User talk:EEng

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

It has been 3598 days since this user was last blocked by a thin-skinned admin.

Typical stalking behavior

Without doubt one of the lamest edit wars ever

NPA

Please don't make a personal attack in an edit summary as you did at Wikipedia:Did you know]. Dispute resolution is made that much more difficult. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. If he can't take it he shouldn't be dishing it out [1][2]. This guy's always angry. There's no dispute here, just his venting, so there's no dispute resolution to be made more difficult. EEng (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It'd be best if you started a thread at the DYK talk page rather than conduct this petty feud via edit summaries. But you both already knew that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You having the most experience in the petty feud quarter, of course. Actaully, I was going to ask you to take over for me, since you and Bloom are always entertaining to watch. EEng (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bravo. I've turned over a new leaf, i.e. not arguing the toss with those who will never get it, plenty of them around. But the initial advice stands, start a thread rather than attempt a puerile debate via edit summaries. That way we'll get it all out in the open and neither of you will need to feel anxious or upset. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I had noticed you were less of a curmudgeon lately. Keep up the good work. There's nothing to debate, as BMS has made the needed fix, Bloom's incomprehension notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I had also noticed, in that same period, that you had taken up the role of being the local asshat;) Keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yours are big shoes to fill, but I'm doing my best. It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. EEng (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Great, now archive your talk page. It's as bloated as most of the chat at the Reference Desk or the DYK talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Love me, love my bloated talk page. EEng (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Aquarius! and my name is EEng!" .... "bloat, bloat on"..... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

[3] EEng (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's Aquarius, you numbskull, not Aquaria! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

" Gladiators.... READY!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's more convincing when the person warning about "edit warring" isn't one of those doing the reverting. You're obviously angry about other things. [4][5] EEng (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks. Don't feed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"I didn't get where I am today by telling people they might get blocked from editing!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

See [6]] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this [7]]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry [8]. Hopefully this will allow him to cool down. EEng (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

EEng, the best thing I can think of is that a very long time ago, an unruly landlord took exception to the music the band I was in were playing, and at the end of the gig told us to not come back while turning a blind eye to a couple of drunks hurling our equipment out into the street, nearly causing injury due to a bass drum flying through the air. When 3RR wars break out, think of tales like that and remind yourself "it could be worse". Happy holidays. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Either that, or try and get your own drunken bass-drum hurling in first. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC) grrrr, a measly 24 hours! ... doesn't even give us enough time do undo all your dodgey Huck Phinn edits.

But whatever you do, please please don't kick the cat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Although you can get therapy if you do. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I continue to be astonished that this page seems worth watching to so many people. EEng (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

I suggest you revert this edit. The comment is off-topic there and makes you look petty. I don't think it contributes to a good working climate, either between the two of you, or in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, but decline. I'm not embarrassed to be blocked at the behest of someone like that, but I prefer that the context be on the record. EEng (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

From the Museum of Freudian Slips

About this edit summary: [9], please tell me that the spelling was intentional, and not a typo or a Freudian slip! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, sometimes a typo is just a typo, but I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish one from a F.S. without more psychotherapy than my insurance will underwrite. Not intentional, at any rate. EEng (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"So, Sigmund Freud walks into a bra..." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"So, Phineas Gage runs into a bar..." EEng (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that sounds bit hairy! Anyone fancy a Brazillian? [10]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that before, of course. I like where the doctor says "the bar entered a 'non-eloquent' area of the brain" -- likely Google-translate for the "silent area" – see [11]. What's really amazing about these kinds of amazing survivals is that they're not actually uncommon anymore. See Stone (1999) "Transcranial Brain Injuries Caused by Metal Rods or Pipes over the Past 150 Years". (My favorites: Case IX – "a young left-handed American Marine in a jeep accident near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who had a gear shift driven through his head ... On follow-up examination he was free of gross deficits and was eventually dismissed from the Marine Corps because of injuries to his knee. Some years later it was learned that he did have a dyslexia and had sought the help of a nun who trained him to read" – and Case XIV – "The victim and his friend were intoxicated and attempting a 'William Tell' maneuver ... The arrow was removed by pulling it through the brain along its original trajectory ..." I always find it amusing that details such as "near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania", and the nun, are considered somehow relevant.) EEng (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Better take care if you're out drinking in downtown Boston, Mr. L. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Freud's first slip. EEng (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor EEng, as a young child, he was mistreated by a bot. Those nasty bots! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

