User talk:EEng: Difference between revisions

External videos
External videos
	Will repeat!

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:21, 14 March 2023

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EEng.

> > > 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.

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]

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14

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])

Wikipedians with red lynx cats on their user page

🌳

Please consider the environment before printing this 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)[reply]

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. E Eng 05:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 06:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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). E Eng 18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(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.
- (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 [9].
- (3) What MIT library makes you go around in circles? Answer: Barker Library, inside the Great Dome; see the map here [10].
- (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 [11]. (If you like that sort of thing at all then this book [12] is outstanding.)

E Eng 20:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Like my new laptop? This baby can do 10.8 EEngtalks!" E Eng 10:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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.

E Eng 07:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That video is hilarious. E Eng 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

👏👏👏

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that list be compressed. E Eng 23:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Donald's got a squeeze box, Melania never sleeps at night": [13] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Took a stab at it. E Eng 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

A beer for you!

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

I thought you might appreciate...

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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? E Eng 01:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jessamyn: I have a soft spot for nonacademic Harvard staff (see Charles Apted andn [14]) 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. E Eng 21:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roger, Roger. E Eng 10:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Buddhist notification

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

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)[reply]

You have an unerring instinct for starting trouble, Legobot. E Eng 09:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to archive your talk page

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

Thanks. I'd never heard of this "archiving" concept before. E Eng 21:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe Trump will declare my talk page a national emergency. E Eng 21:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

A very, very clever gothca!

From a discussion on an article talk page [15]:

Support for the reasons given above. BushelCandle (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You can all thank me later. E Eng 04:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They can only thank you if they can load your talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... surrounded by a rocky coastline that's covered with petrified tree trunks.... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 kB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 992.6 kB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. 138.75.82.114 (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, 885 kilobytes? Jesus. 138.75.82.114 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible's like 4MB; this page ain't half as holy. Levivich 06:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: The Bible is only 4 million characters long?! That doesn't seem right for a 'book' consisting of 30 or so books. But hey, what do I know? 138.75.82.114 (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DevinCow must be over the moon about that. E Eng 18:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User:Ivanvector, I heard you're a miracle treatment for Covid. Is that true? E Eng 15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I presume this is a joke

[16]. I did chuckle a little. --Jayron 32 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dude, I crossed the edge years ago. If you're only getting to the edge now, you've got some catching up to do. --Jayron 32 14:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

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

Yeah, I get that a lot. E Eng 00:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, Thegooduser, I appreciate it! E Eng 14:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

^{( 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Thank you. I live to serve. E Eng 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notre-Dame de Paris fire: Difference between revisions

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

Vive la différence! E Eng 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [17]. E Eng 18:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Glad to see you again, and thank you. E Eng 21:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, you know how I get once I taste blood. E Eng 01:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Surely you mean "humor to tasteless"? E Eng 16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians who beat other Wikipedians? —Paleo Neonate – 00:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notre-Dame de Paris fire

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

Thank goodness someone still has a sense of humor. [18] E Eng 04:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An encouraging word

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

This undeserved praise regards this modest edit [19]. E Eng 02:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink -- see the image. E Eng 04:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Watch your step lest T&S disappear you for outing me. E Eng 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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. ^[FBDB] --WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

"My T&S BANFRAM brings all the nuts to the yard....": [20] etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Next?

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

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

^^^^ Definitely the best yet. E Eng 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

"I have gotta Admin name of FRAMA-BANA-JANA-LAMA-DING-DONG": [21] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? listed at Redirects for discussion

Shortcut

WP:ANNEDREWGETACLUE

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)[reply]

WTF? The moon must be in clueless. E Eng 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"CAN JUNEMOON SHAKE SPOON MOONEY SOON"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

He's a foo. E Eng 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Presents Jimbo as a seagoing mammal

E Eng 02:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

^^^^ This one is quite good too. E Eng 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

WTF? (= "What the French?") E Eng 02:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

BLOCKED

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

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

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) [reply]

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. E Eng 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uburpers!

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I hope...

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

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

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)[reply]

I would like to believe you're talking about

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

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)[reply]

Taylor Swift

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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." E Eng 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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). E Eng 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All together! E Eng 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Beyond a reasonable trout" -- that's brilliant. E Eng 01:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Contains the intriguing phrase could not hear the whistle over the hay cutter. E Eng 06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"hoist" v "hoisted"

Do you think perhaps, if it should be left as "hoist" [22], 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)[reply]

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

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. E Eng 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ANI

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

You mean [23]? You need to read the history and THINK. There's even a link in the image captions to help you. E Eng 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those playing along at home, this relates to [24] (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:

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 [25] 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 [26], 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. E Eng 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 21:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Followup followup:

And now ol' SchroCat decides he's going to end the discussion [27]. Gotta love the control-freakism. Or am I not supposed to say that because being a control freak is a disability? E Eng 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some requests

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)[reply]

"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. E Eng 06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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...^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you making fun of his typo??? E Eng 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.[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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"].
E Eng 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

😂 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}? E Eng 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

John C Yoo

Turns out those torture memos were first seeded not just in the college, but in the vaults of Winthrop House [28]. Is anyone surprised? -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, so he is a Harvard College graduate. That saddens me. E Eng 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

He went to Yale Law School -- figures. E Eng 19:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

But then so were the Kennedys, so go figure. E Eng 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those playing along at home, our honored guest refers to [29], [30], and [31]. E Eng 00:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procurer? [32] --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pearls before swine

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

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.

”

E Eng 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you find time

Early tools

Three-phase rectifier for high voltage transmission (HVDC)

Inventions that transferred the power from man to electricity

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 03:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Atsme, I've looked at this again, and it's just too far from my areas of competence for me to add anything useful. Sorry. E Eng 16:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your memory is damn impressive, and so is your probity in light of your decision to respond at all. I say to hell with competence. Nothing wrong with the article as it sits now.

Atsme 💬 📧 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those playing along at home, this concerns [33].

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. E Eng 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep it up and I'll show you some real civility. E Eng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your presence at Talk page guidelines

For those intrepid enough to still be playing along at home, this has now metastasized to [34] (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)[reply]

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. E Eng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~PERSONAL~~THOUGHTFUL
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)[reply]

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

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

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

"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)[reply]

I stand corrected, Herr Doktor Professor. E Eng 14:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those playing along at home, this concerns the repeated removal of the lower image-and-caption seen here [35]:

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 [36]. E Eng 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of irony, actually: [37]. E Eng 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [38] 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. E Eng 02:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

E Eng 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Here, put this [39] in your pipe and smoke it.[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

[40] E Eng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

E Eng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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^[1]^[2] 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.

E Eng 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.[reply]

References

^ I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect [1]. -E Eng
^ Darned Chinks. I'm so offended, ~~I've resigned twice.~~ I'm in self-isolation for 14 days. -Martinevans123 (talk)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Levivich, will you marry me? E Eng 21:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No homo. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Breeder. E Eng 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can get a device for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For the record I appreciate your intelligent intervention. E Eng 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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). E Eng 18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. E Eng 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I've clarified that I inserted the heading of this subsection. E Eng 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 [41] 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. E Eng 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

I started out perfectly polite [42] [43], inviting MLG to comment on what she was concerned about. E Eng 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. E Eng 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I reject your scold scold; in modern usage the word's been fully liberated [44].[reply]

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.
-E **Eng**

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. E Eng 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? E Eng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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) [reply]

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.

E Eng 02:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. E Eng 15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. E Eng 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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^[FBDB] doesn't beat me to it). E Eng 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 02:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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. E Eng 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

am i reading this correctly? i don't mean to beat the dead horse here, but... oh, who am i kidding, i'll get the glue and the club. As a non-binary person who loves computers and puns, that shit's funny as fuck—i legitimately doubled over laughing and I can't think of a single one of my many, many non-binary friends and peers who wouldn't agree, if not without a groan. With all due respect to the people who are trying to stand up for my community, talking over us is not the solution. Anyone who thinks that that joke was out of line should try growing up non-binary in a religious family—it should put things right into perspective for them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier in this thread, instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. No doubt someone will now explain that you're so oppressed that you identify with the oppressor. E Eng 20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pinged me in your edit summary, I guess you want a response. There is no "the someone" here. Rather there are many someones. Sure it was funny, if understood, and sure some will have understood, and not be offended. But not all (perhaps not even most?) Do we not care about them? Paul August ☎ 21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I didn't particularly want a response, though I'm happy to have it; I mostly just wanted you to see what an expert witness had to say. In answer to your question: yes I care about them, so much so that I'm trying to help them see that even the weightiest subject admits (and benefits from) a bit of levity. E Eng 21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That humor can be beneficial is not in dispute. And having good intentions is not an adequate defense. Results are what matter. Something is offensive if it offends, not if it was meant to offend. Paul August ☎ 11:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that that's an oversimplification; under your formulation there would no degrees of homicide -- off with their heads! Not only does a speaker's intent matter in and of itself, but knowledge of the speaker's intent inevitably affects the hearer's perceptions. Plus, here at WP we're supposed to assume good faith in interpreting what someone says and does, not search for offensive interpretations. When (if) someone actually offended appears on the scene we can discuss that, but for now all we've got is (a) the woke-scold fretting that someone could be offended against (b) someone actually in a position to opine affirming that they are not, in fact, offended. Perhaps Theleekycauldron could ask among any friends similarly situation and let us know the results. E Eng 13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a rigorous referendum held by the Secret Society of Non-Binary People With Secret Handshakes™, theleekycauldron news network is ready to show some preliminary results and call the race. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to check Florida. (And tell all those non-binary woke scolds to "grow a pear", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: The "yes" votes, of course, won the "referendum college". Also, what do you mean by "non-binary woke scolds"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just have to take the fifth on that one. Maybe I should add scare-quotes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did get that there was sarcasm there, but i think you might've meant, like, "non-binary transphobes" or something, since they all thought the joke was fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sought a "soupsong" of sarcasm, but sent a surfeit, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The binary woke scolds are worse: they categorize everything as either "good" or "bad". Levivich 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And their dads are so opaque and shadowy; nowhere near trans parent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cisgender people don't get a vote.

John Harvard

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

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. E Eng 21:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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? Giant Snowman 21:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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. E Eng 04:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. E Eng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. E Eng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

re

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

Which one? I've been unkind to so many people lately. However, if you mean this [45] it sounds like you've already figured out [46] that I was parodying the unkindness of someone else. E Eng 13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

E Eng 19:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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. E Eng 14:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fix your typo - oh, and here is a RS. (Not meant to encourage you).

^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do the refs have to be in citation templates, or is it OK if I reference Donald Trump is a sociopathic^[1]-narcissist^[2]-racist^[3] criminal^[4] moron^[5] whose selfishness^[6] and stupidity^[7]
have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000^[8] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe it would be better as two sentences to avoid Synth: Donald Trump is a sociopathic^[1]-narcissist^[2]-racist^[3] criminal^[4] moron.^[5] His selfishness^[6] and stupidity^[7] have put anywhere from 100,000 to 2,000,000^[8] 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)[reply]

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,^{[citation needed]} and the opinion of [RS] who said...^{[citation needed]} 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)}[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Levivich, Actually, it's dead-even at Predictit since the Dems got smart and dumped Sanders. [47] 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)[reply]
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. E Eng 20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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 [48] you're delusional. E Eng 00:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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? E Eng 01:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wait, what?! That was not made clear from the outset. I want to be grandfathered in. --valereee (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will you settle for being grandmothered in? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We all cool, don't worry. E Eng 16:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

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. E Eng 18:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. E Eng 05:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

E Eng 03:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

🤯🤯🤯🤯Burma-shave

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

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)[reply]

For those playing along at home, this relates to [49].

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 [50]. E Eng 03:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your wish is my command:

Rank and File

Rear admiral (lower half)

Full bird private

E Eng 16:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Similarly, most of the French Academy's "Immortals" [51] are dead -- see List_of_members_of_the_Académie_française. E Eng 06:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 22:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [52]). E Eng 17:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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) [reply]

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. E Eng 21:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home, this goes back to [53]. E Eng 05:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mrgendering

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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?]}[reply]
Blow it out your ass! E Eng 13:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You refer, of course, to [54]. Well there're certainly plenty of places such terminology would come in handy. E Eng 02:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 13:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

American English, British English, it is all English! One of the things that DS-MOS uses. A a s i m 06:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

dogma drama

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)[reply]

Someone as degraded as you will enjoy [55]. E Eng 20:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

He definitely reads this page. E Eng 21:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [56]. E Eng 00:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Have you read

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

Its penetrating investigations are complemented by in-depth reporting. Harvard's catalog adds candidly – AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP – Frequency note: Irregular [57]. E Eng 14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fan club

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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, [58]? E Eng 04:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [59] 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?" E Eng 07:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it's more of a crop crack. E Eng 12:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brad. Paul August ☎ 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have always considered you a gentleman and a scholar. E Eng 07:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 14:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, since I don't want you to regret your kind words, I want to be sure you understand that ...

This [60] was sincerely meant.
This [61] was sincerely meant.
This [62] was sincerely meant.
OK, this [63] 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.) E Eng 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Buried in this rambling post [64] 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. E Eng 15:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [65], 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. [66]. 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. E Eng 17:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I actually don't know what "decorum to context" means (though it has a nice ring to it). E Eng 21:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see, sort of like "add salt to taste". E Eng 21:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.) E Eng 05:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 19:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now you've gone and taken all the mystery out of it! E Eng 18:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?) E Eng 04:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 23:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 02:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Déjà vu. Whatever happened to Moors murders, I wonder... El_C 02:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ... E Eng 03:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I remain a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a vest. El_C 03:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No joke. I was completely serious. Really. Absolutely. No kidding. E Eng 17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should of used the {{FBDB}} template... PackMecEng (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's "should HAVE used the {{FBDB}} template", you illiterate.^[FBDB] E Eng 22:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC) And stop calling me illiterate. My mom and dad have been married for 75 years![reply]

I am going to have to play the ESL card on that one! PackMecEng (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty foreigner.^[FBDB] E Eng 23:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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?]}[reply]

Some Guys are not to be messed with. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're in the big leagues now, kid, so prepare yourself. E Eng 23:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Run. —valereee (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once and for all

Let's settle this once and for all. Which is better?

"Address the edit, not the editor"
"Comment on the content, not the contributor" Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be pedantic, not a pedant. —valereee (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Valereee, Levivich may have met his match. I'll just note that all of the above are good starts for {{Burma-shave}}s. E Eng 13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Added to the toolbox [67]. But really, my man, no need to shower me with such gifts. E Eng 01:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love this so much --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sorry, DFO, what are you talking about? Wait, you mean this?

E Eng 01:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit description

Thank you for the laugh, one of the best helpful yet funny edits. Philotimo (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Bishonen | tålk 07:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, do you know.... she's got a lovely box. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your user talk page is a garden of delights. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For starters (in no particular order): [68] [69] [70] [71]. E Eng 18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So you think the history of a 400-year-old institution should include this year's percentage of A's? E Eng 21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we continue this at the harvard talk page Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bah. Floating space monkeys are people too, you know!! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. E Eng 18:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so true and too funny! "...very complete report..." thanks for the laugh NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My comment here [72] 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. E Eng 23:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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." E Eng 02:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 20:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redlinked user name just means the editor hasn't created their user page yet. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

80 edits? I'm surprised you're not already gon. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is there a f-f-s-wiki? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Sounds like something from a novel about the dystopian future. There'd be "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. E Eng 23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editors who may be confused

I'm truly honored! Thank you, EEng! --Bsherr (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is I who am honored to work with so many easily confused editors. E Eng 03:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(talk page watcher)^[FBDB] Personally I think the idea about WMF handing out meds has definitely got legs. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was terrible editing advice, though. Where does E think haiku closes and burma-shaves come from? Le v!v ich 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A warped imagination, of course. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! They come from Turbo Mind Warp and similar varieties. Le v!v ich 17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So rude! That EEng's a real skunk, bro. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, Trypy. Your science-based explanations are always immaculate! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC) ....and how your fans really see you... [reply]
Trippy, indeed. The guy in that video was my PhD thesis advisor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Phew! What a relief that you never moved on to Os! [73] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: "You know that's how the story goes" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well AFAICS you were blocked once for Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project [74] and once for So in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel [75]. Those are personal attacks -- not the worst by far, but still personal attacks. And context matters. E Eng 21:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And context matters. Amen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
As mentioned earlier, context matters. E Eng 03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special K

Thanks for setting up the redirect for the Mathematicks professorship entry. Robma (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 18:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please don't template the regulars. --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)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Please don't template the regulars, it's rude. Paul August ☎ 14:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Francis Schonken: Whatever sins EEng may have committed, does not justify you being rude to him. Paul August ☎ 15:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We sit in the same boat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Uh ... whose rudeness are you missing? Frances'? Mine? EEng's? Paul August ☎ 16:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More irony. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 [76]].

As I responded at the time [77]:

"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. E Eng 19:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Indulgence? You'll be needing a priest for that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, Don't understand. Indented reply target misunderstanding, perhaps? Mathglot (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Indent as thou willst shalt be the whole of the law. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- I'd love to see someone create Template:Idiot. Maybe with Trump's photo on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Or this cretin. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

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)[reply]

Blowed if I know.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sucks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree. That sort of thing can be very hard to swallow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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? E Eng 20:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because he jest shouldn't be touching him that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

any help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Le v!v ich 00:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this has a pic, perhaps a trace? Ceoil perhaps? Peter? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jimbo has mortal lovers? E Eng 02:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, a companion of some sort. E Eng 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of the deathless Tom Lehrer [78]:

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!

E Eng 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [79] [80] [81]. E Eng 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quick, someone write a page called Wikipedia:Let admins readily revert you.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(cough) Wikipedia:LARRY --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No new posts?

How am I to be entertained? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it bad. Try reviewing the archives. Maybe that'll hold you. E Eng 18:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not Wikipedia

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 16:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [82]. E Eng 17:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What are you, some sort of anti-vaseite? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Obviously you're just not mellow enough to let that little jibe fly. </sarc>--WaltCip-(talk) 22:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. E Eng 05:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's what happens following a botched vase-sectomy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.) E Eng 21:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. E Eng 22:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. E Eng 22:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Think nothing of it. Imagine – with a mere wave of my wand I can grant any peon immortality. E Eng 05:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Never let it be said that Star Trek fans have a sense of humor

Sigh... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Facepalm --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [83], 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 [84]. So, yeah, you didn't (as your edit summary claimed) "fix" anything; instead (as I said [85]) you fucked it up.
I realized my mistake and reinserted the size adjustment using frameless [86].
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? E Eng 05:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_5#Category:Pages_using_deprecated_image_syntax.

No answer. Huh. E Eng 06:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might still be scrolling? Le v!v ich 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I get around to it I'm gonna squash you like a bug. E Eng 07:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw Special:Diff/982135565. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. E Eng 18:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. E Eng 18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. E Eng 22:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's me: pleasant as a root canal! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't sell yourself short:, I'm saying you're better than a root canal. E Eng 03:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people would agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally commenting on this almost a year after the fact but suck it up buttercup. @Tryptofish:, you are most definitely better than a root canal. Carry on. --ARose Wolf 12:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf: OK, but just barely. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're bubblin' on the Top 100, just like a mighty dread! -- ARseWolf 123 (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

I used to be "on the spectrum," but now I just boss people around about infobox image syntax. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC) p.s. did someone just say "fuck it up buttercup"??[reply]
Sounded that way to me, but I was in my cups. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_{I think there's enough of that going around. I've heard it's in the water!--ARoseWolf 15:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

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? E Eng 05:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 05:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

slinked off – Surely you mean slunk off. (Dig – dug; cling – clung; sling – slung; slink – slunk.) I too am always happy to be of assistance. E Eng 09:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any amusing images about pedantry? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check my files: peddlers... pediatricians... pedicabs... Wow! Nothing on pedantry. I've got pederasty – will that do? E Eng 05:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Y'all clearly do not know how to use the Wikipedia search function: [87]. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's it. Thanks! E Eng 09:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stink, stank, STUNK! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No kidding, when I wrote that I thought, "Which one of this bunch is going to call me on that?" E Eng 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cullen328, maybe Tfish has an amusing image on pedantry. E Eng 05:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. E Eng 05:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I imagine that you made it particularly queer.^[FBDB] 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)[reply]
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. E Eng 20:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [88]. 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. E Eng 06:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that you stop violating WP:BLP. Wikipedia is about venerability, not truth.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure venereal ability is in there somewhere among the sur-reality . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yapperbot, I've asked you several times to cut out the unwanted advances. I'm not into computer sex. E Eng 02:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Izno is too kind to link to my psychotic outburst at [89]. E Eng 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping my nose out of that discussion, but a shout-out to ProcrastinatingReader and Tryptofish for excellent posts. E Eng 02:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

But of course fish are actually superior to some other animals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well personally I think I deserve a by. I've had plenty of gays and it's time for a change. E Eng 00:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's hard to know what to say. E Eng 20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are difficult times. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just hope there's been no WP:HOUNDING or WP:BITEY behavior going on in that discussion.^[1] E Eng 16:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Note: Recycled joke.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for finally shortening the United States Senate section on the Joe Biden article. Username ⁶⁸⁹² _{(Peer Review)} 01:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well aren't you sweet! There's more to do but I pooped out. E Eng 01:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable

You are showing remarkable restraint at Talk:Joe Biden. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it ran out on Kamala Harris (see esp. the collapse box). E Eng 11:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You mean stuff like this [90]? 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. E Eng 06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further evidence for the prosecution: [91], [92]. E Eng

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.[93] It made me very happy. Bishonen | tålk 15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Glad to oblige, though I was ensnared in just such a case so my feelings are more mixed. E Eng 20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limerick, Harvard, FBDB

You might find Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Margaret Harwood amusing... —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well you do realize "suck it" resonates with a well-known earlier work. E Eng 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, which is the upside. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every once in a while I'm struck by the fact that this has to be the filthiest user page on the project. E Eng 04:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [94], being a scrapbook by alumni, might have interesting biographical details. By the way [95][96][97][98][99]. (She apparently spent a lot of time at the beach.) E Eng 13:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is going to slip under the radar for you

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)[reply]

^{( 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)[reply]

grr, maths ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Woe to anyone with a lisp. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm automatically against anyone who implies I have biases. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased against them? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just don't stare at it for too long, lest one get conjunctivitis. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 07:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, and I like what you did! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your recent edit

You're welcome --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you make jokes when the news is so serious! For those not paying attention, DFO refers to [100]. E Eng 10:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shouldn't it be 2021 . . .? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time machine [101]. E Eng 20:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cage, Gage, Shiiiit!

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)[reply]

H.M., eat your heart out. E Eng 20:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

Nicolas Cage ... Phineas Gage. MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE??? E Eng 00:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Some people think it's spelled sick so maybe you should write sic [sic]. E Eng 02:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ...

...quote. Paul August ☎ 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

How the guinch stole Christmas? E Eng 14:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early days

A bit of humor about encyclopedias. 😂 Atsme 💬 📧 16:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, can you cue us up to the relevant bit? Meanwhile, here's some other humor about encyclopedias [102]. E Eng 21:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd like to help you, but I'm unable to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unable? Are you sure you didn't mean disabled? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting this I have now learned about predicative adjectives. Who could have predicatived it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No prevarication. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured it out: disable president! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Double Plus Ungood, you refer, of course, to the fact that the compound adjective longest-serving is missing it's hyphen. Shocking. E Eng 03:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That photog should get a Pulitzer for snapping the shot just a split-second before the sniper pulled the trigger. E Eng 03:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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: [103]? 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)[reply]

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 [104]:

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.) E Eng 17:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) But how about the famous Turd of Brooklyn?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What an insult to Brooklynites! He's from Queens. Unfortunately not Flushing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And hopefully on his way to Rikers. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah yes, what a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 03:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Eccekevin, report away. The longstanding lead (at least back to late November [105] -- 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. E Eng 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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. E Eng 00:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 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[reply]

FWIW, Biden is getting older, while ya'll argue here & at the Biden page. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're all getting older. As for arguing, I'm still waiting for any actual arguments over on the talk page. E Eng 01:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is the oldest has specifically made headlines across national and international publications is an excellent reason.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]Eccekevin (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Biden's dogs [106]. E Eng 01:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? E Eng 03:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 03:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the midst of this? I just discovered that my country's governor general has resigned. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My deepest condolences, GoodDay. But while you're here... should the lead of her article say she's the oldest governor general ever? E Eng 04:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Payette's case, the "crankiest governor general ever". GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

^ Peter, Josh. "Joe Biden will become the oldest president in American history, a title previously held by Ronald Reagan". USA TODAY. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Happy birthday, Joe: 78-year-old Biden will be oldest US president to enter office". the Guardian. 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Birthday time: Biden turns 78, will be oldest U.S. president". AP NEWS. 20 November 2020.
^ Zak, Dan. "Joe Biden, 78, will lead an American gerontocracy". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ Diaz, Johnny (18 January 2021). "Biden Is the Oldest President to Take the Oath". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Biden to Become Oldest President Ever at Inauguration". Bloomberg.com. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

Mittens

So ... have we got enough sources to write Bernie Sanders mittens photograph yet? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And lo, it was DYKed.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You got Something

		*The Signpost* Barnstar**
		for Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ]])[reply]

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)[reply]

I have popcorn, will share. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 07:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm... Salty. Thanks, Roxy. nagualdesign 09:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think of your blood pressure. E Eng 17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. All of those examples look relatively polite for EEng. Poor Surtsicna, must feel crushed? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 [107]), 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: [108]! 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. E Eng 17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Purely punitive. Tsk. Blocking user should be admonished. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

More blocks for your collection

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. [109][reply]

"Blocked Talk Page?? Easy.... just call DynoProd!" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Common sense prevails. nagualdesign 22:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
For the record the AN discussion is here [110]. 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 [111]. The alert reader, on encountering an admin who deletes uncomplimentary messages without archiving them [112], might wonder what else is being hidden. EEng 08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. E Eng 02:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

E Eng 17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
how to win friends and influence people A reference to the book? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Another work of art, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Brainstorming for a contemplated TV ad (contributions gratefully accepted -- feel free to edit directly)

Inspired by [113]. 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)[reply]

That's the spirit! But mboxes might be too hackerish. Maybe plain unmarked userboxes? E Eng 05:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"But now there's help: WP:Authority control." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<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. E Eng 22:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just couldn't control myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just remember: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. E Eng 03:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I'll admit to feeling a bit drained. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although... that probably depends. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In breaking news, WP:Wikipedia is being flooded. Further information at WP:WASTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Courtesy Martinevans123) Related potential ad: Tripe Advisor. E Eng 21:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I joined the 300+ club and all I got was...

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)[reply]

Ooh, usage of Template:External media noted for further spammage! El_C 15:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all sincerity, what's the 300+ club? I haven't got that many blocks yet. E Eng 00:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The inquiry was sincere, and thanks to you I am now unriddled. E Eng 03:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, maybe someday, I'll be unriddled too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do hope so. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I can help make that happen for you! El_C 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. I think you'll find they were actually Epirotes not Spartans, as such. Plutarchivans123 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you're a true classic! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Will you two shut up! People are trying to sleep! El_C 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of us have civility standards, you know!!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish throws a temper tantrum

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: [114]. 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)[reply]

Brave. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

😂 Atsme 💬 📧 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Well, you know "it's not exactly brain surgery" either, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

An eloquent reminder that justice does not consist in giving the guy what -- truth be told -- he richly deserves. E Eng 01:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! E Eng 22:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted." E Eng 02:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe seen before here? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmZzGxGpSs —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love it...but it makes wonder how you knew about that cartoon, David. Atsme 💬 📧 16:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was one of the 38 people who read Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia. E Eng 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, but the real answer is "from having had kids". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe it's a feng shui thing? E Eng 16:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you know. Pass me those crampons, would you? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but is a crampon a tampon for when you have cramps? That's the only thing I can think of. E Eng 16:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. Lighting is crucial. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very uncomfortable! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Now we've got an earworm to go with this semantic wormhole!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but some of us are desperate to know if Deep Blue was facing Leicester. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Did someone mention Orville?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

At least it's not driving you Taffy. Some of us are historically north facing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those playing along at home, the reference is to [115]

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)[reply]

[116] EEng 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - I'll see what I can do. Atsme 💬 📧 19:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- refresh the page, if you have an ample amount of spare time. 😊 Atsme 💬 📧 20:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bonaire in the (hand)-Grenadines? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, grenadine can be an ingredient in many a momentary lull. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:OVERLINK

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk page reissue for radical repackaging reasons required? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Admin misapplies WP:BOLD, ends up banning editor. Sounds about right.

nagualdesign 22:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. ^[FBDB] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. E Eng 23:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"fo shizzle ma dizzle". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yay!! Maureen O'Hara's got nothing on you, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) [117] 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)[reply]

Please stop

Preliminary note: The Curator offers this quotation (from the NYT via our colleague Crossroads) as the key to understanding the events in this thread:

Mr. Pegler [a trans man] specified that his beef is not with gender-neutral neopronouns. He felt like elevating objects and animals to human pronoun levels was dismissive. "I couldn’t stomach why anyone would want to identify as an object?" Mr. Pegler wrote in an Instagram direct message. "They dehumanize us as trans people," he added. "We are people! Not objects or animals. So that’s why I stated that they are out of hand, because they make us look like a bit of a joke."

(So far no outrage from animal rights activists condemning Mr. Pegler for his vicous and hateful speciesism.) E Eng 14:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, that's just beefism pure and simple! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

This, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [118] -- (talk page stalker)s may enjoy reviewing WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#When_the_preferred_pronoun_is_not_a_pronoun and [119], E Eng 06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. E Eng 07:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this has become a little more stressful and strenuous, what with the Troubles below, but I'd like to set all that aside and respond honestly to you here, man. Despite going in on you a bit last night, I want you to know this comes from a place within spitting distance of the heart, and all. But whenever someone comes to me and says, in whatever fun or polite they want to, 'hey, stop being an asshole,' I've learned to just...stop being an asshole. Even when I absolutely wasn't being one. Doubling down when you should be cashing out is the way into the gutter, and all. And so, what struck me last night into saying something was seeing someone come to you in the most polite fashion, asking you to just cool your jets, and getting a full blast of unleaded kerosene in return. Putting your comment back in the way you did, with the edits you did, I find it hard to believe you didn't know you were being kind of an asshole. Which, whatever, who isn't sometimes? But come by it honestly, I think. Anyway, sorry if this hits you in a bad mood, as you might rightfully be in one. Being blocked is never fun. Just sleep on it. Parabolist (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I missed this until now. I appreciate that you took the time. E Eng 04:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Do you have any reliable sources indicating that the BLP has used neopronouns outside of that one statement in 2018? (The one where he said, "At the end of the day, everyone’s a tree. I want to call my friends 'tree' and me 'tree' and everyone 'tree.'") If not, you may be on the wrong side of BLP yourself in stating that the BLP "uses neopronous" (present tense) as you did in that AN/I header. ~Awilley (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 source is the most recent I'm aware of where Lonsdale has discussed pronouns. I can add "may" to the header if you're concerned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems prudent. I had thought of doing something like that myself, but didn't want to cause drama. I was thinking of the bad press Wikipedia could get if we were the ones falsely stating that someone uses alternate pronouns when they don't. (And looking at some of the sources people are bringing at AN/I that seems likely.) ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which appears to be exactly what EEng meant by "Scenario 4". sigh... nagualdesign 23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good heavens. Some of my best friends are trees. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a tree. video. -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is conifer erasure! EvergreenFir (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [120]. 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 [121], 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.

E Eng 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [122] get back to me. And I guess it wasn't obvious, but yes please to copy my post above to the ANI thread. E Eng 19:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Since one important issue here seems to be whether EEng's criticism was directed at the subject of the article, and so possibly a BLP violation, something EEng specifically denies above, are there diffs that, in your view, show that he did? Thanks, Paul August ☎ 20:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There being no respionse by HJM, nor by GW (who is obviously following here), I'd like some kind person to post the following just below the ANI post by HJM seen in this link:

*:I realize you're dancing as fast as you can, but that's nothing but handwaving until you answer the challenge -- issued to you twice now [123][124], and twice ignored by you even as you were posting the above exercise in alternative reality -- to provide actual, specific diffs for my alleged BLP violation. Or maybe Gorilla Warfare can help you out with that? EEng 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E Eng 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done nagualdesign 01:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no space in my username so if you ping me with that I don't get it, just as a heads up. I do have your page temporarily watchlisted, but was away from my computer this evening. I see someone else has already gotten to posting it. If you are asking me to provide the specific BLP violations, I linked them in the first ANI post. 04:35, 23 March 2021 and 00:57, 25 March 2021 are the two I would consider the actual violations, most of the other stuff was just rude. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Editor Temporarily Banned for Criticizing Use of 'Tree' as Pronoun

From our second-favorite unreliable source:

Wikipedia Editor Temporarily Banned for Criticizing Use of 'Tree' as Pronoun --Breitbart

(URL: www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/03/26/wikipedia-editor-temporarily-banned-for-criticizing-use-of-tree-as-pronoun/ )

Also featured on today's Drudge Report and on Reddit.[125]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha heart out, Barbara!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta love it! EEng is now a hero to the QAnon crowd! And the image at right is part of the War on Christmas! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy unintended consequences, Batman!

I can hardly bring my fingers to type these words, but... by the standards of typical in-the-moment coverage of this kind of thing, the Breitbart piece is actually a pretty good summary. And they did note that I think Trump's a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron, so I don't feel entirely misrepresented. The one significant fact which I suspect they'd have included, had they known it, is that I'm gay too; I feel it's a bit unfair that I get implicitly cast as the big bad straight-by-default guy vs. queer-speaking-truth-to-power Gorilla Warfare. (Of course, I'm a white male cisgendered gay, so that imposes a 50% discount on my victimhood credit, presumed wokeness, and authority to lecture from the moral high ground.) And I want to correct a definite error – the assertion that I did express support for using other pronouns, including "xe/xem/xyr" pronouns. No, what I said is there's a place ... for discussion about whether there's liberation value in a thoughtful campaign to get people to understand and use xe/xem/xyr (underlining added).

