how to win friends and influence people A reference to the book? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Nah. Another work of art, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Brainstorming for a contemplated TV ad (contributions gratefully accepted -- feel free to edit directly)

Inspired by [145]. With enough material an amusing essay may be possible.

"The blather control aisle – so embarrassing! If you're a Wikipedia editor struggling with incompetence issues, now there's a better way. We home-deliver blather control products directly to you in plain, unmarked boxes ..."

...directly to your user page in plain unmarked mboxes... davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the spirit! But mboxes might be too hackerish. Maybe plain unmarked userboxes? EEng 05:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"The blather control aisle – so embarrassing! If you're a Wikipedia editor struggling with incompetence issues, now there's a better way. We home-deliver blather control products directly to you in plain, unmarked userboxes. Or, if other editors complain you're full of hot air ..."

See also the discussion of "piss off", below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"You are not alone. This problem has a name: WikiLeaks. Minor leaks can be controlled by using appropriate garments, and padding can be added as needed. Normally, this kind of output is directed to the WP:CESSPIT. However, some WP:DICKS have leaked all over the internet, causing the internet to blow up. Should this happen to you, please call for a WP:MOP." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"But now there's help: WP:Authority control." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• <rubs hands gleefully> Now we're really getting somewhere. And to think I worried this might just poop out. Perhaps we're moving in the direction of something like User:EEng#Computer porn. EEng 22:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just couldn't control myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I joined the 300+ club and all I got was...

External videos
Will repeat!

Vroom-vroom! El_C 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, EEng, forgot a shout out back in August when I, myself, reached that milestone (diff). Felt like it was a bit of a pyrrhic victory (the 300 Spartans, to be specific), but I know you're not one to be weighed by earthly things... Anyway, how about I image macro you, for once! El_C 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, usage of Template:External media noted for further spammage! El_C 15:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In all sincerity, what's the 300+ club? I haven't got that many blocks yet. EEng 00:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking seriously the "in all sincerity" part, so just in case you were actually asking, he means the number of talk page sections. And if you actually knew that all along, never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The inquiry was sincere, and thanks to you I am now unriddled. EEng 03:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, maybe someday, I'll be unriddled too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I do hope so. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That's okay, I can help make that happen for you! El_C 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahem. I think you'll find they were actually Epirotes not Spartans, as such. Plutarchivans123 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin, you're a true classic! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Undesysoppables"

Having managed to provide evidence that led to a desysop, I'm not sure "undesyoppables" is really a thing. Of course I think the recent block was heavy-handed and ill advised, but it didn't last very long and was swiftly overturned. It's not like anyone's running around blocking "content creators" left, right and centre, is it? (Or is it?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing closed discussions

Hi there. I recently reverted one of your edits to that closed discussion at WP:AN and Levivich reverted me back, saying it was not a rule. Would you mind moving that file to outside the archive box? It would be really appreciated, thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No I won't, because the external media box can't perform its function except in the place I put it. What's the big deal? Leave it alone. EEng 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I must admit I found that (somewhat appropriate) 12-second clip quite hilarious. But let's face it EEng, that thread... is worse than that, it's dead, Jim! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Will you two shut up! People are trying to sleep! El_C 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Some of us have civility standards, you know!!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish throws a temper tantrum

A group of new Wikipedia editors, hoisting me by my piscine petard. --Tryptofish

You've been subjected to a certain amount of... whatever, over the past day or so. So I figured I'd tell you about something ridiculous that I encountered on-wiki today, in the hope that it will bring a smile to everyone here. (I'm not looking to give the guilty party a hard time. Just let it pass.) But (as Atsme will well remember), a little while back I created a fake "user warning" template that is based upon The Wikipedia Pissoff Award^TM, which everyone can feast their eyes upon here. Clearly this is very serious bizness.

So today, I made this revert: [146]. What I reverted was an editor making it look like this. Note the "documentation" at the bottom. Which made it into a "real" user warning template. Which set off a bot to "subst:" it where it occurs.

I'm picturing some earnest editor seeing the "uw" part of it and deciding that it just absolutely had to be properly set up as a user warning, with level 1, level 2, and so on. Either that, or they out-smarted me, and hoisted me by my own fishy petard by duly following the instructions, and pissing me off! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin, this is for you! --Tryptofish

Brave. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• I like that it had an |escalate_to= parameter. The sequence should be piss off, bugger off, fuck off ... EEng 00:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I have lighthearted stuff to relate! An astrophysicist who's fucked up pinging like ten times in various places, and it's killing me I can't say to her, "It's not rocket science." —valereee (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you know "it's not exactly brain surgery" either, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Tame assassination

Ben Franklin once wrote:

What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.