More like the Primal scene, except with bots. After that I could never look at my motherboard the same way again. EEng (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely you mean Primal Scream? ya mutha. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Primal Screen And don't call me Shirley. EEng (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

DYKbot messages

If I didn't feel strongly about it, I wouldn't have reverted you to begin with. That isn't your talk page, please don't delete messages from it in future. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

My reasons for deleting these automated messages, once they're rendered defunct by a human acting on them, have nothing to do with any confounding on my part of Talk:DYK with my talk page, but rather are given both here [12] and in two prior edit summaries. Your reasoning, both here and elsewhere, seems to be "you shouldn't because you shouldn't", which is hardly convincing. EEng (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yuk, lessons for us all

"Similarly, when a lumbermill foreman returned to work soon after a saw cut three inches into his skull from just between the eyes to behind the top of his head, his surgeon (who had removed from this wound "thirty-two pieces of bone, together with considerable sawdust") termed the case "second to none reported, save the famous case of the Wikipedia ArbCom sanctions decree", but apologized that "I cannot well gratify the desire of my professional brethren to possess the editor's skull, until he has no further use for it himself." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

For future use, whenever you have need:

I thought I'd give this to you, for use at the right time: The Empire of Celery

Very thoughtful of you indeed. It will occupy an honored place in my armamentarium. EEng (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention... this useful professor! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

creep?

You are missing my main point, which is that mosnum would become one whole lot simpler if it adopted the ISQ as default, stating exceptions as considered necessary, and not inventing new rules over and over again. Is that really instruction creep? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"American way, How did it start? ... Cop kill a creep! Pow pow pow!" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's CREEP unless it's clear (a) that there's lots of controversy that needs settling, and (b) that ISQ indeed usually gives the answers we would want. So far I'm not even seeing (a), and (b) can't become clear without a lot more discussion, almost certainly with actual issues as examples. EEng (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe the simplification is justified even without proof of controversy. I suspect that ISQ provides much of the advice on units that is now in MOSNUM, but I accept some discussion is needed for this to be accepted, which is why I keep raising it. The main exceptions would be selected use of traditional American units in American articles and traditional English units in English articles, and mosnum's insistence in using ambiguous prefixes for MB, GB etc. Not only would it result in a simpler mosnum, which would benefit Wikipedia as a whole - it would also reduce the time needed for future mosnum discussions by providing a clear starting point. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You creeper, you

Was this edit summary intentional?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Jeepers Creepers! EEng (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Paradise Circus, Birmingham

Your kind of hook? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, but it seems like there ought to be be a better hook in there -- something like "Paradise has been condemned" or "Paradist is going to hell", but I'm drawing a blank. EEng (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, keep thinking. Mind altering substances might help? I'm too close to this, so my ideas for now aren't worth much. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How about

... that parts of Paradise are to be demolished to make way for a "vibrant mixed use development"?

Sorry, I can't figure a way to work the circus back in, though it now seems likely there are, in fact, circuses in heaven. If you like this please propose it on the nom page -- past my bedtime. EEng (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I would be pleased to propose that, but that would DSQ me as a reviewer. And it was like Herding cats to get this article up to speed and give it that tick. Maybe you or User:Gerda Arendt can propose it? Since the article would support the hook (that wouldn't evaporate), it would not involve getting another reviewer. And I could just approve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Assignation

Sorry about that! and thanks for fixing it. "Assignation" does look awfully funny to a non-specialist, though! --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it does sound like a kind of Linnaean tryst. EEng (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} ... wishes you and yours:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace!

"Horrible Horace" Trumbauer

Thanks. I wrote a 52-page paper on Trumbauer in high school, so I'm familiar with a lot of the scholarship. The trouble is, I can see both sides of the argument. Paul Cret was appalled when shown the Trumbauer firm's drawings for the Philadelphia Museum of Art—there were 2 style options for decorating the exterior but the interior volumes stayed the same. This went against Cret's whole philosophy of design, but made sense for a businessman like Trumbauer who had to woo clients. I will always have an abiding affection for Trumbauer, especially his Shingle-style buildings. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll find this note interesting [13]. EEng (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That was fun to read. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you didn't miss the bit about the toilets [14]. And the wisecracking campus police chief [15]. And the cannibals [16]. EEng (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Rice cannibals anecdote is right up there with Mark Twain. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, EEng. You have new messages at User talk:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver.
Message added 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Per your suggestion elsewhere, go ahead and set me up for archiving, but nothing automatic -- I'll do it myself via one-click. EEng (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I've set up the header and created the first page for you. Template:1CA doesn't do well with creating new archives and it doesn't do anything with page sizes yet either. Both things I will need to fix before I can think about adding an ability to archive multiple sections at once. Anyways. Happy archiving! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Smith Campus Center