E Eng 01:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still undecided whether you're actually a straight, homophobic, right-wing asshole masquerading as a gay, left-wing intellectual for reasons unknown.^[FBDB] nagualdesign 01:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it should be obvious that it's the other way around. E Eng 01:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's confusing me. nagualdesign 02:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a very good summary. T. D. Adler gets in a lot of details, all the right order. It must be very boring for most Breitbart readers? But really... that caption for Melania saying "C'mon Donald, light my fire!" Is that the "worst" insult he could find on your page? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. seems we all now have to call you "Mr Capone". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I have a bunch of things to say. First, for purposes of this talk page section only, my preferred pronoun is "lawnmower". Second, I am never going to let you live this down. If you'd like, I'll see if I can set up a date for you with Lindsay Graham. I think the two of you would make a cute couple. (Anyone who thinks I just violated BLP can kiss my lawnmower.)

And now that I've had my requisite fun, I want to say something serious. In my opinion, my dear friend Bishonen did the wrong thing, although it's clearly a matter of opinion in which fish, lizards, and lawnmowers can have legitimate differences of opinion. As I said at ANI, I believe that you ridiculed other editors, and that you were wrong to have done so. I'm aware that you went to some high falutin' university like Yale or something, which makes you smarter than the average person hit by lightening. In my experience, you are very frequently correct in your evaluations of editorial judgements here. But the fact that you are right and someone else is wrong does not entitle you to show off what a smarty-pants you are by making fun of them. It's really ugly. I mean it. Stop doing it. Bish wasn't wrong in terms of enacting consensus, but she was wrong in making it psychologically easier for you to figure that you were vindicated. She did you, personally, no favor. And you really, really need to get the message that you have every right to explain why you are correct about something, but no right to ridicule other editors who are wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I heard you went to Yale."

"Yah. I Yust got out."

Please use as my personal pronoun any 11-digit prime number. Any other term -- and this specifically includes rewriting your sentences so that they contain no personal pronouns at all -- will be dealt with according to the customs of our tribe. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought T. D. Adler's summary was good. But the Yale joke is the funniest I've seen all year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Official Govt. Warning: Note: the value of bitcoin pronouns may go down as well as up.[reply]

And Guy Macon's link is required viewing for everyone watching here. (Did you see me in it?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to look away. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, that was the ultimate illustration of WP:TROUTing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

You have been unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 03:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

In the wise words of Contrapoints (as Justine),

"Hasn't it occurred to you that being shamed and berated for being a 'trender' during your exploration year might not have been the most helpful thing?...The stigma you perpetuate against gender confusion and experimentation keeps trans people in the closet and delays transition. It alienates 'baby trans' from the community that should be welcoming them instead of publicly humiliating them."[126]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng—for the avoidance of doubt—you should know that, although I don't think you violated BLP policy, and I argued strongly for a reduction of your block, or unblock, I hardly think you are blameless in all this. You have such talent, I really wish you would use your superpowers only for good. Paul August ☎ 12:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps I'm partly to blame also, since I seem to have fallen down on my chosen task of being your Socratic gadfly, I will hope to be a better scold in the future.[reply]

Your current travails at ANI

Well, if they're going to drag me to ANI...

Spot the Tree Competition - ME123

"Current" travails: [127] – E Eng

That video made me notice the resemblance between Buster Keaton and Justin Long. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, whatevs... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, those jackets, in the image to the right, are definitely not straight. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of "straight". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this thread reminded me of a novel that I read a few years ago written by John Kennedy Toole, and the provenace of its title. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, surely you don't think I picked that phrase by accident? From the lead of the relevant article: Its central character, Ignatius J. Reilly, is an educated but slothful 30-year-old man living with his mother ... eccentric, idealistic, and creative, sometimes to the point of delusion. (Note, however, that I do not live with my mother. Nor am I 30 years old. Nor is my name Ignatius J. Reilly, though if I could do it all over again that'd be a great Wikipeda handle.) E Eng 03:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn? Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[128]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? You expect him to opine? Nah - he's more likely to bark. Atsme 💬 📧 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't necessarily expect him to opine, but o-maple, o-birch, o-spruce, maybe something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see him sprucing up. Maple he will consider it, or more likely he'll birch about it. From little nuts big oaks grow...or something like that...so there's hope, even for coneheads like me. We're at the age when we can no longer bear fruit, but some of us still have dates. Well...fig it, I'll just make like a tree and leave. Atsme 💬 📧 18:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I o-overdid the o-orchard. O-O-O-O-Oleander! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog, anyone? 🌭 nagualdesign 20:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing about this "EEng Brigand". Where do I apply? I have a lot of experience as a minion and as a henchman and want to move up. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, GM, what I love about your post is that you yourself had me at ANI about a year ago: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Personal attack by EEng. So you see, with repeated exposure everyone comes around to the dark side eventually; it's just a matter of time.

And as it happens, that very thread was directly on point to the central issue in the most recent dustup; (talk page stalker)s are encouraged to take a look. E Eng 04:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So much for putting the past behind us and trying to be friendly. I won't make that mistake again. Unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, Guy, you misunderstand – really and truly! What I was saying is that I'm glad we're still friends despite a past misunderstanding (i.e. you've "come around to the dark side" – you know, because some people think I'm Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine) and bear you no ill will. Please tell me I've cleared that up and you'll un-unwatch; I can't bear to think there will be no more of this kind of thing. E Eng 13:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Back because of notice on my talk page.) OK, it looks like I completely misread the intent of the above. And for the record, I misjudged the consensus on civility. Turns out that "but what you just said is idiotic" is perfectly OK, but not "you are an idiot". (I am still unsure whether I can write "OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are an idiot.") Rewatching page, unstriking comments, going back to trying to be friendly. Let's forget this ever happened. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think it's a good idea to not forget, since it's a useful reminder that misunderstandings happen. Let me do you the compliment of saying that in my estimation your "trying" to be friendly has always been successful. I meant it when I said I don't begrudge you the trip to ANI; many who have dragged me there have, once the community recalibrated their naughty detector for them, become active and valued participants on this very page (another example of what the "dark side" comment referred to).
The idiotic–idiot distinction really is important. When someone says "You're acting like an idiot", the speaker is taking extra care to show that, despite your moment of temporary idiocy, he doesn't think you are an idiot – if he wanted to say that he could do so with less trouble: "You're an idiot". As I said in the discussion I linked above:
Everybody plays the fool sometimes, there's no exception to the rule. I personally appreciate having my own follies pointed out, because it is only in that way that wisdom can be attained (not that I'm anywhere near that point yet).

E Eng 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, for me personally, the fish-throwing link you posted was a genuine delight, and I thank you for it very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for Xena. That would make a great wikiname. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to a remake with Gal Gadot. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This potentially irrevocable misunderstanding (say if Guy had instead simply said, sotto voce, "fuck you", and walked away never to return), to me, points out the dangers of trying to be too witty/clever/subtle/nuanced, a mistake, in my view, that witty, clever, subtle, and nuanced people like EEng often make. I generally prefer to be boringly direct, at the expense of humor (as a famous philosopher once said there's a fine line between clever and stupid), or when subtlety or nuance is required (say in arguments over personal pronouns), to be painfully detailed. Paul August ☎ 16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witty? Yes. Clever? Probably. Subtle and nuanced? You have got to be kidding me.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes EEng's humor is often not particularly subtle or nuanced. But—in serious discussion—he is often quite so, because subtlety and nuance are needed when discussing things that are subtle and nuanced (and all things are to a mind that thinks deeply). Paul August ☎ 17:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Let me explain what I was thinking/feeling because human interaction is an interesting topic. First off, I am a high-functioning autistic (what they called Asperger's syndrome before the latest rejiggering of the categories). I have the typical attributes of that condition; high IQ, ability to concentrate on a problem, inability to detect emotional nuances or sarcasm, a love of wordplay, and a tendency to be overly-literal. Like many people with Asperger's I am usually able to successfully mimic someone without the condition, but it requires a conscious effort instead of coming naturally.

I am also having a lot of trouble with alt-med practitioners, mostly because of WP:YWAB. Unrelated, but it has been stressing me a bit.

I felt that EEng was criticizing me over past events, when -- as became clear later -- that was not the intent. And yes, I seriously considered leaving silently, unwatching the page and muting notifications. Posting a goodbye message often results in abuse. I would have left silently if not for the other editors who I have been engaging with friendly bantering with on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you take this as a compliment, because that is how I intend it. I would never have guessed that, because I've always been impressed with your sense of humor and use of emotional nuance. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Have a couple of fish songs:[129][130] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy mackerel!! The effects in that 1st video were amazing! Definitely worth a one pound fish!! Atsme 💬 📧 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the fish! I agree with Atsme about the CFX in the first video. (But they had freshwater and saltwater fish in the same tank. Tsk, tsk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC) I just realized: that would mean tanks for all the fish! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two goldfish were relaxing in in a tank. One goldfish turned to the other and asked "do you know how to drive this thing?"

^{Thank you folks. You have been a great audience. I will be here all week. Tell your friends. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

^{Those would be soldier fish, or maybe fusiliers. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you so much Guy, for that short but punchy essay on "Wikipedia disciplinary procedure and how it works for me". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Horse goes into a bar. Bartender says:
"Why the long face?"

Anteater runs into a bar. Bartender says, "Want a drink"? Anteater says, "Nooooo". Bartender says, "Maybe you'd like a sandwich." Anteater says, "Noooooooooooo". Bartender says:
"Why the long noes?"

Rabbi goes into a bar with a frog on his shoulder. Bartender says, "Where'd you get that?"
Frog says: "Brooklyn ... They're all over the place."

Three-legged dog goes into a bar. He says:
"Ahm lookin' for the man that SHOT MY PAW!"

A skeleton walks into a bar. Bartender says: "Hello stranger, what would you like?" Skeleton says:
"A pint of beer and a mop, please."

Phineas Gage runs into a bar.
[Think about it.And if you still don't get it, click the link.] ^[1] References ^ I think I stole this one from Tryptofish

E Eng 01:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the bar runs into you. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Nietzsche say something about that? E Eng 01:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. he was more concerned with other sharp objects. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A neutron walks into a bar and runs up a tab. Ready to leave, the Neutron asks "What do I owe you?" Bartender says:
"For you, no charge."

Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bar jokes always remind me of Bernard Right-On. Considering the recent brouhaha it seems doubly appropriate somehow. I'd transcribe the joke in question here, but out of context it would undoubtedly cause some people fits of hand wringing/pearl clutching. For those who are intrigued, it's the opening joke to this performance. nagualdesign 17:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for that link. Sheer brilliance. Long before Cold Feet and "Jazz Club". "Errrmm... not necessarily the kitchen....a foundry, or an engineering plant... something like that." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a brilliant caption for the (soon to be replaced) main image at Woman! Yeah, John's legendary. And coincidentally the spitting image of my friend, also called John and with a very similar and brilliant sense of humour, who died in 2018. nagualdesign 20:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about this non-bar joke:

"We've just found out that my grandad's addicted to Viagra" "Oh no! How's your grandma taking it?"
"Pretty hard"

nagualdesign 20:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but even on my talk page there are limits. E Eng 01:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "clever" has become a dirty word on Wikipedia. I haven't seen the word so denigrated since bullies used to use it against people when I was at school half a century ago. I would remind those who think that they are being fashionable by supporting anti-intellectual populism that that attitude is so 2019. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgghhh. Don't get me started. EEng is just too clever for his own good (especially in a place like this). It's a shame he's so witty, or most folk like me could just ignore him. But I'm not sure I'll ever see the day when he's "bullied". ClevorTrever123 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"This year's Jimbo Celebration Egg features a delicious layer of prefamulated amulite"
-- MRE123

Followup: A Quaker conversion?

It suddenly occurs to me that maybe this whole tree thing was a transcription error: he wasn't saying tree, he was saying thee! He's become a Quaker! That explains everything! E Eng 10:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was both. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good one. E Eng 20:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different...

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One day" last year in my old advisor's course on "Classic Papers in Computer Science", I took a few minutes to tell the class about how Konrad Zuse had invented an early retroencabulator but couldn't get funding to develop it before the war ended, sold the patents to Rockwell, competition from bubble memory eventually forced it off the market, etc etc and so on an so forth. Then I played the video (the last one on GM's list above). I had the pleasure of watching all the faces on Zoom as realization dawned. April Fools! E Eng 03:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Funnily enough, 2 new versions of the retroencambulator sketch have showed up in my recommendations over the past week. I saw the original a few years ago and was amazed that no one fluffed their lines - not that you'd be able to tell without comparing! So the first thing I thought about when I read your post above was prefamulated amulite. (For the sake of completeness, here's the other version.) nagualdesign 03:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find most of the me-too versions not so good, but I like this one [131] because Ms. Explainer comes across as genuine even if Mr. Introducer is somewhat wooden (although there's a certain charm there too). There's another one that's appeared recently -- quite extended with a lot of new material and a skilled pitchman -- but I can't find it now. E Eng 04:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one without the annoying American accents.[132] ^{(...says the Guy who lives where the TMZ crosses the Orange Curtain...)} "Fog to cloud, cloud to cloud, and cloud to cirrus cumulonimbus stratus cloud communications are available as standard!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it! That's the one! Oh, Guy, you idiot savants on the spectrum are so handy to have around! E Eng 06:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone doesn't quite understand any of those videos, I'd be more than happy to explain them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, please stop egging EEng on. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended user

Hi EEng, would you be able to tell what exactly the "extended" refers to in "extended confirmed"? Much appreciated. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It means an editor has been registered 30 days and has at least 500 edits. Very occasionally, an article in a highly contentious topic area will be protected in such a way that only "extended confirmed" editors can edit it. See WP:Protection_policy#Extended_confirmed_protection. E Eng 00:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EEng. My apologies for the run-around; I should have been more clear. I know what it is and what it means; I am trying to understand the part about "extended". Someone is proposing creating a similar user group on the pt-wiki, and I suspect that the translation is completely wrong. In the meantime (after posting my questio to you), after reading many pages on the subject, I found this piece, which seems to shed some light - "Extending it even further like Pocketthis says ("You could make it 90/1000, and I'd be fine with it")", here. So if I am reading it right, the "extension"/ "extended" refers to the extended criteria (longer [extended] period/ more [extended number of] edits) to be met to be allowed to edit. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the right track. In the sense used here, extended means "beyond/more than the basic criteria needed for confirmation" (the basic criteria being 4 days and 10 edits). My Brazilian boyfriend doesn't have the patience to teach me Pt but my guess is something along the lines of estendida/estendido or aumentada/aumentado or amplificar might work. E Eng 01:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maravilha. Thanks for confirming. PS: We have something in common — Brazilian partners (I am Angolan). As for learning the language, my son started now on Duolingo, as a lockdown project, and he is very happy with it. He is actually doing sterlingly. Cumprimentos, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now you know why my fellow editors sense that I teeter on the brink of madness. E Eng 02:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that. None of us think that you are on the brink. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "none of us thinks that you are on the brink". And you pretend you went to Harvard! E Eng 11:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I hesitated for a long time before saving the edit, for that reason! But I did go there, and I also graduated. The way I see it, "one thinks" is unquestionably correct, but it would also be common practice to say "none of them are here", and thus, "none think". On the other hand, one would say "no one thinks" and "none" is a contraction of "no one". This is one of those situations where the language is, well, degrading. So you are correct, but I'm more stylish. But in any case, we all think that you are well over the brink.

Which brings me to another bit of impertinence, or at least to wax poetic. You keep claiming that you have a Brazilian. But I'm skeptical. You do not strike me as the type who would go in for body waxing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm above recycling a joke myself, but you've made that crack before (search Brazilian on this page). E Eng 06:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs! You two. Like a crack comedy double act! Titter. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. Sorry! I'm really slipping. Should I plead mental incompetence because I got my second Covid vaccine shot yesterday and am undoubtedly out of it, or should I plead mental incompetence because I'm just mentally incompetent? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only your 2nd? Sounds like you're pleading for your 5th. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks! Bartender, give me a fifth of whatever Martin's drinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

**hic**.... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a hick! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q. How many South Americans does it take to change a light bulb? A: A Brazillon. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that was a close shave! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Burma boards (?) they just get closer... :

Q: Why did the Brazilian sign up for Tinder? A: For a Juan night stand. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN! EEng 01:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only irritable senior citizen here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

on Earth Day --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go out and burn some fossil fuels to celebrate. E Eng 18:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went out and counted flowering plants, 32, one I had not seen in my whole life, German Pestwurz, English Petasites hybridus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or why not go out and destroy some random solar panels?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santos Dumont

Hello! I just saw your last message on the Santos Dumont article discussion and I'd like to bring the discussion her, if I may:

I took a long time working in the Portuguese article (that currently is featured thanks to my and more editors efforts) and articles like João Goulart (this one was hard, since it needed expansion in both languages and I had to cheat my way with Deepl). On the HBO work, did you found time to watch? It seems really close with his history (considering all the time contracting due the small number of episodes) but of course, I can't suggest it as a source. But is really well made, some moments are directly brought from his books and all the crew had to master French, English and Spanish. I just waved a little of the Portuguese version from this source in the original article and tomorrow I will start with this bilingual work.

I don't know how to deal with the English article thanks to the "heavier than air" subject: personally I like the interpretation that the airplane had "several fathers" or paraphrasing a talk that Dumont had with Edison: "this science have so many contributors that how I could invent and patent anything for real?" --in "O que eu vi..." (1918) Dumont even highlighted that the new generation should learn about the researchers that came before his generation and died while pursuing the dream of flight. I understand that the US aviation industry took some time to take off due some legal issues, while the "open source" Demoiselle made the European industries advanced quite fast.

But anyway, Santos Dumont, together with Ayrton Senna, is such an object of national proundness here in Brazil (even if just a few bothers to learn about their history) that the article could turn into a "editions war" quite fast ---and today we really need something to be proud of...

Seems that two of the works in your collection is up on Internet Archive, what is great to references: Wings of Madness and Man Flies.

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the third or fourth time I've had to apologize for having made no progress at all on this, though I continue to be determined to make the English Wikipedia article as good as can be. He's a wonderful figure and deserves to be fully recognized. It's going to be a huge project, though, and I'll need to devote six months to it, which right now I just don't have. Clearly there are conflicts among the sources, and many (including most of the newest ones) are in Portuguese, which I neither speak nor read. Maybe I'm crazy to think I can take this on. But perhaps together we can ... when I find the time.

I haven't looked at the HBO special, because I assumed it's in Portuguese only. Is it in available in English as well, or with English subtitles? It's looks like an excellent production.

I am very impressed with the pt.wiki article – so much new material, so many excellent photos! But I'm confused. One of the photo captions refers to two men as "great-grandchildren of Santos Dumont". Did he have children??? E Eng 07:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Is okay! I completely agree that he deserves to be more recognized and the Portuguese language sources are an interesting case because many biographies are criticized for its lack of historical care. The first work to be acknowledged as complete is "Wings of Madness", but it also raised controversy on the representation of Santos-Dumont sexuality --it isn't a consensus among the researchers. On the links above, this one is mere 24 pages and the English side of this one is about 18. Other thing to do, maybe, would try to find English articles (like this) and newspapers from the time, since Santos was a pretty public figure in Europe.

The HBO production was filmed in Portuguese (scenes in Brazil), French (scenes in Paris), some dialogues in Spanish, European Portuguese and in English (scenes set in England and US), but is seems that they completely dubbed the series in English, what is quite sad, since the actors worked so hard to master these languages.

Well, thanks! I think you mistranslated: the term is "sobrinho-bisneto", something like as "newphew-grandcrildren", the grandchildren from his brothers and/or sisters.

Do you know any English language publisher and/or translator who might be interested on Santos public domain work? It seems that only My Airships received an English edition, while "O Que Eu Vi, O que Nós Veremos" never got any translations. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"sobrinho-bisneto", something like as "newphew-grandcrildren" – My fault for using Google Translate. In English these are called collateral descendents. E Eng 02:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I translated the legend in the image with this term. Is possible to watch the series there? 6, 50 minutes episodes. On the Wikipedia article, I think that it would need to be redone from start (is easier to retranslate than just reference what is in the article). I might attempt to bring this to any Aviation community on the Portuguese Wikipedia on this subject, because the language barrier is a problem --but your collection might also have something of interest to the Portuguese article. Erick Soares3 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guy on the left is definitely related to S-D:

. I guess those droopy eyes run in the family. E Eng 05:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:, well, Dumont's mother had this tired expression, while his father... Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:, since I recently finished the "Olympic Hero" book, I brought the subject about the English article in the WikiProject Aviation in the pt.wiki - is a good place to add your opinion and there's no problem if you write in English. Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
September

@EEng: hi again! Few days ago I found this rare audio and video footage during an award ceremony in France (receiving the National Order of the Legion of Honour). Sadly the quality isn't great and should be quite hard to find the original film - I uploaded here, on Internet Archive and Youtube due it's historical importance (probably the only recording of his voice) and it seems to be in public domain since the 1980s. I'm working a little more in the Portuguese article (Henrique Lins de Barros wrote a lot about him and his articles are online/creative commons) and I think that the only way for the English version is to translate from PT with DeepL like what I did with the far less known Luís Gama. I don't want to turn the article in a edit warring like it was in the past, but the Portuguese version already developed so much about his life and work... Cheers, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What tremendous work you're doing! And just by coincidence, I went to the library Saturday for the first time in almost two years (because ... you know) and renewed all my Santos Dumont books. And I thought of you! Now remind me -- what was the edit war? Just send me a link to the discussion or a diff to the start of the edits, or something. I'm very very busy and won't be editing much for another month, maybe, but at some point we'll use what you've done at PT to improve the article here at EN. E Eng 04:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Hi, thanks!!! Since I didn't want to let the article die, I Boldly translated the entirety of the Portuguese page to English (diff). I know that the articles aren't supposed to be replicas from each other, the the PT version was so developed that I just went for it even if it was tiring and kind of hurt my fingers hahaha - everything that the English version had, the Portuguese had with more information and sources.

On the edit war: it probably was a thing from years ago, but is on "Dumont vs Wright Brothers" discussion - I personally think that his discussion is quite boring, because everyone only thinks about this and never learns who Dumont really was (but I believe that I managed to source everything on this matter).

Now, with the updates/translation, I've finished with 310 inline citations and 53 footnotes explaining/giving context. On the books books, good! I think that would be necessary to link "{{sfn|Hoffman|" ("Wings of Madness") on the English version and do the same with the English language part of Olympic hero book. By now, only the article Open Source Philosophy and the Dawn of Aviation is completely in English - and gives some contrast on the development of aeronautics in the US and Europe ("patent and monetize everything" vs "open source and "steals" anything that could be useful for your project"). I'm only worried if happens to someone revert everything, but I have the work saved offline.

I even brought the death certificate (it was adulterated to occult his suicide) to the Wikisource and I'm transcribing this Cc-by-3.0 article by Henrique Lins de Barros - his research is superb, but I think that only this really short book is available in English (in another article Barros gives a lot of good motives of why Dumont should be thought as an scientist - but we just don't think about him in this way even if he was brillant).

On a final note, Neil deGrasse Tyson even praised him in a Letter to Brazil in the Brazilian Portuguese version of Letters From an Astrophysicist. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some days ago I also converted the List of Santos-Dumont aircraft into a table. Could you see if in your books if there any image from the Amérique? And in there are, could digitize it and send to Commons? Could you also look for any reference to the Fatum balloon? A few Portuguese language sources says that Santos Dumont designed it as a passing note, but I couldn't find it in any more reliable source - only that he flew 3 times on it according this Cronology. The cabangu website have a lot of public domain images from SD (much supplied by his family) and I have already sent some to Commons. Erick Soares3 (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's just terrific what you're doing. Still, though, I'm very very busy. Here's what I have on the shelf for when I get to this:

Alberto Santos-Dumont / texto de Henrique Lins de Barros. Barros, Henrique Lins de.
Desafio de voar : brasileiros e a conquista do ar, 1709-1914 Henrique Lins de Barros.
Santos-Dumont, "o pai de aviação." Villares, Henrique Dumont.
Santos-Dumont and the conquest of the air, tr. by Luiz Victor Le Cocq d'Oliveira. Napoleão, Aluízio, 1914-
My airships; the story of my life. With a new introd. by Sir Peter Wykeham. Santos-Dumont, Alberto, 1873-1932
Man flies : the story of Alberto Santos-Dumont, master of the balloon, conqueror of the air / Nancy Winters.
Wings of madness : Alberto Santos-Dumont and the invention of flight / Paul Hoffman.
Santos-Dumont; a study in obsession. Wykeham, Peter.
Santos Dumont, inventor Barbosa, Francisco de Assis, 1914-

(I don't read Pt but my boyfriend's Brazilian.) When the time comes there may be photos in some of those, and in fact there are many, many books on S-D that I have access to which aren't listed above because they're in Pt -- but I could still look through them for images. Also, I recently ran into THE CONQUEST OF THE AIR: THE SANTOS-DUMONT AEROPLANE. Lees, Frederic. The Pall mall magazine, May 1893-Sept. 1914; London Vol. 39, Iss. 166, (Feb 1907): 130-134, which has a lot of good images. E Eng 19:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man flies? Is that a fashion statement? (Now you can tell me to zip it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng:, thanks! Well, I would love to read these books. By the sinopise, "Desafio de voar : brasileiros e a conquista do ar" is not just about Santos Dumont, but about all Brazilians who took part in the aeronautics development since Bartolomeu de Gusmão (who may be the first in recorded history to demonstrate a small scale hot air balloon model back in 1700s - at least from where the mostly authoritative sources goes (the legend says that he flew before the Montgolfier brothers, but there's no evidence to back this up)) until early 20th century. My Airships is the same in Wikisource. The article already connects with the Portuguese translation (non Public Domain, since the translator only died in the 1960s), but would be interesting to link the "Sfn" with the English version. The "Santos-Dumont; a study in obsession" was used as a source before I sent my translation, but only in a general way in moments cited by several sources - but the title is intriguing. The Nancy Winters work is in on Internet Archive.

If possible, could you ask for your boyfriend to read some of these books? I believe that they could also be quite useful in the Portuguese article.

Since THE CONQUEST OF THE AIR: THE SANTOS-DUMONT AEROPLANE. is public domain and just 4 pages, there's any way for you to digitize it and send to Wikisource? On the images: the list only needs are one for the Amérique and Nº17.

For now I will only foccus on the Wikisource article. I read so much to develop the article and to translate it, that my mind needs to take a little "vacation" from this subject haha

Finally, I hope to find a way for the Wikisource community to translate Dumont's 2th book and Barros article to English and maybe French - that would help to make these works more accessible.

Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of our relationship (my boyfriend and mine, I mean) is division of responsibility: I haunt the library and write the Wikipedia articles, he scouts the farmer's marked and makes the moqueca. I could get him to sit still long enough to skim something for its general sense, but that's probably about it. E Eng 15:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! A Chilean Museum has just released an Spanish language book about Santos Dumont (free download - official source). I also started to translate Dumont's second work at Wikisource. I'm using DeepL and while it isn't totally right all the time, I thought that it would be fair to make this work available in English (it was translated into French early this year). Erick Soares3 (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing (the translation, I mean) is a tremendous contribution. Someday we'll really pull that article together. Regarding the Chilean book: does it have anything really new? E Eng 17:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm not replying much here because my laptop almost can't handle your talk page. On the new book: I don't know (I'm planning to read it in the following days) - I only know that it is about his relationship with Chile. In general is hard for any new book to bring anything new to the table and we still need for a historian to write a biography about him (or at least something like what Walter Isaacson does). There's still a lot to discover about him (like the history of this balloon that, it seems, no biography talks about).

I have returned to this topic since in the last few days marked both the 149 anniversary of his birth and 90th years since his death. I have just did some edits in the article in both languages, including a topic on his mental health (with a 2013 and a 2022 English language articles). I have also found one about the 14-Bis, but it seems quite technical. Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you know about any publisher who would be interested on Santos Dumont? Researcher Rodrigo Moura Visoni translated all the known Santos Dumont articles, but he doesn't have the budget to publish it (is my opinion that this would should be available in Portuguese, English and French). As an example, he created a work about Augusto Severo, but his crowdfunding is far from the mark. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'm really the wrong person to ask about this -- it's way too far from my area. Sorry. E Eng 19:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right! Thanks! Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I have spend the last few days working on the original version of Santos Dumont's experiments in Monaco and you may like to see it!

As a side question: could you see in your books if there's any use of Dumont's articles as sources? I'm attempting to gather everything on Wikisource (he entered in the Brazilian Public Domain way back in 1993) and I found that he wrote about 16 articles in English, French and German. Is not exactly for use in his Wiki page, but to compile everything for public access (apparently there's one here, but it is impossible to search). Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing I can actually do. Bug me once in a while until I get the answer back to you. Also, I see you asked me earlier about photos of the Amérique, and I never answered that. E Eng 13:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right! I already found out one from the Amérique. For your collection, I just found out a 1970s biographical 4 parts series (1, 2, 3 and 4). I don't know if there's anything new for the article here (I found out that Santos actually met Jules Verne, what is neat), but it seems an interesting reading (the author was also the first to reveal, back in 1944, that Santos had committed suicide) - but I can't find this article anywhere. This website have also preserved articles predating his death (1928 onward). Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those are great new discoveries. You're really "beating the bushes". E Eng 20:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I think that you will like this one: someone restored, colorized and upscaled some videos from SD with AI. I have also found the original article that publicized Dumont's cause of death (there's nothing beyond you can read in the bios, but I have linked it in the footnotes for historical reference). Erick Soares3 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My god, those are FANTASTIC. In general I feel colorization falsifies historic documents, but here the results are so impressive I'll overlook my usual purism. Do you think there's any chance of getting that video released under a Creative Commons license? E Eng 18:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is really fantastic and this channel have even more restorations (including from this film). Since they had to reupload all the videos with a narration track to avoid demonetization, I don't think so. For much I would like to recover the original black & white public domain videos for Commons - once I attempt to contact Pathé (since they filmed the originals), but it seems that they don't have the videos anymore. This documentary recovered about 16 minutes of footage (including long thought lost footage) and my dream project would be a "Apollo in Real Time" style recreation for the Archdeacon prize. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I have just made an article for the balloon Brésil and you may like to see it (I wonder if it still is the smallest crewed balloon ever build or if anyone has surpassed it...). Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh

A trademark is a part of intellectual property, but it is not copyright. You can indicate trademark using {{Trademark}} if you want. But it being trademarked does not make it non-free from our point of view, otherwise we would consider images like our own logo (and derivatives thereof) as non-free. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC) See also c:Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#Trademark_law and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#Use of graphic logos Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm a retired intellectual property consultant I don't need any tutorials on the legalities, and I'm fairly well versed in WP's policies in this area as well; what I don't invest my time in is the minutiae of all our little licensing and permissions templates. But I know for sure that presenting the file (as you have) as simply CC-licensed, with no mention of the trademark status, is utterly inappropriate. Feel free to tinker with the templates about copyright or free/nonfree status to your heart's content, as long as the trademark status is acknowledged. While you're deciding what you want to do along those lines I've restored the current licensing. E Eng 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done then. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful. And without resort to violence! We should notify the media. E Eng 19:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giants!

Look at this photo:[133][134] Look at the size of the Bidens compared to the Carters... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon to a theater near you! The next great action blockbuster! The Incredible Shrinking President Or The Incredible Gigantic President

But if I could shrink former Presidents, or even shrink them down to non-existence, I'd definitely make other choices. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, yeah. I would enlarge a recent one so much that he collapsed into a quivvering, oozing mass under the weight of his own blubber. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our distinguished visitors refer to [135]. After all, who doesn't love a huge dick? E Eng 19:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My wife once asked me why I've never sent her a dick pic. I promptly sent her a photo of me giving my son a noogie. She doesn't ask me anymore. Which is good because the wide angle lens on my phone isn't wide angle enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, get off your lawn! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses have feelings too!

Re: "I don't think viruses have emotional attachment sufficient for them to feel spurned",[136] what about THIS? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky for me the UCOC doesn't consider viruses a protected class or we'd be at ANI right now discussing my 27th block. E Eng 17:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lest anyone forget, when someone asks to be called "tree" in a single Instagram video from 3 years ago then goes right back to "he" and "him" in all of their published work, not honoring that request will get you warned, and actually commenting on whether the request was serious will get you blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#EEng ridiculing a BLP who may use neopronouns. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spurn the spike protein. Or maybe spike the spurn protein. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos nothing, POSA^[1] fans who don't have it watchlisted may enjoy the most recent addition there: [137]. E Eng 19:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Principle of Some Astonishment"

EEng gives the best head. Tryptofish, get off EEng's lawn. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put "spike" into the WP search box, and found Spike Chunsoft, which sure sounds like something that, it turns out, it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least they have their priorities straight!

