User talk:EEng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

↓ Jump to bottom of page ↓
Now jump to the other bottom.

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

Satellite image of a section of the Great Wall of China, running diagonally from lower left to upper right and not to be confused with the more prominent talkpage running from upper left to lower right. The shadow at the upper left indicates "You are here." Talkpage archives are not visible.
Mongol hordes attempting to enter EEng's talk page are repulsed by the maze of disorienting section headings and the brigade of fervently deranged talk page stalkers. Many die of carpal tunnel syndrome while scrolling to the bottom of the page.

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.

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.

(a/o February 2, 2016: 131 stalkers, 81/89 "active" [4])

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


Lee Harvey Oswald[edit]

I'm in awe of your copy editing, it's a real object lesson in how to take sentences that seem ok, but then transform them into something much more fluid and logical. Even though you make it seem easy, I'm sure it takes a lot of time. I think it's an amazing skill and I'm studying your changes closely to try and learn as much from them as I can. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Aw, shucks! (blush) The article was (fairly) well organized, and competent at the sentence level, but too much fat -- unimportant details like Ruth Paine drove Marnina from city X to Y, then later drove her from A to B -- OK, we know Ruth was a family friend and friends do such things -- the interested reader could find out details from the refs. Amazing how much tighter things get when you cut even small amounts of stuff like that, which then allows even whole paragraphs to collapse into a single (albeit somewhat more complex) sentence. Again, just for the record for anyone else listening, I have no interest in getting involved in controversy over LHO and JFK -- my intent is strictly to copyedit the article as it stands, neither adding nor omitting anything substantive. Having received no accusatory condemnations from impassioned assassination theorists of whatever stripe, I guess I've succeeded in doing that so far. Thanks for taking the time to compliment. EEng (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy databases[edit]

Hello, I thought an earlier post of yours about the use of was truly excellent, and I have cited it here [5]. If you are interested, you might want to take a look at the RSN discussion yourself and contribute your own thoughts. I am sure they would be helpful. Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The post referred to is [6].

Barnstar of (ploop) --oh NO it fell in the water![edit]

Wiki barnstars oops it fell in the pool by cramyourspam.png Barnstar of (ploop) --oh NO it fell in the water!
for the wise and humorous "combative injurues" --> "combat injurues" edit Cramyourspam (talk) 05:03, 3 Oct 2012 (UTC)

From a new friend[edit]

The Whiffenpoofs poised to perform the Fantasies of Victimization of 1912
EEng, shockingly, I find I quite like you. The change came when I began to put your comments in the voice of Seth Green's character in Party Monster. It's no insult. He's mesmerizing. And when I imagine Seth Green's voice saying the phrases "Naturally I thought Lockley was behind this at first" and "be careful not to feed Lockley's fantasy of victimization" in the same breath, it makes a lot more sense. Now do let's leave each other alone for awhile if you can stand it.--Lockley (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I never saw PM and have only just now checked it out. Your comparison to me took on a disturbing quality when I read, ...which details his friendship with Alig, that later fell apart as Alig's drug addiction worsened, and ended after he murdered Angel Melendez and went to prison, until I realized that the Seth Green character is the friend, not the murderer. EEng (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that hate-turns-to-love thing a lot, though usually it takes years. I'm assuming you've alredy seen [7]. Shall we now, together, tell PBS to go soak his or her head? What a schoolmarm! It's like Atilla the Hun has appeared to dispense justice on my behalf. Saints preserve us! EEng (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Be more careful who you hang out with -- that Binky guy's up to no good.
P.P.S. Pull any more of that Yale shit and I'll have you boiled in oil.
okay, got it, no more Yalie stuff. --Lockley (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, Lockley, I'd have thought, in this day and age, that you'd know better than to make fun of Poofs [8]. EEng (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doubting Thomas[edit]

I think my "current manic burst of energy has spent itself", also on Girdle of Thomas. So please feel free. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, why don't you go up to your room and loosen that girdle. Ooof! Doesn't that feel better? EEng (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

guarded logic
Thank you for quality articles such as John Harvard statue, developed with care for detail and explicit edit summaries, revealing "the idea of the three lies is at best a fourth", and other math, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 463rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Two years ago ..., - and did you know that several editors I know enjoy your user page inspiration, unable to decide which pair of image and caption is most to the point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

<Bows, acknowledges applause> My only aim is to serve my fellow editors and the project. I am unworthy of your praise. EEng (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Please visit User talk:Martinevans123 and help talk him down off the ledge.
bzzt, I tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Three years ago, you were recipient no. 463 of Precious, a prize of QAI! bzzt: I have a FAC open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right[edit]

Yellow dragon jar (cropped).JPG

I'll stop replying. Sometimes, I know I'm being goaded and still can't stop rising to the bait. Thank you for your reminder. Unless there are problematic edits to articles (as opposed to talk pages) the matter merits no further response. Feeding the beast is an apt metaphor.

It's good to have a voice of reason around.

On another matter: I'm no good at finding lost minds. But here's the Ming you were looking for:

Happy trails,
David in DC (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Remember our long-lived friend (who amazingly, seems to have actually taking his indefinite block to heart)? While this one guy is a rank amateur by comparison, similar lessons apply, especially this one: in general (sad to say) it's too much to hope that the party with whom you are engaged will be convinced; convincing those watching and listening should be your goal. Once you think you've achieved that you can fall silent, leaving your interlocutor to babble on contentedly. EEng (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC) CRASH! Oh dear. That thing wasn't genuine, was it? After all, a Ming is a terrible thing to waste.

Costco run[edit]

I searched and searched the aisles, and they were fresh out of troll food. So, on to other ventures. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not bake some nice Troll House cookies? EEng (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Another clueless editor drops in to visit[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, 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. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do not refactor my comments again and do not make snide personal attacks. Also, do not call editors "nazi"s, because they removed 1900 characters of this.[9] Comment on the edit not the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I didn't call another editor a Nazi, but rather a MOS Nazi -- that is, an often ignorant, always arrogant, self-appointed knowitall who finds salve for his insecure ego by pretending that enforcement of increasingly minute and arbitrary rules, over consideration of what looks good and reads well, benefits the project.

As to you, do not fuck with others' comments on article talk pages, as you did -- I've restored my comments and stand by them. You made a run-on, borderline unintelligible defense of certain actions of yours; I responded with "Everything you're saying is nonsense", followed by a bullet-list explication of why everything you had said was nonsense. [10] If you don't like that, then stop posting nonsense.

As already pointed out elsewhere, you spend a great deal of time removing, and issuing warnings about, angry comments directed at you by other editors, e.g. on your talk page. Ever think about why that is?

EEng (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem. You have a massive COI and your ownership is problematic enough, but making up lies is not acceptable. Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page and next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA. Do you understand? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Re next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA:
(For those playing along at home here's the edit summary [11] Chris is so up in arms about.) I could change my wording from "MOS Nazis" to "bossy schoolmarmish MOS-haunting tin-ear-for-language knowitalls" -- would you prefer that? Anyway, if you don't recognize yourself in those descriptions, what does any of this have to do with you? And if you do, then how is it a personal attack to describe you in a manner which you agree is accurate?
In any event, here's what I predict an administrator would say about all this:
  • First, he or she will tell me that -- though it's understandable I was pissed off at you for making a complete mess of an article and then, when challenged, posting a list of nonsense justifications for what you'd done, but falling strangely silent when those justifications were answered -- I should have heeded the better angels of my nature and moderated my condemnation of your absurd waste of my time and your own time.
  • Second, he or she will counsel you to stop being a crybaby. You fucked up the article, wouldn't admit it, and almost a month later are still sulking because you were called out for it.
  • As to Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem: What the fuck are you talking about? What can "making up things you know nothing about" even mean?'
  • And Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page: What the fuck are you talking about here, either?
  • As to massive COI and ownership... well, I'll deal with those laughable ideas on the article talk page.
Do you understand? EEng (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


Why are you being rude and spiteful? I'm trying to work with you - this is not your article to rule over and I'd much fancy being able to read the actual text with more than 13 characters smashed between two large images and other formatting and size issues. Why will you not discuss this civilly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing ownership and stewardship -- see WP:OAS. As to "formatting and size issues" (and "13 characters") please post a description of them at the article Talk, in a way others can understand what you're talking about. I suspect you've got zoom set high and/or text size (if you're using IE) set to "Largest" or something. EEng (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you'll like this [12] better, though it has its own drawbacks. EEng (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It is better, but your assumptions of what I am using is wrong. I'm not going to argue with you about this; it's why I've purposely avoided responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation. You are emotionally and academically invested in the page and it is only out of respect for actual experts on Wikipedia (we have too few) that I don't want any dramatics. I mean no offense and I hope you understand my position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, whatever. "I'm not going to argue with you about this" -- you don't argue (or discuss) anything. What you do, as just seen, is complain vaguely ("formatting and size issues") but then never explain what you're talking about; you've been doing this for a month without making a single suggestion for anything to change. If telling yourself you're "avoiding responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation" makes you feel better, fine, but the the important thing is that you've decided to move on to wasting others' time instead of mine. Call it selfish if you want. You're practically the Wikipedia poster-boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect. EEng (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You made an improvement to the rendered page - it is not my preference, but it is better. So why would I need to reiterate or argue after its resolution? I see you have asked for clarification on my arguments - and normally I'd be happy to explain further, but you don't want to listen to me. You are an expert on Gage, while I dislike the significant conflict of interest generated by extensively using both you and your co-author's work, I respect your position. If I wanted to be a thorn in your side, trust me, I could, but we both have better things to do than indulge in dramatics. That is why I asked you stop the personal attacks, but I've realized by not responding in kind or getting upset gives more time to you to improve the content. So long as you seek to improve Wikipedia, even just this one page, I'll respect your stewardship. If you really want to make a fight, WP:COIN and a few other places would be a good proving ground to see if those "MOS Nazis" could explain in more detail why your page presents significant problems with its excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates. Your call. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For the 100th time:

  • go to the article's talk page and post a concrete suggestion or description of a problem (e.g. specifically describe the "excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates" you refer to above -- I genuinely would like to know about any potential problems);
  • or go somewhere to complain about my COI, or my attacks, or whatever;
  • or just go away.

But do not keep saying here that you've identified problems with the article but aren't going to explain them. It's ridiculous. EEng (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Coffee fueled parody, at WP:talk MoS/D&N[edit]

I must thank you for one of the best (and funniest) scenarios of Wikipedia editing I've read. I'm going to be chuckling all day. The cleanup you're doing on MoS is making it actually useful, and I thank you for that as well. I should probably appreciate that more, but it doesn't make me giggle with joy. htom (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

John Harvard (clergyman)[edit]

Nothing you ever did or said regarding the use of "emigrate" or "immigrate" made any sense to me. [13] Sweetmoniker (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this will make sense to you. You asserted, with palpable condescension, that immigrated from and emigrated to are blunders [14]:

There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject. One "immigrates to" and "emigrates from" Consult any grammarian source if in doubt.
John Harvard Tablet, Emmanuel College.jpg

Though no possible level of appropriateness to debate on doesn't recommend you as a wordsmith, I would never deny my own fallibility. Thus I double-checked and... guess what? Your prissy 7th-grade English teacher Mrs. Snodgrass was wrong, and my warm and wonderful 8th-grade teacher Mr. Dunkum was right (hi, Mr. Dunkum, wherever you are!): one may emigrate from or emigrate to or (if one prefers) immigrate from, or to, as well.