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Settling the Smith Center debate

You're welcome. I really need to get to bed now . Daniel Case (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wimp. EEng (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Peabody Terrace

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year EEng!

Happy New Year!

EEng,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Aren't you the creep who hangs out with that degenerate Martinevans123? EEng (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes dear, just like like you, Hafspajen (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Mirokado

Happy New Year. I've enjoyed our conversations about Phineas. --Mirokado (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what I'd have done if it weren't for you. Once we've cleared the "issues" list, how would you like to give it an honest evaluation from a GA point of view? EEng (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I will be happy to do that, please let me know when you are ready. --Mirokado (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point we're waiting for Tryptofish to sign off on the few remaining "issues". Then we can talk about GA. Again, thanks for keeping a cool head through thick and thin. EEng (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year EEng!

Happy New Year!

EEng,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Jakob (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Unfortunately the terms of my parole require me to stay away from crowds and loud noises. EEng (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year EEng!

Happy New Year!

EEng,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Sent using Mass message sender. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from User:Northamerica1000/Mailing list.

Mari Lwyd hapus

Martinevans123^{Ogof Myrddin o ddirgelwch} ... wishes you and yours:
" Mari Lwyd hapus"

---

All the best for 2015. Have a horse's skull on a stick and a toast tree trolley!

Mari Lwyd hapus Ogof Myrddin o ddirgelwch??? Time for a new keyboard. EEng (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Round here we use human skulls impaled on iron bars.

"Legal disclaimer: no keyboards were knowingly hurt in the construction of this New Year Greeting." Mssrs. Sue, Grabitt and Runne^{"Legal eagles to all the stars"}

These guys are even messier: Dewey Cheatham & Howe LLP -- EEng (talk)

One that "slipped through the net": [17] Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Great to see that your favourite library has a Tiffany lamp to go with those roaring open fires. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Wasp Branch

Just a note that I've pulled this from the prep area. Given that you promoted it, and your general interest in DYK, I thought you might be interested. (Template:Did you know nominations/Wasp Branch) Harrias ^talk 21:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't promote it, only reviewed it. I'll look later. EEng (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Widener Library

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Widener Library you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Widener Library

The article Widener Library you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Widener Library for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Pearls before swine

Too true. Oh well, there's lots of other hooks in the sea. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Like I said somewhere else, it just goes to show that hookers aren't appreciated, despite providing a much-in-demand service. EEng (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Just deserts? Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Charles R. Apted

Hi. Regarding Charles R. Apted, you've got the following tags in the article:

• clarification needed
• better source needed

There are GA reviewers who might quick fail your nom because of this. You may want to remedy the problem before they get to it. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As this relates to a comment I just left in Talk:Widener Library/GA1, while I would not pass a GA review until the tags are resolved (whether by sourcing, removing the content, finding an alternative source and rewriting it, or concluding the tag was bad-faith or wrong), I would not quickfail the review either unless it had one of the larger cleanup banners on it. Even then, I would look at context, to see if somebody put the tag on to prove a point, which I've seen happen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Your hook for Olim L'Berlin got more hits than I've ever gotten for an article I worked on. Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the brilliant move was yours, which was to make the link text Facebook photos. EEng (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Widener Library

The article Widener Library you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Widener Library for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think expecting Martin to be sensible is wishful thinking ... anyway I have formally undone this and put the review back on, with a status of "2nd opinion" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'll second that! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie, I appreciate it. And Martin, will you please be not crazy for just 24 hours? I'm off to the Library -- anyone want anything? EEng (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe an extra hour? (... nah, won't get used, thanks anyway!) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's just leave Martin as he is ... lawd knows I've pinged him enough times in a desperate attempt to kill off drama with humour before finally burying it with sarcasm. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Today is "National shit on EEng from a great height day". Please bring your rotten tomatoes and automated insult generators. Thankyou. Image courtesy of Ritchie333

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Richie, this is the funniest thing ever. For those unaware (as I was), this red gem is from User:Darwinbish/insultspout. Refresh as often as desired:

Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!