A seaside town in Japan has raised eyebrows after it used funding from an emergency Covid-19 relief grant to build a giant statue of a squid. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage in the news(letter)

Hello, EEng! I thought you might find this item by Joe Schwarcz, connecting Gage to Dracula via David Ferrier, to be of some interest.—Odysseus 1479 20:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how some religious people think that if you denounce the soul as mythical, effectively 'removing' it, you'll turn into some sort of monster. Even today there are lots of devout Christians who believe that people without religion have no morals, as if the only thing keeping them from immorality is the fear of God's wrath. Notwithstanding the fact that there are many social animals that display moral judgment. The Golden Rule is pretty straightforward. nagualdesign 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was interesting reading. The connection from Gage to David Ferrier is an interesting one (maybe worth adding to the page(s)), although I think that the connection from Gage (the impalee) to Vlad (the impaler) is a stretch. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maybe worth adding to the page(s) – Surely you don't think I missed that -- see Phineas_Gage#Theoretical_misuse. E Eng 23:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Don't call me Shirley. (2) You expect me to read that thing? Shirley, you jest! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I do like to think that, after all those years you and I and others spent hashing it out, the Gage article is something like 99 44/100% comprehensive; while one can never be certain just how much detail should be included on any one particular point, it seems hard to conceive that there's any relevant point that isn't at least touched upon, with pointers to where the reader can learn more if he wants. As one reviewer wrote about Macmillan's book: "... provides one of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary." E Eng 19:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nagualdesign, but the fear of God's wrath is the only thing keeping devout Christians from turning into some sort of monster, right?

— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that way. shudders nagualdesign 03:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, @Nagualdesign, Christianity is scarcely unique in that respect—although it and Islam seem to put a peculiar emphasis on belief. AFAICT most other religions are mainly interested in regulating behaviour, leaving what’s in one’s heart of hearts to be judged at the Weighing-In (whatever form that is conceived to take). And while I’m a fan of the Golden Rule it has its limitations, insofar as our understanding of even our own desires—let alone others’—is imperfect.—Odysseus 1479 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. What I never get over is how many articles (including this one) are clearly based on the WP article and/or Macmillan's Odd Kind of Fame, and yet nonetheless say stuff both those sources go to pains to falsify:
- Gage was not laying track, just preparing the roadbed.
- The "recording the event in his notebook" incident is probably fiction.
- Not Boston Medical Surgery Journal but Boston Medical & Surgical Journal (a nitpick I realize, but I'm in the mood).
- I know of no evidence that Gage "inspired" Ferrier's localization experiments.
- Ferrier experimented on monkey and dog brains, not human brains.
- Not Barnum’s circus. Not Barnum’s circus. Not Barnum’s circus. Not Barnum’s circus, goddam it!

For those who are wondering, Bram Stoker's reference to David Ferrier is likely (IMHO) simply due to Ferrier's notoriety as a vivisectionist; in the same breath he mentions Burdon-Sanderson, who was well known to the public for exactly the same thing.

Some years ago I spent a full week in London trying to find Ferrier's papers. I even tracked down the lawyers who had handled his estate. No luck, dammit. E Eng 06:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear EEng,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally my contribution [138] was of the usual high caliber and insightfulness one can always expect from me. E Eng 22:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all those pearls you're constantly handing out it's no wonder that so many people tend to clutch theirs whenever you're around. nagualdesign 23:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it's the family jewels people tend to be concerned about. E Eng 23:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

You somehow managed to be snarky to me, and be educational, and make me smile all at once in just a few words. In my world, you have earned this token of appreciation. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our visitor refers to [139]

Like they say, you can always tell a Harvard man. E Eng 17:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As they say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I didn't know that. E Eng 22:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know... that EEng didn't know that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can always tell a Harvard fish, but you can't tell lawnmower much. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a great fan of comma splices. Nothing wrong with sentence fragments in any but the most formal writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love forbidden punctuation. It makes everything funnier. —valereee (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True comedians love the forbidden, the politically incorrect, tragedy ... my latest favorite series. Atsme 💬 📧 20:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 683.1 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. 92.40.188.227 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is some irony here in that this template also makes the page longer...CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, blocked IP with 18 edits! E Eng 00:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP at self-referential humor

Have you ever browsed through their contributions? They're a troll, who occasionally makes okay-ish edits, likely to disguise their trolling. Obviously a static IP as well, as their interests haven't changed over several months, with decent and trolling edits on articles in the exact same topic. They even tried to edit a WP policy page to say something very different in what appears to be a WP:POINTY edit, and then edit warred over it. Back in 2018, they used a dynamic IP, but are pretty clearly on a static one now, making their trolling easier to discern.

I recently broke my vow to avoid ANI for another IP who was making hundreds of edits to a noticeboard. I'm wondering if it's worth breaking again to end this one's tendentiousness. I've a list of trolling edits of theirs at User:MjolnirPants/sandbox#section_2 if you want to give it a read. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I've lost track of what we're arguing about, with whom, and I'll be traveling for a few days so I'm afraid you'll have to take the lead on this. But I'm behind you all the way [140]. E Eng 09:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Guess what for :) ― Qwerfjkl \| 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use `{{reply to\|Qwerfjkl}}` on reply) 18:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise Required

You are the technical wizard here so I thought it wise to ask you, I’ve asked this question to a sysop and their reply although plausible I still need a technical editor to answer this for me so yup, your name came to my mind first. You see my question is how do people dig really old diffs fast? I’ve seen people dig up diffs from 2009 and very fast as well, Is there a special technical or way of digging up diffs fast? For example if I warned an editor of UPE in 2019 or wanted to dig up other diffs pertaining their conduct and whatnot is there a special way of doing so? is there a script for that purpose? I barely can dig up diffs from last week, whereas some editors could dig up a diff from 2009 and relatively fast as well, how do they achieve that feat? Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key is to have the sort of personality that nurses grudges and mentally rehearses revenge scenarios over and over. This cements the locus of the original humiliation or offense in the mind so that it's immediately at hand (mentally speaking) when the moment for payback comes.
Seriously, there's no magic bullet, but one very powerful tool is the editor interaction analyzer [141], which works very well if you vaguely remember that you and X (or X and Y) discussed such-and-such, but you can't really remember when or where. Most talk pages (including ANI and other noticeboards) have search boxes, in case you think what you're looking for happened on a particular talk page. Both techniques take some practice before you understand their peculiarities.
I hope this helps. E Eng 21:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! The editor interaction analyzer , seems to be the tool they make use of. thanks for the explanation. Celestina007 (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but don't discount the value of nursing grudges and mentally rehearsing revenge scenarios. You'll get my bill.

E Eng 11:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao, how am I just seeing this. Celestina007 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...we're allowed to nurse grudges? Damn. —valereee (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed we are. And orderlies are allowed to grudge nurses. In fact it's traditional. E Eng 00:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're also allowed to nudge grouses, though our more environmentally-conscious editors may object. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/976978259/1026107604

I think the changes you made were constructive but it would've been helpful to clear them in advance with ArbCom – the page does constitute instructions from the Arbitration Committee on rules in proceedings so ArbCom should probably know about changes KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My response would be that no doubt the powers that be are watching, but since you're an arb yourself that seems unnecessary. E Eng 21:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC) P.S. Have you visited The Museums lately?[reply]
Does this mean that if I edit those pages, ArbCom changes how it operates? Neat. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If only it were that easy. E Eng 18:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	― Qwerfjkl \| 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use `{{reply to\|Qwerfjkl}}` on reply) 14:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And to what do I owe this largesse? E Eng 15:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life imitating Wikipedia

Way back in September 2012, when I created Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram, I thought a stereotypical toy-chucking unblock request would be "This is evil censorship and bullying. I am right and they are wrong. You cannot allow lies and slander to appear on Wikipedia articles!". Today, I hear Trump's response to a two-year Facebook ban : ""They shouldn't be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win. Our country can't take this abuse anymore!"" Can I sue the Orange Oaf for plagiarising my cliches? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent creation. E Eng 20:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No; spontaneous generation. — Neonorange (Phil) 23:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in how Frisco Coakley is doing. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, being a bear of very little brain I am unable to grasp the reference. See also WP: FRISCO. E Eng 09:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of went down a rabbithole after reading the essay Ritchie mentioned: This user created a series of articles about his pet rabbit Frisco Coakley. I would prefer discussing this animal to thinking about the last four years. Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have always referred to the town as "Frisco", ever since I read it being referenced in a Swedish book about American Truckers when I was eight. Proudly a rube. Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, when I was eight I read an American book about Swedish truckers. Must be some kind of series: "The Boys Adventure Book of Foreign Truckers". E Eng 22:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I'd like to buy that one. It must be very fun to author those books, getting to ride along with truckers in foreign locales. My cousin just got her commercial trucker's license in Sweden, after a career as a lunch lady (all true) and I can't wait to shadow her at work for a day. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Jimbo, hear my prayer!

From this edit[142]

This is, so wrong,

Sweet Jimbo, hear my prayer!

Back down! Back down!

Sweet Jimbo doesn't care.

(Adapted from the opening song in the film Les Miserables [143]) --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bring me editor 2.4.60.1

Your block is up and your parole's begun!

You know what this means

- yes, it means I'm free

NO!

It means you get your yellow ticket of leave

You are a vandal

- I made a minor change

You violated BLP

- I fixed a typo I sweaaaaarrrr ^{InspectorNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you hear the editors sing

Singing the songs of angry men

It's a story of the editors that must be sung again

When the beating of their chest

Reaches into their ear drums

You know it's definitely the time that we have won. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for attending this year's EEng Home for the Bewildered Literary Recital and Talent Show. On your way out remember not to feed or provoke the inmates. EEng 14:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In conclusion: Burma Shave. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Admin of AN
  
  Doling out the blocks
  
  Ready with the G5 when he finds the socks
  
  Pages he protects
  
  AfDs are closed
  
  When it's time to unban he will vote !oppose
  
  Glad to give a friend an unblock
  
  Doesn't cost him to be nice
  
  But nothing gets you nothing
  
  Every !support has a little price
  
  GeneralNotability (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Admin of AN
  
  Doling out the blocks
  
  Ready with the G5 when he finds the socks
  
  Pages he protects
  
  AfDs are closed
  
  When it's time to unban he will vote !oppose
  
  Glad to give a friend an unblock
  
  Doesn't cost him to be nice
  
  But nothing gets you nothing
  
  Every !support has a little price
  
  GeneralNotability (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's so nice, he posted twice! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have spent this afternoon listening to the 2012 adaptation's soundtrack - pretty good, though I prefer the original Broadway cast recording and don't love how the movie really cut down Overture/Work Song. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are very good, but nothing compares with the Key & Peele version.[144] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thanking GN for posting that. E Eng 00:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thanking GN for posting that. E Eng 00:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting that per the number of indents. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting that per the number of indents. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bite me. E Eng 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yum yum. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yum yum. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double your pleasure, double your fun... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why?

comment removed — Ched (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some bug no doubt. Certainly not my intention. E Eng 11:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thank you. I didn't think it was intentional, but I've had a bad couple days of having to fix, strike-through, re-edit, change, and apologize for things, so I just wanted to make sure I didn't somehow screwup again. — Ched (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we cool. E Eng 20:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine

		Sunshine!
		Hello EEng! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding `{{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}}` to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer, EEng!! Interstellarity (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the year's all downhill from here. Thanks for reminding me. E Eng 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but today is the last day of Spring. Summer doesn't start until tomorrow. Then it'll be downhill until December (finishing with 10 days uphill, like a ski jump). nagualdesign 16:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Know-it-all. E Eng 18:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So difficult to resist the impulse to pedantry. —valereee (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep saying stuff like that and I'll be forced to follow the instructions at WP:CHILDPROT.^[FBDB] E Eng 20:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor details. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Know-it-all: I'm not even sure the Lady God knows it all.

I once encountered a story about Brahma-the-crator having been bored-to-the-death by knowing-it-all. Story told Kali offered help, and Brahma accepted; so Kali smashed him to godzillion piecess. All the pieces together would still know-it-all, when each one had only partial knowledge of anything and so wouldn't get bored-to-death (even when they seem to have become mortal, and some of them now trying to achieve nirvana).

I hope I'm not boring you to the death. --Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, to me, it's a bit like getting someone's birthday wrong. At least being a day early, rather than a day late, you can style it out; the Earth can just open its birthday card the day after. Anyway, it's today now. Happy Summer Solstice everyone! (And please don't call me Know-it-all. I much prefer Smartypants.) nagualdesign 18:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious

I saw this and this. Had myself a really good laugh! Thank you. Princess of Ara_(talk) 09:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) British translation. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin! E Eng 15:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lool! I went wild on the publish but in my fit of laughter. Obasanjo's internet is also not helping matters! Princess of Ara_(talk) 10:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you were LMAOing. E Eng 15:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a joke there in or on the offing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Yes! Haha! Princess of Ara_(talk) 18:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If somewhere on commons there's a photo of a Persian (Persian cat or, I suppose, Persian person) with a veil on its (or his or her) butt, then the caption could be veiled-ass Persian. Unfortunately, looks like File:Dalilah bailando danza oriental en la Esfinge.jpg is an Egyptian, not Persian, gal. E Eng 18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I crossed the street to her house and she opunned the door". Thomas John Woodward, 81 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, veiled-ass Welshman hardly fits the bill. E Eng 20:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know... E. L. Bow 123 (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Are you an admin? If not, what do you think gives you the right to unroll well made entries?

What ground do you have to stand on? I mean even if I were to disregard the repulsive nature of your commentary, the likes of you are what deter people from Wikipedia. Unless you provide a valid reason for repeatedly undoing additions to the Titanic life-boat article I'll keep undoing your loathsome behaviour every step of the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.109.204 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the question of what the reader learns from long lists of nonnotable names with absolutely nothing to indicate who these people were (not even, say, identifying passenger vs. crew), Fandom isn't a reliable source, and I'm betting the "two books" you've mentioned aren't tehe top-quality scholarly sources which are surely available for such information. E Eng 03:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer 216.158.109.204's first question, EEng holds a position higher^{[Citation Needed]} than Wikipedia Administrator; Wikipedia Infallible Judge Of All That Is Right And True. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not always infallible. I'm only infallible when I say I'm being infallible. E Eng 05:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since EEng is answering why the edits deserved undoing rather than the actual question of why he had the right to undo them: The flip side of being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is that anyone can also disagree with your edits and undo them. So EEng has at least as much right to undo them as you had to make them in the first place, setting aside your rhetorical fallacy of asserting that the entries were well made as a premise of a question asking why they were judged not to be so. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, editing with EEng can be a bit of a roller coaster, can't it. Personally I've never found EEng's behaviour to be loathsome; in fact, far from it. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some chairs to rearrange on the deck of the proud and unsinkable HMS Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are always considered unsinkable until they sink. Lotus 123. Lehman Brothers. Wordperfect. Geocities. Healthcare.gov. Ask Jeeves. Digg. Myspace. Every one of them was at one time considered to be unsinkable. Yes, some of them still exist as shadows of their former greatness. but they were all failures of one kind or another. Some day the gravy train will stop. There will be a scandal, a competitor, a successful fork, a huge legal loss, a shift in how we all use computers -- something will happen. We cannot have donations increasing until Wikipedia's revenue is more than all the money in the world. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to donate three ha'pence! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oh fun, a Well-made play! As for EEng behaving repulsively: [145]. But I think it would be an excellent idea to make EEng an administrator (as if that would give him a special right to unroll edits!), because then he could save everyone else time by just blocking himself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you

Just wanted to say thank you, for being one of the few users who seems to have some common sense in the sea of bullshittery that is our modern culture. The moronic, absurdist, toxic (and sometimes frankly, dangerous) culture that seems to be permeating everything, everywhere, including Wikipaedia.

I know it can be a thankless task sometimes, being just so utterly BASED and reasonable on Wikipedia talk pages. Especially since most readers dont even know talk pages exist, let alone understand the complex politics going on behind the scenes by the unbased and cringe editors and admins. So just know that someone, somewhere is genuinely thankful that users like you exist, who are a little beacon of hope that, maybe, all signs of intelligent life are not yet lost on this planet. 92.41.96.241 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, the tape ran out ... OK, can you say that again? Please speak directly into the begonias. E Eng 03:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I write that the way you wanted? I can log out again if it needs to be changed. Levivich 20:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fool! Use the secure channel! E Eng 23:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Verb]ed on a [punctuation mark]

Your comment as User talk:Guy Macon brought to my attention that, somehow, we did not have a redirect for the wonderful phrase hanged on a comma. I've created the redirect, so, let no one say that nothing good has come of all this. I was going to make a joke there about whether any Wikipedian has ever been "indeffed on a colon", but decided it best to not compare execution to blocking on a page where tensions are high. I'm sure, though, that the answer is yes. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) By strange coincidence, I was just listening to a podcast about Casement yesterday, and intended to look him up here, but had forgotten his name. Thank you for making this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those of y'all in the audience who write actual articles, I do wonder if there's room for a Trial of Roger Casement / R. v. Casement. You've got an interesting legal angle, interesting historical/political angle, and just a dash of sex to keep things interesting. (And as a bonus you get to deal with two DS areas at once!) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people done in by auxiliary parts of speech and various punctuation marks? E Eng 00:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does it include punctuation marks not used qua punctuation marks? If so, I assume the list would be 99% programmers. Tom Scott, for instance. Or just about anyone to ever edit a MediaWiki template. (For me it's always the pipe in {{#if:{{{1|}}}}} that gets me.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding that Mariner_1#Cause_of_the_malfunction is my all-time favorite and the granddaddy of them all, I think we better restrict ourselves to natural languages lest we be overrun. E Eng 01:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The indomitable Lynne Truss has been working on something like this already, I think, writing of the Manutius family in Eats, Shoots, & Leaves that

I'm sure people did question whether Italian printers were quite the right people to legislate on the meaning of everything; but on the other hand, resistance was obviously useless against a family that could invent italics.

scs (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I often choke on an undercooked Oxford comma. Does that count? "Hannibal's Lectures 123" (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's an artful choke! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage archiving

Your talkpage is very long, please consider archiving it. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity got the better of you, did it? [146] E Eng 00:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a novel idea. nagualdesign 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What, only 204 sections spanning 2+ years? I have seen worse. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, I cut the thing in half not three months ago [147]. What do these people WANT from me? E Eng 00:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hate housework. You make the beds, you wash the dishes and six months later you have to start all over again.
— Joan Rivers
Not when I'm recently single, thanks [148]. Belle (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is a joke!

Woof! El_C 00:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more confused than ever. E Eng 00:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy paradox? El_C 00:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone call the POLICE! E Eng 00:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I called the canine unit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for dog lovers: don't search YouTube for "dog, spinning, Bulgarians". End of safety announcement. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't search Wikipedia, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But can be fun, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might appreciate this recent edit... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least Owen doesn't want everyone call him "tree"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC) omg, sorry, I'm such a non-woke binary bitch. [reply]

Once again ...

I find myself in the position of defending an editor at ANI whose edits are (for the most part) productive, but whose attitude pisses people off. You (and TRM for that matter) might relate. Paul August ☎ 01:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I don't know any editors like that. Anyway, in the spirit of giving the guy another chance I randomly grabbed a few things from his contribs, which turned out to be [149] (fixing a minor stylistic flaw by making the sentence factually incorrect); [150] (worsening the flow in obedience to an idiosyncratic idea); and finally [151] (misusing a mathematical term) just before [152] (pontificating on mathematics). From these I conclude your efforts may be misplaced. Sic.

Look, if he'd acknowledge that he's got problems, and agree to listen, that would be one thing. But he's just laying low until it blows over. He can always get back from an indef by speaking up. E Eng 02:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I might be all wrong about this. But I agree acknowledging their problems and agreeing to listen—not an easy thing for some editors (know any of those?)—is what they should do here. Although, of course, just silently changing their editorial behavior would be sufficient for the purposes of the encyclopedia. But that won't fly now. ANI needs its pound of flesh. If some sort of recognition of their problems and a willingness to try to fix them is not forthcoming, an indef will likely follow. Paul August ☎ 11:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we don't even get one of those sketchy court artist's impressions of the accused. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said at ANI that TRM certainly should have handled this better, and been more forthcoming about what was wrong with Autod.'s edits, but I guess it's like this: there's IDHT, there's supercilious self-certainty, and there's not knowing what you're talking about. My experience is the community will tolerate up to two out of three, but not all three, which is what we have here. E Eng 13:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I wonder which two I should try to get away with. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that I don't know what I'm talking about and I won't let any of you lesser beings tell me otherwise. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like WP:LISTGAP fixes? Why?

Hi, EEng. You undid my fixes to the mangled section at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. My intention (as stated in my ES) was to correct WP:LISTGAP errors and to fix the threads that Catchpoke had garbled.

Then, seeing as how your complaint was do not rearrange others' posts like that, I reapplied the fixes to the WP:LISTGAP problem, without doing any rearranging, just correcting the reply/indentation levels (I really just deleted two separate colons). Your response was to tell me to "Cut it out".

Can you elaborate? What do you have against this kind of corrections? WP:TPO specifically enumerates fixing indentation levels ... fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance)... under "Fixing format errors". Please let me know what you don't like about my attempts to make the discussions easier to parse. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The extra indent level you removed (in your link above) is one many editors like to use when there are multiple responses to one post. Instead of all responses at the same indent level (which makes it hard to tell how many responses there are and where one editor's response ends and the next begins -- and indeed often causes the reader to miss the first signature buried inside and mistakenly think all the paragraphs were posted by the editor whose sig comes last), the responses "cascade backwards", the first most to the right, the next one indent level less, etc., making it obvious what's going on.

For years we were browbeaten about how irregularities in indenting causes screen readers to "close one list and open another" because some screen reader is trapped in the 1990s. And then came the day I was told by an actual user of a screenreader that it reads our talk pages just fine if only you bother to set certain options right (basically, telling the reader to be less verbose and just read what a sighted user sees). So I've little sympathy for this kind of gnoming, which makes it harder to follow the conversation for a spurious reason. E Eng 17:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that I don't understand on a technical level, but am interested in from the perspective of being helpful to other users. It's something that I previously discussed with Isaacl ([153]), and I would be interested to know what isaacl thinks of the discussion here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate some editors think their response is more directly related to a comment than the immediately following reply, and so choose to interject their response in between, sometimes with extra nesting to make it look different. Yes, it causes extra list start/end announcements (as I recall, Graham87 has confirmed this before), which does correspond to what a sighted user sees, since they see the extra left margin space (which was the point). Thus the interjected reply will have greater prominence to both sets of users. Whether or not interjecting a comment is a desirable talk page practice is a community practice matter, and not technical. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with giving more prominence (though it could be used for that, I suppose), but rather for the reasons I gave above. The technique can be used when putting your response either above or below an existing response. I do sometimes put my response above an existing one where my response is in the manner of a one-off not likely to lead to more back-and-forth, and where the existing post has already led, or is likely to lead, to further discussion. E Eng 19:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to use extra indenting in order to top-post etc. during a discussion. (Although I'm also participating right now in a discussion in which it has reached the level of absurdity: [154].) But I also think that it serves a useful purpose, and really doesn't impose on anyone, to use consistent formatting in terms of ::: or *::, or the like. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you open a thread somewhere, "LISTGAP meets GENDERGAP". E Eng 22:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fall into the gap... --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falling into the gap is certainl better than succumbing to an affliction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Prominence" was just a shorthand way of referring to your statement that you wanted to avoid readers "miss[ing] the first signature buried inside and mistakenly think all the paragraphs were posted by the editor whose sig comes last..." isaacl (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - OK. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood you. I once had someone accuse me of top-posting because I thought my contribution was more important (or, more precisely, he accused my of treating his contribution as less important). E Eng 22:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the DYK hall of mirrors

I'm laughing that you'd think I have any idea how that whole Rube Goldberg machine manages to keep plugging along and would therefore be able to check anyone's work. I have been trying to figure out how to simplify instructions there, but between the number of them and the number of times they're transcluded to various places, it's a bit daunting. —valereee (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand. I'm using you as a sort of stress test -- if you can understand the instructions, anyone can.^[FBDB] E Eng 14:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every village needs an idiot. —valereee (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"O let us love our occupations, Bless the squire and his relations, Live upon our daily rations, And always know our proper stations." E Eng 15:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And swallow all our mastications. Burma Shave." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I'm supposed to belong to a village? I'm always the last to know these things...Now I have to figure out which village needs me... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can join my village. It's a big job for one little old lady in Cincinnati. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'd run you out of a job if I did. My capacity for idiocy knows no bounds:

When I was a teenager, me and a group of friends stole a dump truck from the local landfill and took it for a drunken joyride. Past the police station.
Later on in my teens, I gave a police officer the name "Bong T. Drueler". To be fair, that cop was even more of an idiot, because he believed me.
I once hip-fired a Light Fifty. While standing on the roof of a building. With my back to the edge. In combat.
My wife once asked me if her outfit made her look fat, and my half-listening ass responded "Yeah, a lot, actually," because I assumed she was asking me how I was liking the book I was reading.
I've brought my kids to the park with no pants on. On more than one occasion.
I once sent EEng's talk page to the printer at my (former) job.

I think I'm less of a village idiot and more of an Ecumenopolis idiot. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was it already your former job at that point, or did it become so as a result? E Eng 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I actually answered that question in my edit summary. I was able to cancel the job before it finished spooling. Of course, I probably could have gone home, slept in late the next day and then taken an early lunch, and still had time to cancel it before it finished spooling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... thank you for your service?

About your kids in the park, were they pantsless, or were you? (Or both?)

Thinking about your mishaps, I remember that when I was a young child (I mean, fish), my mother took me to a toy store wanting to buy me a ball to play with. She walked up to a salesman, and asked him: "Do you have balls?" True story. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad someone appreciates my service. There were a bunch of bastards trying to kill me for it for a while there.

The kids were pants-less. I haven't stepped out of my house without a pair of blue jeans on since 2006, excepting a few occasions on which I was -horror of horrors- force to wear a suit.

In Iraq, it was fashionable for a bit to teach young ladies how to properly greet an American soldier. There was a day when me and two buddies cornered our interpreter to ask him what "Allah kabeg dek," means, as several young women had greeted us with the phrase, but young men never seemed to use it.

Much to our amusement and (and a bit to our chagrin), rather than a straightforward translation, we got a brief lesson on the effects of speaking unfamiliar English phrases with a regional Arabic accent, and an impromptu education in rural Iraqi toilet humor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ran that phrase through Google Translate, and they think the language of it is Malay. Interesting, sort of, but not an RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's English, I assure you. You've got to say it out loud to understand. Preferably loudly, and in public. You'll know you're saying it right if a woman or a well-dressed man agrees with you.

Don't trust google translate. It will take a guess if it doesn't recognize the words you've entered. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. You got me! But once Google decided that it was Malay, they simply translated it into the standard kind of blessing. Perhaps Google has beg dek envy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute? Did young Iraqi women really say that to you? Apparently, I'm the idiot here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cum, I mean, come to think of it, pronouncing it out loud sounds like Borat is saying it. Vaan nice! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe I've let myself be reduced to this. E Eng 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you several years ago swear to turn your back on Wikipedia, never to return? What happened to that? E Eng 17:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Several years? No, it was more recently than that. Actually, I've also said repeatedly that I don't wanna be an admin. But maybe it would be worth changing my mind about that too, just so I can join the club and block you.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, admins who haven't blocked me form the more exclusive club. E Eng 17:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know what Groucho Marx said about joining clubs! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it. YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN! E Eng 21:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you gotta say it about that loud! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, kids, get off of my lawn! —valereee (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is best answered by this —valereee (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally more inclined to answer with this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7falcon23

Regarding your comment in this discussion, I honestly had considered that possibility after someone else raised it to me. I asked Bishonen to take a look days ago, and didn't notice she was on vacation until after hit "save". But before reverting myself and asking someone else about it, I had a brief conversation with an employee who had seen the edit that prompted me to go to Bish, and she mentioned that he might just be a very conservative gay person, offended not by the thought of the "Gay agenda", but by nominally straight characters and people "intruding" into gay space.

I don't think that's actually the case, though. Not sure if that's what you were getting at, but seeing your comment reminded me of that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was strictly a case of Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I'm intrigued, however, by your reference to "an employee". Your employee? You discuss your WP editing with your employee? Is that part of their assigned duties or what? E Eng 05:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to be honest, the last virulently homophobic guy I met IRL ended up married to a another man, so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

About my employee: I'm the lead software developer, in charge of hiring my own team. She's technically a coworker, but I can fire her if I want to. Of course, she's the only one of us with any qualifications in UI design, so that's not likely to happen anytime soon.

As for WPing at work: No, it's nothing official. She just happened to be sitting with me while we waited for a rather large chunk of code to compile. We'd be chatting about WP, so I hopped on while we waited. That was her first experience with Wikipedia's processes, unfortunately, and she was not impressed (I've tried to stress how uncommon that sort of thing is, but you know how first impressions are).

She also emailed me this link shortly afterwards. Although I've seen the joke before, I think it's one that bears sharing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dated a few US Marines in the 1980s so I know a closet case when I see one. Nice boys when you got them alone, though. E Eng 16:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't speak to that, but I can analogize to "Christian women", from whom I learned that repression can be a great enhancement to the libido, and a powerful motivator to treat one's partner right. I can certainly recognize a "closeted libertine" as it were from a mile off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A co-worker? At least she's not a cow worker. ... I know a closet bovine veterinarian when I see one! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threats on ANI page, in re "White supremacist" thread

EEng,

Don't bother making threats toward me or counting down the hours. It is unworthy behavior. Just do what you're going to do and don't telegraph the punch. Don't even phone it in. Dynasteria (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. Telegraph. Phone it in. Is that supposed to be some kind of whitebread flyting?^[1] So clever! Get a clue, will you? [155]. E Eng 13:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that like flytipping but with rhymes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's like cow tipping but with more bullshit. Levivich 15:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

omg 😂. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC) (I never give more than 10%, even for a tight Jersey... )[reply]

Had he taken even the briefest glance at this page he'd know nothing's unworthy of me. E Eng 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng will not replace us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Linked since you probably don't know what that is.

Slip of the tongue

Hey EEng, I just noticed now, and I'm sure it's just a slip of the tongue, but your misspelling of that user's name here is rather unfortunate, and you might want to correct that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very sweet of you to bring this unfortunate error to my attention, Aspartame. E Eng 08:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What ever would Sigismund have said? A. P. Orgasma 123 (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something about my mother. Mother's Panties Tell me about your childhood fantasies... 13:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that EEng can do all manner of things with his tongue. And

is the least of it. --Sweetiefish (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have sweetened your tongue, EEng! If ever you need any artificial sugarcoating, you know you can count on me. C₁₄H₁₈N₂O₅ Aspartame (talk 🍬) 21:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, your slips are sweet (as sweet as candy), but honey... Sweet Bono 123 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for me to lay down the law, before anyone gets hyperglycemia. --Sugar glider (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One lump or two? -- Sugar me sideways 123 (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One is plenty, especially if it is laced with LSD. --Lumpy Gravy (sweet talk) 19:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now just hang on there, you old lumpersucker. I don't want to split hairs... but I think you'll find those are MY wiki lumps!! -- L. Ron Lumpenburger III (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll try to hang on, old suckermouth. --Lumphead cichlid (Sweet Talk and Good Lies) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess you can't teach an old lump new lumpy tricks -- Weird Al Lumpovic (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC): [156][reply]

You can teach her to sit alone in a boggy marsh though. She's in my head She might be dead... 22:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining Weird Al. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

And I thought we were just discussing desserts. But it's become a pain in the aspartame. Too Much Sugar 22:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about me behind my crack, are you now? C₁₄H₁₈N₂O₅ Aspartame (talk 🍬) 23:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic behavior in hens

"The repercussions of not providing adequate foraging and scratching opportunities to hens are that agnostic behaviors increase." - [157] I'm guessing they meant agonistic behavior, but it made me wonder: what does agnostic behavior in hens look like? Levivich 03:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to [158] agnostic behaviors include "head pecks, steps, pushes, threats, and chases", so that's what you can expect when the seeds of doubt are sown in the coop. I suppose you want us to believe you just happened to be reading Chapter 8, ("Enrichments in Cages") in Egg Innovations and Strategies for Improvements.

Anyway, that rooster did deny Him three times, or something. Also:

"The hens in our charter flock turned me from chicken agnostic to borderline obsessed." [159]
"But what does the American Egg Board think? ... 'We are agnostic in that respect,' said Dresner, the group’s spokesman." [160]
The Agonism and the Exorcism
Agnostic behavior in an attorney^[1]

E Eng 04:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First JS Mill, now Clarence Darrow? We need to renew our wedding vows before you start quoting Bradbury or e e cummings to me. And of course no one just happens to be reading Chapter 8, ("Enrichments in Cages") in Egg Innovations and Strategies for Improvements. I happened to be reading Chapter 7 and went too far. Levivich 13:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If they ate it avidly while stamping their feet and scattering it here and there, the augury was favorable... "Maybe they could predict bitcoin movements? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is every egg sacred, too, or just the Roman ones? Levivich 15:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Hobby farmers. Of course they "used to be chicken agnostic". —valereee (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every egg is estimable, no ovum otiose. E Eng 16:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Islamic miracle chicken .... or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEgg. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Easter Egg? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or just playing chicken. (Actually, I didn't know that it was a game bird.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You put yo left arm out.... yo right arm too!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I count on Martin to be my wing-man. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got it dude! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I abide. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: The picture I posted here. (But first, cross your legs.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Seriously, if you've never read this, do. Brilliant and beautiful.