A Cornell Law professor suggests:

Franklin, recognizing that presidents might sometimes “render [themselves] obnoxious,” recommended a formal, constitutional mechanism for bringing them to justice instead of what he saw as the inevitable alternative: assassination. Or, to put it differently, impeachment was an attempt to domesticate, to tame, assassination ... I suggest that, in the context of presidential impeachment, we accept Franklin’s provocative invitation—an invitation that scholars have thus far ignored—to view impeachable offenses as (what might otherwise be) assassinable offenses ... These heretofore unexplored connections suggest that assassinability may appropriately provide the substantive criteria for impeachability. But assassination as a means of executive removal has significant drawbacks. It is politically disruptive; it carries a high risk of irreversible error; and it is, of course, violent.

Thought you'd find this amusing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• An eloquent reminder that justice does not consist in giving the guy what -- truth be told -- he richly deserves. EEng 01:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. I have a question. I am having various issues with an editor, but the one I am writing you about is in particular this - he deleted my comment on an article talk page.[147] Used Twinkle. No edit summary. I explained there was this was not proper. He just reverted that.[148] I see you are an expert in this rule. What can I do? Thanks.--2603:7000:2143:8500:14B6:711A:E2C2:19A9 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've restored your post and warned the user who removed it not to do that again. Let me know if there are other problems. EEng 02:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So kind of you. Much appreciated. This sort of thing is so frustrating - and on valentines day no less. 2603:7000:2143:8500:11C4:EABB:5D65:42AE (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Was the north facing photo talk page closed to prevent people from hurting my feelings, in part?

Your comments on Cullen's talk page sounded kind, so I thought I might try to talk with you. It seems that Magnolia677 had been being ironic when he said he liked the idea. If so, I totally fell for it. I would like to talk with Cullen to ask him why he (if it was him)closed the discussion (I thought it was productive), but I'm not sure whether he would welcome that. What do you think? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Arctic Gazelle, sometimes enthusiastic new editors get into Wikipedia's "behind-the-scenes" areas before they have a good grounding in why a lot of things are done the way they are. (That's not to say that everything is the way it is for a good reason, but a lot of it is.) In this case, you're going against a very important principle which I, your humble correspondent, elucidated years ago at WP:NONEEDNORULE. We like to give editors who are working on a given article as much freedom as possible to fashion the article according to what they think will best serve the reader's understanding; to go against that that -- to make a rule saying that all X must be Y -- there needs to be a really good reason. You weren't understanding what other editors were telling you, and when that goes on for a while people begin to feel their time is being wasted, and then comments can turn harsh. It can be very disheartening to be on the receiving end of that, and and since you're a new editor I wanted to help avoid it. My advice is that you spend a year doing the everyday work that is Wikipedia's lifeblood: fixing errors, adding content, locating sources, participating in article talk-page discussions about directions to take the article. After that start looking around behind the scenes at guideline and policy pages. Good luck, and happy editing! EEng 22:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am not as humorous as you would like in this post. I went to the Help Desk to ask where I should post my idea and one of the suggestions was to post it in MOS, which I did. Then someone suggested moving it to the MOS for images, and I authorized that. I did not authorize the change in the title, and that made my proposal look much more extreme and finalized than it had. I don't think I did anything bold, let alone wrong. I just followed the instructions I was given at the Help Desk.

I was perhaps helped by your remark about 'behind the scenes'. It seems like I was sent to something like a supreme court of Wikipedia. I read that article about 'no need, no rule' as well as several that it linked to. I learned a lot, and not just about Wikipedia, but also about why a supreme court might refuse to hear a case, which had previously puzzled me.

I finally got Magnolia677's pun, on the tenth reading or so. A paling is also a post. Clever. I find it all the more puzzling that someone that intelligent would fail to at least find my idea interesting.