You've been offered three compelling arguments for why this cannot be but so:

  • Argument logical [15]: Under your theory this sentence is verboten --
He emigrated from England to America.
because (you say) one can't emigrate to somewhere. And the following is also a no-no --
He immigrated to America from England.
because (according to you) one can't immigrate from somewhere. So, presumably, you would have this --
He emigrated from England and immigrated to America.
inflicted on the reader, and that's ridiculous. QED.[1]
  • Argument empirical general [16]: As seen here [17] examples of emigrated to are thick on the ground in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Courts of sundry states of said United States, and the esteemed and honorable Courts Supreme (or other highest courts) of numerous other jurisdictions and sovereignties. High court justices are usually considered exemplary expositors.
And as if that's not enough, no less luminous a legal legend than the great Epaphroditus Peck quoted the digest of a Massachusetts court's opinion thus:[2]
Refusal by an English woman, whose husband had emigrated to the United States and had obtained employment here, to follow him to this country when he reqeuested her to come and sent her money for her passage, was held to be desertion by her, it being found that she had no other reason for her refusal that reluctance to leave her native land. Franklin v. Franklin, 190 Mass. 349; 4 L.R.A. (N.S) 145. See the note to [etc etc and so on and so forth...]
Now, you're not really planning to climb into the ring with Epaphroditus Peck, are you?
  • Argument empirical specifical[3] [18]: Emmanuel College's tablet "In Memory of John Harvard A.M." describes the man as "A member of Emmanuel College who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay...", and later describes itself as "erected by Harvard men ... in the College which fostered his beneficent spirit." Since as is well known Harvard men think they're always right, and Emmanuel men pretty much are always right, this wording (passed by both) must surely be considered dispositive.

The true difference between imm- and em- is a subtle one of emphasis and narrative point of view. These --

  • John lost his best friend when Bill emigrated to America.
  • Many of these new immigrants to America had left good friends behind.
  • Those emigrating from France found it relatively easy to obtain exit papers; those from Germany, less so.
  • American authorities scrutinized those immigrating from France less carefully than those from Germany.

-- are all fine and all subtly different, and would be irreparably crippled if twisted to fit your Procrustean bed of linguistic over-prescription.

EEng (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. The link in your post above proves only that emigrate from is acceptable, not that emigrate to is unacceptable


  1. ^ From the Greek for Quite Easily Done.
  2. ^ Peck, Epaphroditus (1913). The Law of Persons: Or, Domestic Relations, p. 173. I have no idea who Peck was, but once I saw the name Epaphroditus resistance was futile.
  3. ^ Made-up word.

Telegrams from near and far[edit]

The very model of a Modern Emigrantical[edit]

Mr. Dunkum would be right proud, not to mention Sir William Schwenck Gilbert. "Procrustean bed" indeed. I doff my specifical QED to you, dear EEng. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone shares your high opinion, Mr. Jonesey (assuming you weren't being facetious). Aside from ol' CG (abovebelow) we have this effusive praise: "so snobbish and pigheaded that I could only make it through three sentences until I couldn't force myself to continue." [19] Noting, however, that it was this critic himself who wrote the bulk of my post's opening (i.e. "There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject ... Consult any grammarian source if in doubt") I must complement the gentleman on his candid self-evaluation. EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I could not have been farther (further?) from Facetious, wherever that may be. Mesmerized was more like it. Gobsmacked. Enthralled. I smile enigmatically at you, and my eyes follow you about your chambers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
My attorney will need your address for the restraining order. It would be best if you cooperate. EEng (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Many people leaving Facetious find themselves in Synecdoche (and of course when I say Synecdoche I really mean the greater Synecdoche area).
Personal attack? You decide! [Section heading not supplied by ChrisGualtieri][edit]

Did you really... and I mean that... need to spend all that time making such a post? Its your time, but I think some of this is a bit ironic. Glad to see you are still floating about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

How much time do you think it took me? EEng (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
In any event, it took about one Masterpiece Theatre episode. (This current post cost about 1/2 a Modern Family.) You like to mass-update article classes, I like to warn off stubbornly misinformed know-it-alls.
WARNING! Text inside constitutes, according to one editor, a personal attack!
Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg
Chief among our differences, CG, is that you seem to think that beautiful portraits (or fine Wikipedia articles) are created by dutifully coloring between lines set out for us by our betters, instead of considering what will please the eye or nourish the intellect. Perhaps you would have asked da Vinci, "Did you really need to spend all that time making such a picture?"?
EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. What is it that's ironic

I'd watch those personal attacks and bearing false witness because I don't tolerate such abuse sitting down. Your comment shows your ignorance and folly - but if you take such pride in burning bridges, far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last with I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Far be it from me to tell you what I just told you.
Second on the list of differences between us is that you think everything's a personal attack. You certainly don't take anything lying down -- you get right in there and issue stern warnings! [20][21] Some of them are even "last" warnings! [22] And "bearing false witness" -- what... gonna report me for violating WP:TENCOMMANDMENTS?
Re "Far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last [bridge] with I"... Is that meant to be some kind of brain teaser? It's like a kid saying, "I'm not gonna tell you that mom has milk and cookies in the kitchen."
Anyway, that's "burnt the last with me," Einstein EEng (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Humor…on Wikipedia?[edit]


This edit was a joke, right?

I'm not the best at recognizing humor (I'm from the Midwest).

Please accept this modest gift (to your right).

Cheers, startswithj (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. However, due to terrorist threats against local bridges, you won't mind if I x-ray it first? EEng (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Followup: you were very modest, startswithj, about your humor-detecting talents. But take heart, there's someone even more humor-impaired than you apparently imagine yourself to be, as seen in the next section. So feel yourself lucky -- as the old proverb says, "I cried because I had no WiFi, until I met a man who had no laptop." EEng (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Note: The author of the below subsequently removed it. However, I'm electing to repost it here as a permanent reminder to myself of how serious can be the sufferings of those afflicted by profound humor impairment. The assertion that my phrase "terrorist threats against local bridges" -- just above, next to another editor's joking "exploding gift" gif -- actually "insinuates" that the text to which it links is a "terrorist schtick" (odd image, that -- better check your dictionary, CG) suggests a poor prognosis.

Misappropriation and changing the context of any editors text is specifically not allowed. Do not do this EEng. You've lied and put words in my mouth and you are being abusive. Next time, I will take it to arbcom do not dare put any insinuation with terrorism to my comments. You understand?! You've insulted my work and you've lied all it one post, but then you alter my text and flow and chalk it up to some terrorist schtick. I think you owe me an apology. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

EEng (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. CG, I'd appreciate your telling me where I altered your "text and flow" or "lied and put words in [your] mouth". (Since there was no section heading I made it "Personal attack? You decide!" -- and I've now clarified that it's not your heading, if that's what's bothering you.)

Later (10:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)): The patient exhibits a continued preoccupation with removing my post, above, quoting his earlier "warning".[23][24][25] Of course it's best for his recovery that he face the consequences of his actions, rather than run from them.

A friendly note[edit]

Stop refactoring and reinserting my deleted text, you are violating the talk page guidelines. I am well within my right to remove my own comments and not have them altered, refactored or reinserted by you to mock. You are being hypocritical because you continue to refactor my text and you scream about "not fucking with my posts". Now calm down - you are only adding fuel to the fire. You've continually altered text and you edit war over nothing. You don't see me constantly bringing up your comment that almost got you indeffed for personal attacks; treat others as you want to be treated and you'll find your interactions on Wikipedia to be more pleasant. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For those who may be wondering, we're talking about the text removed here [26], which can be seen in context here [27].
Sorry, I missed this until now. Quoting a post of yours, giving full context, is not refactoring, whether you subsequently deleted it or not. (And in quoting it I noted that you had deleted it.) EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi EEng. Chris has raised with me the edit you made here. Would you stand by this edit and its like? I do share his concerns with the standard of your interactions. I'd prefer to sort it out with you directly, but if not I would need to go to a central noticeboard, so please consider your response carefully. --John (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I stand by it fully. If you can explain what the hell he's talking about, including the silent shift, from the beginning of the thread to the end, in what's being demanded, please do so -- there. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Specific units table[edit]

Welcome back! Just a query. In these edits to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Specific units, you merged the blank "Comments" column for the bit, byte, bit per second and byte per second entries. Is there any reason you didn't do the same for other adjacent entries without comments, namely, knot and metre, or pound per square inch and tonne? sroc 💬 22:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. It seemed like too much trouble to merge all the adjacent empties (and doing so would create a lot of potential for rowspan mess-ups), so I drew the line where the entire "category" (Information) has empty comments. My motivation was to eliminate the unpleasant visual effect of all those parallel lines blocked together and that's the most important example of it. If you want to extend that to the rest, or revert my one merge, that's fine. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I quite like the visual cleanliness, but we should be consistent — both within the table and across tables generally. It actually works well (at least on my browser: Firefox 27.0.1 for Mac OS X) to omit the final cell in a row when it's not needed; it has the same visual appearance without the messy rowspan parameters that are prone to tripping editors up. I'll give that a go but feel free to revert if it doesn't look right. sroc 💬 12:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The reason I didn't do that is that IE 11 interprets the lack of the final, empty value as "on this row, that column isn't even there" and expresses that by omitting the right-hand, final vertical line for that cell. In other word, instead of

| val | val |     |
| val | val | val |
| val | val |     |

you get

| val | val |  
| val | val | val |
| val | val |

(Here I'm assuming your browser renders this ascii art the same as mine does.) To me that looks a bit odd but better than all those empty cells, but I fear you may get blowback. I suggest you leave it as you have it and brace for reaction.

So you see, we're friends after all. But don't think you've heard the last of me on that stupid year-comma thing. EEng (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see the ASCII art. (How'd you do that?) My browser shows as the first case, but I feared some other browsers would show as the second case (or something else weird). Let's see what happens. (grabs popcorn) sroc 💬 14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If the more than 50% of the characters in a block of text are hyphen, plus, or pipe, the browser detects ascii art and renders it that way.
More information

Ha ha! Just kidding! If you go back and look, each line begins with a blank. For some bizarre reason lost to history that triggers that stark monospace rendering.

EEng (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha! sroc 💬 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page comment[edit]

Not sure if you realise that your edit at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers inserted your reply in the middle of Makyen's comment, which I believe is poor form: your reply should be below, after Makyen's signature, to avoid confusion about who wrote what. I suggest you move your reply.

Sorry to always be harping on the negatives instead of admiring all the good stuff you've been doing! I get the sense that you sometimes seem to be in a rush to post your changes and then having to repeatedly edit again and again to patch things up, and there's always the risk that someone will revert, edit, or start a conversation while you're still perfecting your work. Maybe it would be beneficial if you tinkered in the sandbox before posting your finished product for all to enjoy, which might make us all more inclined to praise your work rather than criticise works in progress. I digress. Keep up the good work! sroc 💬 14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

1 for 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you removed "the definite article", you added a negative byte count pointing to the unlucky number 13. And mentioned it in your edit summary. After a 133 byte edit. At 22:23. Such links are almost always unintended, since numerology is merely a special relationship between a number and some coinciding events.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving any weird vertical spacing (should it occur), follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty digesting this Inedible post. EEng (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just thought if you'd been the type to believe in the hoo-ha, you'd have liked the heads up. I had to ask a Wikifriend to revert mine. It's an awkward request. If you run into any bad luck, hope for sevens. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Hey, what do you know? Seven minutes between my post and your reply, and an inverted 23 here. You'll be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Believe in the hoo-hah? Please, not this again! EEng (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
But how else could Stan ever hope to land Wendy? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
This is where I begin to wish Wikipedia was WP:CENSORED. EEng (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Have a good one! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, May 4, 2014 (UTC)


Reading on my iPad and did not mean to revert you! Deepest apologies! Kafka Liz (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Too bad I didn't get this sooner -- the unmanned killer drone has already been dispatched. EEng (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Luckily I was able to get the killer drone recalled. Sorry if it gave you a fright.