Ok

Re the Talk:Grigori Rasputin archive page size I'll admit 100K seems fine to me but ok. Keeping your edit summary of jumping around from one little page to another little page to another little page serves no one. This is the modern age -- 500K is nothing. in mind I moved it back to 700K and am assuming that will be more agreeable going forward. Cheers.Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See User:EEng#correct. Saves time. E Eng 17:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I carefully thought about the size of archive pages and I decided if someone else finds a different size better-suited to their enjoyment of Wikipedia, more power to them. Shearonink (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your discernment is impeccable. E Eng 20:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the talk section immediately above, it may not necessarily be impeckable. (And whatever you do, never say "your pecker is discernable.") --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "your pecker is indiscernable." We can't have talk pages getting too small, can we. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you understand, Shearonink, this kind of behavior goes on all the time around here and you mustn't take it personally. E Eng 21:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, I (followed by Martin) took this discussion down-hill awfully fast, even by the standards of this page. Sorry, EEgg. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wait a minute! This was about Rasputin? And about size? OMG! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. I've seen photos of that pickled pecker. I ain't impressed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:36, 2 August 2021

The "standards of this page", lol. Don't worry Shearonink, plenty deeper depths to plumb, I'm sure. -- Peter Pecker 123 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, I was gonna say (or at least try to say) "Peter Piper picked a pep of pickled peckers", but Marty beat me to it. Stop beating me! Help! Help! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Piper plumbed a pot of pickled pecker. A pickled pecker poked a part of Peter Piper. If Peter Piper poked a popsy with a pickled pecker, where's the pot of pickled peckers Peter Piper plumbed? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MPants Piper popped a plot of POV pushers. MPants pecker poo-pooed Rasputin's pickled pee-pee. Pickled plumbing pecked at Panties... oh, nevermind. --Pipefish (American pickerel) 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So much for ichthyophobia. See what your blatant gherkin madness can do to poor girls like this!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oooh, topical word play. Gettin' fancy on me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Ask me where my handle comes from. 22:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid of me? That would be trypophobia, you lotus blossoms! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! That's nothing. I've actually got Lotusphobia. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Well, you are what you eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christchurch

But you must see things from my perspective, your name was uttered, I expected nothing. Then a whirlwind of destruction was brought upon the page. I feared that you would go too far and could not be stopped. I wondered if I could call your name when I was in need, I feared that one day you would be called against me. I laughed at your jokes, then cringed at how I would feel if they were directed at me. I read some of your talk page. This world was not meant for me. I shall return to my corner of Wikipedia and hope you never find me. Thank you for your recent work.Dushan Jugum (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're, um, welcome. I think. Verily and forsooth. E Eng 12:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for DYK's review requirement

Hi there. My edit brought about a fix to the RfC listing entry; your revert caused it to break again, along with the full listing (see WP:RFC/A from that point down to the bottom of the page). Nothing was falsified: it's a brief statement of the matter at hand, mostly copypasted from what you had already written. Please undo your revert so that the RfC listings are no longer broken; if you like, you can omit the signature but the timestamp does need to stay. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There really is something seriously wrong with you. Pasting my signature onto something that I did not write is falsification, even if it's "mostly copypasted" from something I actually did write (well, half of it anyway – the other half was stuff you just pulled out of your ass) .

Every interaction I have with you is over your apparent belief that editors should twist themselves into pretzels to accommodate some broken bot, or that an article must omit something it ought to include because someone's spellchecking kiddiescript can't handle it, or something like that. Editors and readers outrank software. It exists for us, not we for it. Fix the software, don't harangue people to bend to the robot's mindless demands. Get that through your head. E Eng 01:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you can calm down and take a deep breath, please? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was after calming down. He's lucky I didn't reach through the internet and throttle him. E Eng 14:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I need to calm down and take a deep breath, I dress up as Cleopatra and rub strawberry jam all over myself. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, Ritchie. Did you write that, or did someone paste your signature onto something mostly copypasted from what you had already written? [161] [162] E Eng 14:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't write that. I prefer raspberry jam. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry jam?? Very over-rated. ""He said, "D'you want it pasturised? Cause pasturised is best," She says, "Ernie, I'll be happy if it comes up to my chest."". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jam's overrated in general. Just eat fruit. —valereee (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo no! A Wiki Called Malice?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just another day on this talkpage. EEng gets himself into a jam, and Martin milks it for all it's worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. And don't forget our own resident Ritch Admin Pharaoh. --Peter Carter-Ruck Off 123 (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: the RfC processes (including maintenance of the listings) are undertaken by Legobot (talk · contribs), except for the WP:FRS notifications which have been devolved to Yapperbot (talk · contribs). If you have a problem with how Legobot operates, please direct your comments to the bot operator, who is Legoktm (talk · contribs). There is absolutely nothing that I can do to amend its code, so don't punch out at me for trying to explain where problems lie. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You must have some kind of hi-tech exoskeleton that block entry of any kind of clue. I've known you for years, and every time you "explain where problems lie", you always, automatically, implicitly, and unfailingly blame humans for not conforming to some technical stupidity, as you did in your OP here and are now doing again. It's incredible. I have no "problem with how the bot operates", you have a problem with how it operates, you are upset that it's not doing what you feel it should do, but for some reason you came here to complain to me about what it was doing, and wanted me to fix it. You go talk to the bot operator. I don't give a shit. Do you get it now? E Eng 22:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now we've discussed my sexual preferences for jam, the serious point. I've met Redrose in real life and he's a nice guy, and not the sort of chap to bite your head off, so I think "the other half was stuff you just pulled out of your ass" is misguided. More to the point, if you haven't seen the recent drama on ANI and Arbcom (and to be honest those of us who have wish we hadn't), there's a bit of a push to take WP:CIVIL a bit more seriously, and I'd hate for you to be caught in the crossfire. Even though I know that a "you have been blocked for personal attacks for 24 hours / 1 week / 6 months / 47 years / the age of the universe" message here from an obliging admin doesn't defuse drama, it diffuses it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly concur that Redrose64 is one of the most moderate, reasonable and collaborative editors, not some kind of mutant cyborg Arnie on steroids. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He can be all those things and still have the stubborn blind spot I've described. E Eng 22:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, he fabricated a post (out of stuff he made up -- i.e. "pulled out of his ass") and forged my sig to make it look like I had written it, all because he couldn't sleep at night knowing that some bot's output had unbalanced braces. Did you miss that? I'm glad he's sweet in person but stupid sweetness is not enough. He has yet to give even the slightest acknowledgement of that wrongness of what he did, so instead of talking to me how 'bout you try to get him to do that? Good seeing you, BTW. E Eng 22:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went to look at what happened, and here is what I think. EEng wrote the top part of an RfC, the part that appears on the list(s) of active RfCs, with his signature and timestamp at the end. It's ~~an incredibly verbose and lengthy RfC introduction~~ an RfC introduction written in EEng's unmistakable style. As a result, when the bot listed it on the RfC list page, the lengthy RfC introduction appeared with a correct link to the talk page where the RfC is. As is supposed to happen. But it was difficult (maybe impossible, but I didn't try very hard) to find EEng's autograph at the end of the introduction. As is not supposed to happen, not to mention a grievous loss for everyone who breathlessly waits to see EEng's wonderful username.

So Redrose added some text at the top of the talk page section, to create a brief RfC question, and put EEng's signature at the end. And the bot did whatever it did at the RfC list page.

And EEng objects to having something written by someone else, but over his signature, when he, in fact, did not write it. I'd object to that, too. EEng was right to take offense at it, and Redrose should not have done it that way, even though Redrose was acting in good faith and sincerely believed that he was making the RfC work better.

So, Redrose, please don't do that again. You can ask the RfC-initiating editor to make it shorter, or you can just let it go and not worry about. The world does not come to an end if the RfC list page looks messy. (Probably, fewer editors will respond to the messy-looking RfC, which has a certain poetic justice to it.)

And EEng, calm the fuck down.^[FBDB] You're usually such a sweetie pie.^{[dubious – discuss]} And nobody needs a yelling match. And Ritchie is right about the recent spate of ANI clusterfucks over being nice and not using "fuck" in a sentence. It wouldn't be worth having an ANI experience over that. I've just spent the last few days dealing with a couple of those ANI threads, and I'm getting too old for this shit. (I used to be an old fart, but I ran out of gas). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time. For the record, it's not that my RfC intro was long, but rather that it incorporated a collapse box containing the discussion of the prior proposal, and that confuses the bot (details on request). E Eng 00:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway: you're welcome. No need for any bot-ly details. And it's good to know that you did not, in fact, suffer a loss of blather control. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm wondering if you're going to rip Shibbolethink a new one for moving your AE comment, giving it a new section and adding a ping. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. Them's the rules. Comment in yer own seck-shun. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it. They're all in it together!! Winstonsmith123 (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the Cabal. No, really, don't mention it! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One fish, two fish, cat fish, dog fish

I came across something that might be useful to the curator of museums.

From our article on Catshark: "Catsharks are ground sharks of the family Scyliorhinidae. They are one of the largest families of sharks with around 160 species placed in 17 genera. Although they are generally known as catsharks, many species are commonly called dogfish..."

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is a ground shark anything like a land shark? E Eng 20:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you ground it, you are less likely to be shocked by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the land shark is, indeed, a swell shark. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with the topic, in a typical pod of sharks, there are (1) the positive (or "hot") shark, (2) the negative shark, and (3) the ground shark. Together, they form what is called a "plug". When met by another group of sharks, those other sharks are called a "receptacle". The combination of a plug and a receptacle results in a "circuit". --Electric fish (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great!! Enjoyed our delicious shark pod, why not try our tasty Lobster Bisque?? -- Bikini Whale 123 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But don't be fooled by a rubber eel. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooooo. Does it taste anything like a rubber chicken?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It goes well with a Rubber Biscuit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. The original's always best. "You want fries with that?" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a great recording that is! And from 1956, the year I was born. (Sorry, that's not funny, but I just wanted to say it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, lovely. A great year for canals and goulash. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Age before beauty, cutie! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments at the MoS

I will respond here because of WP:NOTFORUM, but only briefly. My point is simply that written and spoken language serve separate purposes, and that written language can and often does have a separate, independent existence from spoken language, to the point where its ability to be spoken is irrelevant. Furthermore, I wanted to clearly indicate that spoken language is not inherently dominant over or primary to written language (i.e. the 'base' to writing's 'superstructure'). I was thinking of Classical Chinese, and more specifically, Kanbun. Certainly, Kanbun can be read out as it is written, but no one will understand what it means if that is done. It will simply be a bunch of random, incomprehensible sounds, which is what one hears when one listens to something like a monk reciting the Heart Sutra. That can hardly be considered 'spoken language', if 'language' is defined as something that conveys meaning. Kanbun can only have meaning when one reads the specific characters displayed, and deciphers their meaning through their association with ideas, irrespective of sound. If one looks at the unaltered text of the Heart Sutra, it is possible to decipher it in a way that is not possible from hearing it spoken. It functions solely as a written text, rather than a spoken text. Furthermore, Kanbun offers a mode of translation, called kundoku, which can 'translate' Classical Chinese into a version of Japanese that can be spoken and understood. This is a complicated process, but it is only possible because the text is capable of existing independent of sound and spoken language, through the use of Chinese characters. I don't care to write more here, but if you read Japanese, you might consider reading Fukuda Tsuneari's Watakushi no Kokugo Kyoushitsu for more information. RGloucester — ☎ 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our royal visitor refers to [163].

All you're telling me is that either (a) Kanbun never was the writing system of a natural language (and my comments explicitly restricted themselves to natural languages), or (b) whatever spoken form or forms it once had are no longer in use, and therefore incomprehensible to listeners today. By your reasoning, Egyptian hieroglyphic doesn't represent spoken language.

If you read English, you might consider reading John Wilkins's An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language for more information. (Though in many ways completely wrong, it's still full of insight and very pleasurable to read). E Eng 17:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too lazy to look, but does MOS currently discourage using the apostrophe as in Jesus' or Sisyphus'? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, you really are lazy. WP:Manual_of_Style#Singular_nouns. E Eng 18:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That from someone who had to point out that he is not a moron, because otherwise it would have not been clear: [164]. By the way, I have no opinion either way in the argument you are having here, because arguing about MOS is like counting angels on the head of a pin. I mean, really, why have a rule about Sisyphus's but not Sisyphus', and then make an exception only for sake? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My anxiety to state the obvious stemmed from uncertainty about perspicacity of my interlocutor (see, for example, his post below) not the objective facts. E Eng 02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not clearly limit your comments to so-called 'natural languages' (and I would dispute the validity of that term anyway). I was responding to your proclamation that 'writing is fundamentally a visual embodiment of speech'. If you cannot see that this is not the case, I do not know what to tell you. Kanbun is a written language that works by conveying ideas, rather than sound. The ideas can be related to a comprehensible sound after the fact through a complex system of translation, but ideas are its primary mode of function. But as I say, I yield. I should not've expected much understanding for this cause in this, a place of 功利主義( utilitarianism). RGloucester — ☎ 20:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not clearly limit your comments to so-called 'natural languages' – What part of That writing (in natural languages, anyway) represents that which can be spoken is a bedrock axiom [165] escaped your comprehension?
and I would dispute the validity of that term anyway – Chomsky would disagree with you [166] but maybe you know better. If you like I can get you on the phone with one one of his students so you can make your case.

You call this a place of utilitarianism like it's a bad thing! E Eng 02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider the chronology of your remarks, and see that, at the time I took issue with your proclamation, you had yet to make any such specification. You might take note that I attempted to demonstrate my point above. Anyone that understands Chinese characters can understand the meaning of the above, irrespective of sound. Ruby characters can be added to indicate sound, but this is a secondary consideration. Even English can easily be written in Chinese characters, primarily because the characters function primarily in the realm of ideas, rather than that of sound. But I yield, I yield! For in this, the world of today, language has been reduced to a mechanical, machine-readable mode of industrial communication. Ambiguity is despised, interpretation unnecessary. In such a world, it is no surprise that the phoneticists reign supreme. If only I were as learned as the great Mr EEng, I wonder what my life might have been. Alas, I have been condemned to the domain of the folderol, for I am so impudent as to seek the treasures hidden in the land of things immaterial. Farewell, RGloucester — ☎ 13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I yield, I yield! – And yet like a moth to the flame you keep returning for more.
at the time I took issue with your proclamation, you had yet to make any such specification – You continued taking issue long after I "made the specification" i.e. spelled out for you that which is taken for granted by anyone who knows the first thing about the subject, and even now the Dunning-Kruger effect blinds you to what a fool you continue making of yourself – as usual.
If only I were as learned as the great Mr EEng – Let's take things in achievable steps – maybe start by being as learned as you imagine yourself to be.
Ambiguity is despised, interpretation unnecessary ... I am so impudent as to seek the treasures hidden in the land of things immaterial – Oh poor you, stranded in your mountaintop cave gazing into your navel, alone and unwanted, with nary a single visit from supplicants seeking enlightenment for lo these many years now. I'm a published author in computer science and the history of medicine and a major literary journal so if you're casting around for technocrats reducing language to a mechanical, machine-readable mode of industrial communication, aim your Mr. Magoo blunderbuss elsewhere please. Maybe you find yourself siloed off in some intellectual backwater, but I am not.
Farewell! – If only it were so, O Honourable Member for the 15th century.

E Eng 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. Still no word from your nephews? Between you and me I'm beginning to worry something's happened to them.[reply]

You are verily irascible, Mr EEng, and yet, I am left no choice but to prostrate myself before you. For what it is worth, I am also a published author. Regrettably, I am relegated to the inconsequential field of Japanese studies. I also reckon that I am quite green in comparison to you, Mr EEng. Perhaps with the benefit of age, I shall come to understand the nature of your opinions on this matter, and indeed, your greatness in the general sense. In the meantime, I do hope you might consider that you may well be a victim of the very phenomenon you cite, and that there may be alternative viewpoints on this subject that allow for the acknowledgement of the intangible value pregnant in a language of ideas, independent from the realm of the spoken. In any case, I hope I have not engendered in you any sort of hostility. Forgive me, Mr EEng. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are verily irascible – I'm not angry or upset in the slightest.
I am also a published author – I raised the point only because you counted me (and please don't deny it) among those reducing language to a mechanical, machine-readable blah blah blah blah blah.
you might consider that you may well be a victim of the very phenomenon you cite – Not likely. I really know this stuff.
alternative viewpoints – Unfortunately you reject basic definitions of linguistics, so there's no common ground from which to discuss whatever it is you keep trying to say.
I hope I have not engendered in you any sort of hostility – All are welcome. Just please try to read carefully what the others are saying, and respond to that instead of something you're imagining theysaid.

E Eng 20:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both you guys sure is erudite! Hot diggity! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be quiet or Gloucester and I will have you murdered in the Tower. E Eng 20:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm simply trying to figure this out. You're concerned about the perspiration of your interrogator, and he's got a green prostate. And I still don't know what's so special about saké. And now there's a test? Involving Mordor? (When the moon hits your eye like a big piece of pie, that's a moron! That's a moron!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, I think you'll find it's actually a moray: [167]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC) And hey, EEng, hands off our favourite Honourable Plonker for the 18th century!! p.s. "Like a gay tarantella... Lucky fella..."[reply]

Oh, I know that! It's a particularly popular joke in the aquarium hobby. And besides, I'm no moron. (For that matter, it isn't a big piece of pie, either, paisan.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia search algorithm reads your soul

I thought this was odd, then I looked at your user page to try to see why this happened. I failed to see anything. Does this mean something to you? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The description matches Wikipedia:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water. Why the search algorithm thinks that is EEng's profile is a different question. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It scans the page until it gets to User:EEng#Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water, and that's the first short desc it runs into. Could have been worse -- it could have picked up deranged sociopath (from the images after the big blue box in User:EEng#You might say he fucked the country over). E Eng 21:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

goalpost movement, misdescription, and harrassment

"The stuff about goalposts and "misdescribing" is just shit you made up."

When someone asked "if we have a speedy consensus to remove the above mentioned phrase", you set the goalpost by saying "Give it a couple of days." So we gave it a couple days, something closer to a week, during which there were no fresh objections to the edit... at which point you reverted the edit. Having met passed the original goalposts you set was not sufficient.
in your reversion summary, you said "A couple of people saying they don't get the point isn't enough to remove it". It was more than two people, and they were saying more than that they don't get the point. It was a consensus in a discussion that you were choosing to misdescribe.
You addressed me as "pilgrim" in that reversion summary, in a manner that reflects the way racist John Wayne would use in on-screen personas to address those he felt superior to . When I took offense at that, you seem to have reckoned that you had found a way under my skin and chose to, like some second grade playground bully, use it repeatedly to refer to me in a little harassment campaign.

I ask that you retract the claim about me making shit up. I warn that if you continue your harassment campaign, I am willing to take it to ANI. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Pilgrim" could easily be seen as addressing you as a farsighted explorer and adventurer, an honorable name although with puritan overtones. And call John Wayne a racist to his face, double dare you! Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"... get off your horse and drink your milk"..... or, well, something like that, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevens, with your racist film clip you are obviously mocking me because I stutter, you goddamned mean son of a bitch. If you continue your harassment campaign I am willing to take you to ANI (where I will buy you a drink...hell, why not, a round for everyone). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gee, howdy, pardner! Make mine "Milk of amnesia"! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[for those humor impaired and/or Code Enforcement Officer wannabbes, 1) what the heck are you doing on this talk page?, 2) watch the whole John Wayne clip linked by Martinevans which explains my code-unenforced language.] Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, looks like we may now have some "discussion board" progress... maybe someone's looking for a "megablock"? ^[FBDB] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our visitor refers to [168]:

Couple is an elastic term. In Islam, pilgrim is title of honor. And what does John Wayne's racism have to do with anything? In the old days racism was all the rage, just as indignant demands for apologies are today. Now begone before I denounce you as an Islamophobe. Pilgrim. E Eng 15:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC) BTW, second-grade has a hyphen.[reply]

I made the mistake of looking (but at least not commenting) at ANI per the notice below, and I had the misfortune of looking up higher on the page, where there is a now-closed thread about Trypophobia. And it contains a whiny comment about some talk page posts from several years ago: However, some users, such as one editor called Tryptofish, took the time to mock the concept of the disorder, and tried to have the image enlarged. The ping didn't go through to me, so I only saw it today, after closure. Apparently, I'm an SPA who adopted a name similar to the page name so that I could make fun of it. (In fact, I responded to an RfC, and asked about the strength of sourcing for the page. Obviously, I needed to be canceled.) Thanks for letting me vent. Anyway, it seems that WP has long been a place for people who get offended by stuff that shouldn't have offended them so much. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish - Tryp!!!! I am seeing a whole new side of you, now. You have been holding back on me. I was wondering where your name came from. Now we know the truth. Bad fishy!!!

--ARose Wolf 21:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought that "Trypophobia" was fear of me! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, one person's fear is another person's magnet --ARose Wolf 21:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said it. Fun for all the family! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim, I mean EEng, I actually did comment there after all: [169]. OK, pilgrim? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks go here

Your father engages in subtle vandalism. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Oh ya? Well you choose to spend your time responding to 2-year-old posts by indeffed users, while I'm snug on the couch with my cozy, pleasant-smelling parents! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they might still appeal. But yes, it's much safer commenting and knowing one will get no reply. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

"Your mother was a replica and your father smelt of Crataegus monogyna." etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solid. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... rockin' it, dude. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my advice, you took a wrong turn at I can certainly see how some might not see that as offensive. E Eng 01:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't annoy me. I can easily withhold support of your quirky sense of humour, in the future. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You talkin' to me? E Eng 01:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I like GoodDay, and I like EEng, and I also think there is something going on here that EEng would do well to learn from. I saw the exchange between the two of you at ANI. Basically, GoodDay said, in a supportive way, that worse things have been said about him, and EEng replied that that's because he's a worse person. When I read it at the time, I found it funny, and understood it to be a joke. But it sounds like GoodDay took it seriously. And neither one of us (GoodDay and I) is right or wrong in how we interpreted it. That's the limitation of online humor, where affect is not apparent in text. And frankly, that's similar to what happened with Nat and "pilgrim". EEng thought it was no big deal, and Nat did not. So EEng, as much as I personally like your sense of humor, don't give up your day job. You aren't as clever as you think you are. It's not the other person's fault if they don't get your joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add: if you look here (towards the end of the section), you will see EEng telling me that I'm better than a root canal. I took that as humorous, too, and that's the way that I took the comment to GoodDay. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't just focus on Butt, you know."

File:Coppertone.jpg

I feel there should be an essay in this, or maybe a Burma-shave -- Levivich? [170] E Eng 00:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We must be neutral in ratio
Avoid any locus non-apropos
Forget not Millet's mixed love mileau
We can't just focus on Butt, you know
Burma-shave
Levivich 04:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're like a jukebox, thanks! EEng 04:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But, but, but.... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is nothing sacred? Norman Buttkiss 123 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedian esotericism^{[Not to be confused with Western esotericism or The Esoterrorists]} is notorious [171] [172] [173] [174], and a debate about whether an article about the Butt–Millet Memorial Fountain focuses too much on Butt or too much on Millet is a pristine example. Another example: the ongoing debates at List of catgirls about whether Hermione Granger, who was once turned into a cat-like creature but only temporarily, should be listed, which has now blossomed into an ANI thread. Levivich 19:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only on Wikipedia! Some people are pains in the butt, and others are insufferably catty. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey bitches. Time ya'll took a week off to Detox! Things can get a bit juicey, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

I have asked you before to stop being aggressive yet you choose to continue being belligerent there with disrespectful and unnecessary wording like "your own damn fault". I am asking you again to stop that and to be civil. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I frequently check on the background behind these sorts of complaints, and far be it from me to object to requests for EEng to be nicer to people, but – good grief! This is over a fringey claim, where the talk page discussion has, by my count, six editors telling SW to back down, and zero agreeing with him. Looks to me like it's his own damn fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, and some people claim that there's a woman to blame, But I know it's my own damn fault." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question on an article talk page. Only this user addressed the matter with an abundance of personal scolding. That's what I wrote about here, not article content. On that page, I have already given up on the question I asked, yet the scolding only continues and worsens. If several of you wish to enable and support and reinforce that kind of behavior, that's your prerogative. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to be an enabler. EEng should stop with the scolding. He sounds like Miss Snodgrass (whoever that is). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to take your irony detector in for recalibration. E Eng 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, there's irony and then there's scrap irony. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goddam it, I was going to make a scrap-irony joke right after dinner and here you beat me to it. E Eng 22:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hark! The Master speaks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And nobody's even posted the "take a number" image there yet? Slackers. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without more sources
there's no way
Wikipedia can say
JFK
Was kinda gay
So drop the stick today
Burma-shave

Levivich 17:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstance

Saw this and thought of ~~you~~ the Museum. Atsme 💬 📧 14:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly did you think of me in particular? E Eng 14:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in your museum - think back to Dr Chrissy's passing. Atsme 💬 📧 16:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Atsme, good to see you around again! As for the dirty underwear, I don't get the joke, either, so please do tell. Of course, EEng doubtless knows his way around the ~~dungeon~~ museum better than I do. But what I remember from Dr Chrissy's passing was that EEng commented that the impalement image Dr Chrissy had put on their page looked... something, in the context of the note about his being deceased. Of course, if you're just telling EEng to change his underwear... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the last response but we had a frightful storm yesterday evening which knocked out the power for nearly 6 hours. For easy reference, see EEng's "Museum of I Shouldn't Laugh but I Did". It's self-explanatory. Atsme 💬 📧 19:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, I got it (almost) right! (Frightful storm, eh? That's what happens when I smite someone!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Archangel Trypto. I see you more as Angel Summoner to Atsme's BMX bandit (...soon to be replaced by "Gymkhana Girl"): [175]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been called arch from time to time (but no, my name is not Archie). But I can honestly say that no one (except, maybe, my mother) has ever called me an angel. I'm finally moving up in the world!

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know ... * that Prince Ginger and Princess Rachel of Zane named their possible future King sprog after The Drells' lead singer? True story. [176] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am rarely ever smitten by celebrity as it appears Harry & Meghan must be, and even less so smited, at least not in the way Tryp presented it (no offense intended to the god of thunder & lightening). My most recent smitings have been brought on by this seemingly never ending move with all the accompanying memories. Oh, and the last link I included in my post will take you to an interesting bit of music history. Atsme 💬 📧 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh yes, thanks for that. I now feel strangely liberated. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

...for writing WP:Principle of some astonishment. I just stopped myself from writing "The House of Lords passed the Pains and Penalties Bill 1820 in 1820." Sunrise (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am but the humble initiator of that page; many hands helped. You may wish to peruse User:EEng#User_essays_worth_reading for further ways of wasting your afternoon. E Eng 13:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the split on engineering glossary

I started a discussion on the talk page. You're welcome to join in if you are interested. Talk:Glossary_of_engineering:_A–L#Reverting_the_split Ergzay (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

source

Hey, how did you get access to Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion? It's from Yale University Press theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yale, huh? Oh, I'm gonna be watching for the reply to this one! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trypy, my friend,was it everything you hoped for? --ARose Wolf 17:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, our curator just ignored my dig at him. And this from someone who once went ballistic when I admitted that Yale has better architecture than Harvard does. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC) (Harvard, '78)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "how did you [i.e. me, EEng] get access", because I don't recall ever having seen the title before. But if there's something you need from it I can get it. E Eng 00:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right, that's my mistake. I'm looking for anything about Cwmhiraeth that's in there, although I'm told it's not much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just to be clear, you're looking for stuff about Cwmhiraeth, not Cwmhiraeth, right? Because I don't think there will be much about the latter in there. It may be a week or more, but I'll take a look and see what's there. E Eng 04:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth the hamlet is just an innocuous little place that sprang up as part of the development of the woollen industry in Wales in the nineteenth century. I doubt you will find much about it online. My only association with the hamlet is that a relation used to live there and I liked the evocative name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicuous. Everyone know the Hamlet's in Denmark. E Eng 05:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought that hamlet is what you put on a hamlet and cheeselet sandwich. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for stuff on Cwmhiraeth, yeah. Although it would seem that the jig is already up. I'm still open to any stuff if you've got it, though, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, our Dame Judi is related to Hamlet. Well, to his personal astrologer anyway. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? E Eng 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only I knew. You're the one who mentioned something rotten in the state of Denmark. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's just giddy because Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion both have enough vowels in them to be pronounceable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeewww no, Carmarthenshire has those nasty Saesneg vowels in, look you. You must mean Sir Gaerfyrddin! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bowellism and vowelism? Tripe! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're at your service at TripeAdvisor! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC) I made a real effort to choose the least objectional bowel link there, honestly.[reply]

Very good! No one wants to see the sausage made with natural casings. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They say it's pork, but we know different: [177]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that looks like quite the Welsh rarebit! (Or a blushing bunny?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Insert joke about spotted dick here. But don't insert a spotted dick here. And now, get off EEng's lawn! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tripe Advisor meets Blather Control [178]. EEng 21:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- #"We can't just focus on Butt, you know." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vast and cavernous"

As someone who recently had a panic attack at level D of the Widener stacks, I was happy to discover that Wikipedia agrees on their cavernousness. JBchrch talk 16:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next time remember your compass, sandwich, and whistle. [179] E Eng 17:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vex-byst ... etc.

Hey, that's great to see, and so very well put (as usual).

I love your user page, eg. the Museum of Stable Geniuses. In fact, it rivals only Martin's talk page for that welcome combination of a) sanity-restoring absurdist humour and b) the potential for making an editor completely forget the reason they went to the page in the first place. JG66 (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The credit is all yours. The sad part, though (and take this from me), is that you will probably never do anything that good ever again in your life, and when you're 70 you'll be saying "Did I ever tell you about the time I coined the Wikinym vexbysterang?" And immediately people will remember that they promised to change the catbox or pick up their mother-in-law at the airport, and before you know it the room will be clear. E Eng 05:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just thinking along those lines myself – it's far more satisfying to have helped inspire WP:VEXBYSTERANG than anything else I've done here. Even more so now that you've (most kindly) afforded me a voice on your Hall of Fame/Shame, Smoke and Mirrors. Seriously. JG66 (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If such a thing existed, don't you think we would have been hit with one by now? Levivich 01:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng?

For a while I've mused... Electrical Engineer? No... has a sense of humor. Mmm...So? Let me offer la bonne juste... ETA is in the arrivals column. Thanks for the use of your talk page. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 02:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An electrical engineer with a sense of humor? SHOCKING! E Eng 04:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Positively Edisonian! — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 10:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I call you 'Edwin Engelbarth' in my head. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

(talk page stalker) I call him lots of other things in my head. But they're all too rude to share here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's too rude to share here. E Eng 17:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is just begging for trouble —valereee (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Nothing? Oh, good. I'll get working on it right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, poor EEng. This Talk page is like a paperback novel, (... the kind that drug stores sell). **dabs eye with tissue** Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my most favorite novels are paperback (lol). I didn't get them from a drug store, I swear. --ARose Wolf 18:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

paperback rider? ghost rider? Nicholas Cage? — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 18:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know what those are. One of my very first paperback books was Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. I also kept a collection of Mark Twain short stories in paperback form. I believe I have a paperback copy of Edgar Allen Poe poems I picked up on my travels. I don't keep much but books I will keep. --ARose Wolf 19:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paperback Writer is a song written by Paul McCartney for the last Beatles tour; Ghost Rider is one of Nicholas Cage's more awful films — way back, as a kid, visiting grandparents in a small town, I spent summer afternoons sitting on the town library floor, reading every science fiction work, book by book, shelf by shelf. When I began to purchase books for myself, paperback books were $0.35 new—turn in two old ones and get one back. Heaven—I grew up on a farm & had little interest and further helpings of outdoors. Now, penitential, I caretake novelist's bios here. William Gibson, whose first novel, Neuromancer started the cyberpunk genre as an ACE paperback for under a dollar. The Peripheral, the first of a new trilogy-two published so far, is set in the near future. He's talked of as an important modern author of novels in English—genre or no. Usually has a resourceful woman in the foreground—sort of as I'd wanted my daughter to be in similar situations (she's 35 now and handles any situation well.) Try an Apple Books sample if you're in that ecology. Well, I run on, but so happy to meet a rose wolf in this wild party—All Tomorrow's Parties is another Gibson title. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)@ARoseWolf:^ Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I knew we'd get a mention of AN/I sooner or later. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do it...this time, Martin.