Don't call names, you mangled full-gorged bum-bailey!

You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you roguish swag-bellied baggage.

EEng (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Be nice. I removed a significant amount of your verbage that had nothing to do with the AFD. If you can't be civil, don't speak up at all. seicer | talk | contribs 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that referring to EEng's edits as crap is going to get the necessary result. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How prescient of you (see below). In the event, it apparently didn't. So what do you think -- should I file the ritual futile unblock request? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

-- Block performed by the semi-retired drop-in admin civility enforcer.

• If you'll specify just why you blocked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least you didn't get a perm, dearie. Martine's Mobile Hair Vans123 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies:, @Yngvadottir: - I've just had a GA review torpedoed as a result of EEng's block, I don't suppose you've be awfully kind like you were to the Best Known For IP and consider "time served" would you? EEng, I think you've made your point in the AfD (as have I) and we should both leave it alone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't mind having a look (which I can to much more easily now that some manual archiving happened mysteriously) but I don't know the particulars. Seicer, what would you want to hear from EEng to consider them ready for the general population? What is the ANI incident? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I've been watching (and facepalming), and I think I can answer your questions. The ANI thread is WP:ANI#EEng of questionable civility. What led to the block, shortly after the ANI thread had been closed, was some mutual reverting between EEng and Seicer: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. I'm neutral (and facepalming) as to what if anything you should do now. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Tryptofish, I saw that AfD, thanks. I'll have a look at the ANI thread. Ritchie333, if you want to get this character unblocked, don't add fuel to the fire and get rid of the stupid ducking stool. There is no state-organized repression here until that's proven to be the case by ArbCom in triplicate. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I just want to say that the thought of ArbCom in triplicate has me seeing double. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Alright, I have a thought. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that edit-warring with an admin and telling them what they can and cannot do is one of the primary causes for this block. I submit to the general court that edit-warring with an admin (outside of article space with the admin playing the part of regular editor) is a pretty dumb thing to do. Even if one disagrees, there are better avenues. Were EEng to file an unblock request (in triplicate or not), and if they were to express regret over the tone they used and the words they said, including that silly infobox-looking counter making reference to an unnamed yet easily-identified "thin-skinned admin", and were they to promise being a bit more careful--for the love of God!--then I might consider said request. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) To be fair Drmies, that userbox at the top of the page, despite being silliness and not very productive, has been there two months. I don't care to go to ANI to see what that was about and I don't care to go to the AfD to see what happened there, so if there is more to this than I know, just ignore me. However, if there isn't more to this, then asking them to remove their silliness is just silliness. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of that, but it doesn't change anything, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know

@Drmies: please look at [23] and educate me (and I mean that -- really). WP:TPO gives --

Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection ... Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

--- where the words are controversial link to --

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate ... removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.

Now where in the world was I supposed to find, in the above, authority for anyone (admin or not) to remove any of the material this character removed (not just my posts but those of several others too)? And if so, where is the "clear-cut personal attack" by me that would justify that? And (BTW) if any part of that authority stems (as you imply above it it does) from the fact that this character is an admin, then what happened to the hollow and hoary adage that "Admins don't have more authority, just more tools", or whatever?

No kidding, I don't get it. I really want to know. EEng (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• What I don't get is why you'd restore something that an admin removed as a personal attack. You could have considered asking them. Common sense. "More tools"--well, admins are also voted into office to use said tools as they think is right and proper. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: What, I'm supposed to always check that thing at the bottom of his user page, or talk page, or contributions page, or wherever it is I can never remember, to find out this character's an admin? Or was I supposed to infer his adminshipness from the judicious and admin-like edit summary Remove the personal crap from EEng: play nice [24]?

Someone says "I have to say this smacks of religious persecution ... the user originally marking this and now Matt's page for deletion has religious motivations for wanting to delete notable atheists", and I respond, "I'm an atheist myself, so can you please put a lid on the crybaby accusations?" [25]-- and I'm making a personal attack?