I'd be interested to know what you think of the article. EEng (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor Lizzie died of fright, but I, Kafka Jane, can give a close reading if you wish. Overall, I'd say it looks damn good. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Manistee Watch Company[edit]

Would you consider re-reviewing as there has been several ALTs submitted. I was hoping for a tick. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll ring the reviewer's Belle. EEng (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. You are forgiven for removing the image. See [28]
You are a funny man. I missed that one all together.......--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What -- you thought I just stuck a large sea mammal in for no reason? EEng (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
There's never any predicting what dugong a do. Belle (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cash for you[edit]

American Cash.JPG Cash
Here's some cash for coming up with that alt hook [29]. --Jakob (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This beats that stupid wikilove and the kittens any day. I'm rich! EEng (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
EEng demonstrates the "DYK reviewer somersault". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

As per WP:REVTALK, if you have something to say, use the talk page, don't try to prolong a (pointless) discussion by use of the summaries. - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Per COMMONSENSE, you're just too funny. I've never seen anyone revert a dummy edit before -- much less twice! [30] The important thing is that through collaborative editing the article is incrementally improved relative to its state when the sun came up this morning. EEng (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm making this the founding entry in the Museum of Bizarre Reversions on my userpage.
And per any of the measures of most editing, you are patronising, boorish, and certainly nowhere near as good as you think you are. The article hasn't improved much, and some of your edits have been a step backwards: Milligan "later told someone"? that's just laughably poor. I hope not ever to be back here, so feel free to leave some "witty" (tedious and tiresome) comment to close it off. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty of amusement here without my contributing anything. Your reversion of a dummy edit is worth the price of admission alone. EEng (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A visit from an editor both angry and clueless -- always a dangerous combination[edit]

You clearly love a joke judging by your user page, so take a look at these; Did you hear about the deluded and seriously unfunny editor who thought they improved a featured article by writing like a drunk three year old? These are bloody hilarious! [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], and this. Cassiantotalk 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I stand by all of them, which with perhaps one or two exceptions are straightforward corrections -- for example, the insertion of a missing quote mark [39] and changing [40]
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, 26 years to the day
died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, twenty-six years to the day
You've listed all my edits to this one article, even those obviously appropriate, which implies you're just one of these OWNy editors who can't stand fresh eyes. If you'll say why you think any of them inappropriate, I'll be happy to discuss. EEng (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I like fresh eyes, but not the ones with shit in them. Your cliche OWN accusation is also more predictable than your "humour". Oh, and thread properly as it becomes more readable and easier to respond. Cassiantotalk 4:39 pm, Today (UTC−4)
A cogent argument indeed. And please don't reformat my posts [41] EEng (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, you've turned your hand to rewriting featured articles now? Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL! "And please don't reformat my posts"? That's a nice use of a conjunction to start a sentence EEng. It's edits like that which makes your grammar all the more laughable! Cassiantotalk 21:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be hinting that And at the start of a sentence is a blunder, which it's not. But people who take comfort in rigid rules often say it is. As for --
It's edits like that which makes
-- I'm sure you know better, so I'll take it as a measure of the extent to which you're just lashing out blindly. Still waiting for specific comment on any of my edits you complain about above. EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Grammar Nazis FTW. At. On. On top of. Of off. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Maunus! Why such a stranger? EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I don't get the At. On. On top of. stuff.
As a gesture of respect for the Grammar Nazis and their selfless and untrankful work I made a point of ending my sentence with a couple of prepositions for them to clean up at. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I see -- you were giving them something to be angry at. The thing is, a grammar Nazi is someone who actually knows his grammar but applies it inflexibly and thoughtlessly; here we have someone who doesn't even know the grammar.

Did you hear about the boy who was tired of the same old bedtime stories about Australia? He said to his father, "Dad -- what did you bring that book that I don't want to be read to out of about Down Under up for?" EEng (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ah, comparing me to a Nazi because of an age old grammatical rule that has a split opinion...that old chestnut. This was about as predictable as your colleagues OWN accusation earlier! Cassiantotalk 08:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You missed an apostrophe this time. And a hyphen. For someone who picks fights over grammar and usage, based on age-old grammatical rules that have split opinions, you're certainly having trouble. Still waiting for specific comments on my edits which you complain about in your opening post. EEng (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Die Gammar Nazis (FTW TM) rule at FAC. Got in Himmel. Damned right too. We can't afford to have these casual passers-by mess with our firmament. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
To be precise: "Gott im Himmel" - if he needs to be called in such a case, Thanks for entertainment to all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Some don't get the joke, even when it's on them. See next subsection. BTW, did you notice my comment here [42]? EEng (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Get the joke? You are about as funny as a strong dose of syphilis. Gerda, I'm surprised you find this entertaining. This kind of negative exchange is what loses the project editors, losses which you so publicly mourn. Cassiantotalk 09:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I probably missed something because I did't see "negative exchange". - Nazi - I just explained in a DYK nom that you better use that word to be "attractive": simply compare views for hooks mentioning "Nazi" and those that don't. - That is negative, but how would we change it? - I don't "mourn publicly", I factually made a note on top of my talk about a loss 3 years ago which prepared me well to take all later ones. I sing praises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi to you too, TRM. You seem to be everywhere recently. EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You have now breached WP:3RR (you are at 4RR). The talk page thread is open and awaits your comments, rather than edit warring. If you revert again I will have no hesitation in reporting you in the right forum. - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Oooh! You won't hesitate! Oooh! I'm scared. Report away, but watch for the ol' boomerang. You're ridiculous. (For those who are wondering, SC's got his knickers in a twist over this [43] -- click back back earlier from there to for some world-class Angry Edit Summary contenders from SchroCat and his co-owner Cassianto -- more from the latter above in this very thread! EEng (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Postscript, 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC): Since I ran into this while on another errand a moment ago, I thought I'd insert it here:
  • Uncle G to Schrodinger's cat is alive: "You demonstrate exactly the sort of non-collaborative non-effort-expending attitude on the part of an editor with an account that makes editing so bad for so many, and that people rightly ridicule in cases like this where myopic Wikipedians foolishly fight to un-write the encyclopaedia. Calling someone who in no article edit did anything but add verifiable content and cite sources intended to support it a "vandal" is almost merely icing on the cake of how unproductive, uncollaborative, and un-Wikipedian that attitude is. ... You're supposed to be a collaborative editor. Stop thinking that your purpose here is no more than to sit in an armchair, mark other people's work, and use the undo tool, without otherwise lifting a finger to help when an article needs fixing." posted on WP:AN#Editor Dr. Blofeld, 03:22 19 December 2012 (UTC)
EEng (talk)
Seriously, do you have nothing better to do rather than stoke up dead-in-the-water disputes? Cassiantotalk 23:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
A different editor responded in far more appropriate terms to Uncle G's rather sanctimonious wailings that failed to take into account anything based in policy, most importantly WP:BLP. Still, always nice to have an admin veer into incivility about one. Anyway, you want me to drag through your ANI performances? Life is too short to do so, but I wonder why you bothered to do it with mine... How pointless to drag up something from 18 months ago. As you probably didn't bother to look into it in much detail, I stand by my response given at the time. As per the above, move on, it only poorly reflects on you, not others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
This made me smile :) Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I've used that about 10 times in the past 5 years and you're the first person who seems to have got it. EEng (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
We should use humour more often, DYK? Mine was also not noticed, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Funny bone: beware kids, this could happen to you if you get hooked on wikipedia! (Speaking of children.) - peda-goggles?
Sorry, I'm against humour and even humor, though I don't mind getting my funny bone tickled now and then. EEng (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
In the linked discussion, do you prefer the seriuz comments? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering[edit]

...whether this page lacks dignity. EEng (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)'re looking for the easy way out, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I worry people may misunderstand your reference unless they've seen my earlier edit summary [44] EEng (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
you and your beads, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Just because your reputation is already in the crapper. EEng (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Article just linked contains disturbing reference to "floating ballcock". EEng (talk)
The answer is yes, it lacks dignity. As well as archiving. Face-smile.svg --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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.
You should know better than to behave this way. Orlady (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So should you. Honestly, can't you just let something fun and interesting, like a weird old word almost no one's seen in 200 years, live and grow? [45] EEng (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
[EC] The discussion is, as you know, occurring at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
See my prior response. EEng (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, I see the balloon's gone up over this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
[At this point I'll just quote a bit of Orlady's post (above) here, adding my own bolding, since she's ludicrously determined to draw attention to her own silliness and fuss over the utterly trivial... Here goes:]
Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Where were you when your fellow less mature editors needed support for their antics? EEng (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we can all find out only too easily... tee-hee. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, something's just come up with "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days" (using my DYK checker tool). Not sure what to do about that. Seems a real shame.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, um, what article are you talking about? EEng (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The very lousy one, of course! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Martin, that DYKchecker tool is just a tool for use by humans. Humans aren't suppose to let the tool make decisions for them. Humans can -- and do, on a regular basis -- understand that articles are eligible for DYK if they were nominated within the specified time window. Eligibility doesn't automatically expire for nominations sitting on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Martin, is your concern whether the nomination was within the idiotic 7-day limit? EEng (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. But then I'm only human, alas. And only mostly idiotic. I'm guessing that it was indeed nominated within 7 days of its passing GA (if that was what's required). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think the nom is timely. As you know I never pass up any opportunity to point out that the idiotic 7-day idiotic requirement is idiotically idiotic. So can you complete the review? EEng (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
All looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
When I left a message on the DYK talk page, I didn't expect much to come of it for at least 12 hours, but the deadly duo of EEng and Yoninah performed magnificently, I expected it would need some fixes from me, but you, Yoninah, and Belle fixed all the issues. Thank you very much for getting it done for me, I am very grateful. Best, Matty.007 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
For becoming the target of administrator Orlady. ...William 13:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Do you get a volume discount for the barnstars? EEng (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this God-tier pun - that is the first and probably the last papal decretal related pun I shall ever see. I'm afraid I do not have a witty responsionum :( Acather96 (click here to contact me) 20:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


You didn't like the picture for this. I didn't see the problem but de gustibus non est disputandum so I have added a gallery of other choices. Enjoy. Andrew (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never eat in fields full of spital -- unhygienic. EEng (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Love it[edit]

That's all (in case you were mystified by a "Thanks" that was actually a "Like"). Belle (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm particularly pleased because understatement is not one of my stronger modes of expression. BTW you might be amused by [46] and [47]. EEng (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

3RR at Phineas Gage[edit]

Please be careful about WP:3RR. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng and edit warring. Thank you. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Today's drama-fest will begin at 1400 hours. Refreshments and snacks will be provided for the peanut gallery.Turkish Delight also available.
Without wishing to comment on who's right and who's wrong, I threw together User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors today, and one point I made in it is that the typical Wikipedia reader won't be too fussed about what citation templates are used in an article. I can barely master {{sfn}}, and even then it's akin to drawing a pentagram on the floor and hope the formatting doesn't cause errors or get reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Not content with getting a metal bar stuck in your head, you now seem to be responsible for ruining a perfectly good ancient Turkish city! Shame on you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
ANI is a cool place to hang out. Most people there find it so cool that's the only place they do hang out. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I have a good sense of humor, but I don't find this one funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do hope you're not suggesting it's some kind of piranha pool. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [Referring to caption at right] Dammit, I'm going out. I hate for my tickets to go to waste. Know anyone who can use them? To answer (Ritchie) your question re GA (not FA) delisting, see [48] which incidentally makes some blushworthy comments.

But seriously, I'd be very happy for you to comment on who's right and who's wrong. .

EEng (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: that's how we do things round here when asked for a comment (I know you didn't ask me to comment, but that's par for the course too) Belle (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Further to Ritchie: Your essay is bang on. You might want to draw on this by Beyond My Ken (you'll find it linked under Thoughts or something from his userpage):
The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

EEng (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

BMK's thoughts page is generally brilliant - here's another one : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. That's because the intervening edits did useful things like replace m-dashes with n-dashes, capitalized the first letters of template names, added interwiki links, vandalized and reverted the vandalism, made sure that bold text was being used as laid down in the manual of style, removed extraneous blank lines and miscellaneous other actions which did not, in any fundamental way, improve the article." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thin-skinned admin blocks for criticism of himself![edit]

See section immediately following -- so thin-skinned he even made this [49] edit! EEng (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bgwhite (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to stop your name calling. You did the same exact thing at ANI and went on to call editors "self-satisfied roving enforcers". Disagreeing with editors is one thing, but belittling editors is another. Bgwhite (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Noting that you are blocking for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill try to explain to you how ridiculous you're making yourself look:

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate ... If the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.