Thank you for the explanation, Neonorange. I don't mind wordy explanations. The more information the better. I am so happy to meet an...orange...that is neon (lol). Its a peculiar name but I like it. My parents bought me a used set of encyclopedias of the world when I was younger and I spent so much time just reading its pages. I was both thrilled and scared when I went to visit some of those locations years ago. The encyclopedias weren't entirely correct but they were close enough it didn't bother me too much. Most every language I know, with exception of Hebrew, Italian and Yiddish, I learned on my own from books and such. I didn't do much else growing up. I love reading from a book and still find time to do it. --ARose Wolf 16:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I did read books as a child, but they were more like this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sure, Threesie? "swoon". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In 1952, computer

\equiv

science fiction—well, mostly. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 13:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Us / Article subjects

This looks much better than what's currently in Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects. However, I think this needs to be tested on the mobile, Android and iOS Wikipedia apps first to make sure it is factually correct. I've never tried using them (like Cullen328, I use the desktop browser on mobile and it works fine, though not as practical as an actual desktop PC) but I'd need to double check that the image of a "Talk" header is actually what they see. The subject of the latest ANI thread is using a mobile app, and was complaining about not finding out how to appeal a block, which might be related. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are any problems along those lines, they were there already; all I did was cut stuff out and a little copyediting -- nothing new added. So the issues you're talking about (which are valid concerns, of course) aren't affected one way or the other, so you may as well move my sandbox over and deal with what you're talking about after that. E Eng 17:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've moved it over - it's certainly better than what was there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. But I hasten to point out that -- though it may seem unjust -- I have yet to reach the point where I have my own WP: shortcut -- see edit summary at [180] ;P . E Eng 18:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, you can't fix blatant howlers in edit summaries and need to get them right first time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant howlers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs summarizes these problems and Suffusion of Yellow is very knowledgeable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What, no complaint about the length of my talk page? E Eng 18:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once I have made a point, I try not to repeat it. Plus, smartphones are more powerful these days, and my current phone does not choke on your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already tried that. The joke wore thin. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question (not joking for once) about edit notice

I just noticed (belatedly) that User talk:EEng/Editnotice has some stuff in it that resembles some vandalism that was recently reverted ([181]). (The stuff about "new things at bottom" with blurry stuff superimposed.) I don't want to change it myself, but EEng, you may want to repair it if it's not intended. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(TPS) It's been in EEng's Editnotice for ages. I'm guessing the vandal stole it from there. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realized that, which is part of why I didn't change it, but still.... --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it just appeared one day and since crazy things are always happening around here it seemed like just one more nutso thing. E Eng 22:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want the nutso to be less-so, either of us could do-so. Or not-so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the fun in that? E Eng 21:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was Cards84664's brilliant idea.[182] "Clean up" apparently. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who the IP is, but I guess they have good taste. Cards84664 00:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since our curator enjoys it, I think that's that. Any change is not in the cards.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll be here all week, I take it? E Eng 18:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I get kicked out. New things at the bottom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the project page Article Size

Thank you for going through the project page Wikipedia:Article size line by line and thinking about what is being said and removing bad sentences or sections. Mburrell (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As they say in Russia, you ain't seen nothing nyet. E Eng 04:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Today Wikipedia:Article size, tomorrow Wikipedia:User talk page size?^[FBDB] —David Eppstein (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite your complaining. I archived something just the other day. E Eng 12:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you were worried about William Shatner shouting out "LOOK! There's EEng's talk page!" after lift off. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worse and worse. The Starship Enterprise didn't "lift off"; it was built in space. Honestly, one would think you were born in the 19th century or something. E Eng 15:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about the Enterprise? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strictly 20th c. E Eng 21:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“No comment”

Can somebody explain to me why this edit doesn’t display a comment as intended? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 *old mechanic voice* "Well there's your problem, ya dun used en-dashes instead of them regular dashes." CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiver me timbers, ya got it Cap’n. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not regular dashes but hyphens. A hyphen is not a dash. My GOD, what are they teaching in the schools these days? E Eng 12:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not that, as I couldn't find the relevant ~~dash~~ hyphen key on a smartphone. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need more than one dash/hyphen? What additional information does n-dash vs m-dash vs hyphen communicate? —valereee (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, tryin' to start a war? Levivich 22:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or trying to dash our hopes? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens are people too, you know, oh dash it! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, User:Valereee, dashes have a myriad of uses, and in most of them it really does matter which one is which, the different sizes communicating slightly different relationships between whatever's on either side. However, there is one very prominent use – the "interrupting" dash, such as in this very sentence – in which it doesn't matter which one you use, and from that people get the idea that they're interchangeable in all uses‍—‌which they're not. (That was two ens followed by one em, either one of which was acceptable in that use -- except that I shouldn't have used a mix in a single sentence or indeed in a single work. And just now, BTW, I gave an example of what's called a "typewriter dash".) E Eng 00:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

two ens followed by one em: en, en, em – not to be confused with Eminem (plural: M&M's). Levivich 02:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, I agree with EEng. --Tryptofish (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In most uses? Color me ignorant. :D I would not have thought that. And I'll probably never do the required research unless someone says something that makes it actually sound interesting. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey valereee, that dash before your signature is too long: –valereee, not —valereee. ^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in all seriousness, EEng agrees with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish, I can see the difference, and I agree but I don't know how to tell it to do that. —valereee (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I was kidding around, so please don't feel like you have to do anything just because I said so. (And it made me realize that the way that I do my own signature – for which I just use the default WP format, with nothing personalized – uses a double-hyphen ( -- ), which I like the least of all. So, there you go!) Anyway, the shorter one is an "n-dash" and the longer one is an "m-dash". If your edit window looks like my edit window, just below where the text being edited appears, there is a drop-down menu starting with "Insert". Just to the right of that are two dashes, the first one being the "n" and the second being the "m", and you can click on the one you want, to insert it where you are editing. You can change from one to the other on the first page of your user preferences. But you don't have to unless you want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On American roads, yellow lines separate lanes of traffic going in opposing directions, and white lines separate lanes going in the same direction; you should never find yourself with a yellow line to your right (except when passing). Perhaps not 1 driver in 100 could tell you that, and yet if you put drivers in a simulator going down a lane with a yellow line on their right, most will immediately realize something's wrong, even if they can't tell you exactly what it is. Dashes are the same (sayeth the dash pedant). EEng 22:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus speaks someone who obviously has not dealt with Southern California freeway carpool lanes and the double-yellows that often separate them from the rest of traffic, to their right. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Some ignorant person at CalTrans, apparently. E Eng 12:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On British roads, traffic going in opposing directions is often separated by Insulate Britain protestors with their faces super-glued to the road. You should never find yourself with a climate activist under your wheels. Perhaps not 1 driver in 100 could tell you that, and yet if you put drivers in a simulator with realistic bone-crunching sounds, most will immediately realize something's wrong, even if they can't tell you exactly what it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Summary style

Wikipedia:Summary style#Article size may need an update after changes to the "Article size" page.--Moxy- 21:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I fear we're already living on borrowed time with the changes I've made (with remarkably little pushback) to WP:SIZE, because (I suspect) there are many more watchers are over at WP:SPLIT. So really we've got three different loci for changes; we need to bring those interested in all three pages (SIZE, SPLIT, Summary style) together for a come-to-Jesus. And like I've said, but keep forgetting to remind myself, I've really got some important IRL stuff to do that demands I conserve the kind of concentration needed for a policy overhaul like this. E Eng 21:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! How did you find a picture of me, if I had blonde hair, if I had long hair, if I had any hair? And it was Summer and I was sitting on a dock wearing a red dress. --ARose Wolf 12:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you are six feet tall and, um, bodacious? —valereee (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More like 175cm and not so that but one can dream dreams. I do miss my hair and it's growing back so slowly. --ARose Wolf 16:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not far off. You can have my hair if you like, Rose, I'm not exactly short of it and it was especially bad when the barbers were all shut during lockdown. And my dad's still got a full head of hair going into his mid 70s, so it's not going to change. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetness, my girls used to braid wild flowers into my hair (lol). It was three and half to four feet long. Hopefully I'll get there again one day. --ARose Wolf 17:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It was three and half to four feet long." So is the height of a pile of A4 paper if you printed out the entirety of this talk page onto it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is pissed at you

Lol, Coming from AD's tp, I came across this (ip with just one edit) so just who did you piss off this time? Any clues? Celestina007 (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(for those not using mobile apps, a more conventional diff is here) As for who it is, if in doubt, say IceWhiz. Enough people will believe you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret it as someone being pissed at me. Quite the opposite: I'm being held up as a beacon of hope to downtrodden talk-page owners. E Eng 17:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the mobile app automatically send a mobile-app-centric diff? I use the desktop version when on my iPad and Celestina007's diff flipped the display on Safari from desktop to mobile version. Seem's the version chosen for the displaying device ought to be dispositive. (I favor a third choice—an acolyte currying flavor) — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 13:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting

Howdy. Maybe if you were to 'write' in (don't have to ping) the editor you're responding to, that would help one figure out who you're responding to. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting is to help people see, at a glance, which comment follows on from which other comment. Your changes made it look like someone was talking to me when they were actually talking to someone else. E Eng 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have made that mistake, if you were to 'name' the person you're responding to. The Discussion has several editors participating, so it would be helpful. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to ask everyone to do that, but anyway it's not needed since the indenting indicates it. I don't know why you're fooling with it. E Eng 19:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just forget it. Do what ever you want. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm IndentBot! I see that you are using a talk page but may have the formatting wrong! Allow me to completely bork it and change the meaning! IndentBot (talk) (JO) 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Do-what-ever-you-want-Bot! I see that someone has told you to do what ever you want, but may have given you the wrong idea! Allow me to suggest other trivia you can do what you like with. -- Do-what-ever-you-want-Bot (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional post-sanction rituals

Gnashing of teeth
Pulling of hair
Cleansing the userpage
Rending the signature
Swearing retirement oaths
Declaration of bad omens
Prophesizing the end of times
Prayers to Jimbo

Someone must have written this essay already? If not... Levivich 13:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, looking at the diff I thought that was going to be a Burma-shave. The 7 stages of post-sanction grief? E Eng 13:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would the last stage be? Cuz it sure as hell ain't acceptance. Levivich 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rising from the dead. E Eng 14:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by ... SPI and community ban. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followed by ritual grave dancing. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Followed by...sanctions for the grave-dancers. It's the circle of life! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joke

I didn’t mean to steal your joke, but thanks for making me chuckle in these exasperating times. Dronebogus (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imitation is the flattest form of sincerity. E Eng 01:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of jokes and the Article Rescue Squadron, here's my favorite of their jokes: they actually wanted to Keep this joke of an article: https://en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_electric_shocks_on_railways . E Eng 16:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald Trump is a ... well, you know"

Trump "fanboys" who stalk this page may be interested in this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, since you and I are Facebook friends, you know my real thoughts about Trump (which are sharply negative for those who don't read my Facebook posts). That being said, I am uncomfortable using DYK and the main page for political digs against the guys with really bad haircuts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you wouldn't be happy about

Did you know ... that donaldtrumpi has a scaly yellowish head and small genitalia?

–? E Eng 08:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of bruises, but we're still around

Is it Wikipedia or is it certain editors. This project can be really weird at times :) GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in particular you're referring to? E Eng 06:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say, less I be accused of WP:CANVASS. I'm always being watched. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've come to the right place for a discreet talk away from prying eyes. E Eng 06:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best that I don't. Sorry to have bothered you. GoodDay (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit ominous. E Eng 06:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but could possibly be the J.K. Rowling flap, in this VPP discussion where GoodDay participated, and where I had made a failed ping to you and came here to remedy it, finding when I got here that GoodDay had gotten here first. Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What going on at Rowling's BLP is a tragic-comedy. But, that's not what's got be foolish. 2021 has been an interesting year on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it bigger than a breadbox? E Eng 03:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the trail, in reverse. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You speak in riddles. E Eng 21:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I demand justice

I demand satisfaction! #BringBackDuellingOnWiki CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

You can't get satisfaction! #YouCan'tHandleItEither --Tryptofish

If I were to do something like this I would be disowned by every administrator on Wikipedia. If only I've been around as long as you have... Panini!^🥪 18:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the Lilliputians would have disowned you, too. Or it that the same thing? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and EEng has been disowned by every administrator on Wikipedia. It's the standard RFA acceptance: "I have no other accounts, have not edited for pay, and disown EEng." Levivich 19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not just admins. It comes with getting autoconfirmed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all modesty I thought it was one of my more inspired ones. Mute eloquence and so on. EEng 17:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite so. I put it on mute. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DYK.... that Jimbo Gulliver, was "First an Adult Content Surgeon, and then a Seller of non-Fungible Tokens"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you know ... that a porn magnate started a porn magnet and then sold a fraud magnet? (It's a matter of sorrow to me that "did you know Wikipedia was founded by an Objectivist and a QAnon believer" would be vetoed on sight even if I could line up the GAs on time.) Vaticidalprophet 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better than being a ""business magnet", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or a refrigerator magnet. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Or a gamer magnet. Aasim (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Or these annoying things. Panini!^🥪 13:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a BLP!

[183], in case the curator is amused. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My boyfriend was just in India and he assures me that they definitely do not need more stray dogs there. E Eng 23:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I'm inclined to think that we don't need that page either; I've had it on my watchlist for a long time because I feel like it could perhaps be an AfD candidate, but I just haven't felt motivated to act on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

...that this link can get even the best article to suck? Primergrey (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why people talk about sucking like it's a bad thing. E Eng 06:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or about blowing like it's a good thing. Primergrey (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can go on record saying I've never done that (either giving or receiving) and never want to. Yuck. It's one of the reasons I miss Flyer22, who could explain topics like that that just go completely over my head. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, Threesie. Are you just blowing hot and cold over this? Kevin Suckpants 123 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know that the British just prefer something else Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh yes, pass the cucumber sandwiches, would you, good chap? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas here in America, we have the giant sucking sound. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How very appropriate that "Fred Clintstone, supported NAFTA". We have still plenty of giant sucking over here in the UK. But it's mostly the sound of the Moggfather and the Disco Animal sucking up to Boris. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've heard many times that Boris sucks. I looked at the lead image of the Disco Animal, and it's the quintessential face of a Disco Animal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might say that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very clever.

Your edit summary is very clever. Unfortunately, it is so clever that it went completely over my head. What were you trying to communicate to me? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just I was wondering what were you trying to communicate in your edit summary [184]? E Eng 04:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. If you want to know more, read here. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DUH

I'm seeing rather too many examples of WP:DUH recently. Is my awareness of spotting the blatantly obvious getting better, or am I just reading articles that haven't had a good oversight on them for some years (or, indeed now, decades)? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest figures from the United States Department of Defense CounterDUH Field Activity Interagency Joint Monitoring Taskforce, incidents of WikiDUH are up 387% since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. So it's not your imagination. E Eng 16:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DUH, why didn't I think of that? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take this atrocious article, for example. It's just a load of alternative noise! Disgusting! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative noise? Pah, that's nothing! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could be worse. Better watch out for those gendered mackerels. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a lovely picture for all you aspiring glam medical students. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what glam has come to... --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think that's bad... ?! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Gadd! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just got to say ...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		... the ANI Burma Shave signs were full of freaking awesome! *Ravenswing* 19:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one's a classic: [185]. This one, however, has the meter a bit off: [186]. (Maybe put another coin in the meter. Don't wanna get a ticket.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not sure I myself wrote even one of the many great Burma-shaves seen at User:EEng#Brilliance_from_our_esteemed_colleagues_Levivich_and_Creffpublic_and_Guy and Template:Burma-shave-notice#Notices; my contribution was suggesting the basic idea near the bottom of this ANI thread then letting others do all the actual work. A shout-out to User:Plutonical for adding a new one just today [187]. If someone wants to trawl [188] (or, more broadly, this) plus this page and my user page, and memorialize any lost gems on the template list (seen below, and linked above), that would be of great benefit to the Wikipedia community and, indeed, all of humanity. E Eng 23:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

This template presents prepackaged notices in the form of the Burma-shave ads once seen on American highways. It is intended to be used as a humorous notification to experienced editors. It should be used for editors who you have a good relationship with to give them a friendly nudge. With new or grumpy editors (or if you're not sure the editor will take the joke well), just use a standard message or warning template.

As an alternative, the {{burma-shave}} template can be used to create your own custom Burma-Shave poem.

Usage

{{Burma-shave-notice
| 1=
| layout=
}}

Parameters

1 – The notice to use (see below). Capitalization doesn't matter.
layout – The layout to use, default is "vertical". Choices are "horizontal" and "vertical".

Notices

aninotice: WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave
crappy: EVERYONEIS SO UNHAPPYAN/IIS REALLY CRAPPYBurma-shave
battleground: AT WPEGOS ABOUNDSO LET'S AVOIDA BATTLEGROUNDBurma-shave
disengage: WHEN DISCUSSIONSFILL WITH RAGEMIGHT BE TIMETO DISENGAGEBurma-shave
promo: YOUR CONTRIBSGIVE ME THE NOTIONYOU'RE JUST HEREFOR SELF-PROMOTIONBurma-shave
sign: WHEN YOU COMMENTDON'T BE LAMEJUST FOUR TILDESSIGNS YOUR NAMEBurma-shave
contentdispute: NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave
section (re Arbcom's unthreaded discussion rule): ONLY POST INYOUR OWN SECTIONCLERKS WILL SUFFERNO EXCEPTIONBurma-shave
involved (For involved administrators): WOULD THAT I COULDCAN'T THOUGH I SHOULDBUT SOME OTHER ADMINMAY BLOCK YOU FOR GOODBurma-shave
teahouse: THIS IS NOT FORAN/IMAYBE TEAHOUSEYOU SHOULD TRYBurma-shave
inclusiveness: INCLUSIVENESSWE REALLY DIG ITSO PLEASE DON'T BEAN EFFING BIGOTBurma-shave
agf: DON'T WANNA WIFEHENRY VIII^thKEEP YOUR HEADASSUME GOOD FAITHBurma-shave
vandal: WADING THROUGH VANDALSBRING SANDALSTO AVOID SCANDALDON'T MANHANDLEBurma-shave
revdel: IF PUBLIC VIEWWOULD BRING DISGRACEA NOTICE-BOARDIS NOT THE PLACEBurma-shave
A unknown or invalid value returns: UNKNOWN OPTIONWHAT A CROCKTAKE A MOMENTREAD THE DOCBurma-shave

TemplateData

Displays pre-written Burma-Shave notices.

Template parameters[Edit template data]
This template prefers inline formatting of parameters.
Parameter		Description	Type	Status
Notice name	`1`	The name of the notice to use. Case insensitive. See documentation subpage for valid options. Suggested values `aninotice` `crappy` `battleground` `disengage` `promo` `sign` `contentdispute` `section` `involved` `teahouse` `vandal` `agf` `revdel` Example contentdispute	String	optional
Layout	`layout`	Whether to display the notice vertically (vertical) or horizontally (horizontal) Suggested values `horizontal` `vertical` Default vertical Example horizontal	String	optional

Can you be less political on AN/I?

Persian asses

Democratic ass

Republican ass

—David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like your "Baseless ass persians" edit on AN/I. Now, don't get me wrong, I hate that guy as much as you do, but at the same time, AN/I is not the place to advance a political agenda IMO.

Could you please change the word "ass" to something else? I agree with the "baseless" being a stop the steal protester, and the persians part wasn't of any concern at all, but I feel like it's just a bad idea (Plus we might lose right-leaning users to the clusterfuck that is Conservapedia if we express such bias). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 01:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks? Well, I could change "ass" to "deranged sociopathic moron" but then then pun doesn't work. Delusional editors inclined to decamp for Conservapedia have already gone. E Eng 02:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly anyone who thinks Conservapedia is a viable alternative is probably non-regretted attrition. —valereee (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-regretted attrition (= don't go away mad, just go away) is joining Controlled flight into terrain (= pilot crashed the plane) on my list of favorite euphemisms. E Eng 22:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, you put the P in Piaf. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Wait, what? Is that why the pilaf is yellow? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In UK it's often called pillow rice, so yes. -- Golden Shower of Bengal 123 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Trump did that in Russia, not Bengal. But then, I've never been that good at pillow talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He never did nuthin' ok?? --James T. Justis 123 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piaf? I thought that song line was by Blondie. But Google is telling me Mötley Crüe. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Controlled flight into terrain"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not more Persian arses again. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It leaves editors longing for some peace of ass. Sorry! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only Martin could come up with "Arses of Persia". E Eng 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, up his Arses! But we should all just live and let live. And yet, some people insist on sticking their noses into EEng's ass. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's kind of rude. I wouldn't stick my nose up anyone's ass. I know noses. I have the best nose. People come up to me and say "wow, you have a great nose". ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 03:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only kind of rude? I was trying to be very rude. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Practice makes perfect. E Eng 21:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're getting in the spirit of things, Plutonical. E Eng 03:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is your name Raymond Luxury Yacht? WaltCip-(talk) 17:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who, me? E Eng 19:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My Wiki-lawyer has advised me not to comment any further so as to avoid accusations of WP:OUTING. WaltCip-(talk) 21:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any event my secret's out [189]. E Eng 23:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Persian asses should shut-up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A man walks in to a Persian rug store. He approaches the rugs to inspect the material they are made of. He lets out a fart and then hurriedly looks around to see if anyone heard; he sees no one looking his way and relaxes a little. Interested in purchasing a rug, he approaches a sales clerk and asks for the price of the rug. The sales clerk says, "Sir, if you farted just touching it, you're gonna sh** your pants when you hear the price." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Persian rug. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trypto, you look positively ravishing. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, that's not me in the picture. I actually look ravished, or maybe ravaged. But I'll try not to wig out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shame. Plenty punter pay top dollar for Fishy Persian ladyboy! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you snake! But, dress for the season! (Plenty punter pay a pick of prickly Persians.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Pershan picked a peck of prickly pickled punters?? etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, replace the image with an image of Donald Trump riding a donkey so we don't know which ass the caption is referring to. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 21:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From an insufferably obnoxious, officious, and self-important part of the Wikipedian culture: I'm not sure that two alternating images would work. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that old debate between the direct approach and the alternating. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's nothing that a well-placed iv couldn't cure. ([190]) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should make it clear that I'm being very, very WP:DICKish.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over there they call that a "Capitol offense", don't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 E. MarnetteD\|Talk 03:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, The Roches. E Eng 03:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are a treat. That whole Xmas album is a great disc to sing along with while driving around viewing Xmas lights. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your user page makes ma laugh really hard- I can’t breath- You have such good humor Moon tw!tt (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday greetings (2021)

EEng,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well last year at this time I was in a Turkish prison so from a personal perspective the only way open is up. E Eng 20:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then this year, I hope that you can be in a Turkish bath. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How delightful. EEng, you're just "full of Eastern promise". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. ah, sounds lovely... Istanbul by rail! How romantic.[reply]

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Had this one left over, just trying to finish the packet.....

		Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda
		So here's some Jingle Wings and some Jingle Navidad Cubana and some Bryn and some Crickmore:Crewe just for you!! Very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

If you have time, mind taking a look at Columbine High School massacre? Filled with superflorous details, with some poor structural choices as well. I planned to make some trimmings and reorderings myself anyway, but figured I'd bother you as well since you're faster at identifying those things and trimming them out than I. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still fighting an IRL deadline, but since it's you I'll give it a whirl. I can't promise to give it the full treatment, though. E Eng 07:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked at it now it's way beyond anything I can even try to get my mind around now, especially when you factor in the parallel, and substantially duplicative article, on Harris and Klebold (which should probably be merged in). I can see why you want help -- it's grotesquely overdetailed, and as you say the structure is off kilter in many ways (e.g. there's a sectioned headed "The boy in the window"). I know this will seem like a cop-out, but can you ask me again in early February? I can't attend to this without guilt about what I really need to be doing. E Eng 07:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, want to be user you saw the above. E Eng 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now; I really do need to clear out my watchlist a bit. I used to use it as a way of bookmarking / a "read later" list, since my browser bookmarks are too clogged up to be useful, so now my watchlist is mostly filled with random edits on random pages and overall it's a mess to filter through.

No worries. I can't attend to this without guilt about what I really need to be doing. -- know that feeling all too well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION STALKERS! Your leader has been intending to bring this to your attention for some time: Go to Preferences > Watchlist and check the box, "Add direct unwatch/watch markers (×/+) to watched pages with changes". Best thing since sliced bread. When some old article pops up, I take a second to see ... do I want to look at that article again, and do more? Do I care? If not, a single click drops it off my watchlist. Goodbye! E Eng 19:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From one of your stalkers (with a stalk perhaps worth trimming), two bits of info:

Of no utility whatsoever, when I first saw this section header, I thought incorrectly that it was yet another complaint about this talk page. Fortunately, I was incorrect for the first time in my life.

Of perhaps a little utility, I recently found User:Ahecht/Scripts/watchlistcleaner. You can remove watchlist entries of specific types, and put them in a backup in case you want to restore any particular ones. (I also found User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/CopyvioChecker. You have to subst: it, even though it doesn't say so. I haven't used it yet, but it looks interesting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat premature New Year's greeting

^{John Vanderlyn, Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (c.1812), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts}		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2022.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] Moral lesson: John Vanderlyn was an American painter who studied in Paris, and his life-sized Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos was one of the first large nudes exhibited in the United States. Peddling the poison as well as the cure, this overtly sensuous work was presented to the public as a moral lesson on the consequences of lascivious behavior. Visible in the distance is the ship of Princess Ariadne's secret lover, Theseus, for whom she has betrayed her people by helping him to escape the Labyrinth and slay the Minotaur. Ariadne's bliss will come to an end when she awakens from her post-coital reverie, only to discover that the faithless Theseus has sailed away without her.

The curator has added an edit filter blocking future posts simultaneously containing the words premature and post-coital. Also see right. EEng 23:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The curator is a cock-blocker. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The editor is a Block Buster!: [191] --Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - [192]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - OMG. How did you know that's exactly how I picture EEng!? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And this is how EEng pictures you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And of course this is how everyone pictures me! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Great pectoral fins, Trypto. BTZ 123 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]
        You should see my anal fins. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever you do, on your European vacations, is entirely a matter for you. Sanna Martin 123 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What happens on EEng's lawn, stays on EEng's lawn. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        "I was walking along the street the other day when I slipped on some dog shit. A minute later, some guy did exactly the same thing. I said to him, "I just did that." So, he punched me in the face and called me a dirty bastard." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
happy new year!^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 06:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice sought

Hello. I am contacting you because I have seen your involvement at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article size#Clarification needed for "article splitting activists" and saw you did not have previous experience interacting with this user before this. Basically, I have been engaging with Onetwothreeip for three days already at Talk:Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election#January 2022 discussion and in my own talk page, who keeps exhibiting the same behavioural pattern as reported at Wikipedia talk:Article size and keeps using their own re-interpretation of that guideline to either enforce or block alternative solutions that do not suit their own view, and who keeps throwing and recycling the same arguments over and over again in an obvious effort to wear me down.

Personally, it is not the first time I have had a similar incident with this user; previous interactions in past years saw me simply accepting most of their demands just to stop the never-ending discussions. However, this is now coming over the top, since this user keeps requiring for their selected articles to be split and/or mutilated their own view, causing a large strain into other users' efforts to improve Wikipedia. Since you have been involved in a review effort at WP:SIZE resulting, precisely, from this and other users in-wiki "activism" against what they perceive as "large articles", I would like to seek some input from you on whether this issue should be brought to SIZE's talk page (to make this user conform to it and stop biased re-interpretations of the guideline) or even to ANI, or to point to whowever is more suited to address this situation, so that this kind of situations and behaviours are brought to an end once and for all.

Thank you and have a nice day! Impru20^talk 09:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain, because this preoccupation with "size" by people who apparently don't even understand the technical fundamentals (confusing wiki source size with bandwidth consumption with any number of other things) is the worst kind of moronic gnoming by people who want to pretend they're improving things but are just wasting everyone's time. Unfortunately, in this situation there are two things that make it hard for me to get involved: (1) Most of these controversies are just about splitting, with reduction of content not part of the discussion; but here it looks like there's some question as to what content should be retained at all, and I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make sense of that question. And (2) I just haven't got time right now. I hate to turn down requests for help, but sometimes I just have to. Perhaps some of my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s will take an interest. Good luck. E Eng 17:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I am not seeking for you to get involved, just on some advice on how to proceed. The discussion has been ongoing for three days and all points have been already made, but resolution is impossible because no effort has been made on their part to put up a reasoning for their changes other than some apparent "need" to reduce "download size" (then "browser size"). Normally, dispute resolution should be the next step, but in this case I am already aware of the methods of this user in particular; it is not a true dispute over content, but rather, a dispute over size and which content should be removed to get that size reduced (usually making exaggerated arguments to depict a perceived "need" for reduction, which they themselves cannot properly back in any policy or guideline or reasoning different than their own opinion). This has been like this for years and, seemingly, has affected other users as well. But it is not that he would deserve to being brought to ANI ASAP (I think he is really well-intentioned, but is basically causing a lot of trouble and wasting a lot of time and is unable to get it).

Anyway, thanks for the response and the input! Impru20^talk 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not an ANI situation, but you're wrong that it's outside the domain of the usual dispute channels just because this dumb "download size" argument is being raised. E Eng 19:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:ANI) for a period of 72 hours for making a joke out of someone's predicatment. 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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to site block you, but this should be warning enough. You've got quite a block record and this seems to be part of a pattern with you. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) No comment on the merits, but it appears EEng was blocked from the redirect WP:ANI, not the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents it leads to...although I suppose an accidental pblock from a redirect is the platonic ideal of an EEng block? (Also, first EEng block of the new year. Is there a party for that, usually? Do we have refreshments?) Vaticidalprophet 15:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring OWN BOTTLE +INSULT. RSVP: Martin. (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC) If I'd known this was coming, I'd have baked you a cake![reply]

LOL.@Vaticidalprophet: yeah, I forgot, I'm so used to typing WP:ANI. Anyway, it's fixed. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quibble whether EEng's previous blocks should really be at issue in this instance: either the comment at ANI is restriction-worthy on its own, or it isn't (WP:NOTPUNITIVE and all that). And a site block would have been a serious administrative misjudgment. I also think that the edit cited is far from the most insensitive thing EEng has posted on the noticeboard. But that said, I've lost count of all the times that I've told my friend EEng to tone it down. So I'd have no objection to changing it from 72 hours to indefinite (with exceptions for self-defense, which would probably make a tban more appropriate than a pblock). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the edit cited is far from the most insensitive thing EEng has posted on the noticeboard – I should certainly hope so. E Eng 23:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I care about being blocked, but as anyone can see I was talking about a Supreme Court justice, not anyone's "predicament" [193] (except maybe Brett Karanaugh's, and what I said is absolutely true – I really did think for a moment that an editor was saying he was being harassed by Brett Kavanaugh). As for my block log, as someone pointed out recently it actually consists of a bunch of overturned block, one INVOLVED butthurt block by an admin who's no longer an admin, one joke block, and one actual, real block. Since you're normally clueful I can only assume you haven't hadn't had your morning coffee yet. EEng 23:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC) P.S. Next time, please actually link the diff to my post in the block message, so people can judge for themselves. Just sayin'.[reply]
Followup: I guess I should have made a death threat instead -- that only gets you a 31-hour block. EEng 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really equating yourself to an IP with 2 edits? Doug Weller talk 08:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's see. I have 80K+ edits and a block log showing numerous encounters with trigger-happy admins who got their fingers burned; and I got blocked because you apparently misinterpreted my mention [194] of my genuine experience of thinking for a moment that the Twitter user harassing one of our editors is a US Supreme Court justice (at least I hope you misinterpreted it). The IP has two edits and got blocked for making a death threat. So sure, yeah, I'm definitely equating the two of us.

Before you block someone for a post made twelve hours earlier at one of the most-watched pages on the project, try asking yourself: "How come I have see a problem here when no other admin does?" E Eng 12:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, User:Throast posted at 9:19 UTC.[195] Your response, which wasn't an attempt to help, was at 10:04.[196] I removed it at 13:54[197], offered some advice, and blocked you shortly after that. So it went unnoticed for about 4 hours, not 12. And of course that was more or less the middle of the night in America and many of the usual posters at ANI would have been asleep. No surprise that your post wasn't noticed or that the next post after mine wasn't until morning on the East coast. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EEng knows that I respect him and often appreciate his sense of humor. But I find it difficult to see why anyone would really be interested to learn that EEng had briefly thought that Ryan Kavanaugh was Brett Kavanaugh. (Oh, EEng briefly misunderstood the original post – let's alert the news media.) ANI is an unpleasant place, dealing with things that unfortunately have to be dealt with. I can see the argument that, sometimes, it would be helpful to lighten the mood with a bit of humor. But I don't think it's helpful to post humor in a way that (1) says "look at me!", and (2) finds humor at the expense of someone else. The someone else may very well be doing something that can be seen ironically, and may very well be deserving of being told that they are in the wrong, but they can be told those things in a simple, businesslike, manner. Other times, someone may be raising a legitimate concern, and it doesn't help to sidetrack the discussion. That said, bad cases make bad law, not-so-bad conduct makes bad blocks, and this particular post by EEng was pretty innocuous by the standards of most of the things that he posts (he was mostly just making a joke at his own expense, not anyone else's). I can understand why EEng believes that this particular post of his did not rise to the level of deserving a block, I really can. But overall, he needs to rethink his participation at ANI, and yes, I've said that numerous times before. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
humor at the expense of someone else – Cmon, you know it wasn't that (unless you mean it was at the expense of Brett K, which I'm sure you'll agree doesn't count). You have it right with lighten the mood, though of course this was far from my best effort. I get regular thanks for that -- see all over this page -- and somewhere recently (which I'll dig up if you like) an editor said to me (from memory) Even though I ended up blocked, you made me laugh during the ANI discussion and that softened the blow. E Eng 09:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to hurt your feelings, so I want to clarify something. I was, in part, discussing the way you act at ANI in general, and not just the specific diff here. I agree that, for the specific diff here, you were not making humor at the expense of the editor who started the complaint. The specific diff here was more in the vein of someone may be raising a legitimate concern, and it doesn't help to sidetrack the discussion. The harassment of the OP was a very real concern, and certainly a legitimate (and unfunny) issue to report. Contrary to what you attribute to me below, I don't think that lightening the mood was a good thing in this particular case. As for thanks, I got thanks notifications after posting what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings certainly aren't hurt.

doesn't help to sidetrack the discussion – Well of course it doesn't help to sidetrack the discussion, if that's what happens. In this case there was nothing to sidetrack, because there had been no discussion at all. An initial post (in whatever vein) often is the catalyst for getting things going.