Something I post isn't a personal attack because some admin says it is, but rather because it is -- if it is. But if it is, I'm still waiting for someone to point to it. Can you do me that courtesy? EEng (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi EEng. I don't believe we've really interacted before, I'm Dave - Worm That Turned. I'm hoping you saw my comment at ANI. There were two things I saw in your behaviour and one of which is really coming through in this section - that's a total lack of flexibility. You seem to be very hung up on the "Rules" of wikipedia - but Wikipedia does not have "firm" rules. One of our rules is to ignore the other ones if there is a benefit to the encyclopedia! That's not to say that people should run amok, but policy describes how the situation was when it was written - and it's not written in stone. Much more important than what is written down in "policy" is consensus of individuals, the collaboration of real people. Now, in my opinion, the way forward is not to focus on whether or not Seicer's removals were justified by policy (the so called "WP:WIKILAWYER" approach) and more on why he and others felt that your comments were inappropriate. Worm^TT(talk) 08:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I'm an admin and would be happy to look at unblocking if you were to convince me you'd taken on board those comments. On the flip side, I would impose further blocks if you carry on down this path of incivility. Worm^TT(talk) 08:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you took to wrote the above, but you've misread me. I don't need any tutoring re IAR and consensus and what Wikilawyering means and so on -- I've been here quite long enough. I really don't care much about being blocked -- got plenty of ways to use my time -- so I'm not gonna fuss about getting unblocked. But maybe a bit of discussion will be time well spent. So let's see... You want me to understand why whatshisname "and others felt my comments were inappropriate." OK, fine. Take a look at the diff linked at the beginning of this section and you tell me. I'm listening. In doing that, though, please be sure to look at the comments to which I was responding. EEng (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come across as patronising, I genuinely believe rules are not a big deal here and that you could do with being a bit more flexible and accepting. I'm not going to comment on what Seicer decided to remove and what he didn't. What I will say is that you've been unduly personal in your comments on that AfD, talking about an editor's personal notability, using scare quotes in a derogatory manner, pointed use of non-existent WP policies and badgering people with a different point of view than you. I did indeed look at the comments that you were responding to - some may not have been the best arguments at a deletion discussion, but none were personally targeted. Now, don't get me wrong. None of your actions were egregious and I specifically said at ANI that there was no need to sanction you over them. I personally wouldn't have removed anything (that's not the way I work), but instead acted if you had carried on in the same manner. I'm concerned that similar issues have been brought up before. Worm^TT(talk) 09:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think Seicer made a bad situation worse, and that you were both edit warring and hence both of you were in the wrong. I wouldn't support any sanction against Seicer, but I would advise him that he'd do well to reflect on how he might resolve and de-escelate conflict without having to reach for the block button in future. On the other side of the coin I also think that EEng should not see red and revert someone again and again unless there are very clear circumstances such as vandalism. Regardless of what other people have done, I have never seen a successful unblock request that doesn't directly address one's own behaviour - see WP:NOTTHEM.

FWIW, I personally subscribe to a self-imposed "1RR" rule, which means I never revert someone twice (okay, once or twice I've gone to two, but I have to thrash myself 40 times with a belt if I do). I find it works well and avoids situations like these. Have a few days off, EEng, and we'll regroup for Widener Library on your return. However, I think you've had enough blocks now to realise that the next time you repeatedly revert someone, there's a risk that you'll get another block, and it may be indefinite. I'm not saying that's good or bad, more that that's just the likely scenario we're going to find ourselves in. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I bit and did some digging, and am concerned with Seicer's actions. Is there an AN/I discussion to see if it was a good block or not? I'm not convinced that it was at this time. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• You are spending way too much time on this. seicer | talk | contribs 14:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Did you warn User:EEng that he might be blocked? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Seicer stated Last warning, in his edit summary. My comment at ANI specifically mentioned that EEng should carefully consider how he presents himself in discussions, lest he end up being removed from them. We have 2 uninvolved admins looking at this (Drmies and myself) and neither of us have raised any issues with the block. I can't speak for Drmies, but I certainly endorse Seicer's actions, even if they were not how I would have handled the situation. As I said above, we can go down the Wikilawyer route or the productive discussion route. Worm^TT(talk) 15:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  There's an ANI discussion now.. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  I think what you say, User:Worm That Turned, is wholly reasonable. My only lingerirg doubt - was User:Seicer "involved" when he imposed the block? I can see User: EEng's point of view too. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