In other words, it stings because it's so true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is appropriate.
I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness. Along those lines I'd appreciate it if you'd note this block in the ANI discussion -- unless you'd prefer others not see your action side by side with the "offense" that prompted it.
EEng (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Will you be blocking Nyttend as well? After all, he called you an "amateur" [50] -- that must have stung pretty bad too. Or that mean Ritchie333, who called you "a stereotypical Wikipedian, who makes a large amount of similar changes to pages, despite having had no evidence of being previously interested in any of them" (not by name, of course, but then I didn't call you by name either -- you just seemed to know it was you that I was referring to -- funny, isn't it). Ritchie also mentioned that "One of the reasons hit and run editors have gained prominence in [the area of trivial formatting changes] is that writing the encyclopaedia has become more difficult. The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime". That must really hurt. You should definitely block Ritchie333 for that!
EEng requesting in your talk page that other people get blocked is not very nice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Magioladitis, if you actually think that what I wrote was a suggestion that Nyttend or Ritchie333 (or, for that matter, Beyond My Ken or BedsBookworm) be blocked, then words fail. EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
But I'm not sure if blocking someone is that much nicer? I certainly wouldn't condone "personal attacks", but goodness me, compared to what I've been called on occasion, this looks like a rather mild but candid observation. Could Bgwhite be regarded as "involved" in any way here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Martinevans123, perhaps you'll be kind enough to post a mention of this block at the ANI thread. I want it in the record there before it gets archived. Bgwhite apparently prefers to work under cover of darkness. EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have already noted there. Yes, he may be a bit of a "rover" (allegedly). But at least he doesn't go sneaking off to the dentist for some off-wiki relaxation! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just for the record, a former member of Arbcom called this block "outrageous" [51]. EEng (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: probably does not agree with your continued snark and attacks, but I do not think changing the header to "Admin blocks for criticism of himself" is appropriate here. It does not seem to follow the talk page guidelines and I've warned you repeatedly for making gross abuses of my own text. Please stop inflaming the situation - this is getting beyond distasteful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't change words I wrote. For the record, I had edited the ANI discussion three times and not on the thread you responded too. You were responding to John and Typto's comments. The examples you gave were John's and you took a swipe at John. Your words were directed at all editors editing Gage. Other admins at the ANI page said you did a blockable offense. At least now you are directing your hate at me instead of Chris, John, Typto and everybody else. Just drop it and edit Phineas Gage‎ with Chris. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record: No editor contested the blocked while it was active and no unblock has been requested. Eeng remained blocked for 48 hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry, missed these comments until now, and they bear responding to, just for the record.

  • As already explained above I was perfectly happy to have been blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite. And many more editors at ANI said I did not "do a blockable offense" (to use the words of an editor who has trouble writing English) and scolded Bgwhite for acting in clear violation of WP:INVOLVED.
  • My words were not directed at all editors editing the Gage article, but rather a small group of self-certain editors who tag-team actual content contributors to maintain their freedom to impose nonexistent "rules" reflecting nothing but their desire to feel they're doing something useful -- regardless of whether or not they actually are.
  • Magioladitis' clueless non sequiturs, showing he comprehends nothing that came before, make more obvious how blissfully insular is the mindless echo chamber of mutual cheerleading in which this group operates.

EEng (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It's almost artistic -- the way in which your spare, innocent obliviousness makes my point more eloquently than I could ever hope to make it myself. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Do you think you have to be blocked for using the expression "thin-skinned bully" or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't have to be blocked -- what a weird way you have of expressing yourself -- but if a thin-skinned bully wanted to further underscore what a thin-skinned bully he is, that would be a great way for him to do it. EEng (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some style[edit]

"The Manual of Style is not yet an education-free zone." I love your style. Cheers. Jonathunder (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinion is split on that, with no middle ground -- it seems an editor can either love my style, or burn with hatred for it, with no middle ground ever. Submitted for your consideration:
  • [52] vs. [53]
  • [54] -- scroll back to see how that started, and be sure to continue into the next section ("Humor... on Wikipedia?").
EEng (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Not every teenage girl lets you read her diary! ("blush") Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The phrase in dispute was is remarkably small, which leads me hope the teenage girl wasn't someone he was dating -- though that would explain the autonomic hostility. EEng (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We shall have to call you "Lupin", I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Eleanor Elkins Widener. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

EEng (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

See the article history: [55]
  • Admin Bgwhite is WP:INVOLVED, as he and I have had trouble before re this very article [56] (though I have never told him or anyone else to "fuck off") and on other articles.
  • I repeatedly asked that the question be raised at the article's Talk page, per BRD. [57][58][59]
  • Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Bgwhite blocked me [60] seven hours after my last edit, and after another editor had restored the article to "my" version [61]. The article continues to remain in "my" version, with no attempt to change it by anyone including WP:INVOLVED admin Bgwhite. The block serves no purpose.
EEng (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edits weren't exempt from the rules on edit warring, because you weren't removing a copyright violation, a libelous statement, or vandalism. In this context, you were edit warring, and considering this is your second block, 72 hours is a reasonable duration. PhilKnight (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

{{unblock|1=The unblock decline did not address any of the points I raised in my request, which are, again:

  • That the blocking admin acted in contravention of WP:INVOLVED, given his prior disputes with me regarding that very page and other pages.
  • That the block was in no way preventative, in that it was made 7 hours after the last relevant edit to the page (during time no other admin saw fit to take action, and despite an ANEW thread being open all that time -- reinforcing the stink of INVOLVED already mentioned).



EEng it's not "your" version. Any block to bots that you added was removed exactly because it served no reason as I explained you but you kept reverting me and another editor. The nobots tag on the page is only to prevent bad typo fixing by editors who won;t understand the template you put inside a word. In fact, the template inside the word is not needed since the browser takes care (or at least should care care) of this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line, the template you were warring to remove was restored by another editor, after which you suddenly dropped your efforts to remove it. Whether the template has the precise same list of bots as before doesn't matter -- it lists the bots that have recently done damage to the article, which is all I was trying to maintain. (Talk page discussion might have come up with a narrower list of bots to block, if that was your concern, but you declined my repeated invitations.)
Please stop trying to prove who's right and go spend your time fixing the bugs in your scripts that are the cause of all this wasted effort. EEng (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, a second block by Bgwhite. What a coincidence. Do you have any idea how user:Bladesmulti learnt of your lil spat with Magioladitis in order to revert you 11 minutes after your second revert of Magioladitis? It seems like another coincidence. Did they participate in any related discussions about the article? p.s., for future reference, 3RR is a fairly strict limit; once you hit it, you need to take a break or take the matter to talk / another venue for more people to see the dispute and help one way or another, irrespective of right or wrong, unless the article is a BLP or very clear-cut vandalism. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, based on my conversation with Bladesmulti in the section just above this one (#Edit_warring_on_Eleanor_Elkins_Widener) it appears he walked in on the dustup with Magioladitis quite by accident (though I think it would have been better had he stayed out of the firefight, not knowing the background).
Of course you're right about 3RR, strictly speaking, but you'll notice that seven hours after a 15-minute edit war only Magioladitis' old pal Bgwhite saw fit to issue a (72-hour!) block over such a silly matter.
It's also too bad that an unblock request sits for days with no resolution either way. I'm not ashamed to be blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite (see #Thin-skinned_admin_blocks_for_criticism_of_himself.21 -- and even less ashamed to be blocked by him twice, since it shows his colors that much more clearly -- but naturally I'd prefer that the record reflect the WP:INVOLVED, punitive, and angry nature of his action.
For those who don't know, Magioladitis is the maintainer (or one of the maintainers) of AWB, which does a lot of good on certain types of articles (those which haven't gotten careful human attention to their formatting) but also a certain amount of bad on other articles (those which have been carefully formatted by humans, sometimes in ways outside the experience of editors like Magioladitis and Bgwhite). What seems to have upset him (or them) is that the article carried a {{bots}} template asking that AWB and certain other bots, which have made damaging "fixes" to the article in the past, spend their time elsewhere. I suspect his hacker's ego is hurt by the idea that his scripts don't have free rein to roam as they please, and his edit summaries claiming "any problems have been addressed" and "tools work after last changes I [made to?] the page" are typical of assurances heard from inexperienced programmers everywhere: "Now I'm sure my code works -- I found the last bug -- trust me!" He doesn't seem to understand that no tool is appropriate for every situation. That's only my speculation of course. EEng (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
As I wrote, with page's current state, no AWB bot will make any unwanted changes. And in fact the bots tags is completely useless there since the only possible problem is a typo fix bug. Since typo fixing is only made by human editors and it is known to be imperfect (for instance, in some cases, there are typos on purpose or "typos" are actually rare words) editors should get any edit before the save. AWB's typo fixing is more of suggestions and less strict rules. I never wrote that I guarantee that AWB does not have bugs and it won't make unwanted changes in future version of that page (or any other page). It is very likely that the entire problem was a misunderstanding but please assume good faith in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
What is the block length of 72 hours based on, exactly? If this repeated re-addition was based on some kind of lack of understanding in the part of EEng, is a 72-hour block meant to be more effective in "re-educating" him than a shorter block? Surely the link provided to User:Bgwhite's edit of 22 August shows he was very clearly WP:INVOLVED? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak on behalf of Bgwhite but just note that the time period is the next bigger after the previous 48-hour block. I do not like if the discussion goes there. I think the best is to find a way to work altogether and I see EEng not helping on this direction. There was no reason to go for 5-6 reverts as there is not reason not to believe me that AWB won't affect the page negatively for the time being since I have tested it before removing the tag. If we all assume good faith and co-operate we will be more productive. Have you seen me making any large scale changes in any of the pages EEng works? No. Because EEng does a wonderful job, as fasr as I have seen, in finding sources. I respect their work but I would like to see a page in a state other editors can get involved too. Anyway, I do not want to open a completely new conversation about everything right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been feeling awful about this since it happened, and I haven't known what exactly to say until now, but I feel like there are a few things I want to say. As EEng knows, 3RR is a serious thing, and I think the final straw was that EEng made two reverts after the notice on his talk page. There was a report at WP:3RRN, and administrators pay close attention to whether or not the reverting stopped after the editor was notified. It seems to me that if Bgwhite had not made the block, some other administrator would have. (And I don't think that requests to go to talk in edit summaries of reverts make the reverts alright.) EEng, please, we need you here at Wikipedia, and you are too smart to get sucked into these edit wars. Please get a hold on the reverting, before we lose you completely. I'm really worried, and I really mean that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Well No, Magioladitis, I must admit that I haven't really been monitoring your interactions with EEng. And I only really commented as it's been quite a while since he requested, along what appear to be very sensible lines, a review of his block. Perhaps he'll get a review after about 71 and a half hours have elapsed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at the list of requests for block review, and there's a backlog, with 31 such open requests right now, so I doubt that there is a personal snub here. But I have an idea. EEng, just in case you want something to do while restricted to this talk page, how about archiving old threads? Otherwise, you might be going for the world record for the longest user talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I just left a note at WP:AN about the backlog, so maybe that will get some attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 pinged me.