E Eng 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are sticking to your guns, I'll reply. Yes, it was sidetracking, not permanently, but at least for the moment. (1) The initial post from a sincere user describes a problem with harassment, which is a serious matter. (2) You interject with a comment to tell everyone listening that you thought for a moment that the "Kavanaugh" referred to was the one on the Supreme Court, ha ha. On one level, yes, it is rather amusing that it sounded like it could have been ill-tempered Brett. But did it really lighten the mood, in the sense of relieving the unpleasant situation of someone being harassed, and making it easier for editors to now buckle down and work through the problem? May it please the court, nuh-uh. It came across as insensitive, as saying "look at me!". It interrupted the proceedings, rather than greasing the wheels. It shifted the thread, even if only briefly, from "something real bad is happening to this user, what can we do to help", to... something else. You said above that it was far from your best effort, and you got that right. Personally, I don't think it was a hanging offense, but it wasn't helpful. Of all the things you've ever posted at ANI, I, personally, would not have blocked you for it. But there have been other times when nobody blocked you, where I, personally, was more bothered than I was by this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^{( Buttinsky)} Tryp, your (2) comment above triggered a memory of, well...this famous name, my ill-formatted attempt to use it in a would-be "gotcha", and the punitive bludgeoning that resulted. Facepalm Atsme 💬 📧 00:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's me, Trypsy Hussle. (Or maybe that's Tipsy... ) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thus showing how subjective the whole thing is. Look, I can't be brilliantly funny every time, and there's no way of knowing in advance. What's more important is we're not getting any answer on the WP:NOTPUNATIVE question, and it looks like we're never going to. E Eng 08:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I got a "thank" right after posting that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant since no one's claiming you shouldn't have posted it. E Eng 08:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake about the timing, sorry, though the point remains: forty editors posted, and undoubtedly several times that many visited without posting, before you came along. There's no basis whatsoever to your idea that my post went unnoticed; indeed, it's certain that it was noticed, but only you saw yourself as johnny-on-the-spot burdened with the duty to take urgent action for prevention of further injury to supreme court justices.
Anyway, you've responded to a minor point but ignored the real one, which is what Tfish raised near the beginning of this thread: NOTPUNITIVE. I mean really... what future disruption were you preventing? As for wasn't an attempt to help: as Tryptofish recognizes above, lightening the mood certainly can help. And I'm serious about that. (I'd appreciate a response to these points, BTW.) E Eng 09:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No answer. Huh. E Eng 08:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only 27 hours left now? But by all means threaten to kill me if you think it will help your cause. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With pleasure. Check your email. E Eng 12:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cripes. Too scared! I am part of the Jimmy Wales witness protection scheme, I'll have you know!! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This really has become a pattern with you: you're an absolute magnet for bad blocks, it's literally happened every year for the last eight years in a row. So I think we should turn it into a holiday. Each year, we should celebrate the first bad block with traditional songs and the exchanging of gifts. Not sure what to call it though... Levivich 00:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the accretion of planets: as my block log grows it becomes a bigger and bigger target, attracting new blocks through a combination of direct collision and gravitational attraction.

The great thing about these newfangled page blocks is that no one really cares about them: an admin can signal his virtue, I can go about my business elsewhere for the duration, and there's no drama. Everyone's happy. E Eng 09:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have a 72-hour bad block every three days (apart from Thanksgiving and Christmas, when no one's bothered anyway)? Might be a big time saver. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't actually even recognized that upside. Must file that away for future virtue-signaling value. There aren't two l's in signaling? How does that make sense? Now my brain is pronouncing it sigNAILing. valereee (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magnets, nails, collisions, and gravitational attraction. There must be some kind of accretion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, it must be an iron rod!! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich Hindershoddy? Bumthwart? valereee (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hindershoddy (adj.): regretted in hindsight. Levivich 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hinder rather than hind was what I was going for. But I like both interpretations. valereee (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hindershoddy (n.): a poor attempt to stop something. Levivich 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Holiday celebrating same. valereee (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, is this the earliest you have been blocked since the start of the year? Given your propensity for provoking proroguing of your productivity, I wouldn't be surprised if someone chose to block you on New Year's Day. WaltCip-(talk) 17:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EEng New Year is like Orthodox New Year, a couple weeks behind. Levivich 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prorogation: learn something new every day! Bumthwart: was that something from Harry Potter? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly sounds like it could be. I kind of like Hindershoddy better because it's so musical. A bit Hogmanay. But Bumthwart, yes. That's probably what the Durmstrangs called it. valereee (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, he's from Hogwarts. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hinders, bums, all this sounds ass-backwards to me! Funny how EEng and ANI always come back to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hinders, not hind(ers). Hinder: create difficulties for (someone or something), resulting in delay or obstruction. This all reminds me of discovering my 8-yo and a buddy giggling over butts.com. valereee (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's me, here to hinder everyone else (or at least bum you out)! I'm very pleased that anyone would see me as being that young at heart – kind of like being carded at a bar! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it coulda been worse. At least I didn't go on and on about iron rods. And I'm very disappointed to find that butts.com isn't a thing (at least according to Google, although there are certainly a lot of related hits that come in above the ones about barbecue). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, butts.com is definitely not what it was way back when. valereee (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC) valereee (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butt I'm happy to report that Butts R Us gets lots of hits: [198]. (Now I'll butt out. Maybe.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got carded yesterday, which I'm old enough to enjoy. The clerk tried to scan my driver's license and it wouldn't scan. He tried again, and again, until finally the store manager says, "Oh, give it a rest, he's obviously old enough," which kind of killed the joy of being carded. Levivich 18:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got carded at 40. I immediately called a friend to crow. While I was on the phone, the server, clearly attempting to make sure she killed her tip, explained it was new policy to card everyone. valereee (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, Levivich, Valereee, and me – we all carded be. (I'm 65 going on 80, and don't look a day over 39, but that's in fish years.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not long now before EEng tells us all to buzz off. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[199]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I love working for Uncle Jimbo. Let's me know I'm not in limbo." etc., etc.Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Martinevans is a bimbo.^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you devil! But yes ok, I admit it! Here's me and Jimmy at a recent Wiki-drag-o-thon. Sachet away!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Railroad Safety Act

Now there's an example of usefully lightening the mood on ANI. Just sayin'. That's the EEng I know and love. Bishonen | tålk 21:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

For the record, I like that one, too. (Free those radicals!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even money someone blocks me for it. E Eng 09:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone with deep pockets and a sense of humor, I can make that happen. valereee (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name your price, we'll set a new record at GoFundMe. Levivich 18:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to contribute. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along, please feel free to add appropriate entries to new dab page FRSA (disambiguation). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult is LUA programming

@Buidhe, I love for your input as well, please just hard is lua programming? Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it myself, but I've heard that it's not the easiest programming language, but not the hardest either. (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no experience with it. E Eng 00:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're headed to a luau party, make sure you stop by the ATM machine on the way, or you may find it difficult to get lei'd when you arrive! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yards

Saw this, thought of you: [200] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home, while this is superficially an expression of D.E.'s Ivy-envy, beneath the surface he's actually talking about Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_158#Distances_measured_in_chains. E Eng 00:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy envy? I am ivied. Anyway, your memory of old and almost apropos interactions is, as always, amazing. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Columbia admissions office still telling kids that? Shameful. Well, you've certainly risen above your humble beginnings. E Eng 03:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEng's Ivy is bigger than your Ivy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, so is his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this debate restricted to the Ivy League or can any old riff-raff join in? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Harvard the polite term is hoi polloi. We feel it's less hurtful. E Eng 12:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then ladi dadi everybody! The gang's all here! No, wait - Lev's not here, and neither is Creff - he became someone else. Atsme 💬 📧 02:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At Harvard, the polite term for that is actually "Yale". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The gang's all here!? How very Alpha Kappa Dare you! "You can look but you better not touch": [201]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Social distancing

Are you missing us, yet? We'll even wear masks when assembled. Atsme 💬 📧 19:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your user pages are taking all the credit. Thank you for being a part of this. Victor Trevor (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so very proud to be a part of it, whatever it is. E Eng 23:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach

I teach history to a Year 5 class - that's 9-10 year olds. We're doing the Ancient Greeks, and they were working on informational posters about the Olympian gods. Having exhausted the meagre pickings that our textbooks afforded, I encouraged them to find interesting facts to add on Wikipedia. One of the girls said "My dad says that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, it's full of rubbish." I told her that, while people can come along and change things, there are lots of people who keep an eye on it and make sure that the information is correct, and that I do a lot of writing there myself. She thought about that for a bit, and then asked, innocently and seriously, "So, are you the one who makes up all the rubbish?" Girth Summit _(blether) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you??? E Eng 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yes, obviously, but how would she know? I think they're onto us... Girth Summit _(blether) 23:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a carefully-crafted beautiful origami crane only this morning, see bottom right. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let's be very clear: I'm the one who makes up most of the rubbish. The rest of you junkyard dogs are mere pretenders. And that crane is a real whopper! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being honest with myself, I spend so much time at SPI now that I can claim very little credit for the addition of new rubbish. My main contribution is preventing people from recycling rubbish, which I don't suppose is looked on favourably these days. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looky here: [202]! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally archived discussion?

Hi! I was participating in ongoing discussion in section "Racism and Xenophobia ..." on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and you archived it here [203], apparently by accident. I'm not sure if you also accidentally archived a couple of other sections too, or not. If it was unintentional, could you please put it back? And if intentional, I'd appreciate it if you'd explain the reason. Thanks! Thanks for editing Wikipedia and keeping things neat by archiving. All the best. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coppertwig, indeed accidental. 1-click archiver sometimes picks up the wrong section. (You'll notice there edit summary didn't match the heading the section actually archived.) E Eng 05:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's back. Thanks! Yeah, I had seen the different title but thought I'd better ask. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I regret having posted a message that wasn't funny on your talk page. However, I don't mind if people laugh about it for not being funny, which would make it funny retroactively, so to speak ... ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right. A little tragic relief is welcome now and then. E Eng 22:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure you're wearing clean underwear. Atsme 💬 📧 17:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways Flight 1549

You didn’t have to be so rude about undoing my edit. Now bye. Piperpet (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, you don't have to go around, as you are, adding auto-updating ages to the infobox for aviation accidents ("xx years ago", like anyone needs that), and then restore them when other editors remove them. E Eng 13:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow card

I kind of liked the non-thumb version. Made more of a visual impact. Kind of in-your-face, which is how it works in real life. No comment on your misreading of footy :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've amplified your yellow. As a technical matter, however, there's essentially no place ever for images that don't include the thumb parameter (which, remember, can be blown up by using e.g. upright=2), because it makes the rendered size be whatever the original uploaded photo happens to be (which can change over time). It's a dumb interface design. E Eng 20:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. And I'm shocked to discover that there's any dumb interface designs in MediaWiki. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can use "frameless" instead of "thumb" to get much the same result, but without the frame (so long as you specify the location attribute):

frameless

From:WP:EIS:

thumb (or thumbnail)

   Automatically scale the image, and put a box around it. Show a caption if specified. Float the image on the right unless overridden with the location attribute.

frameless

   Automatically scale the image up or down. Place it inline with the text unless overridden with the location attribute.

Nothing specified

   Preserve the original image size, and do not add a border around the image. Do not show a caption. If no alt text is specifically requested, use the requested caption as alt text. This option is almost exclusively used in templates.

[[File:Referee-with-yellow-card.svg|frameless|center|upright=0.5]]

[[File:Referee-with-yellow-card.svg|frameless|center|upright=0.8]]

[[File:Referee-with-yellow-card.svg|thumb|center|upright=0.5]]

[[File:Referee-with-yellow-card.svg|thumb|center|upright=0.8]]

but you probably already knew that... :) Begoon 00:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I forgot. E Eng 06:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The joke placement reduces the seriousness of whatever statement RoySmith is trying to make in the close summary. It could just as well have been written on RoySmith's talk page. ANI's purpose is not to serve as the audience for your comedy. An admin "happy with" buttocks jokes cluttering their close makes me mildly question their judgment as well. But this is a petty matter to war over, so do as you like. Modulus12 (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I wasn't looking for your permission. Let me quote from the great Leander Hamilton McCormick:
One should beware of those who cannot or will not laugh when others are merry, for if not mentally defective they are spiteful, selfish or abnormally conceited ... Great men of all nations and of all times have possessed a keen appreciation of the ridiculous, as wisdom and wit are closely allied.

Any questions? E Eng 00:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That quote probably wasn't intended to apply in the context of serious discussions of human behavior and the consequences that can result. Butt jokes are hardly "wit". And insults veiled in the cloak of a quotation are still insults. You're right; you don't need my permission. I guess "do as you like" is a colloquial synonym for "I won't continue reverting". Modulus12 (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Evans of the Seventh Circuit would disagree with you [204], as would any number of other jurists [205]. And no cloaking was intended. E Eng 06:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From this...

...to this.

The simplest way to become incommoded. Atsme 💬 📧 19:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, that addendum to the close was, in context, not appropriate. Please revert it before I do. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, you're making my carefree prankster pose increasingly difficult to maintain. You crossed my path on the 4th of January. On the 23d you incommoded me; by the middle of February I was seriously inconvenienced by you; at the end of March I was absolutely hampered in my plans. The situation is becoming an impossible one. E Eng 06:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NYB, I've spared you the hassle and done it myself. Primefac (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perspective, EEng, perspective. While we correctly see and adore you as the class clown/prankster, others may see you as a different kind of clown (not necessarily that one) that doesn't even come close to who you are as a person. I can say with conviction that the reason I believe such dichotomies in perspectives exist is based on empirical knowledge. Most of my WikiFriends see me as an adventurous editor, whereas a handful of admins/editors see me as someone entirely different, the latter being an epistemic summation that obviously originated on planet Mars. All we can do at this point is trust the system with distrusting eyes, and hopefully, things will change for the better - be it our perspectives or theirs. How is that for NPOV? Atsme 💬 📧 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- EEng is such a bozo! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But a loveable genius of wit...and I say that wit sincerity. He wears the crown of clowns. Atsme 💬 📧 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carefree pranksters everywhere! We need to undo Newyorkbrad's tripartite curse. How about this? --GRuban (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I release you from the commode!
I free you from the convenience!
You are no longer hampered!

Somehow, I think this image should be worked into the images above, but I don't know where. But I think we all know that EEng is out of the water-closet. Anyway, I think that EEng's mistake in taking "footy" as "booty" could have been avoided if he just said that he wanted to soccer. On the other foot, we do have a policy against socking her, so maybe that's a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post Hawk

Didn't think it was really appropriate for me to put this at ANI, so here will have to do. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a wine jug. Thought it was something else. Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason why it can't be both - reduce, reuse, recycle... Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet had time to find a suitable picture of a propter hawk. Levivich 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Improper hawk? [206] E Eng 02:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin phrase originates from a Roman law forbidding the sale of waffles while drunk: post hock Eggo improper hawk. Levivich 03:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 885.4 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by You have placed a chill in my heart (talk • contribs) You have placed a chill in my heart (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. You need a nice pair of slippers to go with those socks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And You have placed a cold lasagne on EEng's hearthrug. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP is full of cats

User:Dudhhr/CatBlock ^{[April Fools!]} dudhhr_Contribs 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But still, takes some skill, don'tcha think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. You can't beat a good bit of mindless dogging, can you. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Zuse and the quantum encabulator

Dear Friends:

A personal hero of mine, now sadly forgotten, is Konrad Zuse. Working essentially alone in World War II Germany, he built the Z3, the first Turing-complete programmable computer, in his parents' living room in 1941 – several years before anything even close was built in England or America. It was destroyed by Allied bombing in 1943.

To earn money for the Z3, Zuse also developed a prototype retroencabulator (German: Rückwärtsencabulatsapparat), which became a key component in German anti-aircraft fire-control systems. Ironically, he got the idea from a 1944 article (about the more primitive turboencabulator) in a British student engineer's magazine which had somehow got past British war censors.

After the war work on the retroencabulator was abandoned, but in the 1970s Rockwell Automation bought Zuse's patents and brought the device to market. Unfortunately, problems with reactive capacitance, and competition from bubble memory, inhibited sales and the product was eventually withdrawn. I learned about it when I was at McDonnell-Douglas in the early 1980s, because they used one in the test jig for their Winchester discs.

I first heard of quantum computing about 1985, in a colloquium given by some MIT guy. Much of the discussion regarded the decoherence problem, and it struck me right then that an inverted retroencabulator could be the solution they were looking for. My advisor said I should write my idea up, but I never paid attention to anything he said so I didn't. Forty years later, the inverted retroencabulator is fundamental to quantum computing. I could have been a millionaire, dammit.

Anyway, click here for a short video about it.

Your pal, E Eng.

If my memory serves, you once talked to a class about retroencabulators, didn't you? For those who don't know, EEng actually did his senior thesis at Harvard by demonstrating how to invert one: [207]. He received an award for his work, and I found this lovely video of the award ceremony: [208]. For those who would like to read more about the subject, please see here. Your pal, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, EEng. Tryp - re: the award ceremony, is EEng the guy in the lime green shirt in the elevator - obviously going up or down to receive his just rewards? Atsme 💬 📧 23:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for EEng going down, I'd much prefer not to observe that. I figured that Rickrolling is so yesterday that I looked for a suitable homage to the historical roots of K-pop. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you said there at the end gives me a great idea. I'm going to become a serial killer in a state that has capital punishment. For my last meal I'll ask for cake and ice cream only. That way the headline the next morning will be:

EEng gets just desserts

I can't imagine a more worthy cause one could die for. My masterpiece. E Eng 02:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can eat the ice cream, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. As far as just...just make sure to wear clean underwear. Atsme 💬 📧 04:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just desserts. Just deserts. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is why, in the photo of EEng demonstrating inversion (and doesn't he look so young there!), why is he wearing a Yale-blue tee-shirt? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Since you also do a lot of batch archiving, you might want to check out User:Σ/Testing facility/Archiver. I just found it today and it's drastically improved my quality of life. (I'm guessing you've had the same pains with the Technical13/Evad37 archiving script as I have, described at [209]). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've always been happy with the classic one-click archiver. What I do is work from the bottom of the page up. Yes, when I click to archive one thread there's a few seconds' delay to carry that out, but during that time I just scroll up to review other threads, so that when the archiving process underway is complete, I'm usually ready to click the next one. So it all works out. E Eng 03:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's so committed to antiauthoritarianism that he won't even archive threads from the top down! Levivich 16:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user who is so dedicated to archiving won't archive his own talk page. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this edit: [210], and found it unintentionally funny (in an overzealous sort of way). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious. E Eng 21:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love Wikipedia where an editor will wait two years to prove a point, and then another editor will wait another year to prove a counterpoint. Old-timers have the patience of gods. Levivich^[block] 21:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back to you about that in two years. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us can't remember the arguments we lost two weeks ago... let alone two years ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Um... what were we talking about? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Widener back story

Hello EEng. "The book that sank on the Titanic and burned in the Blitz" from the BBC mentions Harry Elkins Widener.

The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon
Turns Ashes — or it prospers; and anon,
Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face,
Lighting a little hour or two — is gone.

(the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translated by Edward FitzGerald from q:Omar Khayyám) -- Mirokado (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your bringing this to my attention, but it's certainly nothing more than speculation. Harry Widener apparently did bring a volume of Bacon, which he'd just purchased in London, with him on the voyage, and this has led to the silly story that he missed the lifeboat because he ran back to his cabin for the book. Now, just supposing that he had this ruby-encrusted treasure in his possession as well, one would certainly think the story would be that he went back for it. Even the BBC's text tell us the story is speculation: "Mr Shepherd considers it likely the book was in the safekeeping of bibliophile Harry Elkins Widener ... 'The duty on the book would have been enormous, so he could have been asked to carry it on under his arm,' according to Mr Maggs." E Eng 00:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Give me an E! E!
Give me an E! E!
Give me an n! n!
Give me a g! g!
What's that spell?
EEEEEEEEEEEEEENG! YAAAY!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knauss

Given that Knauss no longer occupies the second place on the list of people who staved off death the longest, and the AfD last time was no consensus, any thoughts on another AfD? I'd give it a few weeks, right now passions are high among the longevity fanboys (though Tanaka and Randon are genuinely interesting people, about who there's at least something to work with), but if anything the arguments are stronger than last time around. It also helps that a few of the more disruptive elements from that AfD are now blocked, which should reduce the amount of noise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She almost made 120 years old and is the oldest known US citizen ever (third in the world overall). As notable as the day (and her life) is long (she was found to be part tortoise). Maybe consider just leaving her memory, and page, be. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought she summed it up well herself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be late to this (I've been AWOL a while) but I think this is one we can afford to leave be. The article itself needs a machete taken to it, however. E Eng 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1

This may be of interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The problem there is (in Conan Doyle's phrasing) that mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself. Her website's down now, but Teresa Nielsen Hayden once called the article "Wikipedia as art: a deft, beautiful, possibly even perfect entry"; but of course WP:MISSSNODGRASS knows better.

You and Johnbod are doing a crackerjack job. E Eng 07:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to believe this, but he's now forum-shopping this to various noticeboards: [211], [212]. I guess I'll lend a hand:

Feedback request

Editors are invited to comment on the article "Sacred Cod"'s use of style at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1. ɱ (talk) 8:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)

E Eng 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following up the above, editors are invited to comment on certain inpopcult items at Talk:Massachusetts State House#Inpopcult trivia. E Eng 07:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EEng. I just closed the reassessment discussion of Sacred Cod. I must say I wasn't too impressed with the tone of the discussion, and your role in that. You have enough experience to know to focus on content, rather than contributor. And I believe you've got enough of a sense of humor to diffuse tense situations. If you're annoyed a contributor does not know what a euphemism is, why not explain rather than expressing annoyance? And a phrase like "can you not count to 1" was also not called for. All of our energy is better spent improving articles. Femke (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time. I believe I can say, in all modesty, that I did indeed do as you suggest, that is, use humor to diffuse the conflict. In an ideal world there's hope for some Dunning-Krugers, but this one's beyond help, as you'll have already seen in his response to your post on his talk page [213]. He's still convinced that he's right and everyone else is wrong. E Eng 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it, is that humor only made the situation worse here (for instance, the joke about "I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account." may have given the impression of an in-crowd), and that invoking Dunning-Krugers in particular borderlines a personal attack. Femke (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I appreciate your taking the time, but I have a feeling you didn't click on the link in my post just above, which I'll repeat here more explicitly: WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. There was no making the situation better or worse, because Mr. or Ms. MJ's humorless rigidity of mind made educating him impossible. (You're probably unaware of the several rounds of interaction prior to his opening the GAR. And even after the GAR was all over but the shouting, he was POINTily restoring trivia I'd removed from another article, apparently thinking that it was somehow equivalent to the material he objected to in Sacred Cod.) E Eng 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who participated and endorsed "keep", I will remind my friend the humorist of WP:2WRONGS. (Splendid essay, because I wrote it, and if the shoe fits... ) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed a splendid essay, but as described just above, I'd given up trying to make anything right so I figured we may as well all have some fun along the way -- those of us capable of it, anyway. E Eng 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disease and desist (1800s)

Nash the Ogden Slash --ME123

Slash the Smash but not Nash--Tryptofish

I Can See Clearly Now

Slash Pine Seedworm Moth (no Nash) --ME123

Off-topic for this section, but in the general spirit of having fun along the way (no, I'm not encouraging you, but, whatever), I found this recent diff to be priceless: [214]. Those long diseases! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Decease and desist. E Eng 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what the person in that diff meant. I suppose being long-deceased is the ultimate long-disease. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A mighty creature is the germ,

Though smaller than the pachyderm.

His customary dwelling place

Is deep within the human race.

His childish pride he often pleases

By giving people strange diseases.

Do you, my popet, feel infirm?

You probably contain a germ.

.... Ogden Rash (ME123)

This page definitely doesn't have enough Ogden Nash. Thanks for doing your part! E Eng 22:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But don't be rash. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find among the poems of Schiller

No mention of the caterpillar,

Nor can I find one anywhere

In Petrarch or in Baudelaire,

So here I sit in extra session

To give my personal impression.

The caterpillar, as it is called,

Is often hairy, seldom bald;

It looks as if it never shaves;

When as it walks, it walks in waves;

And from the cradle to the chrysalis

Is utterly speechless, songless, whistless.

.... Ogden baby slash pine seedworm moth (Tfish)

It appears that this section of EEng's talkpage is located in Nashville. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"May 12 at 12pm, EDT"

Serious question: "I've just been invited to a webinar at the stated time. Should I join at 00:00 on 12 May, 12:00 on 12 May, or 00:00 on 13 May? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's just hope it's a real blast. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12pm on 12 May is noon that day. Sometimes people get this mixed up and think it's midnight (which, correctly, is 12am), and it's to avoid confusion along those lines that labor strikes usually start at e.g. 12:01am, since no one's unsure when that is. Unless it's a webinar for vampires, I think you can log in at noon with confidence. E Eng 05:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. How can 12pm correspond to noon when noon is neither before nor after noon? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1880s the meridian was moved very slightly to the left, so that its workers could more easily take industrial action. Simples. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this TP fizzles out, then I know for sure WP has gone to hell

File:Desenho Alunos - Estúdio França.jpg

A tart drawer --Tartofish

Our options...(1) bring back the round table – hardworking Wikipeedians deserve it, OR (2) let the chips fall where they may, but make sure you're wearing clean underwear before you leave the house, OR...(3) re-tire the humor van...and finally (4) take a number. Feel free to add more options if you think it will do any good. Atsme 💬 📧 21:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At last, something I can agree with Betty about. This page used to go up and down my watchlist like a tarts drawer's. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between the apostrophe being absent and me being an American, it took a few seconds for me to get the reference there.

– definitely not pastry. Atsme 💬 📧 10:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike many other organisms, apostrophes don't often survive long in a tart's drawers. But then this is the EEng Talk page. Feel free to substitute a bride's nightie. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late, but it's my first break in a while. I will begin by saying that Martin's reference to "other organisms" gave me pause. At first glance I failed to see the letters ni, be it inadvertent or otherwise. I attribute that anomaly to something similar to hearing loss, in that with aging we tend to lose "sight of things" (go ahead, run with it). That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Richard_Keen,_Baron_Keen_of_Elie, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Brattice (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always amusing when someone with 86 edits invites someone with 86,000 edits to check out the welcome page. E Eng 16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this sort of thing is viewed very differently on this side of the pond, compared to the land where they arm bears. It does reflect very badly on his Lordship. It seems that it is considered trivial in Merkia. If somebody broke into his Lordships residence and stole the shotgun, terrible things could happen. If the miscreant could get hold of ammo, for which they'd need a home office licence I believe, and all sorts of Police clearances. I think the deleted section could well be WP:DUE. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or could well not be. From the sources, it appears this old gent goes shooting weekly in season, and seems this one time to have forgotten to secure his gun before going off on holiday. Now, that's an irresponsible thing to do, and a £1,000 smack on the bot-bot [215] is well deserved to teach him never to do that again. But the article text, with its overspecific talk of contravening (contravening – like he did it on purpose or something) section two of the Firearms Act 1968 (oooh! – section two – 'cause that's, like, the very worst section to contravene) and being fined the sum of £1,000 (which sounds way worse than simply being fined £1,000) makes him out to be Lord Lucan or something. He's a government official so naturally such news was duly reported by the BBC as a matter of record, but whether this apparently isolated incident belongs in his WP bio is a different matter. E Eng 16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flummoxed now, I so rarely make any comments here, let alone semi-serious ones. Boris' (note apostrophe usage) entitled priveliged govt here are doing just exactly what we expect of them, and they dont appear dislodgeable. They'll continue with the behind closed doors do what I say not what I do stuff until long after I'm gone. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What???? E Eng 20:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore me, I'm venting. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "contravene" is standard British English for legal topics. Just like shooting things is a standard Scottish hobby for Lord Keen of Elie and other such "big knobs in their kilts". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuitous sesquipedalianism

Gratuitous Episcopalianism

Gratuitous bacchanalianism ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that we Americans do not have a monopoly on gratuitous sesquipedalianism. Why not just say "broke the law" rather than "contravened" it? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason is that saying "contravened", just like saying "gratuitous sesquipedalianism", makes one sound smarter. (I can, at least, pronounce "contravened".) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I actually think it's because it makes the offense sound worse -- see Talk:Richard_Keen,_Baron_Keen_of_Elie#Criminal_Conviction. E Eng 01:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was constructive in my opinion, with very clear reasoning in the edit summary. If you disagree with the reasoning, just revert it or start a discussion on the article talk page. This is not the correct forum to discuss it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezlev: Nice. See (or maybe rather listen to) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p50lX-O17mQ —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June music

June songs

Thank you for reading my mind, DYK? - Ukrainian peace music was "on" yesterday, with the conductor! + today, another conductor. - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that your long years of work on music-related topics is a great example of a particular area of coverage being steadily improved by an interested and knowledgeable volunteer. E Eng 16:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, and also for being my voice against pettiness - a word mentioned on top of precious, for a reason. For background: as you may feel we have a history. This nom didn't even mention "created", but was refused for other reasons. "created" was debated no end for previous hooks. The saddest thing was a great singer who performed - with the composer's knowledge, so extra bonus - in the last opera by Camille Saint-Saëns, and instead of saying that we proclaimed that she performed Carmen 3000 times, - pure quantity. (I deleted my credit in the nom, didn't want to take "credit" for that.) I work for quality articles, not quantity. /rant and thanks for helping with that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

I never thought I'd see the day that my UTP would get more pageviews than yours, and that scares me...seriously...sorta. Atsme 💬 📧 16:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you and I are really the same person it's a zero-sum competition. E Eng 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if that's the case - make an appointment for a mani-pedi tomorrow at 10 am. It's long overdue. Atsme 💬 📧 18:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I know that you are not both the same person, because one of you is much prettier than the other. Also, is Mani-Pedia a new WMF project? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on the looks because I already know where that might go; however, I will say mani-pedia just might work as a new project! Send the link to my cell phone and we'll see where it ends up (read the planet post below). Atsme 💬 📧 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy summer/winter

		Sunshine!
		Hello EEng! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding `{{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}}` to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I live on Jupiter. E Eng 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I'm afraid Jupiter doesn't have a solid surface you can land on. Perhaps you live on one of Jupiter's moons. Interstellarity (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMG - I'll just say this - my granddaughter named my cell phone after Uranus. Here's the kind of notices my phone sends me: Would you like to download the software to Uranus? The end. ^{uh oh, the close!} Atsme 💬 📧 22:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a gaseous atmosphere around Uranus?--Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, you belong in the doghouse. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already in the tank. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He hitchhiked all the way from Burbank. Now, he's ended up in the drunk tank" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm in the shark tank. But you know me...if I ever strike it rich, you can rest assured that nobody around me will be poor...and that's a promise!!! I will move to a rich neighborhood. Atsme 💬 📧 22:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summer in the northern hemisphere and winter in the southern hemisphere GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted at Conduct in deletion-related editing

An editor has submitted one or more edits that were made by you or relate to you as evidence in an ongoing arbitration case. Please note that the editor is not requesting that the Committee add you to the case as a party. You may review the evidence submission at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[216]. E Eng 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Barnstar

		The Red Barnstar
		Thank you for keeping up with the community on MOS practices .....thank you for updating our protocol pages. Moxy- 02:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

молодец, товарищ! Now the Central Committee will surely approve your promotion at the next general meeting! Levivich^[block] 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glory to comrade EEng! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really comparing EEng to Putin? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it was more along the lines of a revolutionary (革命性的). Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Barn Murder Star

		The Eraser Barnstar
		Thank you for murdering Maria Marten, the daughter of a molecatcher from Polstead, and burying her so carefully in the Red Barn. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can explain all this to me someday. E Eng 01:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin' Communist. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and fraudster, ladies' man and 19th century woman-murderer (known as "Foxey" at school because of his sly manner). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I'd rather be a Fuckin' Communist. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, may have got my stars a bit mixed up there.) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That really puts the Putin in Rasputin. (Which I sure hope doesn't lead to a pregnancy.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"There was a cat that really was gone." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mucking about?

I reverted my edits to the original approved hooks! SL93 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said that this corrected nothing, but now you want it as "called"? I can't even revert my own edits without making people upset I guess. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I said in the discussion at WT:DYK (where you said that you had "corrected multiple hooks") is that this [217] was not any kind of correction, since there was nothing to correct and all you did is substitute one synonym for another. Attracted by your post, I went and did a general touchup on that hook set. But then you came in and just reverted everything back to where it was in the beginning. Clobbering changes made by others after your changes is not reverting your own edits. E Eng 01:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted everything back to how it was in the beginning which you then reverted with the edit summary "For heaven's sake, will you stop mucking about?". I'm not referring to anything after that. I didn't notice your touch-up which happened later. I reverted it back to how it was because of the comments from you and theleekycauldron. SL93 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me after I already changed it back to how it was before either of us touched it. You can look at this version if you don't believe me. I honestly don't care about changing your touch-up because I changed it to how it was before the complaints. It is not "mucking about" to backtrack to how a version was before complaints no matter the circumstances. I will end this discussion here. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the timeline mixed up [218]. I understand you were trying to help, but when multiple editors are involved you need to look carefully before blanket reverting. E Eng 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Emeril

Chips --Tryptofish and chips

Thank you for helping me on Wikipedia talk:Article size. Although it looks like my proposal to scrap the size guideline may not pass :( (currently there are 3 in favour; 6 not in favour). My next proposal is to reform the size guideline and compromise (e.g. "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" should be 75kB; "Probably should be divided" should be 100kB; and "Almost certainly should be divided" should be 150kB) because I think there are some moderate editors who believe the current guideline is BS but do not want to scrap it altogether. Thanks for being outspoken against this ridiculous rule.

By the way, your talk page is WP:TOOLONG. You have to split it in multiple talk pages because readers have an attention span of 40 minutes. /s Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Eater, I hereby award you the EEng Irony Cross (with Oak Leaves, Platinum Rivets, and Emerald Chips). E Eng 17:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember Emerald Nuts also making Chips, but after 40 minutes I might have forgotten. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Nuts? Must come from Emerald City. I'll bet it was EEng who said size doesn't matter. As for attention span, a safer bet would be as long it takes to read a tweet and watch a TikTok video.