Another thing I learned is what it must be like to get an unnecessarily harsh rejection letter from a publisher. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted." EEng 02:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lighting is crucial

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Facing north should be preferred is one of the best-illustrated threads of the year. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it was me who closed that discussion, which is why it has my signature. The reason that I did so is that the chance of your proposal being accepted is zero, and it is a waste of time to keep discussing it, Arctic Gazelle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As an amateur photographer, I feel the best orientation for a picture is the one with the most favorable lighting. Generally, this means with the sun at my back and always with the sun not blazing into my lens. Of the thousands of photos I've shot, less than a dozen indicate a direction in the name or comments. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Was it a completely new idea? Have you seen the idea before? Has it been discussed and rejected before? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe seen before here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmZzGxGpSs —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Love it...but it makes wonder how you knew about that cartoon, David. Atsme 💬 📧 16:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe he was one of the 38 people who read Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia. EEng 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping he'd admit it without any coaxing, which would provide a bit of ego stroking for those of you who worked so hard putting that presentation together. I mean, seriously...someone the caliber of David reading Dr. Seuss because of the work you & Levivich invested...well, it speaks volumes about your talent!! You deserve a stroke or two. (don't look a gift horse in the mouth). Atsme 💬 📧 20:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but the real answer is "from having had kids". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arctic Gazelle: While I honestly don't intend to be mean, it was, frankly, a really dumb idea, and if I were you I wouldn't harp on it any more, lest you attract unwanted attention from people looking for presumed troublemakers. Perhaps it wasn't intended to be quite as dumb as it sounded, and you meant to propose something different than what you proposed, but it is indistinguishable from trolling. It's "we should start every article with the letter Q"-level silly. We wouldn't discuss that for long just because it's a completely new idea, no one's seen it before, and it hasn't been discussed and rejected before. It is not important for 99.99999999% of readers (I'll assume good faith and say that 0.00000001% is you) to know whether Kasparov was facing N, S, E, or W. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You sure know how to greatly intimidate someone safely. I learned a lot from you. Thanks for that. I am puzzled that someone so intelligent would not find my idea interesting.

Maybe you are right (I could take it as a compliment) that I am the only one who would care which way Kasparov was facing during a chess match. But I would suggest that if that is true it is because others have not spent years thinking about visualization and it's role in understanding and memory.

Also, I wonder what percentage of people would be grateful if they were to read that Kasparov was facing due east, or whatever the direction was? Conversely, how many people lay awake at night worrying about the fact that there was no encyclopedia that anyone can edit, before Wikipedia came into existence?

My original title for the proposal was only that orientation of photographs should be made known somehow to the reader. That surely is not all that absurd? Arctic Gazelle (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't cramp my style! --Tryptofish

Maybe it's a feng shui thing? EEng 16:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll let you know. Pass me those crampons, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but is a crampon a tampon for when you have cramps? That's the only thing I can think of. EEng 16:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Lighting is crucial. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds very uncomfortable! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh no! Now we've got an earworm to go with this semantic wormhole!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but some of us are desperate to know if Deep Blue was facing Leicester. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, now. Where sheep're concerned, the question is really was Harold flying into the wind. Very important at take-off. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

How did we go from crampons to Monty and even further backward to Orville & Wilbur? They aren't the only ones who were high fliers considering this monumental moment in time. Atsme 💬 📧 20:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure that they're the right brothers? In any case, I've brought the popcorn. (Just don't pig out on it!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Did someone mention Orville?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

But we've had more than enough about The Donald! To the point that it's driving me daffy! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

At least it's not driving you Taffy. Some of us are historically north facing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Could have been worse

It could have said: "He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross and born to Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. (1888–1969) and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy (1890–1995) as the eldest of nine children."

I just re-read that, it sounds even creepier the second time around. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, the reference is to [149]

I had a momentary lull in my day

So what better time to make use of it than on a Friday when WP is relatively quiet? I made us a little something to add to our dramah artillery. Atsme 💬 📧 18:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

An updated boomerang to align more closely with 21st Century Wikipedia and American politics.