  • Yes, I've blocked EEng before. That doesn't mean I cannot block him again. I'm not aware of any interaction I've had with him since 7th September. That was to complain that EEng is changing my messages on his talkpage, which he has since changed again (so, warning, EEng has done and may edit by messages here). The interaction before that was August 30th. I believe EEng has a fixation on me, but not the other way around.
  • I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war. They also made me aware of this thread at WP:AN3. So, if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have.
  • I've blocked three people (including EEng) in the past week for 3RR, two 72-hour blocks and a 24-hour block.
a) The other two were on the same article. One person was recently blocked for edit warring, thus I did a 72-hour block. The other person had a clean slate, thus a 24-hour block.
b) I did 72-hours for EEng because: He was recently blocked, he reverted 5 times, he reverted three different people, his was disparaging in his edit summaries ("your vague assurances are worthless") and he disregarded the instructions at {{nobots}} on how to apply the template. Remove half of these and it would still warrant 72-hour block. From WP:EW, "Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks."
  • Unlike what EEng said in his block appeal, the article is not currently at "his" version. This is his last version. This is the current version. They are different.
  • EEng did ask the question to be raised on the talk page. However, EEng never did raise it on the talk page. On his 5th revert, he did ask this to be discussed again. After the 3rd revert, one doesn't continue to revert, they should ask the question on the talk page. EEng wasn't following what he asked of others.
  • Bgwhite (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: You said: "I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war." I don't see those contacts on your user talk page. Can you tell us anything about those contacts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Tryptofish, both were by email. Both were sent while I was asleep. I do believe they were sent so I would block EEng. Who/What/Why is not relevant. Admins get notices all the time about somebody's alleged bad behavior. I've been sent emails and notifications multiple times the past month about EEng and not acted on it. This time, he clearly broke the rules, which is why I intervened. If EEng didn't break the rules, we wouldn't be here and that is the only thing to consider. Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Thanks very much for the reply. I agree that it doesn't matter who the people were, and I have no doubt about admins getting lots of e-mails. But I think that I can safely infer that the two persons weren't merely spamming every admin they could think of. They likely contacted you because you were the blocking admin the previous time. In no way do I think that this fact affects the validity of the block, so please don't think that I am implying that. However, it does speak to how you are becoming perceived as the admin who is receptive to blocking EEng. For that reason, I recommend that you consider yourself to be "involved" in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought the idea behind WP:INVOLVED was that the blocking admin was, or had been, in dispute with the blocked editor in the same article? Saying "if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have" looks a bit like saying "WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply if I can save another adnin diong the same job."? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that PhilKnight's reasoning is correct. Although I've said what I said above to Bgwhite, I think that the two existing blocks walked right up to the line of INVOLVED, without actually crossing over that line. Bgwhite never edited the Widener biography page where the reverts took place. In most of the conflicts between EEng and Bgwhite, Bgwhite has been acting in an administrative role rather than as a disagreeing editor, although, just as EEng has, frankly, taunted Bgwhite, Bgwhite needs to start considering, going forward, that he is starting to be perceived as having an involved or prejudiced role. And I wish EEng would drop the review requests, because it would be asking a lot of any administrator reviewing the AN3 report to assume that, had EEng been reverted again, EEng would not have continued to revert, given what had already happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request was declined per WP:UNINVOLVED which reads "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Was it? Perhaps the decline rationale should have mentioned WP:UNINVOLVED in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't accept that WP:INVOLVED is a good enough reason to unblock. At most, if I accepted the involved rationale, I would take over the block myself. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A fair comment. Thanks for clarifying that your decline was not "per WP:UNINVOLVED". But I think you should give a clear answer about it, one way or the other. If you think the block is still valid, that's fair enough. But at least we will all have clarity on when it is appropriate to block and when it is not. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with John Vandenberg's comment about going over 3RR - there are very few circumstances when that's acceptable, and this certainly wasn't one of them. In this context, I think the block is valid. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was asking for clarity about "WP:UNINVOLVED vs WP:INVOLVED". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Tryptofish's comment about the block being just on the right side of the line of WP:INVOLVED is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved? You must be joking[edit]

This is all quite academic at this point, but still enlightening. Magioladitis, you don't seem to have looked at the diff I supplied re INVOLVED [62] -- a discussion in which I asked (not of Bgwhite):

What purpose is served by activating it? Please answer in terms of how articles are improved by highlighting < p>, not in terms of the mechanisms of operation of these tools. EEng (talk) 11:33 am, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)

and Bgwhite jumped in out of nowhere to reply

We've been thru this before. You do not like anything about Checkwiki. You've told us to fuck off. You've called us MOS Nazis. We show where in MOS, but you've used MOS is just a guideline/policy and IAR. The funny thing is, one of the reasons Phineas Gage is not a GA is because of your idiosyncratic formatting. The very thing we've been preaching is one of things holding back your GA nomination. Eleanor Elkins Widener is already on the whitelist and won't be checked for <p> again. Bgwhite (talk) 1:35 pm, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)

(All false statements on Bgwhite's part, BTW, other than that I did refer to certain editors as "MOS Nazis", for which I later substituted "schoolmarmish know-it-alls" or something like that.) Now, does that really comport with UNINVOLVED's criterion, which reads

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias,

--? Hardly. Bgwhite lost his temper, repeatedly, and still allowed himself to act on his anger in an administrator's capacity. EEng (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well then, I will step in here like a schoolmarmish know-it-all, and say that I stand by what I said earlier, that the block stepped up to the line of "involved" without quite crossing over it, and that Bgwhite should consider himself involved for the future. And beyond doubt, EEng has acted on his own anger as well. Which isn't worth it. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? An admin who says to an editor "You do not like anything about [this administrator's pet project]. You've told us to fuck off. You've called us MOS Nazis" is an "administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias"? Again, you must be joking. EEng (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You and I both have better things to do than to dwell on this, but when you have called other editors MOS Nazis, even if it is later changed to something else, you should drop it for your own sake. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The greater the extent to which one considers what I said offensive (I actually don't, per Mel Brooks) the more obvious is the INVOLVED aspect. EEng (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, EEng, just imagine it's Springtime!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that Mel Brooks was joking. Life is too short to stay angry. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, so if Mel Brooks says it, then it's OK. Tryptocrite! EEng (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Can I be blocked for calling someone a Tryptocrite?
Well, it's better than calling me Typofish. Early in my editing career, I had a troll who insisted on calling me that. The troll is gone, and I'm still here, and it's always better to keep one's editing on the happy side. I knew Mel Brooks, and editor, you're no Mel Brooks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm your biggest fan. And I'm just a hopeless punny fish. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


It would easy enough to make the case without ridicule, and without the negative adjectives, which verge on the personal. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a severe and chronic WP:COMPETENCE/WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation and it's time that became clear, as large amounts of editor time are being wasted on this person, to no effect whatsoever for more than a year. [63] EEng (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For For excellence in DYK puns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, nice pair o' buns, dude. <blush> Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Ditto, you're the shiznitch, you really are. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I actually feel bad for the article's creator Northamerica1000, since this deprived his article of the full time in the oven it deserved. Anyone want to propose that the hook be re-run? EEng (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


Halloween2009barnstar.png The Halloween 2014 Limited Edition Barnstar
For your dedicated work on this year's Halloween on Wikipedia at DYK. Well done. ≈ Victuallers (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No insults[edit]

Your insult directed at me on the DYK nomination page is not appropriate nor appreciated. I expect an apology from you to be posted on that page. HalfGig talk 11:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't an insult, I wasn't talking about you (or anyone else for that matter) [64], and there's nothing to apologize for. However, the fact that you feel compelled to imagine it was directed at you is something you might want to think about. EEng (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you don't see what is wrong with your behavior is something YOU might want to think about. HalfGig talk 20:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's OK that you misunderstood, but not OK that you can't just say, "Oh, I see, I misunderstood." For the last time: I wasn't referring to you (or, indeed, to anyone), there's nothing to apologize for, you embarrass yourself by continuing to whine about this, so please put a sock in it. As mentioned elsewhere, if you want to have the last word please do -- I'm unlikely to respond because experience shows you're unlikely to say anything new. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the phrase "punkin heads" was a bad idea, whomever it referred to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, why don't you read the thread linked in my post above, Tfish, and see that it referred to no one. As Martinevans was able to see with ease (see below) this is all in the complainant's mind. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, scary. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously good advice. HalfGig, I'm guessing that you won't get that apology, but I want you to know that I think that you are in the right, insofar as how editors should treat one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think HalfGig is in the right too, as far as how editors should treat one another i.e. civilly. Unfortunately that has no relevance here, since nothing, nothing in this matter has been in any way uncivil, unless you count HalfGig continuing to make accusations about an imagined slight. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, seriously. In the crooked eye of the beholder, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
User:HalfGig, I too found the grammatical ambiguity in your first hook quite amusing. I assume it was unintentional. It's unfortunate that you took EEng's poking fun at that as poking fun at you. I'm sure you're the type of editor who likes a good Luffa now and again. I'm the true pun-kin head around here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Taking one for the team, are you, ME123? EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Without doubt one of the lamest edit wars ever[edit]


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

Oh, please. If he can't take it he shouldn't be dishing it out [65][66]. This guy's always angry. There's no dispute here, just his venting, so there's no dispute resolution to be made more difficult. EEng (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It'd be best if you started a thread at the DYK talk page rather than conduct this petty feud via edit summaries. But you both already knew that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
You having the most experience in the petty feud quarter, of course. Actaully, I was going to ask you to take over for me, since you and Bloom are always entertaining to watch. EEng (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Bravo. I've turned over a new leaf, i.e. not arguing the toss with those who will never get it, plenty of them around. But the initial advice stands, start a thread rather than attempt a puerile debate via edit summaries. That way we'll get it all out in the open and neither of you will need to feel anxious or upset. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I had noticed you were less of a curmudgeon lately. Keep up the good work. There's nothing to debate, as BMS has made the needed fix, Bloom's incomprehension notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I had also noticed, in that same period, that you had taken up the role of being the local asshat;) Keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yours are big shoes to fill, but I'm doing my best. It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. EEng (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Great, now archive your talk page. It's as bloated as most of the chat at the Reference Desk or the DYK talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Love me, love my bloated talk page. EEng (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
"Aquarius! and my name is EEng!" .... "bloat, bloat on"..... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
[67] EEng (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It's Aquarius, you numbskull, not Aquaria! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
" Gladiators.... READY!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

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

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

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

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

It's more convincing when the person warning about "edit warring" isn't one of those doing the reverting. You're obviously angry about other things. [68][69] EEng (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
What a load of bollocks. Don't feed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
"I didn't get where I am today by telling people they might get blocked from editing!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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

November 2014[edit]

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

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

See [70]] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this [71]]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry [72]. Hopefully this will allow him to cool down. EEng (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
EEng, the best thing I can think of is that a very long time ago, an unruly landlord took exception to the music the band I was in were playing, and at the end of the gig told us to not come back while turning a blind eye to a couple of drunks hurling our equipment out into the street, nearly causing injury due to a bass drum flying through the air. When 3RR wars break out, think of tales like that and remind yourself "it could be worse". Happy holidays. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Either that, or try and get your own drunken bass-drum hurling in first. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC) grrrr, a measly 24 hours! ... doesn't even give us enough time do undo all your dodgey Huck Phinn edits.
But whatever you do, please please don't kick the cat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Although you can get therapy if you do. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I continue to be astonished that this page seems worth watching to so many people. EEng (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion[edit]

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

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

Pearls before swine[edit]

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

Like I said somewhere else, it just goes to show that hookers aren't appreciated, despite providing a much-in-demand service. EEng (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Just deserts? Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


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

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

ANI Notice[edit]

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

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

  • Be nice. I removed a significant amount of your verbage that had nothing to do with the AFD. If you can't be civil, don't speak up at all. seicer | talk | contribs 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that referring to EEng's edits as crap is going to get the necessary result. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
How prescient of you (see below). In the event, it apparently didn't. So what do you think -- should I file the ritual futile unblock request? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
-- Block performed by the semi-retired drop-in admin civility enforcer.
  • If you'll specify just why you blocked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Archiving a talk page[edit]