Atsme 💬 📧 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Lindsay budget table

Thank you for bringing up turning the budget section into a table. I don't know of any good tables to use for it since the only time I use them is for election stuff. I put the information into that dump just to hold it for the future if I found a good table. Do you have any suggestions? Give me one and I will transfer it into that. Jon698 (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "a good table to use" -- you can make your own table with whatever formats you want; there are tables in lots of articles so click Edit to see how they work. But don't lose sight of my other point: does the reader benefit from all these details, regardless of the form of presentation? E Eng 03:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuappi

There are a lot of tiny food establishments in the world that one might call restaurants. Does a food truck with a single two-person camp table sitting outside it count? (Ramen Ciro in Portland, if I remember correctly.) I've seen conflicting size estimates for Fan’er in Beijing but it may be smaller. And apparently much of Kuappi's food is cooked elsewhere rather than in-house. Anyway I guess our article doesn't actually say it is the smallest, only that it has been labeled the smallest by Guinness. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I thought you might find amusing was the statement that the restaurant has a "surface area" of 8 sq meters. That translates to a cube roughly a 4 x 4 x 4 feet. E Eng 22:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did find that amusing. But it's a hollow structure, not a solid; shouldn't the surface area count the inside floors, ceiling, and walls, separately from the outside? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. But there has to been some dividing line. I suggest we count only the paintable surfaces. E Eng 01:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So not the diners and chef, then? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor the food. E Eng 01:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Copenhagen mall shooting

Your edit war against the normal mention of notable reactions is dubious and disruptive. Let things develop and sort it out later. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our visitor refers to [219]

The stupidity of many "normal" features of certain kinds of articles is well known, a particularly good example being articles on mass murders boring the reader with the more-than-predictable information that the pope condemned it, that the head of state of the nation didn't finish his second helping of ice cream on hearing of it, and that a concert 1 km away was cancelled. Really? You really think the reader is somehow informed by such junk? E Eng 23:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with EEng here. Upon reading it the first time my thought was "really? who cares". It seems gauche at best to mention a cancelled concert in an article on Denmark's deadliest mass shooting ever. And it certainly isn't normal to mention any ol' cancellation unless it was done so by someone like the mayor or something (cf. Akron, Ohio, police shooting a guy 90 times and the cancellation of 4th of July celebrations by the mayor as a result). EvergreenFir (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was the edit warring against multiple editors, regardless of any personal opinions about the (un)worthiness of the content. Those are two different issues, and discussion is better than edit warring by a highly esteemed (at least by me) editor like EEng. It sets a bad example.

Reaction sections are pretty standard content, and it's often largely a matter of opinion which notable reactions from RS that we choose to include. THAT is worth discussing on the talk page. RS, for some reason, have decided that those two reactions are not trivial, so they have mentioned them, and it is RS coverage that tells us what to consider for inclusion.

With time, I suspect pruning will be warranted, but not by heated edit warring. There is no rush. The one about the royal family is of more worth than the canceled concert, IMO. Now if you want (glee!) a "good" reaction, try Lauren Boebert's tweet. (Play Looney Tunes theme.)

-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially early in an incident's development, news sources report whatever they can because ... there's nothing else to report. You're right that there's WP:NODEADLINE, and the right application of that would be to not have articles on breaking news at all -- I'd advocate waiting 30 days before even starting an article on certain kinds of topics [which admittedly I'm at a loss to define right now]. The there'd be some perspective.

Boebert's right, of course, that gun laws don't stop mass shootings. They just cut them by a factor of 100. I'd say it's incredible that someone that stupid could be in Congress, but then there are a lot of stupid voters. E Eng 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And a factor of 100 – that's more than half! (I have all the best math.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had you thought of running? We're all gunning for you. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As is your Second Amendment right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried: [220]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC) I should say: trigger warning. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd 100% support a minimum window for these articles. I've complained about them in the past but it was a losing battle. Many, IMO, don't have WP:10YEARS. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"What time is it?" said the judge to Joey when they met, "Five to ten," said Joey. The judge says, "That's exactly what you get" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A rough idea might be this:

A subject that was not previously notable (or, possibly, that didn't even exist) suddenly becomes notable; at that point a 15-day (or 10-, or 20-, or 30-day) clock starts during which there's an embargo on creating the corresponding article. That gives sources a chance to settle down, shake out the rumors, get some perspective. In the meantime, readers can get their news from ... the news. Which is the way it should be. A placeholder here at WP could simple say: "Since Wikipedia's goal is to [something something], it is ill-suited to [something something]. An article on this topic will likely be created on [date]."

Now, that can't be quite right, because under such a rule we'd be forced to wait X days before creating an article on an obscure scientist who suddenly wins a Nobel. (I think that's happened -- correct me if I'm wrong.) Beyond that I see plenty of other issues with such an idea -- trust me I do -- but it's food for thought. Imagine the editor time saved in wrangling over early trivia and confused sources -- the ANI threads avoided! E Eng 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Nobelist was Donna Strickland. See also Criticism of Wikipedia#Notability of article topics. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15-days? Pfft. Need something a bit longer. Would save no end of aggro. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC) Chris Pincher will soon be forgotten, and we all get back to enjoying the benefits of Brexit!![reply]

A mandatory waiting period would infringe upon our constitutional writes.

But seriously, the world relies on us to get accurate, reliable information, including accurate, reliable information about things that just happened, like the Copenhagen mall shooting. We would do the world a disservice by not providing timely information. For all the difficulties that we encounter with these current events articles, we still provide a better summary than most newsmedia. I know we say we're WP:NOTNEWS, but the rest of the world has decided that they're gonna use Wikipedia to get reliable information about events in the news; this platform is not news, but it is a reliable summary of the news. Coronavirus coverage placed that beyond dispute, in my never humble opinion.

As an example, I recently made time to expand Killing of Jayland Walker because I saw that people were taking to the streets over it, and our article didn't have all the important information in it, and I literally wanted for people who googled the person's name to get the latest, most reliable information about what happened. It's important they have that now, not in two weeks, and Wikipedia is the best place for them to get it, because they'll sooner read what comes up in a Google search than read AP, Reuters, NBC News, NYTimes, and WaPo, and if they rely on headlines and social media and cable news, they're gonna be misinformed. Levivich^[block] 21:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about 48 hours? E Eng 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, 48 hours is a palatable compromise. I'd say on the one hand, how do you even know if something is going to be "notable" in less than 48 hours (with the rare obvious exception)? But on the other hand, if RSes are out there within 48 hrs, what is gained by the delay? How much disruption could there possibly be in 48hrs? (Yes, this is a challenge: a barnstar for whomever can disrupt Wikipedia the most in the next 48hrs.) To state the obvious, I bet 24hrs (one news cycle) would get more support than 48. Levivich^[block] 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio (time wasted tussling over ultimately unimportant details / value to readers of having an article at this point in time) starts out extremely high and then rapidly drops off. And that's especially true of your rare obvious exceptions, such as obviously notable crimes. Even 24 hours would help. During that time, instead of arguing over an actual, created article, editors could prepare to create an article by listing sources and quoting them, trimming old ones from the list in favor of newer, more up-to-date ones, etc. However, I'm not quite sure what happens when the 24 hours runs out. I realize this is all pie-in-the-sky, but I'm just sick of seeing so much time wasted on trivia and misinformation about breaking events. E Eng 22:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing sounds like heaven. Levivich^[block] 23:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shudder to think how we got from a mall shooting to heaven. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think any time restriction would just move the edit wars to draft space. I don't see a benefit. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No drafts would be allowed during the embargo period either. E Eng 22:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On ANI

You're right. The hyena comment was stupid, and I struck it out. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply there was a problem. I was just interested in why admins are hyenas instead of, say, lions or tigers or some more noble creature like that. E Eng 19:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're ruling out protozoa, rotifers, bryozoa and cnidaria then? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that fish are the noblest of all. --Lionfish (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just bite their knees off. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 22:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might bite back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above amusing responses this has generated, I have decided I do not regret the hyena comment after all, nor the apology on behalf of it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My glittering salon of talk-page stalkers and I are thrilled to learn that your sojourn here has allayed your anxiety. E Eng 05:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyenas?? Surely more like dingos... as in "Dingo ate my stub, Bruce!"" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm uncertain if I should comment in this thread, like I just did...but then, there's always a remedy.~~ Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing this examination of the animal kingdom, and taking note of this edit: [221], I'll have you (EEng) know that fry can indeed weigh a milligram, as long as they use a scale to do the weighing. (And if you goddam them again, I'll take you to ANI!) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I just looked at ANI, and found my new all-time favorite ANI topic: [222]! Like an editor who commented there, I'm looking forward eagerly to the movie version. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M. Nixon

I'm afraid you missed the point about "Richard M. Nixon." Throughout his active career, he was referred to in all media including campaign posters and television and radio references as "Richard M. Nixon", never under any circumstances as simply "Richard Nixon." At some point he went along with the modern trend to drop the middle initial but I don't believe that happened until after his resignation. For those of us old enough to vividly remember his vice presidency and whisker-close elections against Kennedy and Humphrey (both less than 1% difference in popular vote despite electoral votes to the contrary!), it's a bit jarring to see that omnipresent middle initial abruptly disappear after several decades. The point of citing the name with his middle initial in the article wasn't to establish that Milhous starts with the letter M, it was to mention that he always used the middle initial during the lion's share, so to speak, of his life and career. Racing Forward (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions about how Nixon styled his name appear to be incorrect. For instance, U.S. Foreign Policy for the 1970's: Building for Peace, a report to Congress by Nixon in 1971, lists his name as "Richard Nixon", and is signed "Richard Nixon" without an initial. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you found an exception. Believe me, he was "Richard M. Nixon" for most of his career to the point that it's odd to leave the initial out now or not at least refer to it in the wikipedia article despite Nixon's eventual wishes. I know he dropped it altogether at some point and wanted people to refer to him as "RN" (almost nobody did) but he was definitely still using it religiously during the '68 election, along with practically every minute of his lengthy and eventful career prior to that. I imagine that you must be comparatively young or you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. ("Richard M. Nixon" was jammed down everyone's throat for decade after decade.) Racing Forward (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You did say never under any circumstances as simply "Richard Nixon." I mean, you pretty much begged someone to find an exception. valereee (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was obviously being too emphatic. Even the White House website refers to him as "Richard M. Nixon." https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/richard-m-nixon/ Racing Forward (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was merely the first exception I found, and not an isolated one. Here are more: The Mystery of Richard Nixon, Saturday Evening Post, 1958. The Kitchen Debate, transcript, CIA library, 1959. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970. Special Message to the Congress Outlining the 1972 Environmental Program. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1960 campaign poster, another 1960 campaign poster, 1960 campaign button, 1968 campaign button, 1972 campaign poster, but let's not belabor the point. Levivich (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little weirded out by the implication here [223] that there were multiple Richard Nixons. E Eng 04:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was a weird Dick. Levivich (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your ideas about how he styled his name are correct, so the fuck what? What in the world is that doing in the second sentence of the lead -- the second sentence of the entire article? So someone of your age finds it odd to see his name sans middle initial -- again, so what? Who cares? What does the reader learn from this? I'll note, BTW, that this assertion seems to be unsourced (searching the article body for the strings name, style, and knows as) so that's reason enough right there to omit it; and even if there actually is some source on this, we'd need to hear what the source says about the significance of it, before we can judge whether, where, and how to include it.

Now, if you have a source saying known for most of his career as "Tricky Dick", that would tell the reader something and be worth including. E Eng 01:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little odd that the article mentions him being called "Tricky Dick" (or occasionally "Dirty Dick") by his enemies, but not being called "Dick" by his friends (see e.g. Saturday Evening Post link above). Also, the jokes write themselves, so let's consider them as read. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look back a bit, you'll see that I recently put into the wikipedia article that he introduced himself to and was referred to by politicians and such, and other presidents, as Dick Nixon but someone removed that immediately, claiming that he abandoned it after the 1960 election but he actually didn't. He was Dick Nixon like Kennedy was Jack Kennedy and Eisenhower was Ike. If you listen to his phone conversations with then-President Johnson, he jauntily says that he's "Dick Nixon," but he always made his personal friends whom he didn't consider to be on his level, like Bebe Rebozo, address him by his current title, Senator Nixon or Vice President Nixon or (of course) Mr. President. He was definitely more well known as "Tricky Dick" by the general public than by any other name, though: most people back then almost always referred to him as "Tricky Dick" in conversation. As for the importance of the middle initial, it just looks odd and weird for it not to be there, more or less exactly like saying "John Kennedy" without that Fitzgeraldian "F." As I noted earlier in this thread, the White House website absolutely calls him "Richard M. Nixon" on their Nixon page, and I wish wikipedia would do the same thing since the absence of the M seems like such a jarring affectation in the wake of him using it for so long. Changing the topic, one of the most interesting aspects of Nixon, though, is the existence in his life of his great mentor Thomas E. Dewey, who finagled the vice presidential nomination for him from Eisenhower in 1952. If you watch Dewey interviews on youtube, you'll be floored by how much Dewey's and Nixon's voices resembled each other, to the point that radio listeners usually couldn't tell which was which. Racing Forward (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it's disingenuous for certain editors in this discussion to pretend they don't like Dick. Atsme 💬 📧 14:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please now, people, no crooked dick jokes. E Eng 15:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Nixon himself would have morosely pontificated, let me say this about that: I think we've exhausted the topic and I appreciate the conversation. E Eng, you have a lively Talk page. I've actually never been much of an adherent regarding middle initials myself and I've been happy to see them fall from favor except in this case. Let's all be glad that RMN doesn't have the same ring as FDR, JFK or LBJ and that the triple initial abbreviation has finally faded completely away. Now, about Hubert H. Humphrey..... Racing Forward (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine Hubert avoided using "HH" so as not to be misconstrued. Levivich (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention "HHH." Wonder if the press would've labeled him "3H" had he won the requisite few votes that it would've taken in various states to reverse the electoral totals and been elected instead of Nixon in '68. The electoral map looked like a landslide for Nixon but the popular vote was less than 1% apart, almost as close as Jack Kennedy's controversial win over Nixon in 1960. Racing Forward (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E Eng, the addition of a link to Hubert H. Humphrey in the previous comment gets my enthusiastic endorsement. Wish I'd thought of it myself. Racing Forward (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"My friends and fellow Americans, I've been asked to say just a few words" [224]
"WNIX -- The White House" [225]
[226]

E Eng 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HHH. (Trigger warning for EEng.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS symbol useage

G'morning! Is it customary for us to use † to indicate extinction? Atsme 💬 📧 14:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in someone's textbook. I've reverted. E Eng 15:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has gone viral. †∞ Perhaps we should start using it for site banned editors. Atsme 💬 📧 00:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

V does not guarantee

Just for the record… I (Blueboar) doubled the word count (for clarity)… ButwhatamIdoing cut what I wrote down (for brevity). Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice I was looking at a diff straddling two edits. E Eng 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not to you, but here at the EEng home for the bewildered, we take such things very seriously E Eng 16:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, Blueboar, it was Butwhatdoiknow, not ButwhatamIdoing...or are they one in the same? ButWhatAreYouDoing 16:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who may be confused. E Eng 16:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D’OH… My bad. (And my apologies to the entire “ButWhat” family of editors for confusing them). Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had to take a break for a bit of humor, and landed here, which led me here. It was fun to watch. Atsme 💬 📧 14:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's My Line is tied with Password as the best game shows ever. Fun fact: Three years before he was elected President of the United States, Jimmy Carter was sufficiently obscure that he appeared on What's My Line, and stumped the panel -- who were not wearing blindfolds. E Eng 09:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

damn you!

The pseudo past plujunctive tense (or whatever it's called) never used to bother me at all, but now I'm seeing it everywhere, thank you very much! You can have this one, too, if you want it. —scs (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's like initial exposure to an allergen -- now you're hypersensitized. E Eng 19:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, you would say that, wouldn't you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon makes me MURDEROUS. It's like people think they're narrating a Forensic Files episode. Seriously, why is this such a thing all of a sudden? Was this something people learned through, like, Common Core? - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat disturbing that you combine Forensic Files and your own homicidal proclivities in one post. E Eng 20:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Files are the result of years of homicidal proclivities combined with the experience of years. —scs (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the argument were it not for the possibility that years of experience would fail verification, and EEng would be disturbed. It would bring to mind a meme I once read: the past, the present, and the future would walk into a bar. It was tense. I would also note that you cannot run through a campground. You can only ran because it's past tents. Atsme 💬 📧 11:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say

You say I am spamming every article with a link, but firstly I created that article today so was trying to build links to it and secondly Michael Weir was re-convicted, which is strongly comparable to a case where a person was acquitted only to go on to offend again. Also the same with James Hanratty, since he was convicted once, subject to a high-profile miscarriage of justice campaign then proven guilty again years later. Classic Middlesex (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People are acquitted because there isn't the evidence to convict them, or to sustain a conviction on review. That doesn't mean they're angels, pure of heart, or incapable of offending later. You imply that Ernest Barrie was "acquitted only to go on on to offend again" (emphasis mine), when in fact there's no "again" here since as far as the law's concerned he wasn't guilty of the first crime -- that's what acquitted means. E Eng 19:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes but that doesn't mean that articles like the Stephen Downing case, where he committed notable crimes after he was released on appeal after a high-profile miscarriage of justice case and campaign, are not comparable to Ernest Barrie, who committed notable crimes after he was released on appeal after a high-profile miscarriage of justice case and campaign. Classic Middlesex (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point -- to show that people unjustly convicted should be left in prison anyway because sometimes they later actually do commit a crime? E Eng 20:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'point', I am trying to build the web by linking comparable articles, as I said. Classic Middlesex (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe among the ten articles to which you added this link, one of them is comparable. But that got lost among the nine that have no particular relationship, other than that a conviction was overturned or something. I mean, what in the world does Ernest Barrie have to do with Ruth Ellis? E Eng 20:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine perhaps I went a bit too far with the links, I have been on the computer far too long today, but I think there is still a case for a few of the links to be made. Classic Middlesex (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you've never seen Dance with a Stranger, it's terrific. E Eng 12:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized vaults

Today I came across the article Arris, which had a caption that may be worthy of the museum, and taught me new vocabulary words. Levivich 02:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been ANI discussions in which the text What we have here is the underside of a groin vault showing the arris would certainly have come in handy. E Eng 06:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pole vault would make it complete! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You pretend you don't have a dirty mind, but it's clear you do. E Eng 19:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he meant a clean groin pole vault. Levivich 19:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to have my brain washed. (Really, I was just trying to insert that joke.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly gives new meaning to Hamlet stabbing Polonius through the arris. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus. Atsme 💬 📧 20:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has a gaseous atmosphere. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the hook correction at DYK for the Webb telescope launch. I wanted to impose upon you to look at the Murder of Alexis Sharkey article. I heavily copyedited the article before my DYK review and approval. I saw that you had commented on a previous discussion regarding the nomination and I could use another copyeditor with experience. It was quite a mess IMO. Bruxton (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Don't say I never did anything for you. E Eng 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. I went through and cleaned up dates etc. in the problematic areas you found. It is informative and presentable now. Bruxton (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a special list for those of us who cannot say you never did anything for us? Surely it is small in comparison to your list for those who cannot say you never did anything to us. Atsme 💬 📧 20:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been that night I was drunk. E Eng 19:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least one of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Oswald Reference

I found the same story in The Clarion-Ledger and Tampa Bay Times and fixed the reference.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/181149591/?terms=%22morris%20bishop%22%20%22oswald%22&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/319063642/?terms=%22morris%20bishop%22%20%22oswald%22&match=1

Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy assassination is one of the most scrutinized events in human history. Find a high-quality scholarly source or forget it. E Eng 06:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the hump-winged grig

Hump-winged grigs are known for their unique breeding system. Males call at night by sitting on a tree trunk with their head down and emitting a short, high-pitched trill. When a female mounts the male, the male uses two hooks on its back to hold onto the underside of the female's abdomen while transfering spermatophore. During copulation, the female eats the male's hind wings and drinks the male's blood for energy, causing permanent but nonfatal damage to the male. Hungry females are more likely to mate, will mount males sooner, and are less selective when choosing mating partners. "Virgin" males, with no hind wing damage, are generally more successful at mating than non-virgin males.

Probably the best paragraph I've ever written. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. None of us can un-see this now.

Your post led to me brush up on the praying mantis's mating habits, described by National Geographic at [227] thus:

Praying mantis courtship can be a dangerous affair; females have been well-documented biting off the heads and eating other body parts of the males that they mate with. However, the frequency of such violence may be just a tad overstated. "First of all, not all praying mantis species cannibalize their mates," says Brannoch. "Maybe if the female is starving or if the male irritates her, she might engage in that behavior. But they don’t always do it." Interestingly, getting eaten may not be as bad as it sounds.

I'm too lazy to register in order to find out just where that last bit was going, but if anyone wants to go to the trouble and fill the rest of us in, that would be just ducky. E Eng 16:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. I wonder what a male praying mantis does to irritate a female -- leave the seat up?[reply]

I was all in, right from "hump-winged grig". Is that a kind of sexual position? I wish there were a way to merge it with this: [228]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep claims he's being personally attacked (47)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Template talk:Convert. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. As you have been informed, you have repeatedly made personal attacks towards me. I explicitly note that this behaviour does also degrade Talkpage's effectiveness, in other words: WP:NOTHERE. DePiep (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those playing along at home, our benighted visitor refers to [229]

I'm tempted to ask how long you think it will be before you realize how completely clueless you are, but then you wouldn't be completely clueless anymore and that would deprive the community of a source of periodic amusement. E Eng 14:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson is to never grasp a stick that has been stuck into a rabbit hole. (Unless you're into that sort of thing.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worth noting that according to WP:RESTRICT#DePiep, DePiep is subject to immediate blocks for assumptions of bad faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit on MOS:Words to watch

Hello, you recently reverted my edit on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. In this edit I made two changes, but both were reverted by you with the edit summary linking to the Wikipedia:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you essay. You stated in your edit summary that "both of these are" aligned with the tips in that essay. I have found from reading the essay that beginning a sentence with "But" is not exactly prohibited (perhaps informal), but I failed to see the reasoning in reverting the other change to the comma in the following sentence: "The "survived by" phrasing is a common way to end newspaper obituaries and legal death notices, and is relevant at the time of death or for inheritance purposes." Nowhere in that essay you linked could I find a rationale for the comma's inclusion in a sentence with a compound predicate, so I can only hope this was in error. It is my belief that the comma after "notices" be excluded due to the lack of a subject in an otherwise compound sentence. I also disagree with the inclusion of the word 'But' as the beginning word of a sentence in a formal manual of style. I feel like this usage could be avoided and would improve readability, especially for pessimistic users like me.

Looking forward to your feedback. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 19:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to contact me,^Comma! and am gratified to be presented with another opportunity to help a fellow editor throw off the Snodgrassian shackles.

Re But: First of all, MOS isn't a "formal manual of style" ^{No comma!} but is, rather, deliberately informal in its own style of presentation. But^{I'm so evil!} even in formal writing, starting a sentence with a conjunction has its place now and then and (formal situation or not) this is one of those places.
Re commas: No, my change was deliberate and not an error. Miss Snodgrass has no faith that her students will acquire good judgment of their own in stylistic matters, and therefore drills rigid rules into them. (And by doing so she tends to ensure that her students will never develop good stylistic judgment, because all their brainpower is wasted on avoiding the specter of her red-correcting-pen-of-doom.) She particularly delights in dispensing rules for the placement of commas, but the fact is that in really good writing there are very few places where a comma absolutely must, or absolutely must not, be used – restrictive versus nonrestrictive clauses is a particularly good example. In most cases it comes down to a question of rhythm and pacing. See here [230] for a Snograssian blogger telling you that you must do things this way or must do things that way, period, but see here [231] for quite a good discussion of the subtle considerations that can arise. (I can also highly recommend this post [232] on a similar subject.)
My little superscripts higher up in this post note where I've applied judgment, instead of rote rules, to "compound predicate" situations – in one case omitting the comma (according to the general rule), but in another case including one (in defiance).
A third superscript highlights where I've devilishly started a sentence with a conjunction.

E Eng 22:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing like a good "but" kicking. --GRuban (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection policy table

Hi EEng! It's good to talk to you again, as usual. :-) Thanks for the ping with your edit to the protection table! I've modified the description of "another editor's user space" to be more clear. One specific thing I made sure to fix was the placement of the apostrophe (Example: Boy's vs Boys' - "Boys' Restroom" means that it's for all boys; "Boy's restroom" means that it's for one boy). Let me know what you think. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty, engage the tractor beam!

Or maybe it's the gravity of your talk page it's self that keep pulling me back in. BlueNoise (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Burma shave

I'm on mobile for a while longer, if you (or any page watchers) have a moment, would you consider coding this as a new {{burma-shave-notice}}, which I think could be useful now and in the future:

INCLUSIVENESS
WE REALLY DIG IT
DON'T BE SUCH
AN F'ING BIGOT
Burma-shave

Thanks, Levivich (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've discovered the new motto of the Article Rescue Squad! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done, but with DON'T BE SUCH --> SO PLEASE DON'T BE, which gives it somewhat wider applicability. E Eng 16:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! There is nothing I can write that you cannot improve. Levivich (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Back atcha! E Eng 19:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

conglaturation

		Liliana's Barnstar
		Congrats on making my computer melt with your talk page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't kill your computer makes it stronger. E Eng 15:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary weirdness.

Just wondering if you were aware of this discrepency between the section archived and its description. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello EEng,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

New Burma Shave

Manhandle —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you like using the burma shaves on ANI. I figured I would make another...

WADING THROUGH VANDALSBRING SANDALSTO AVOID SCANDALDON'T MANHANDLEBurma-shave

Hope you like it.

Inomyabcs (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me with the "BYE BAD HANDLE" bit. E Eng 02:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be for a block? Hard to find a good rhyme for that, but my word smithing imagination isn't all that strong. Inomyabcs (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well you'll admit it's a bit obscure. But not to worry -- my glittering array of talk page stalkers will no doubt build on your foundation. E Eng 02:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(To avoid scandal, don't manhandle.) Levivich (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Changed. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party, but...bring sandals?

Atsme 💬 📧 19:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its backwards and thusly improved... "To avoid scandal - don't manhandle - light a candle - for the vandal". Inomyabcs (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I believe the template will accept up to 6 lines. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Multichannel disruption - quite substantial - good faith - a large gamble - drop an anvil - on the vandal" Moving up to six. Not sure why I keep trying, I still don't feel I'm any good at these. Inomyabcs (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, multichannel disruption doesn't exactly trip off the tongue. But keep at it! E Eng 22:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For vandal wading. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit late, but for Thanksgiving:

YOU CAN THANK ANYONE
EXCEPT A BOT OR IP,
AND YOU CAN'T THANK YOURSELF
(THERE'S NO NEED
TO THANK ME)
Burma-shave

Levivich (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I beg of you

	A pain sandwich for you!
	your page has made my system go unresponsive twice. this page makes KSP look easy to run The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles III

I don't understand--and would therefore ask for clarification--why the subsection I created on Premiership of Liz Truss was deleted. The stated reason was "Honestly, this has nothing to do with Charles" with no further explanation provided. It is very hard for me to understand how a meeting at which Charles was present somehow has "nothing to do with Charles" and would ask for clarification as to what you mean. Moreover, handling the relationship with the prime minister--especially during times of transition like is presently occurring--is one of the core duties of a constitutional monarch such as Charles and is one of the key reasons why the UK retains a monarch. Far from "having nothing to do with Charles", the King's audience with Truss represents a core example of the King performing one of his key constitutional duties. It is also especially notable because it is the first major example of the King's reign of his performing such duties. I welcome discussion on this, but in the absence of strong clarification of why this content was deleted, I intend to reinstate it in 24 hours. Usually I wait a week, but this change seems so especially egregiously in error that a shorter time frame is called for. If I'm missing something please let me know. Dash77 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Talk:Charles_III#Premiership_of_Liz_Truss, and of course my glittering array of talk page stalkers are invited to participate. E Eng 18:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for picture descriptions

Hey there, I noticed you trimmed down the description from pictures in the Apostrophe page with the reason “the reader can see what the sign says”. I would just like to clarify that we can't assume that. Many people use browsers without image support. They may work in very secure places and have restrictions, or only have access to a computer terminal, have very limited Internet speeds, or just want to browse that way—many famous tools have you do that, browsers sometimes have that option, but also extensions like uBlock (formerly μBlock), NoScript, etc.

Other people download the entirety of Wikipedia for use in areas without Internet access, but obviously don't have the space to hold the media in their (usually) mobile devices, or the time to download it. Perhaps more importantly, *blind people use screen readers with support for image descriptions but that obviously can't read the image out loud*.

There's a movement in social media to make image alt tags and image descriptions much more detailed for that reason, including in all the details that may help them have an experience as close as possible to the original. They use hashtags such as #PhotoDescription and language-specific ones.

Anyway, hope I helped somewhat. I wonder what we can do to make this more widely known on Wikipedia. It's clearly a great cause.

Best wishes, Victor Souza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorvscn (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captions are meant to complement an image, not obviate it. The |alt= parameter can be used to describe the image for those who, for whatever reason, can't actually access or see it. E Eng 13:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Then perhaps when finding an image with an excessively specific description and no alt text, the proper course of action would be to move its obviating details over to the alt text, instead of removing the text altogether. ~victorsouza (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that for a while, but then I found myself in the crossfire of a lot of people arguing over what exactly alts should say, so I gave up. E Eng 22:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A row of 37 white pixels in the upper right corner. Next to them, 16 more pixels, in an even gradation from off-white to a light blue-grey. Then... —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage revealing bugs in web browsers

You might enjoy knowing that the image layout in Phineas Gage is complex enough that it's not rendered correctly in Google Chrome (when using Preferences → Appearance → Thumbnail size set to 300px). I've reported the bug at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1378106, you can find screenshots there if you're curious how it looks. It's a trivial problem in an edge case, so I don't think any changes to the article to avoid this are in order, I just wanted to congratulate you for creating a web browser stress test in addition to a great article ;) Matma Rex talk 23:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Phineas would be proud. One thing we can be sure of: it won't go to his head.

I set thumbsize=300 and didn't see (using Chrome) where in the article there's any gap in the text flow on the left (or on the right, for that matter). However, the window width must surely come into play, and I don't see that specified in your test case.

Anyway, thank you for the undeserved praise of the article, and good luck tracking down that excruciatingly trivial edge-case bug. E Eng 01:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid edit warring and respect the civility policy

Hi. On 16:05, 30 October 2022, you added wording that had been removed for 4 years to the talk page guideline, with a comment directed at me in the edit summary. I reverted said addition because of the lack of objectivity. The user Butwhatdoiknow moved to a more prominent place a hidden note, which contains the message "Please don't change it [the general rule you edited] without consensus to do so".^[a]

For some reason, you decided to add again without any talk page discussion the content that I had reverted. Certainly it is practically a minor addition, but given the context, not an objective addition. Per WP:EDITWAR, "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers."

In your addition, you wrote in the edit summary, "Sorry, Charlie, it's not aimed at you. It's just your foolishness elsewhere ( https://wiki.riteme.site/?oldid=1118978010#Not_rude ) drew my attention to it." It is unclear who Charlie is or if you directed the edit again to me given the link of a discussion I had elsewhere. It is unclear also why you decided to make such a comment without regard for the civility policy. Per WP:CIVIL, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect".

I have to add that you have an impressive number of edits. I don't understand why engaging in such puny disputes. Thinker78 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Content in the brackets is an explanation I added to clarify what "it" refers to, but it's not in the hidden note.

Sigh.

I was pinged to a discussion [233] in which you argued -- repeatedly, riculously, and at length -- that your "research on copyediting paragraphs" justifies your inserting paragraph breaks into others' discussion posts -- that you sometimes "try to facilitate the reading of someone's post by splitting paragraphs".
That led me to an edit you made several years ago to WP:TPO [234] changing there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc., and doing so can be quite irritating --> ... doing so can be irritating, which seemed ironic to say the least. So I restored quite [235].
You removed quite again, claiming that my restoring it had been "a message directed at me' (i.e. you) [236].
And so I put quite back yet again, my edit summary being (as you have already mentioned) Sorry, Charlie, it's not aimed at you [237]. Which it's not; it's just the right word.

You're making a fool of yourself by fussing about this. Quit while you're ahead. E Eng 02:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I can tell you is to read the civility policy because editors with ten times the number of edits you have actually have found themselves in hot water and you don't seem that mindful of policies and guidelines. Sad that you engage in such uncollegial behavior.

I won't be paying attention to this thread anymore. If you act this way because you are facing hardship in your life, I hope everything resolves in a good manner. But understand that other editors also have difficult times, if that's the case. Thinker78 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I get all the insufferable do-gooders? [238] E Eng 03:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're an attractive nuisance? Valereee (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who know and love EEng recognize that he is an unattractive nuisance. But I have a feeling that perhaps the origins of this dispute have more to do with being on or off the spectrum. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but it sounds that way to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said it, not I. E Eng 20:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It, not I. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in The Secret of the Way Things Are that you cannot advance to 3rd Dan Wikpedia editor until you have posted to this page. Thinker is merely fulfilling this step on the path to understanding the meaning of transfinite nothingness. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re It is unclear who Charlie is: Charlie. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I'm afraid this was my fault for the ping. Thank you again, EEng, for taking the trouble to respond; I hadn't realized the editor had pursued you to your own talk page. or even, until you pointed it out, that they'd been editing PAG pages. I'd wondered whether my particularly turgid style triggered them to whip out their ruler and scissors and they are not so impolite toward other fellow editors. But I clearly owe you one at this point, and I apologize. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give it a second thought, Yng. I think of myself as Wikipedia's sacrificial anode. E Eng 03:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres

Having followed the debate over years, by last Thursday I was days away from pointing a gun to my head over the rename. Your solution was genius; everybody happy. Let's see how long it lasts.[239] Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A fox for you

	The Fox of Virtue
	You are strong and wise. Frogging101 (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that was my 500th edit. --Frogging101 (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will say to myself when I am depressed, and find myself forced to listen to pompous and tiresome editors, "Well, I have done one thing you could never have done, and that is to get the Fox of Virtue from Frogging101." E Eng 05:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of your strength and wisdom, I was sure when I read it today that this hook was your work, but surprised to see you apparently had nothing to do with it? If so, your strength and wisdom are spreading. Like a contagion. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My influence has been seminal. E Eng 21:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EEng can always be counted upon in a tight junction. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The French have a word for it

And pardon my French, but I came upon this and simply have to share it here: [240]. (Talk about helicopter parents!) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC) And in my defense, I came upon it via editing coral bleaching. Try making sense of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My commitment to multicultural intercourse veritably demands that I quote, in full, that article's rendering via Google Chrome's "Translate to English" feature. Warning: Hatnote contains potentially disturbing reference to "the clip".

helicobite

"Zizicopter" redirects here. For the clip, see Vincent Desagnat#Clips.