• [150] EEng 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Nice, but any chance of putting a white outline around the lettering to make it more legible? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I'll see what I can do. Atsme 💬 📧 19:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Y - refresh the page, if you have an ample amount of spare time. 😊 Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Much better. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Bonaire in the (hand)-Grenadines? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, grenadine can be an ingredient in many a momentary lull. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Important question

Do you canoe? --WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Um, is this some kind of code language? EEng 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the cryptic inquiry. In all seriousness, just hoping you're doing well and that Wikipedia isn't frustrating you too much.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking. Well, there's the lonely death of my colleague, mentioned elsewhere on this page, and an aunt of my boyfriend who similarly died alone in a hospital in Brazil. So we can add Jair Bolsonaro to the list of sociopathic fucks joining Trump and his family, Stephen Miller, and rest of their gang of criminals and sadists in hell. Other than that it's all sweetness and roses on my end, and I trust all is well with you too. EEng 17:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

And he's not even got lovely blond hair. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Or do you canoo?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I can ooh, for what it's worth. nagualdesign 18:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

More tea, vicar? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Typhoo Tea? I tasted that once, and it wasn't "ooh" (much less neo-orgasmic "ooh"). More like "eww". Score one for the US. (Just don't mention Bud.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, I guess you're more of a tips man. [151] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

(1) I'm a fish, not a man. (2) I actually never heard of PG Tips until now. I can't make up my mind whether that sounds like a name for the other kind of tea, or whether it's the name of a rapper. Procter and Gamble, maybe? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Heathens! It's Yorkshire Tea or nothing. Well okay, maybe coffee. nagualdesign 20:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

For the dogs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

How very dare you!!! If you continue to denigrate the good name of Yorkshire Tea I'll report you to ANI! nagualdesign 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just a YT. Don't you know, the Americans have been revolting for many years! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

RIP Rush Limbaugh. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you may have confused it with this. (warning about link!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Some things really don't require illustrations. nagualdesign 22:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"Get your bollocks out of my face!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

We broke EEng's window! --Tryptofish

Nothin' new -- DrainLowe123

Then again Windows tend to be broken most of the time. --Tryptofish456

No Bullock's? Bull! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please, for the love of God, YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN. I'm begging you. EEng 00:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's wall-to-wall bastards...... nagualdesign 00:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Ahem, it's rest in pieces. @EEng: Shucks, mister. We done told ya we got nowhere else to play. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Er, I guess I should consider this

Resolved

?--WaltCip-(talk) 00:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Geo_Swan

Don't know if you saw this; I'm dropping this here after reading your comment here. Take care, Drmies (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The direction that's going in is, I'm sorry to say, the one I'd recommend, so I don't think my input is needed. EEng 19:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK

Moss overlink DFO

Quick straw poll, does MOS:OVERLINK in your opinion discourage wikilinking reissue in articles? (Context here). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#EEng's talk page size. Maybe I'm having a bad day but if I'm struggling to write the above sentence without my browser timing out, I think we at least should discuss it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk page reissue for radical repackaging reasons required? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to set up archiving on this talk to match mine, which is : threads are archived 21 days past the last comment, individual archives have a maximum size of 70K, no archiving takes place until there are more than 10 threads on the page. As I said on the other thread, it's not a question of "getting off your back" as just that I can't read this page on my phone and feel somewhat left out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie, you know I like you very much, but I think you are having a bad day. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reading through the (now closed) ANI thread I was surprised that this talk page crashes an iPhone. I thought they were supposed to be good. I'm using an old HTC One running Android 5 (circa 2014) and it loads without any issues. Same goes for my ~12-year-old laptop. nagualdesign 21:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am half expecting an admin to just jump in, archive the talk page, which would then trigger a revert and a complaint from EEng, which would then lead to EEng being blocked. That's how this usually works, right?--WaltCip-(talk) 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Admin misapplies WP:BOLD, ends up banning editor. Sounds about right. nagualdesign 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Indef Threesie now, I say. And cut out the middleman. Block 'em up, I say... it's the only wiki language these Admins understand!! COVID-19 cab driver123 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin but if the talk page archiving is really an urgent issue (and one doesn't want to just take the lazy {{subst:User:ClueBot III/JustArchiveThis}}) and if we want to avoid a test case for the suggested desysop policy I'll volunteer my poor self: can't be much worse than waiting 6 months for... :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I keep wondering if the slow loading times aren't really a symptom that something's wrong with how the server processes the wikitext before sending it to the browser, or in how the browser scripting for wiki edit windows work, or something like that. These files really aren't that large, by modern internet standards. So why are not-that-large files so noticeably slow? It would be more helpful to track down and fix the slowdown than to keep complaining that everything's too slow and making people work around it by moving their messages to inconvenient archives. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point on the technical issues. But removing old discussions and moving them elsewhere also has the benefit of helping keep track of which matters are current and which ones have been resolved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's for EEng to decide how to organize his old talk archives and which ones he thinks are worth keeping on the current page. Listing reasons why you think he should do it a certain way is, at this point, kind of pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Late to the party, again