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

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

..."will you please be not crazy for just 48 hours?" ... a chance to do some serious shelf-tidying before that sprinkler kicks in? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You always lift the spirits of those around you. Listen, will you please check your inbox/junk folder and get something useful done while I'm doing my penance here? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
If only I could get to the bottom of it! But, irony of ironies, it seems you "can't actually archive your page until the block is expired, because you can't edit the Archive sub-page..." or so come kindly technical chap tells us. Now there's something in need of tweaking. However will you fill your time? A trip to Cornwall never goes amis. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's how you do a review! None of that messy question and answer stuff. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, yes. While he was well-intentioned, I'm afraid our friend fell into what appears to be an endemic trap at GA, which is WP:Reviewing_good_articles#Imposing_your_personal_criteria. Please stay with it. I need your honest opinion on whether you can see these "image and quote" problems. If so, I'll fix them. Either way, after that I'd like to renominate and get a proper (i.e. stick-to-the-criteria) review from you. EEng (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that User:ChrisGualtieri has had a input. Perhaps he'd like to take on a second review? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify[edit]

If someone has 100 DYK credits to his name, all for articles that he himself created, and now he's nominating someone else's work, does he have to submit a QPQ? Or does he get a grace period until he has 5 DYK nominations of other people's work? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but if you're coming to me because I'm considered "the expert" then DYK -- indeed all of WP -- is doomed. Nonetheless I'll do my best to resolve this recalcitrant riddle. My interpretation of WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria (5) is that, once you have 5 credits for whatever reason, you have to start doing one review for every nom you make. So no grace period for your friend. EEng (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Potentially Polemic Userbox. Thank you. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

EEng, I'm saying this as one friend to another - leave ANI alone. Rubbing Drmies up the wrong way is likely to result in a block, possibly an indefinite one. Now, don't take that as meaning I support or want you to be blocked - I don't! But the peanut gallery at ANI generally don't tend to evaluate the pros and cons of an editor, and once you've been dragged there a few times and blocked, it's easy for said peanut gallery to think "he's not here to write an encyclopedia" and break out the banhammers. Please, just stick to articles and DYKs - whatever other disagreements we've had recently I can honestly say your work at DYK is a good thing and very much appreciated for keeping the quality of the main page upheld. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I doubt that anyone is going to blocked for rubbing me the wrong way, and I'm not going to block for it. And Ritchie, it wasn't just the peanut gallery, if that's what those folks were: ANI, as I feel I have to explain constantly, is not a forum--and so, EEng, it doesn't matter whether something takes three hours or not. It's consensus plus an admin's judgment, and in this case the admin is me. Few people dislike the forumy peanuty chatter at ANI more than I do--but I hope that there's at least one person in the room who understands that the constant reopening of threads and the persistent shit-smearing in that discussion is, in general and in the long run, what makes ANI the barrel o' crap it is. So, EEng, you made a comment, I (and a couple of others) thought it violated guidelines for talk page behavior, I removed it--and really that's all there is to it. I got no problem with you, and you can complain as much as you like as long as it's not too disruptive. Also, I don't work for Harvard either--does that help? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
What, I should just sit around while ol' BGwhite just makes up stuff up (e.g. that I work for Harvard)? I understand what you're saying, but I feel the best thing you can do (for me, for you, and for WP) is to speak up yourself and say what you think. These people are out of control.
Thanks for the complements re DYK. I'm not mad at you re GA, but I do think you misunderstand what the standard is meant to be there, along with most everyone else at GA, which is why it seems few quality editors care about GA status for articles anymore -- articles get GA status for conforming to very cramped ideas of what articles should look (not stated in the GACR, though) with little regard for whether they're anything anyone would actually care to read. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please accept this charming complimentary box of peanuts, kindly donated by this season's gallery sponsor. Enjoy! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
First they came for the userboxes...
Your contribution to the day's events is of course most welcome. As mentioned to Ritchie above, though, speaking up at the venue is important too almost as important. At heart this intolerance of criticism is a serious threat to the project. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"I had one of them poleminks once, but it died." PineMartin123 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we'll just have to put Widener behind us, but on the general principle I am in pretty much agreement with your views on GAs; on more than a few occasions (eg: Talk:1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions/GA1) I have passed a GA with a comment like "well we've got issues with x, y and z but they're not part of the GA criteria so I'm passing anyway". IMHO the following are not required to pass GA : infoboxes, templates, categories, URLs for print sources that happen to be online, non-free images, audio files, an inline source at the end of each paragraph, links to other articles, any external links .... I could go on.

Even so, I would say this : although you generally have free reign to run your talk page as you see fit, you don't WP:OWN it. Not everyone appreciates my sense of humour either, but arguing about it isn't a particularly productive use of your time. In this instance an admin has implemented consensus from ANI to not include something on your user page and while you didn't directly revert, you have effectively stuck two fingers up at it. I think we'll draw a line under this conversation now and hope it goes away, because all it takes is one cheesed off admin to look at it and you'll be in trouble. Let's hope Martin can fatally wound the dispute with some sarcasm before we can finally kill it off with irony. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Did someone mention star chasms? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I dare you to change the lead to "Another Brick in the Wall comprises of three songs". I double dare you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
ouch!. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could get me one of those shirts at discount rate, EEng? I was thinking of getting involved at ANI. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC) <"chortle">

This sounds suspiciously like a bribe. I am incorruptible. EEng (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Heraldry of Harvard University[edit]

It would have been nice when you did not use PAs to blemish a nominator on an article. The article was rotten, unsourced and seemed to fail WP:GNG. Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten and seems to fail WP;GNG. Congratulations with that achievement. The Banner talk 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten" -- I guess I've been confused all these years, because I thought adding relevant sources is what we're supposed to do. Anyway, the article may be rotten (and it is) but that's got nothing to do with AfD. The article was unsourced, but if you'd simply googled the article title you would have come up with several good sources immediately, and saved us all this trouble. It's not a "PA" to point out that you apparently didn't do that, as WP:BEFORE calls for you to do. You seem to be under a misapprehension about how AfD works -- articles don't pass or fail AfD, rather their subjects do, regardless of what's in the article. EEng (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, what you did was skip WP:RS by adding related sources. The Banner talk 23:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Samuel Eliot Morison was a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. Mason Hammond was one of the real-life "Monuments Men" you may have learned a bit about in the recent film of that title. If you're seriously suggesting they're not reliable sources then I'm afraid there's a gap between us that further discussion will be unable to bridge. EEng (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sorry if I seemed pissy...[edit]

No problem. You didn't seem ... anything.

But I believe I must apologize for bad reverting. Not that I don't like the change; in fact I do. If the sroc's change is finalized formally, I can finally act upon it. But if I acted upon it and then someone spring the same revert on me objecting the bad MOS change, then I'd be unfairly in trouble. Fleet Command (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm staying out of that one -- these date-consistency wars make my head explode. sroc's a good guy/gal BTW, in my experience, so I'm sure y'all can work it out. EEng (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Drive by thank you....[edit]

...your User Page is quite entertaining! Thank you for the invite. ^_^ AtsmeConsult Agent 99 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Please drop by frequently for more Tales from the Wikicrypt! EEng (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) <---I have graduated. AtsmeConsult 01:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I haven't checked out your userpage in a long while, but I laughed so hard (I particularly liked the "head in the sand" picture) I nearly snorted coffee out of my nose. PS: I would like to apologise for being tempted to go to the dark side.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, great comments... Face-grin.svgHafspajen (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Change to WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers[edit]

I don't want to start another interminable discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, so I'll comment here first. The spirit of your latest edit was fine by me, but the precise wording of the first change could confuse some editors. I undid it, but then decided to leave it for the present. My concern is over an abbreviated format from the "Acceptable date formats" table, provided the day and month elements are in the same order as in dates in the article body and whether people will grasp that it has to be read in conjunction with the next point which allows YYYY-MM-DD in limited contexts. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not participate in the discussion leading to this change, but for some reason was asked to be a kind of neutral implementer of the changes apparently agreed upon. Having said that, I don't see how there can be any confusion, since there is clearly a list of three alternatives, and the second one (which you quote above) doesn't restrict the possibility of using the third one. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. In any event if you think there's a clarifying change that will help, by all means raise it at Talk:MOSDATE. Better to get things as perfect as possible while it's all relatively fresh in everyone's mind. EEng (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Spaced en dash with a range of approximate dates?[edit]

The MoS (up to about 13 January 2014) used to call for a spaced en dash if either date in a range of dates contained a space. I see that you were in the middle of that MoS change, but I couldn't find any discussion regarding it. Was there some reason for dropping that requirement, or was it just something lost in the shuffle? There is no specific guidance now for how to correctly format a case like "Otto Schulmklopfer (c. 1819 – c. 1871)", though the example "Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470 – c. 540)" still uses a spaced en dash. I have added spaces to en dashes in cases like this and had them undone, and now find my ammunition disappeared around January last year. Any clarification would be appreciated. Chris the speller yack 03:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

A quick check doesn't find that the interaction between c. (& c.) and spacing of the en dash was ever explicitly stated, but anyway I added something [73]. Does that do the trick? EEng (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That's great, thanks much! Chris the speller yack 04:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to discussion about WP:MONTH and YYYY-MM[edit]

Here's a link to the discussion about YYYY-MM. Warning: It's a deeply unsatisfying read. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I recall that clusterfuck but I thought there might be something else, in the absence of which I'll just preserve the text on this as is, but not add this as a ref 'cause I think that to do so will just cause trouble. (There'll be trouble sooner or later on this, of course -- a house divided against itself cannot stand -- but I don't want to be the one to spark it.) But if you think it's helpful go an ahead and add it yourself (as a footnote, I would think) -- it's your funeral. EEng (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yech. No thanks. Rumors that I am eager to attend my own funeral have been greatly exaggerated. There's a reason I put it here instead of at the sinkhole that is Talk:MOS:DATE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK rules[edit]

Yes, this is better. I knew that my change was awkward, but I wanted to make the most minimal change possible for it to be correct. As for your next edit, I think we'll have to add a time machine to the DYK toolbox, so people can verify that an article will be created, expanded, or GA-ized in the year after it appears as an April Fools' Day DYK. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Good ole Godwin[edit]

You're missing some excellent fulfillment of the prophesy on ANI: [74]. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent perhaps, but unintelligible certainly. EEng (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It gets better. Now he's on to "You don't look Jewish ...." Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I don't care if others appreciate your humor or not. I do! Your posts give me many a laugh. And thanks for your many clever emendations to hooks in the preps, like this one. Yoninah (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I lost track of the number of times you literally made me laugh out loud while reading your comments. The latest being this - NQ (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You are too kind. Have you visited the funnest place in the saddest place on earth recently? EEng (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Never the Twain[edit]

I guess you already knew all about this nonsense? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know, actually, and your timing is perfect as I'm in Berkeley just now so I'll pop down and have a talk with them. If MT had direct contact with the family, which is remotely possible, he could have mentioned it in these materials. EEng (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


I don't think you meant to do this. Eman235/talk 22:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks for catching it. For some reason stuff like that only happens when I'm being a smartalec. EEng (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Anytime ;) Eman235/talk 23:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
While you're here, take a moment to stop by The Museums. EEng (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
St Lawrence Market in Toronto.jpg The Rather Unusual User Page Award
Not sure what my definition of a "rather usual" userpage would be, but it wouldn't be that.
Ahem, yes. That took quite a longer time than a moment, but was well worth it. Most amusing.
However, it does need additional sauces for verdefication...but I'll stop there, I wouldn't want tomatoes thrown at me. Face-wink.svg Eman235/talk 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar![edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your medicine against chronic wikidespair.[note 1]
  1. ^ Consult your doctor before trying this medicine. Symptoms include: a systemic allergic reaction, a worsening of withdrawal symptoms for not placing {{ANI-notice}} in months, and casting the first stone.