  Assuming that there's been no previous interaction - I'd say not. Seicer's redaction and warning were administrative actions. There is the question of Seicer being involved in the deletion discussion, which does add a grey area - but given that his opinion was in the same direction as EEng, and that he made the comment after the redaction, I do not believe his actions appear problematic. Restoring his administrative action, and applying the block appear to be appropriate preventative actions. Worm^TT(talk) 15:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

More inquiring minds

(ping Worm That Turned, Martinevans123, Ritchie333) @Drmies: You said, somewhere back, that "edit-warring with an admin ... is a pretty dumb thing to do". I asked whether you expect editors to click on an "opponent" editor's "User Rights" link, so they can be appropriately submissive if the "opponent" is an admin; I didn't say (as you characterized it at ANI) anything about "checking a box". It's still a serious question -- are we supposed to find out the "rank" of the other person involved, and act accordingly? Surely you don't mean that.

Whatever the outcome of the ANI thread, I was ready to accept it of course. As it unfolded, it was apparently concluding that my actions might be seen (by some) as unpleasant, but not actionable. Yet Seicer, not satisfied with that, took it upon himself to delete my posts. When I quite rightly objected based on WP:TPO (which clearly says, "stop if there is any objection") Seicer, instead of discussing the question at the ANI thread already underway, or (later) proposing a block there, unilaterally blocked me himself.

This wasn't BLP-violating article content -- it was some talk posts that he judged beyond the pale. Short of the "clear NPA" exception spelled out in WP:TPO he had no business doing that, and by doing so he placed himself above the many editors participating at ANI. So despite the talk above about the sanctity of consensus, from where I'm standing it looks like Seicer has little patience for that annoying process. Blocking is serious business, and blocking actions should be held to the highest standards. Seicer shot from the hip, and when called on that, doubled down by blocking instead of backing off and letting the ANI thread play out. (He also closed the ANI thread, thereby subtly discouraging comment on his actions.)

You want to hear me say I should have let it drop before reverting the second time? Sure I should have. And now, if Seicer has any integrity, he'll say he should have done the same himself, and made a proposal at ANI instead of escalating. It takes two to edit war, and it's still an edit war if one of the warriors is an admin -- no matter how right he judges himself to be.

EEng (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I am a talk page stalker, and I invite EEng to see what I just said at ANI to the admins. EEng, in this fish's humble opinion, the problem was not that you edit warred with an administrator. When you asked above whether you should need to check whether someone is an admin or not, my answer is that nobody should have to check for that. WP:DEAL and all that. But whether or not the other person was an admin, or maybe just a humble fish, there are smarter things to do than to edit war over one's supposed right to make wiseguy comments to other editors. And you were being a wiseguy. And you didn't need to be one. Keep this up, and you are going to get banned forever, not just blocked for a few days. And what a waste that would be. In fact, you will remember that you were very recently checking with me at my talk page about when I would have time to look in on Phineas Gage, where I had been trying to help you. I said that I've been limited for time, so look at what you accomplished even there: I've spent time looking into this and making a needed comment at ANI, and that's time I didn't spend on content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to find the sorry mess is over, and even more glad to take ANI back off my watchlist. I think Tryptofish's comment just above this one is insightful and I do hope you take it on board. I'll be around as a page stalker if you need me. Worm^TT(talk) 07:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Archiving a talk page

A large pile of composted Talk Page threads can spontaneously combust if not properly managed

Not only are your DYK stories getting ever taller, but I fear your 57 miles (92 km) of Talk Page shelving is getting a bit long. Who knows, it might even constitiute a fire hazard. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

..."will you please be not crazy for just 48 hours?" ... a chance to do some serious shelf-tidying before that sprinkler kicks in? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You always lift the spirits of those around you. Listen, will you please check your inbox/junk folder and get something useful done while I'm doing my penance here? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If only I could get to the bottom of it! But, irony of ironies, it seems you "can't actually archive your page until the block is expired, because you can't edit the Archive sub-page..." or so come kindly technical chap tells us. Now there's something in need of tweaking. However will you fill your time? A trip to Cornwall never goes amis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, check your email. And if you can find the time, maybe go through the GA with Ritchie and see if you can help resolve the few specific points that are left -- there really are just a few. EEng (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hell's kittens!! So they've actually let you out. I'll bring over some fava beans and a nice chianti for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Goddamit, the last thing I need right now is a Lecter from you. EEng (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)