The helicobite, portmanteau word formed from helicopter and dick is a sexual or playful practice, generally with a humorous aim, consisting in giving a rotary movement to one's own penis without using one's hands, but by a movement of the appropriate pool. Sex is then in its flaccid state 1 . This occupation is sometimes referred to by the term zizicopter 1 or by the phrase “ playing the helicopter 2 ”.

Sometimes practiced in public by men under the influence of alcohol, it is worth fines or prison sentences for exhibitionists who indulge in it 2 . In the context of non-conformist management companies, this sexually provocative gesture can be a subversive and theatrical means of restoring the power of management by humiliating the employees 3 .

In popular culture

In 2011, the expression " helicopter dick " was mentioned in the humorous song 3-Way (The Golden Rule) , about threesomes , by the American group The Lonely Island , and interpreted by Andy Samberg with the participation of Justin Timberlake and Lady Gaga 4 . In 2012, the Russian artist Aleksandr Pistoletov became known on the Internet as DongCopter Pirate (the "helicopter pirate"), by a video where he sang and danced naked while shaking his penis on a techno version from the soundtrack of the Pirates of the Caribbean saga. In 2013, American comedy trio The Lonely Island released the song Helicopter Dick! on this particular practice. The same year, Sébastien Patoche , an animator parodying Patrick Sébastien , released a song called Zizicoptere .

In one of the scenes from the film Et la tendresse? Mess ! from 1979, François ( Jean-Luc Bideau ) practiced the helicopter.

According to Liberation , the Australian artist Pricasso , who paints with his genitals and his buttocks, "seems to make the helicopter with his sex" , one way among others to make art with his sex 5 , 6 .

In March 2015, Victoria Bedos says in an interview that her brother Nicolas Bedos took part in this practice when he was a teenager 7 . In 2016, Aymeric Bonnery confides that he also delivered such a performance during his participation in the eighth season of Secret Story in 2014 8 .

In 2022, the third episode of season 10 of Nus et culottés entitled Objectif Hautes-Alpes: concerto pour un glacier (episode 2/2) ends with a humorous helicopter session, where the protagonists Nans Thomassey and Guillaume Tisserand -Mouton say they do "helicopter on the glacier" 9 .

In 2015 Miss Karensac imagines in a comic strip what she would do if she were a man, mentioning the helicobite 10 .

Notes and references

Éric Bouhier, The golden mean , Editors’ Square,2018, 178 p. ( ISBN 9782259276641 )
" Pas-de-Calais: He makes the helicopter with his sex and gets 4 months in prison ", 20 Minutes ,9 November 15
Bent Meier Sørensen and Kaspar Villadsen , " Penis-whirling and pie-throwing: Norm-defying and norm-setting drama in the creative industries " , Human Relations , vol. 71, No. 8 ,August 2018, p. 1049–1071 ( ISSN 0018-7267 , DOI 10.1177/0018726717733310 )
" Is 'dick helicoptering' bad for your sexual health? » , on MEL Magazine (en) , July 2, 2018 (consulted theFebruary 23, 2019) .
Quentin Girard, " Jimmy Wales, face redone with penis strokes " , Liberation ,July 2, 2013 (consulted theJanuary 6, 2018) .
“ Five ways to make art with your sex ” , France Info ,June 8, 2014 (consulted theJanuary 6, 2018) .
" Nicolas Bedos and the "helicobite" told by his sister " , C à vous ,March 4, 2015.
" When Aymeric made a "zizicopter" in Secret Story ... " , Télé Loisirs ,October 21, 2016.
S10: Objective Hautes-Alpes: concerto for a glacier, from 48:20 to 48:33
Mllekarensac , " And if I were a man? “imagine Miss Karensac in drawings ” , on Madmoizelle ,December 3, 2015 (consulted the July 27, 2022)

hi

hello — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hello sailor! E Eng 21:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I genuinely do not know what to make of your reply, and I apologise if I made a mistake. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 05:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just giving you a hard time about all that talk about blood in the sand and subduing other editors. Don't worry. We cool. E Eng 05:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:/

Please explain the change you did to the MoS for slashes in [241]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is that I was editing on my phone and wasn't paying attention. E Eng 21:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge

This editsum looks like you're asking for a challenge. Let the games commence... Girth Summit _(blether) 22:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submissions welcome, of course. But the competiton's pretty stiff: as soon as I called out the bizarre audio file you refer to (i.e. File:Panasonic_NN-E225M_microwave.flac), I ran into File:Inside_a_used_microwave_oven_with_grill_–_360°_panorama.jpg, which gives you the feeling of being imprisoned inside a microwave oven. E Eng 22:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does user talk space count? I came across this, and the File Usage information lists just a single page on enwiki... Girth Summit _(blether) 23:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up File:Paint drying.JPG, which turns out to be quite reasonable as a jpg file, but I imagine that a sound file would score pretty well in the challenge. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No higher resolution available? I'm gutted. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just wasted some of my time looking at instructional videos at Commons. Allow me to present... Commons:Category:Pointer Fun with Binky. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That video was wow on multiple levels, and had more violence than I would have expected. Levivich (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal does that to people. E Eng 04:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dare watch that version, that's forbidden syntax. Levivich (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Vandalize

Your edit here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Herschel_Walker&oldid=1126027788 is considered vandalism. Please do not violate Wikipedia policies. A joke is not an acceptable reason. Further vandalism could result in a block or ban by an admin. Thank You. Amfi2231 (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are. In my defense I'll point out that the adult part of me immediately took control and I instantly reverted myself, so all's well that ends well. E Eng 04:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, EEng. Many of us appreciate your sense of humor, but that was WAY out of line in article space. Do not ever do anything like that in an article again. You crossed a line. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where was your restraining influence when I made edit? Or this one? Is it any wonder I've learned such naughty habits? E Eng 11:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It just took me ten minutes to figure out the Plato one. Bah. - Roxy the dog 12:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you're a better person for having met the challenge. E Eng 12:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

?! (very angry) You've lost respect here. Paul August ☎ 13:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think a "time-out block" would be appropriate here. As I am angry I won't, but I would support one. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you didn't like that, you will certainly not enjoy [242] -- self-reverted instantly, of course. E Eng 15:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, don't do that sort of thing in mainspace. Namespaces that are not reader-facing are a different matter, but not in mainspace. Even if quickly self-reverting, just don't. And everyone else, there's no need for virtue signalling. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume good faith on this one, that EEng vandalised an article with the intent of only looking at it via "Show Preview" (which I think a number of us have all done at one point or another to alleviate some of the tedium around here) and hit "Publish changes" by accident. As for Play-Do / Plato, did you see what came next? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yuck! And to think people are upset about a werewolf picture. E Eng 14:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more upset if they had masturbated to the werewolf picture. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As amusing as some of those are, if you want to actually see a preview of how the page would look it's best to just edit the html in your browser (you can even screenshot it and everything) which won't bother anyone else, or you know just mess around in your own userspace or some of the other pages that no one cares about. I don't think you should be blocked over this which wouldn't prevent anything anyway, but community consensus has drifted strongly against this kind of shenanigans over the years. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Ok, I get it. You are very smart. Until very recently, I thought you were really funny as well. Now I'm not so sure. Sad because I was really looking forward to working on Commission on Training Camp Activities with you. (It has a bit more...historical context now compared to before. But we haven't even gotten to fully explaining the "good part" yet.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'll get back to being funny just as soon as we've disposed of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Daily_Dozen_Doughnut_Company_(2nd_nomination). And I'm sure we'll have a gay old time working on the Commission article, as long as you'll stick to actually reading the sources and reporting their content faithfully. (For the benefit of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers, here's a link: Template:Did you know nominations/Commission on Training Camp Activities. On top of everything else I just realized that the article was created by an editor named Whizz40. The hits just keep on coming -- so to speak.)

Let me tell you why I'm so hot under the collar about Daily Dozen: it's a case study in how an article on a nonnotable becomes a crap magnet -- when there's nothing worth saying about a subject, things not worth saying get magnified and hyperbolized, to Wikipedia's embarrassment. A good example is the Bon Appetit nonsense. The article [243] grandly proclaimed that Andrew Knowlton included the shop in Bon Appétit's 2010 overview of "America's best donuts", and the casual reader might be forgiven for thinking that the citation to Knowlton, Andrew (2010-03-12). "America's Best Donuts, Part 2". Bon Appétit likely supports that. But it doesn't -- in fact quite the opposite. "Part 1" did not list Daily Dozen as one of the "Top 10 Best Places for Donuts", and "Part 2" was just a list of 57 "recommendations from our readers" received by email, and that's where we find Daily Dozen. Oh please. This is the kind of thing that happens when editors struggle to find something impressive to say about a nonnotable subject.

Since you were nice enough to drop by, I've changed [244] you're blatantly lying (about which, I confess, I had some regrets about the moment I hit SAVE -- but I'm really tired of this Daily Dozen bullshit) to you appear to have examined the sources without benefit of your reading glasses. E Eng 05:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree about Bon Appétit! And appreciate the correction. I think when I initially added that weeks ago during the first deletion discussion, I thought the two articles were the same, hadn't read it carefully enough, and that AB or someone would correct it if was wrong. Which is obviously not a good approach, and I'm usually more careful than that. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you see, I'm not such an ogre after all. E Eng 22:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm your acolyte? I think that means I've been promoted. Valereee (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An ogre and his acolytes. I've seen my share of disheartening AfDs, but I just looked at that donut whole, and the amount of wasted pixels is appalling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. The pixels are reusable. Maybe you're one of those people who thinks that escalator steps pile up in the basement and have to be trucked away. E Eng 22:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what... they don't pile up there? Are you sure? I saw on the internet that they do, right next to the useful information about that pizza parlor. And it's only the ones on the down escalator that pile up in the basement. The ones on the up escalator pile up in the attic. Everyone knows that. You're such an ogre! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and they obviously don't have to be trucked away, I saw on YouTube that they're carried back by workers overnight to be reused the next day. Levivich (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nuh-huh! They pile up in the attic, and pile down in the basement. And those "workers" are illegal immigrants! Don't believe the mainstream media. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When EEng goes Hi, I go low. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incantation

[245] Now I've got a demon from hell squatting on my shoulder. Thanks a bunch. NebY (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

del review

Deletion review is available. I have been bold and closed the WP:MULTIAFD again. Bruxton (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I've re-unclosed it. You haven't got the street cred for this. E Eng 17:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you agree with the close? Just not me being the closer? I feel that I am saving the community time with a reasonable close when this multi was headed nowhere. I think that reverting my close is not appropriate, but you can contest the NAC at DRV. I appreciate your concern about it and I am sure we will get to the correct result. Bruxton (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with the result (which I think is where the discussion will likely go if it's allowed to run its course), which puts me in an especially good position to point out that you've closed the discussion prematurely with what is essentially a supervote. Liz, Valereee, can one of you have a little talk with Bruxton about overanxious {nac}ing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acadia:_A_New_Orleans_Bistro? E Eng 18:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about the notability of the individual articles. I saw this as clearing the table for what is likely to be "less confusing AfD nominations". The editors were all over the place in the AfD: there were personal attacks, page blocks, general drama and then yourself reverting my NAC several times. If you agree that it is the right close, then we should all move on. If you disagree then WP:DRV is the venue to get relief. Bruxton (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether it's the result I personally prefer (it is, in a way) or the result I think will probably result in the end (I do); rather, it's about you closing the discussion two days in while people are still actively commenting and the outcome is far from clear, particularly since an important issue still open was how to proceed after any close -- you cut that discussion off. E Eng 19:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered at that AfD's talk. Valereee (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other editors and administrators who can deal with the NAC. There is also a venue for you to challenge the close. ~~You are edit warring WP:3RR and I will have to report it if you do not undo your last revert of the close EEng.~~ Correction - we are both at 3rr now after I reverted again. I do not want to war with you over this close, so it is best to let others weigh in. Bruxton (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best to let others weigh in – Duh, too bad you didn't take that attitude WRT the AfD itself, instead of closing it. Because of your ham-fisted meddling we now have a mess of a talk page about a mess of an AfD about a bunch of mess articles. Great going, genius. E Eng 20:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna move this to the AfD talk like I did for my talk section? My browser is crying —Alalch E. 20:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all right, Alalch. I think every browser must cry, just once or twice. Anyway, I think it's hopeless at this point. E Eng 22:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you archive stuff from your talk page

Are you okay? You would never do that usually. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 22:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. E Eng 22:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i personally think you should archive it more, mainly because my processing power shot to 80% trying to open it. lettherebedarklight 晚安 02:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good for your processor's heart health. E Eng 05:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a prosperous new Year. Best regards RV (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Santos

Saw you were editing the George Santos page. Just wanted to say that everyone should do our utmost to humanity to make sure that the opening photo stays the same, probably one of the great photo descriptors of an entry on Wikipedia. This fellow is quickly becoming a legend in his own mind, ah, time, and will go down in history as going down in history. And, of course, Merry Christmas and happy everything to you and the folks here. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC) p.s. Everytime you post on EEng's talk page a Wikipedian gets their pings.[reply]

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My 2023 will be happiest of all if you restrain yourself from closing discussions prematurely ;P . E Eng 23:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer...

to your question here is, of course, Military Intelligence. We can always count on them for unintended (or is it unintelligible?) humor. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, EEng!

Happy New Year!

EEng,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 2023 or whatever

Happy new year, I hope you have a good one. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, by the way, I got a new laptop now. Currently, I have two instances of this page open, and it doesn't even slow down. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 11:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first to use this page as a stress test. See User_talk:EEng#Big_Telecom_conspiracy. E Eng 07:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU, now able to run 2.67 EEngtalks per second! SniperReverter (Talk to me) 17:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new unit of measurement! So: how many smoots per EEngtalk? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the amount of times I've trouted people times the smoot length/smoot time, 17.5948. SniperReverter (Talk to me) 20:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But first, you have to slice pi and walk the Planck length. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And then divide that by 42. It's a long process. SniperReverter (Talk to me) 17:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, long division. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissism

Hi EEng. I saw you undid my contribution to the Monty Hall problem direct calculation section with the comment, "how amusing". Thank you for your insight—this comment was a hallmark piece of constructive criticism.

I came here to ask: why did you undo my changes? I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia by improving the intuitiveness of the proof. I am new and eager to learn. But what you said does not help me to learn; toxic, condescending comments are not conducive to improvement and do not explain what I purportedly did that was so "amusing".

I was curious what type of person might leave this kind of comment. So curiosity killed the cat. I peaked beneath the rock, read through your page, and I noticed a bit of a trend...

Academic elitism
- "Is the Columbia admissions office still telling kids that? Shameful. Well, you've certainly risen above your humble beginnings." - EEng
- "Is this debate restricted to the Ivy League or can any old riff-raff join in?" — "At Harvard the polite term is hoi polloi. We feel it's less hurtful." - EEng
Rampant anti-wokeism
- "Behold the sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse." - EEng
- "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." - EEng
A superiority complex/grandiosity
- "Mr. Eater, I hereby award you the EEng Irony Cross (with Oak Leaves, Platinum Rivets, and Emerald Chips)." - EEng
- "[Referring to other editors:] there are no signs of intelligent life." - EEng
- "It is I who am honored to work with so many easily confused editors." - EEng
- "Please remain civil." — "Keep it up and I'll show you some real civility." - EEng
- "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." - EEng

Well... no need to tell me why you undid my changes—I don't know if I could get an explanation that doesn't diss my intelligence and allude to your illuminating time at Harvard and Berkeley. I am clearly not going to reach you.

Also, dude, I'm 21. I'm new to Wikipedia. So when it comes to me making mistakes due to my lack of status as a Wikipedia editor, give me a break. The idea that you're self-righteously, indiscriminately degrading the intelligence of everyone around you reeks of those Facebook minion memes seething on in contempt for the woke left and the younger generation. You may honestly want to check out the page on narcissistic personality disorder... and not just to undo changes.

GabeTucker (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your changes at Monty Hall problem seem fine, but I suspect EEng might have thought the edit was a joke because it ended with the phrase "the Monty Python problem" - Monty Python being an unrelated British comedy troupe.

Also, a substantial portion of your laundry list of EEng's purported sins consists of jokes. Those which aren't may be good or bad, but are in any case irrelevant. CharredShorthand (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect EEng might have thought the edit was a joke because it ended with the phrase "the Monty Python problem"

That's funny, I didn't realize I had made that mistake—that explains the whole situation. Thank you for pointing that out.

With this new perspective, I'm definitely noticing quite a bit more sarcasm in the sin list upon a second reading. I think I was being a bit obtuse since I was very upset by his comment. I still definitely get some sense of a superiority complex from the Ivy League high table talk and characterization of wokeism. But you're correct that all of that is irrelevant when it comes to the article dispute.

Regardless, thanks for collectedly clearing things up—I appreciate it.

GabeTucker (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GabeTucker, I only have a humble bachelor's degree from the humble University of San Francisco (although I dated a young woman who was a Berkeley student at the time, which was 45 years ago). When I write something intelligent and useful, EEng will often support my point. When I stray occasionally and write something not so brilliant, EEng will quickly bring me back to my senses. EEng has a unique sense of humor, and does not tolerate foolishness. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. This is useful to know, and I am getting the sense that I misjudged him. I think that I conflated A) a miscommunication and B) a very, very (very) dry sense of humor with narcissism, but I am coming to realize I was wrong. GabeTucker (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

For a detailed summary of the changes from the discretionary sanctions system, see WP:DSVSCT.
A brief guide for administrators may be found at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions.
Updated templates may be found at Template:Contentious topics.
Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we collaborated well the other day on the Miracle of Lanciano article. It was about massive influence and distortion of content by religious POV. I would like to bring to your attention a slanted discussion: I reported a religious user and the editors see it as a violation of Wikipedia rules on my page. Maybe you can participate in the relevant discussion. Greetings

See: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rafaelosornio_reverting_permanently_my_secular_editing_of_the_article_on_Padre_Pio

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mind WP:CANVASS CharredShorthand (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lone Mountain Cemetery

On 24 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lone Mountain Cemetery, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Phineas Gage was buried in Lone Mountain Cemetery twice, once without his head, before being relocated still without his head? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lone Mountain Cemetery. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lone Mountain Cemetery), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I enjoyed it. Good head. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hello, EEng! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think my main man Levivich is the right guy for this. EEng 06:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- These essays are too specific. Ping me when someone writes WP:NOMORONS. Levivich (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coords and OR

I didn't want to get into it on Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols, because trolls, but one can put coordinates in articles without secondary sources, and it isn't WP:OR. This is because it falls under WP:Routine calculations. In the case of Killing of Tyre Nichols, primary sources reveal that the beating occurred at the intersection of Castlegate Lane and Bear Creek Cove. Then, Google Maps can be used to show where that is. Right-clicking on the map allows their coordinates to be copied to Wikipedia, then rounded to an appropriate level of precision. Given that he die not die there, it is probably fine that the article does not display coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what you're describing is nothing like a routine calculation, and is classic OR. Sources tell us the street names at the intersection, so we report that. If they later supply some kind of map, we might present that too (if the licensing is right). But we don't take the street names and convert them to coordinates, even if a tool does that for us. If the coordinates were important, a source would be reporting them. E Eng 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put the intersection into the text in the case of this article. So that won't be a worry. But in something like half a million articles, the coordinates got there by editors like me are grabbing coordinates from Google in the way I described, or from OSM's "Query features" function, and rounding those numbers according to WP:OPCOORD. As an example, I just did this with UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The university's website gives an address and a building, and Google and OSM show the building and give exacting coordinates for it, so all that remains is proper rounding and formatting. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most or all of those other articles contain OR, then. And you've picked a particularly bad example for your cause. "The university's website" (at https://caes.ucdavis.edu/, the very URL given in the infobox) does indeed give an address: 150 Mrak Hall. It also gives another address: 1 Shields Avenue, which is far away from Mrak across campus -- apparently a general address for the campus as a whole? The infobox gives the Shields Avenue address, but you seem to have used Mrak Hall to use as the base for the coordinates. Thus the infobox gives two conflicting pieces of information. And all for what? Davis' College of Ag and E isn't a place anyway; it's an institutional entity. It's faculty, offices, classrooms, labs, and administrative apparatus are undoubtedly diffused all over the Davis campus in general. Just because they gave an address for, I dunno, admission inquiries doesn't mean you should be putting a pin on the map showing readers, based on what is (I hope you see now) indubitably your own OR, "where it is" -- which it isn't. E Eng 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry EEng but I gotta go with Abductive on the original question of "Is it OR or otherwise unacceptable to add coordinates for a specific street location?" As long as there is no question about the location (e.g., there aren't multiple streets with the same name(s)) and the coordinates are specified with an appropriate level of precision, this does seem like a routine calculation that doesn't fall afoul of OR. I won't opine whether it's DUE as I don't have any specific interest in that topic or experience in editing that article or others like it but of course this information must pass that bar, too.

I don't recall the specific issue with UMass Boston; I edit a *lot* of college and university articles! In general, we don't include street addresses simply because most of those institutions occupy multiple physical addresses. I don't know how that does or should impact coordinates; I simply haven't ever paid much attention to them so I haven't given them any thought. I do not know the common geographic practices, either among geographers broadly construed or within Wikipedia, for specifying the coordinates for one or more oddly shaped parcels of land that may be geographically dispersed (center of mass or the geographic equivalent, maybe?).

Sorry for not being much help! ElKevbo (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:University_of_Massachusetts_Boston#Street_address, wherein you make a powerful argument for why we shouldn't even be giving street addresses for colleges and stuff, and (by extension) no coordiates either. E Eng 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Universities tend to have central quads, intersecting axes, large fountains, main administration buildings, main libraries, student unions, visitor's centers (rarely), and other targets, and the coords usually point to one of those. Abductive (reasoning) 00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With a sorry from me for being even less help, here is my take on it. Adding coordinates based on a street address, as the location of that address, is not OR. It's a routine calculation. On the other hand, treating the location identified by those coordinates as the location of a page subject may very well run afoul of OR and/or DUE, for the kinds of reasons described by EEng. A mailing address may differ from a physical address, and may not accurately or meaningfully reflect the location of something that is not a mathematical point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my example goes, it's not the general method that is in question, but my (in)ability to interpret the source. If anyone were to change the coordinates, I wouldn't argue. Abductive (reasoning) 00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpreting one piece of primary data, then turning it into something else which isn't obviously based on that mistaken data, is part of the reason we don't allow OR. E Eng 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COORDS links to Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates which condones this practice of putting the location into Google Maps. CharredShorthand.talk; 02:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like I'm a voice in the wilderness. E Eng 02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a revenant. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki"

Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki", a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki" and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't call it "Wiki" during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JeffUK 16:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you., related to this as I'm sure you will guess. JeffUK 18:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take it neither outcome was what you expected. E Eng 06:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not interfere with Earth's growth

Thought this kind of humor would be up your alley. I've been laughing for the past 5 minutes. DFlhb (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. My personal favorite phrase in there is They have sucked our souls. E Eng 06:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to link to any rendition of the "Major-General's Song", as you did here. Doing so can result in users being unable to get the song out of their heads, which may be considered detrimental to Wikipedia and its users. Thank you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I linked two of them, so I must be doubly evil. My plan to destroy Wikipedia by hollowing it out from the inside is working quite well, don't you think? E Eng 21:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised you didn't also link to the Tom Lehrer version. (I think the fact that I know you're a Lehrer fan means that I've spent too much time around here.) The situation is actually even worse than first reported: I was sure that Sideshow Bob had sung it, so I found and watched the clip of him performing the entire score of H.M.S Pinafore. When that didn't include the song, I discovered that Penzance and Pinafore are different (yes, I'm a philistine), but now some of the Pinafore songs are also stuck in my head. (I wasn't completely wrong about The Simpsons, as Barney did sing a bit of "Major-General" in another episode.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who isn't a Lehrer fan? -- but for the benighted who somehow aren't: The Elements and for good measure, New Math. A little-known fact, BTW, is that my friend Andrew Gleason was the main driving force behind the New Math. E Eng 14:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're just asking for a level 2 warning! It's too bad Gleason wasn't around earlier, so he could have served as a useful resource for Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky.

BTW, here's a tip I've been meaning to share with your fanbase: For anyone who's come to this page only to have your device litterally blow up like it was a spy balloon, I highly recommend that you install User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/DiffOnly. With this tool, many places where you'd find a diff, such as watchlist, history, contributions, etc., you'll be presented with a "diff only" link; click on it, and you'll get, as expected, just the diff, without loading the entire page. This saves a lot of time and bandwidth, and your smoke alarm won't go off every time you visit this talk page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Mandarax has three oranges and EEng eats all of them, how much vitamin C has EEng ingested, and will he get scurvy anyway? I just said that because I really want to say orange is the New Math. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know about it, but somewhere (I forget) someone made a version beginning "I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian...." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give $100 in Monopoly money, plus a case of Skippy dog food, to whomever can dig up a link to that. E Eng 21:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What, no fish food? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EEng has good priorities. - Roxy the dog 18:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you'd come and say that! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Songs about Wikipedia/The RfA Candidate's Song. I prefer Jif. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That song is beyond brilliant. It leaves me speechless (which, as all gathered here know, is saying a lot). I've suggested The Signpost do an article on it (WP:POST/S). E Eng 19:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you weren't that speechless: [246]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give you this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ E Eng 14:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm winning

It's like golf; I think I'm winning. Levivich (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like that one result under "Trump is right" is Trump is right that excess mortality studies [etc etc]. Right. Like Donald Trump can even spell "excess" or "mortality" or "studies". E Eng 04:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But he can probably pronounce it right. I mean, like, people all over the world tell me all the time how much they like the way he pronounces those words. Really, beautiful pronunciation. Levivich (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation was ... PERFECT. Like the phone call and the letter. E Eng 05:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits are fake results. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tryptofish is right": 22 hits. There's no shame in 2nd place. Levivich (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish is always right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm always right. See User:EEng#correct: EEng is correct. There are not many exceptions to this nearly universal rule. E Eng 20:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're both always right. But I'm always right more often than you are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tryptofish is always right": 2 hits
"EEng is always right": 2 hits
"Levivich is always right": 0 hits
I'm still winning. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure golf is analogous? Because I suspect my score is 0, too. Valereee (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a good idea

I realize that a thread about reliable sources regarding a nursery rhyme about farting has long sense descended into the absurd, but given sensibilities and sensitivities around Wikipedia, you might want to consider striking this comment, even though obviously in jest. [247] Banks Irk (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensibilities around Wikipedia need expanding, and sensitivities need desensitizing. Anyway that Levivich's got it coming to him. E Eng 02:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He really doesn't mean it. He loves me, he just has his own way of showing it. Levivich (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for pity's sake. You were both wrong. It's WP:FART. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or WP:GAS? E Eng 00:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of hot-air bags! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...Wikipedia has sensibilities and sensitivities? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and all the other Jane Austen novels. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SO bummed I didn't get there. Unbelievable. Completely in my wheelhouse. Ugh. Valereee (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect [1]. -E Eng

[2] Darned Chinks. I'm so offended, ~~I've resigned twice.~~ I'm in self-isolation for 14 days. -Martinevans123 (talk)

[3] Cisgender people don't get a vote.

[socio-4] ttps://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/07/trump-and-sociopathy/491966/
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sociopath-mental-health-harvard-psychiatry-professor-1468441

https://www.salon.com/2020/02/28/psychiatrist-sounds-the-alarm-about-sociopath-president-trump-hes-getting-worse_partner/

[5] ttps://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sociopath-mental-health-harvard-psychiatry-professor-1468441

[6] ttps://www.salon.com/2020/02/28/psychiatrist-sounds-the-alarm-about-sociopath-president-trump-hes-getting-worse_partner/

[narcissist-5] ttps://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/29/why-trump-believes-innocent-ukraine-impeachment/
https://www.uu.nl/en/node/541/donald-trump-textbook-narcissist

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/opinion/trump-narcissism.html

[8] ttps://www.uu.nl/en/node/541/donald-trump-textbook-narcissist

[9] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/opinion/trump-narcissism.html

[racist-6] ttps://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/14/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

[11] ttps://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

[12] ttps://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

[criminal-7] ttps://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/news/2020/01/21/479664/trump-committed-crimes-ukraine-shakedown/
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/

https://theintercept.com/collections/all-presidents-crimes/

https://www.justsecurity.org/67738/federal-criminal-offenses-and-the-impeachment-of-donald-j-trump/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/08/make-2020-election-about-donald-trump-crimes-corruption-column/2831973001/

https://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/possible-federal-and-state-crimes/

[14] ttps://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/

[15] ttps://theintercept.com/collections/all-presidents-crimes/

[16] ttps://www.justsecurity.org/67738/federal-criminal-offenses-and-the-impeachment-of-donald-j-trump/

[17] ttps://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/08/make-2020-election-about-donald-trump-crimes-corruption-column/2831973001/

[18] ttps://www.citizensforethics.org/criminal-abuse-of-power-trumps-crimes-ukraine/

[19] ttps://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/possible-federal-and-state-crimes/

[moron-8] ttps://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/04/trumps-insults-idiot-woodward-806455
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/bolton-deep-in-heart-believes-trump-is-a-moron-former-aide-claims-1.7184851

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-moron-tillerson-publicly-confirms.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/donald-trump-wind-power-causes-cancer

https://qz.com/1267508/all-the-people-close-to-donald-trump-who-called-him-an-idiot/

[21] ttps://www.haaretz.com/world-news/bolton-deep-in-heart-believes-trump-is-a-moron-former-aide-claims-1.7184851

[22] ttps://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/trump-moron-tillerson-publicly-confirms.html

[23] ttps://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/04/donald-trump-wind-power-causes-cancer

[24] ttps://qz.com/1267508/all-the-people-close-to-donald-trump-who-called-him-an-idiot/

[selfish-9] ttps://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/president-trump-exactly-same-selfish-blowhard-i-knew-back-new-ncna818221
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cia-brennan-harry-reid-1343090

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-national-emergency-border-wall-congress-nancy-pelosi-democrats-republicans-selfish-a8780231.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/13/reporter_to_trump_are_you_being_selfish_by_not_getting_tested_for_coronavirus.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/reporters-hammer-trump-on-coronavirus-testing-are-you-being-selfish

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/17/trump-sees-the-coronavirus-as-a-threat-to-his-self-interest-not-to-people

[26] ttps://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-cia-brennan-harry-reid-1343090

[27] ttps://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-national-emergency-border-wall-congress-nancy-pelosi-democrats-republicans-selfish-a8780231.html

[28] ttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/13/reporter_to_trump_are_you_being_selfish_by_not_getting_tested_for_coronavirus.html

[29] ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/reporters-hammer-trump-on-coronavirus-testing-are-you-being-selfish

[30] ttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/17/trump-sees-the-coronavirus-as-a-threat-to-his-self-interest-not-to-people

[stupid-10] ttps://www.wsj.com/articles/the-stupidity-of-donald-trump-1514233232
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/2019-in-review/the-year-in-stupidity

https://newrepublic.com/article/156113/iran-suleimani-bombing-iraq-airport-pinnacle-trumps-foreign-policy-stupidity

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-02/coronavirus-trumps-healthcare

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/trumps-unending-stupidity-sparks-chaos-as-his-administration-struggles-to-respond-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

[32] ttps://www.newyorker.com/culture/2019-in-review/the-year-in-stupidity

[33] ttps://newrepublic.com/article/156113/iran-suleimani-bombing-iraq-airport-pinnacle-trumps-foreign-policy-stupidity

[34] ttps://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-03-02/coronavirus-trumps-healthcare

[35] ttps://www.rawstory.com/2020/03/trumps-unending-stupidity-sparks-chaos-as-his-administration-struggles-to-respond-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

[deaths-11] ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/19/coronavirus-projections-us/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.html

[37] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/us/coronavirus-deaths-estimate.html

[12] Note: Recycled joke.

[13] Peter, Josh. "Joe Biden will become the oldest president in American history, a title previously held by Ronald Reagan". USA TODAY. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[14] "Happy birthday, Joe: 78-year-old Biden will be oldest US president to enter office". the Guardian. 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[15] "Birthday time: Biden turns 78, will be oldest U.S. president". AP NEWS. 20 November 2020.

[16] Zak, Dan. "Joe Biden, 78, will lead an American gerontocracy". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[17] Diaz, Johnny (18 January 2021). "Biden Is the Oldest President to Take the Oath". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[18] "Biden to Become Oldest President Ever at Inauguration". Bloomberg.com. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[19] I think I stole this one from Tryptofish

[20] "Principle of Some Astonishment"

[21] Linked since you probably don't know what that is.

[22] Seriously, if you've never read this, do. Brilliant and beautiful.

[23] Content in the brackets is an explanation I added to clarify what "it" refers to, but it's not in the hidden note.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[a]

@@ Line 4,783: / Line 4,783: @@
 ::Yes, and [[Sense and Sensibility|all the other Jane Austen novels]]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 :::SO bummed I didn't get there. Unbelievable. Completely in my wheelhouse. Ugh. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
-== The benefit of your wisdom, please? ==
-If you can find some time, I'd appreciate your advice, please.
-Would you have a look at [[Talk:List of country calling codes#Removal of off-topic material]] and advise whether I'm wasting my time. It seems clear that two editors have spent a lot of time constructing the article as it stands and can't or won't see anything wrong with it. If it really is just a content dispute, then it is already clear that the outcome will be "no consensus" and wp:status quo, so I may well drop it now. But if it is a policy issue, as I believe, then I will have to make an incident of it. Is there any prospect that ANI will consider it of any significance? Is time to just give up and walk away, whatever the merits of the case? [[User:John Maynard Friedman|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman|talk]]) 00:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)