I frequent DGG's talk page as well as EEng's talk page. I enjoy both—usually, but not always—for different reasons. Both show an amazing amount of patience and forbearance (in different ways). I have no problem with length at either tp—perhaps because I use an iPad most of the time; I'll likely never buy an iPhone again—the iPad is so much cheaper and more useful. As far as possible bandwidth issues, perhaps it would be possible to add anchor points in the talk pages and index the points on the user page. On the other hand I always carry a camera bag that easily accommodates an iPad in a slot.

I find talk pages that are archived every day or two much more problematic, or worse, just blanked that often. — Neonorange (Phil) 05:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I thought the table of contents does that. But perhaps you mean chronological points by month or year in addition which would lead to the start of a group of sections? --it might make sense for the most recent month or two--this is the first time I've heard this suggested, and I am going to try it tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

But my talk p. just worked fine on my iphone xr, --but that's using my 50 MB home wifi and being 10 feet from the access point. instantaneous access to the table of contents and then to each section. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I just want to say that I like how you spend time on the project instead of archiving your talkpage. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well I feel it's the least I can to do make up for all the man-hours lost to the project because of editors sitting waiting for my talk page to load. EEng 23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"fo shizzle ma dizzle". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For the invaluable technical contribution of "archiving your talk page" SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yay!! Maureen O'Hara's got nothing on you, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This is very disruptive, I'm very upset. The large amount of archiving resulted in a large number of changes on my watchlist. As a result, my watchlist suffered a severe outbreak of hives. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Haiku bot

First of all: holy shit the page loaded in under ten seconds! All right! :-D

But more importantly, you'll recall the ANI haikus of years past. Today, I learned that there's a bot on reddit called "haikusbot" that goes around detecting haikus in other people's comments and pointing them out. I was reading this /r/madden thread (don't judge) [152] and someone wrote:

Did they fix this game, or is it the same trash they shit out every year?

...and the bot posted:

Did they fix this game,
Or is it the same trash they
Shit out every year?
- haterrage
I detect haikus. Sometimes, successfully. Learn more about me

What a brilliant use of technology! Wikipedia needs this. ANI needs this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns. I understand that you don't like the pronoun, nor believe it is a genuine preference, but this is becoming cruel. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Our visitor, an otherwise very sensible and respected admin and former arb, refers to a discussion of the idea that tree is a pronoun -- links below.

I'm not denigrating anyone. I am trying to give a short, sharp shock to editors somehow unable to see through the fey pretension of [153] -- (talk page stalker)s may enjoy reviewing WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#When_the_preferred_pronoun_is_not_a_pronoun and [154], EEng 06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You'd think someone who so constantly is having to defend that everyone else work around their Comedic Interjections into discussions they personally find dull and demanding idiosyncratic exceptions be made for them (I had more than enough time to add a couple five dollar words here when scrolling to the bottom of your internet replication of a Hoarders episode here) would have the self awareness to not describe anyone else as having "fey pretensions," but life is, as always, a true surprise. Parabolist (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Parabolist, as I live and breathe! How the hell are you? I'm not against fey pretension; I'm against people refusing to recognize it for what it is and insisting articles be based on it. EEng 07:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This, and my attempts to deescalate at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale, were my attempts to avoid ANI. But since you have insisted: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses neopronouns. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week in relation to this ANI thread. While the point you are making may have some validity, making it by insulting and denigrating the subject of a BLP is not acceptable. You have been around long enough to know this. Restoring such comments after they were removed by an admin as BLP violations, and after you were (very politely, I might add) asked to stop is doubly unacceptable and that in particular is the reason for this block. The duration takes into account your familiarity with the relevant polices and your previous block log. You may of course appeal this action by using the {{unblock}} template or by asking for your comments to be copied over to ANI. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, for the record:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

And in case it was needed, I remind you that BLP applies regardless of the namespace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