For your reading pleasure/horror/sign of all thats wrong in the world.[edit]

Round and round the dramah goes, where it stops, nobody knows

Our one and only ceiling fan vandal. Amortias (T)(C) 21:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I dare you to replace the lead image in Manahel Thabet. I double dare you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

EEng, this edit crossed a line. I know you are eager for the AfD to close, but this edit was borderline vandalism in as much as you deliberately edited the article to make it the subject of an in-joke. Regardless of her suitability to have a standalone article, it is not hard to work out that Dr Thabet is a real person with a real Facebook account and a real Twitter feed. Just sit back and be patient. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second -- it can't be "borderline" and also "cross the line". Jeesh! But I will agree temptation got the best of me. EEng (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Seriously, Ritchie333, you should lighten up on the revdel. I still like you, though. EEng (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Oy - I've only used revdel twice and got yanked off to ANI for the first time ever for it. You can't see the diff now because your prayers were finally answered when another admin deleted the article per WP:CSD#G3. I'm sure I could sit down with Dr Thabet and have a nice cup of tea and some chocolate digestives. Maybe I'll bring some Wickedly Welsh Chocolate along. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course I know about your trouble re revdel, which is why I gave you a hard time about it. Just to, you know, twist the knife a little. I'd stay away from this Thabet character -- she might atomize you into dark-matter interstellar space or something. EEng (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a Hawkwind album. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Where have you been lately?[edit]

I know they say no one's indispensable, but in the case of catchy hooks, you have been the only one doing anything about it. Where have you been lately? I really felt I had nothing but "blah" to work with while assembling Preps 3 and 4 last night. The part about hooks being "hooky" should be written in the rules in blood! Yoninah (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, beating back the philistine forces of Professional Wikiism and Stultified Solemn Dignity [75] has left little time for actual hooking. But I did manage to get in [76]
... that ISIS may have killed an ibis?
EEng (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


Well somewhere in my monobook is a script which does precisely what you're looking for, highlighting dabs and redirects and all that jazz. It's most likely to be "Anomie's stuff" but feel free to copy, paste, refresh cache and see how it goes. P.S. Clear out your talk page. Too long by about a factor of five.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

fifty.... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
yep! Eman235/talk 22:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
and this? (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain[edit]

Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent? Did you mean to be offensive? If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all? It's okay when you do it and you're special? I'm not understanding the message you're sending here. --Pete (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The grrrr of my edit summary distills what the edit itself says: "I'm beginning to see why everyone's so pissed off at you." For example, you keep fussing that date-format choices for particular articles shouldn't be decided at Talk:MOS. That's true -- but nobody's proposing to do that nor is trying to do that. Your "You do understand this, don't you?" was the icing on the cake. EEng (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand that - and your incorrect perception - but could you answer my question, please? Evading the point just makes me more curious to hear your explanation. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Here are the answers to the questions in your OP:
Q: Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent?
A: As already explained, grrrr expressed frustration.
Q: Did you mean to be offensive?
A: No.
Q: If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all?
A: Aside from being rhetorical, question is counterfactual since I'm not trying to piss off other editors.
Q: It's okay when you do it and you're special?
A: I don't know what it refers to, but we're all special in our own ways.
Now I have a question: Will you stop wasting my time with riddles, and go away? EEng (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm astonished that you don't see how your edit summary could be taken as offensive, but your answers make this clearer. Perhaps you could be more careful in future? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You're easily astonished, and no extra care is needed. Now stop wasting my time trying to conform my edit summaries (!) to your delicate sensibilities. EEng (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Just curious: You added {{anchor|behold}} to The Mikado. What does that do? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to explain. In the "wikisource" of Charles R. Apted there's a passage
The Harvard Glee Club sang [[The Mikado#behold|"Behold the Lord High Executioner"]].
which renders as
The Harvard Glee Club sang "Behold the Lord High Executioner".
Hover your mouse over the link and you'll see it points to If you click on the link you'll see it takes you not only into the Mikado article, but the #behold makes it go specifically to the location of the {{anchor|behold}}, where that particular song is discussed.
Does that make sense? Generally if you find an "anchor" in an article you should just leave it. EEng (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


I will probably catch hell for this, but my patience has run out. Will you please stop making personal attacks against The Rambling Man on WT:DYK and anywhere else. I'm dead against blocking established contributors, but other admins are not, as you well know. Attacks don't help your argument, it just means people either think the other party is right or ignore the conversation. Please, do something else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding? Where were you yesterday when he said I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre"? Making accusations requires evidence, which he has twice coyly refused to give. He's been insulting everyone at DYK on a daily basis now for months, and it's time someone bells the cat. EEng (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Is that like Fritz the Cat, but with a bigger clapper? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC) I'm all in favour of the mediocre, as it makes ny rubbish look good.
What am I doing to the cat? [77] Belle (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Belle, for some welcome comic relief. EEng (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I am not happy about TRM referring to DYK as "horseshit" either, but when I look at the arguments presented, his are geared more towards content, and yours seem more geared towards him as a person. Why can't you just get along? I see Bencherlite has presented a pretty good summary of how to quell this dispute, and I would take that good advice at face value. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
No, he hasn't. He's giving TRM carte blanche to continue his constant denigration of other editors, now including me directly. As I explain here [78] TRM's a liar who says whatever pops into his head. EEng (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
A typical cart blanche (note use of "soaked head").

Did you know ... “that the cart blanche was invented by supermarket entrepreneur and inventor of the shopping cart Sylvan Goldman.?” Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC) I had a cart blanche once, but it wouldn’t go in a straight line.

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You were already warned above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, drive-by-admin-without-a-clue! EEng (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
That may be, but given that calling people liars is covered by NPA, if someone continually does it after being asked to stop, they generally end up blocked. Believe me, I know how you feel. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, repeatedly referring to someone's "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre" [79], with the clear implication that I'm doing it on purpose in contravention of policy-- and just to be clear, I'm neither doing in on purpose, nor doing it at all (I don't do DYK reviews nor put prep sets together) -- then refusing to back that statement up, is also a personal attack, but none of the drive-by admins give a shit about that. (It's worth noting, BTW, that none of the admins who regularly hang out at DYK -- all of whom were uninvolved, cared to block.) In case you missed it, check this [80] out to see who's actually working to improve quality at DYK, and who's just complaining. EEng (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't any drive-by; I read the discussions and have WT:DYK on my watchlist (I used to comment there often). You'll also note that I only blocked after the last spat, which none of the other admins saw. If you have a problem with this block, please request an unblock and/or go to ANI—I am always happy to bring any actions I take as an administrator in front of a wider forum. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, right, like anyone in his right mind would submit an unblock request or take it to ANI -- not that I give a shit about a 31-hour block, or any block like this really. They're monuments to the dysfunction of the admin system.
But how about if I just ask you: if you read the thread, how do you see this [81] fitting into the picture? Do you think it's OK for an editor (an admin at that) to go around saying things like that (and he's been saying it about me for almost a year) with impunity? See, I don't give a shit about being blocked, but I do give a shit about aspersions about my editing, competency, and adherence to policy and guidelines. So again, please explain how what I said at that diff figured into your decision to block.
And while you're at it, given that you felt block(s) were needed (and they weren't -- TRM and I are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves), please complete your sentence addressed to TRM here --
I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting.
-- using the word but, as in --
I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting, but I didn't because _______________________.
You fill in the blank, please. EEng (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. The [name of impressive laboratory device] is warmed up now, so I'll be gone until sometime tomorrow -- take your time.
(a) Only one person was making personal attacks. (b) You had been warned. I actually came here to warn you, and blocked only after I saw this section. I'm done engaging here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
And so, having ignored both questions, the drive-by admin declares the discussion closed and drives on. So much for WP:ADMINACCT:
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Only blocking one party in this playground squabble seems a bit unbalanced. I think I'd personally take "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre" as a personal attack. As EEng points out he doesn't "do DYK reviews nor put prep sets together". It's a shame that Old Rambler hadn't "done engaging" a lot sooner too. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. I thought it was EEng's hopelessly juvenile "orgasm" comment that tipped the balance and led you to block him for "disruptive editing"?
Thanks, Martin. EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC) I thought after "pointedly titular" the sky was the limit.
  • I am unblocking based on "time served", on the T:DYK thread being hatted, and on TRM asserting on my talk that he will not continue the feud, shrugging it off as "a clash of egos". Since we can't leave people blocked when the cause of disruption goes away, I'm doing it now. There now follows a choice of viewing. On BBC ANI, a discussion on censorship between Derek Hart, the Bishop of Woolwich and a nude man, and on BBC Eeng, me telling you this. And now.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the gesture, Ritchie, but I'd rather that during the dispute you'd taken the time to see what Martin sees so clearly above: TRM attacked me repeatedly (and falsely) with impunity, and when I finally told him to shove it up his ass, I got blocked. EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
"Cut to a group of Gumbys, all with rolled-up trousers and knotted handkerchiefs on their heads, attempting to shout in unison and failing miserably." ... what are you suggesting?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I often do think "My brain hurts" when reading ANI.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

PillarCoral.jpg "The Alfred Kinsey Memorial Barnstar of Shame"
For making 2,700 year-old coral just that little bit more interesting.

Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your wit, constructive sarcasm and edgy humor, your perspective and contributions, sometimes contentious but worth it. I could bet serious money that your wiki-adventures here may someday be the start of a novel novel.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
... or possibly a lawsuit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, hello there, stranger. Where have you been? Perhaps you'll enjoy my latest effort, Charles R. Apted. Will you be visiting Cambridge anytime soon? EEng (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I might try and drop in this year, especially as there are two amazing Joans, not to mention the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain and these guys, on the bill Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Martin, I was talking to Tom's Ulcer, not you. That's what the overindenting is for, remember??? Geesh. EEng (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) But you're welcome too.
Sooner or later I will probably visit Cambridge and perhaps we can arrange a get-together. Hope you are doing fine. I'll check out Charles R. Apted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
"Does my overindent look big in this?" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A(nother) barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Its you who is on the side of the wiki. Beware of trolls who claim they are there to repair the bridge... they are trolls - they don't repair the bridge they just curse those who repair the bridge and note how they would remove the bridge as that would prevent repairs being made. Remember to finish talking when its obvious you are in the lead. Let the uncivil have the last word. This barnstar is for all the great work you do and I don't want you to feel unappreciated. I rarely comment at DYK talk because of the uncivil comments made by those who are not in your league of contributions to the project. You don't need to prove that people are uncivil - its obvious to all. You don't need to show that you are assisting the project - that's obvious too - hence this barnstar. Nil desperandum. Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm not sure how obvious things were to others, since the only comments (other than equivocal ones) were by drive-by admins grabbing the wrong end of the stick. But here's how you can help, despite your understandable distaste for the atmosphere: comment at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#So_what_do_other_editors_think.3F. If we can make basic grammar a DYK criterion, we won't have to listen to Rambling Man's complaining any more. EEng (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Victuallers have the film rights for this barnstar? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
My worry is that even if the sulky child is demanding something sensible then why would I support their agenda. The demands won't be complete until we include the silliest of ideas like "lazy redirects"... ???? At some point we have to say that Wikipedia is flawed. Always is, always will be. Getting the main page to FA status is just a crazy idea. If you think that doing "X" would mean that we wouldn't have to listen to uncivil and irrational demands then I do hope you are right, but I fear that you are being over optimistic. Talk at DYK is just toxic - we need to find somewhere else or ignore uncivil comments entirely. I'm trying to do thr latter and others are too, if you discuss there then you may feel alone - but you are not. Meanwhile Well done. Victuallers (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, nonsense like "lazy redirects" is... well, nonsense, but I asking that an article linked from MP have no obvious grammar boners does seem realistic. If you haven't already please do comment at the link I gave. I'd appreciate it. EEng (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusation struck[edit]