While we're here, might as well also add:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You know, the bit about It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date is kind of hard to take at face value when delivered immediately following a block. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen silly blocks, but taking the piss out of a bloke who wants to be called "tree" seems spot on. Well done, I lolled a lot. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good heavens. Some of my best friends are trees. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I am a tree. video. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This is conifer erasure! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Roxy! No!. This is just getting worse. Taking the piss out of other editors was more than bad enough. Taking it out of a BLP subject is just too muc. And there is no way to accept or condone it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

But yes. Taking the piss out of somebody that wants to be called tree is fine. Good grief. He's a bloke. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever one may think about such a person, we all are still required to adhere to BLP policy. Paul August ☎ 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Roxy, taking the piss out of the real, living subject of a Wikipedia article, on the talk page of the article, is not fine. It's not what Wikipedia is about and it risks bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. Feel free to take the piss out of ideas, in general terms, so far as is within the project scope, or out of whatever you like on some other corner of the Internet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Except taking the piss out of the real, living subject of a Wikipedia article, on the talk page of the article is not what I was doing, and your comment shows you didn't actually read the discussion on the article's talk page and the earlier ones linked from it. What I was doing was taking the piss out of the people who actually believe Lonsdale wants to be called tree, when (as is perfectly obvious) he has no such desire; I point out for the millionth time that Lonsdale's own PR firm continues to refer to him as he [155]. Floquenbeam has it spot on:

treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark. IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block.

There's definitely a place (though not on WP) for discussion about whether there's liberation value in a thoughtful campaign to get people to understand and use xe/xem/xyr – very much like the movement to bring Ms. into common use 50 years ago. Such a consciousness-raising campaign around a considered addition to the language is completely different from random individuals picking random words to be their "pronouns". If people want to do that, that's not my business. If other people want to invest their mental energy in referring to their friends by tree or bunny pronouns [156], that's also not my business. But when people show up at Wikipedia insisting that articles refer to people that way, that is my business, and I'm going to say something about it.

I wasn't denigrating Lonsdale for any choice of pronouns, because it's patently obvious that he made no such choice; my disdain is for those who keep insisting that we actually refer to Lonsdale as tree in his article when (as linked at the start of this post) Lonsdale himself doesn't do that. But we have editors so focused on falling all over themselves in the RIGHTGREATWRONGS department that they can't see the forest for the, um, trees.

EEng 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng, Sorry, not today. You don't get to use terms like "lunacy" on a BLP talk page, then restore it after you were asked not to (the problem with it having been pointed out), then pretend you weren't talking about the LP. Had you not restored it after GW removed it, I would have just chalked it up to silliness but you tipped it over into malice, or at least making a point at the subject's expense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, I care little about being blocked, as most people know, since it's one of the hazards of the job. But I do care about having my words and actions misrepresented, and I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of your continuing to say that my, er, criticism was directed at the subject of the article. As now repeatedly requested, please read the thread at [157] get back to me. And I guess it wasn't obvious, but yes please to copy my post above to the ANI thread. EEng 19:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, I'm going to play devil's advocate here a little bit, and draw your attention to User:Ritchie333/Userbox Boris, where I call a living person a "complete nincompoop". What's the difference? If BoJo complained on Talk:Boris Johnson about the criticism in his article, would we have to carefully respect his views, or tell him to take a hike and read WP:COI? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'm disappointed in the comparison. Johnson is a household name and a national politician whose policies have been widely criticised, and who has got to the position he holds by playing the "court jester". While calling him a "nincompoop" on Wikipedia is not entirely appropriate, nobody is likely to be offended by it. It's a lot milder than how I might describe him in the pub when those finally reopen. Describing the way somebody refers to themselves as "lunacy" on a BLP talk page is clearly inappropriate and liable to cause unnecessary offence. EEng knows this. Restoring it after this is pointed out to them is doubly inappropriate. EEng knows this as well. The block is lenient with all things considered, and for just about any other editor would the inevitable consequence of restoring a BLP violation after being asked to stop. He's lucky I didn't spend more than a couple of minutes looking for evidence of "awareness" or this would be a discretionary sanction, probably accompanied by a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the heart of the issue here is not so much that the comment was restored on Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale, as to how it was done, with inflammatory comments faux struck-out and replaced, as opposed to just rewriting the comment to be less disruptive. To me, that reads in the same manner as a child being asked to apologise and doing so in a sarcastic manner eg: "You called her stupid. Apologise." / "I'm sorry you're so stupid". That's just asking for trouble and I can't really criticise the block here if it was done for that reason. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)