It was actually with reference to the awful choice of hook you promoted for the Grace Kelly filmography, which I subsequently fixed, but never mind. Perhaps now you could remove some of your personal attacks? If not, don't worry. I've supported your proposition, for the numbers. Perhaps now we can bury the axe (not in my head) and crack on with fixing the problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right. I promoted the hook
... that '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|Grace Kelly]]''' won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then retired from acting the following year at the age of 26?
An IP complained [82] that Grace Kelly should link to Grace Kelly, not to Grace Kelly filmography, so you changed the hook to
... that [[Grace Kelly]] won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|retired from acting]]''' the following year at the age of 26?
And that's what you called my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse" that "is damaging Wikipedia"???[83] I appreciate the strike, but please tell me you see how outrageous -- bizarre, really -- an accusation that was. EEng (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook, and I was actually genuinely surprised that you sanctioned it. Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre. It was foremost in my mind at the time I wrote what I did. Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard. I also felt like noting that using a search on Template edits is all very well, but you didn't do a search on edits I've made on prospective articles listed in prep and queues. That may seriously slew your claim that I do so much less than you at DYK. But it matters not. I have no further interest in pissing in the wind trying to debate things with you. Your ongoing accusations of me being a bully and a liar are too much for me, much like why I left DYK in the first place, after you'd made it clear that DYK was your place and who was I to be there, complaining about the lack of quality etc etc while you wisecracked your way through everything, abjectly belittling and bullying those with whom you disagreed. It was only when I saw the quality control diminish to nothing that I felt the need to interact again. Now you seem to entirely agree that the quality is appalling, and to see a promoting admin suggest that he moved an article he described as "abysmal" to the main page has been a real eye-opener that we wouldn't have got from this debate if we hadn't have been cock-blocking. Sure, it didn't pan out as I wanted, and I sure as hell never wanted you to be blocked for anything, even the personal attacks, even the repeated liar and the fuck himself and the soak your head (although the latter belongs at kindergarten, as I'm sure you now agree) and the endless "kvetching" (do consider that some of us really don't care for this kind of kvetching). Do us all a favour, agree to move on, as I have offered to do, if you'd like to strike some of the attacks and so on, fine, if not, fine, history will see it for what it is (as you have demonstrated in your keenness to keep the collapsed discussion uncollapsed). If you'd prefer to keep the attacks going, so be it, and I'll have some belters for you. This is my best, last and final offer, do with it as you will. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's look at some of the things you're saying:

  • No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook
If you think linking to Grace Kelly versus to Grace Kelly filmography is anything like a shocking indictment of DYK then you've lost all perspective.
  • Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre.
Again with the insults you so freely spit at everyone.
  • Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard.
If you don't know whether it's "the only one", then what possible justification could you have had for your comment that I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre, or worse"? It's nice that you've now retracted that statement‍—‌days after you were challenged to back it up and refused to do so‍—‌but that you insisted on leaving it in place for so long makes you... yes, a liar if you knew it was inappropriate all along, or... just plain deluded if you actually think it was appropriate i.e. that the isolated example of the mistaken (as you see it) link discussed above justifies such calumny. Take your pick.

Fuebaey described your behavior very well:

[84] Here this just comes across as unnecessarily abrasive; by editorialising a problem, strawmanning those who don't agree, shaming the reviewers and then using it as an excuse to deplore the failings of DYK. Highlighting a problem can be quite useful, as with any constructive feedback, but continuously using fresh examples to advance an argument while indirectly pillorying good faith contributors is disruptive.

This is very much what I've been saying to you for months:

  • [85] Why do you keep saying I'm happy to have not-so-well-written articles appear? I'm not. I've simply pointed out that the review process as it stands does nothing to prevent that ... The people who participate here already share your concerns about quality, on the whole, so you're preaching to the converted -- and insulting and annoying them at the same time.
  • [86] If you think DYK criteria should be changed (and I agree they should -- if it were up to me DYK would carry only GAs) make a proposal for a change to those criteria. But you're wasting everyone's time with your constant demands that articles meet requirements not in the criteria.
  • [87] You're not asking nicely but with highhandedbess and sarcasm. "For you Americans, let's call it DYK 101"‍—‌go soak your head, will you? I defended you for a long time hoping you'd eventually cool it, but I must now say that you're one of the most consistently unpleasant good-faith editors I've ever run into‍—‌the word toxic comes to mind. Either stay and help, or go away, but cut out the snotty, superior tsk-tsking. It's not helping.

I have no desire to drive you away from DYK, but I do want you to stop that behavior: Stop belittling other editors for not enforcing standards not in the criteria, no matter how "obvious" such standards may seem, to you (or even me), to be. Instead, help get the criteria changed.

I appreciate your recent support for adding basic grammar as a DYK criterion, and if we can get that to happen, you and I both will have less to bemoan in the future. EEng (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Note, this was not yet another opportunity for you to keep the fight going. I have no interest in you repeatedly and repetitively going over old ground. If you wish to move forward, let's do that, if you don't, just say so, leave the personal attacks and the repeated claims all over the encyclopedia, and I'll know exactly where I stand and where to go next. That you ignored pretty much every sentence of my note speaks volumes in that regard. I will not be watching this page for a response, as it seems fruitless to do so. Moreover I will continue to fix up the articles that are being promoted to the main page via DYK despite some of them being "abysmal" and will comment accordingly. The sooner you realise that your approach has also turned off many editors, and driven some away (myself included, temporarily) , so much the better for you and the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The only criticism I've received in this matter is from admins warning me not to call you a liar, and they're right -- I should have called your comments "grossly unfair and contrary to fact", not called you a liar. As for what others think of your behavior I again refer to Fuebaey's comment above. And -- oh yes -- this and this and this and this and this and ... EEng (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip on the link-coloring js.

"Lord St. Simon"[edit]

Regarding the query in your edit summary on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, the Baring-Gould commentary to NOBL describes "Lord St. Simon" as a "solecism," because St. Simon was a second son. But if that is so, it is a solecism that was perpetrated by Conan Doyle (or should I say Dr. Watson?) himself, and so we probably should feel comfortable leaving it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I remembered that B-G had said something about this, but I'm at that age where I'm sometimes too lazy to get out of my chair to go find out exactly what. Thanks for taking the time. But who's this Conan Doyle? EEng (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
He reportedly had some ill-defined role in relaying Watson's accounts of the Adventures to the editors of The Strand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"A-steamin' and a-rollin', toot toot!!"[edit]

Driving the train, 1948 (5515644595).jpg
The Casey Jones "Cannonball Express" Barnstar Whistle of Railroadery
"Look out folks! There's a huge pile of ballast on the track up ahead!!"
A lemon split

"Ya'll need Casey's piggery-jokery like ya need a hole in the head!" .... "toot, toot"

From your adoring fans everywhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar of Good Humor[edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Here, add another to your collection. You had me shaking. [88] ~ RobTalk 20:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Seconded—although, to be fair, it seems our colleague's primary concern was actually that the article would lead to sweeping bans on meat consumption, and that incensed meat lovers, driven savage by frustrated bloodlust, would seek gory revenge at health food stores. FourViolas (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you had me shaking as well, EEngy, having to drag myself all the way down here again. Still, the lighting is nice and subdued, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

0:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at the Skintern DYK nom[edit]

In the future, when you make edits like this, i.e. quoting extensively from the prose of an article written by someone else, followed or preceded by sweeping, judgmental exegeses like "classic OR", it is generally a good idea to let the editor in question know so they have an opportunity to respond. In this case, you didn't, and I feel somewhat blindsided.

In the same vein, disparaging the votes that are going against you in an AfD isn't a particularly good idea, either. There is a lot more to them than just "passes GNG".

That said, in the case of some of the excerpts you posted I am amenable to making changes. However this will have wait till later next week when I have returned from Mexico, where I'm at Wikimania right now. I just don't have the time or the resources right now. The DYK nom is being held open pending the resolution of the AfD, which I don't think will have happened by then, so there's no rush. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know you should keep your own DYK nominations watchlisted. The term is nothing more than a neologism for an age-old phenomenon that does not itself merit an article: young people who don't know how to dress at work. The OR is extensive, the article a kind of coatrack for stories of mis-attired young people who happen to work, specifically, in Congress. EEng (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. No apology whatsoever, no consideration given to the idea that I might have had hurt feelings, not even transparently insincere lip service. Instead, a lecture (which you should not have presumed to give) on how you think I'm supposed to handle my workload (something not even the Eric Corbetts of the world would have done), and a clear demonstration of your congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach Face-smile.svg).

I knew I was right not to check back here.

Keep up like this, and one of these days you're going to be sitting in front of the ArbCom, nervously twitching as they decide whether you will have any future at the project to speak of. When that day comes, count on me not being among those pleading on your behalf. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want transparently insincere lip service?
  • There's nothing to apologize for, and I have no idea what you mean about a "lecture". As Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article says, "Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion."
  • Should I ever end up at Arbcom (and it happens to the best of us) I'll just stand on my record, thanks very much. Being blocked for calling someone‍—‌the blocking admin himself, in fact!‍—‌a "self-satisfied roving enforcer" is hardly a badge of shame [89], especially when an admin such as yourself feels free to refer to another editor's "congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach)."
  • Anyway, sorry to disappoint you but my parents were the first in their (working-class) families to attend college‍—‌state schools, by the way‍—‌so no legacy I. Scholarship, too‍—‌does that fill you with even more resentment and anger?
EEng (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I'm sorry for your hurt feelings. It must be upsetting to have your article criticized so comprehensively.
Even so, I wonder if you'd like to strike any of your comment. It's probably not the place of a relatively new user like myself to remind you to comment on content, not contributors, but I'm saddened to see an oversighter resort to an ad hominem vulgarity over an AfD. WP consensus on the limits of civility may have its vagaries, but one's interlocutors' anuses are generally not discussed IRL. FourViolas (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the less oversight of interlocutory anuses, the better, though of course this isn't real life. EEng (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I think you may be confusing ad hominem arguments with ad homonym arguments. That happens a lot since they sound alike. (I've made that joke before but I like to trot it out now and then.)


This is not Zenobia
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Neither is this

I just added Zenobia (bird) to the DYK stats page, and that reminded me that I wanted to thank you for your work on the article. Hooks/articles that I encounter among the nominations which I actually find interesting are, unfortunately, about as rare as those poor birds, so I was really glad that we were able to salvage this one for DYK. Sorry that your desired hook couldn't be used, but the one that made it to the Main Page got over eight thousand hits. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 01:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. Imagine the clicks, though, if we'd been able to use Ibis/ISIS! Call on me any time. EEng (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
You did the same thing I did years ago, when I created a userbox with the image File:MagrittePipe.jpg and a caption "This is not a userbox." Here I managed to beat the bot before it could drop by to unceremoniously remove the non-free image, and have instead replaced it with a crude substitute. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 07:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what to put here, I'm laughing too hard[edit]

I will admit that I stand with User:Softlavender. You're talk page is hilarious! Well done at getting into so many hilarious scenarios and being able to be both serious and humorous as needed! You deserve every single one of these that you get:

Barnstar of Humour.svg The Barnstar of Good Humor
message Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. EEng, you may be abrasive at times but your humor makes up for that :) Eman235/talk 14:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Abrasive? ABRASIVE??? I'll show you abrasive, thou artless onion-eyed moldwarp. Click here for fresh abrasions. EEng (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello E. I got a chuckle out of this though I am not sure if that will be the reaction of everyone. Should someone start editing from the great beyond I think a new SPI report (that would be a spookpuppet investigation) would need to be opened. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I specialize in quips that not everyone thinks are funny. It's kind of an art. EEng (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a Biography of Undead Persons Noticeboard. Show some respect you zombiephobes! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
DYK that ... Jimbo recently offered to publicly provide his list of "toxic" editors that should be "shown the door"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You've got red on you, Martin Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Do they have this problem at other popular websites? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sooooo tempted to type something on that page and have Ritchie explain his way out of that (yes, fingers would be pointed straight at him when queried). Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking ahead[edit]

This made me laugh out loud. I volunteer to write those policies. Sarah (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, soon someone will stop by to scold me for it. And if not for that one, then certainly for this one [90]. Don't forget to stop by the museums while you're here. EEng (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments[edit]

Hello, EEng. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JamesG5 (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a question: Did you make even a cursory check for sources?. And Don't template the regulars. EEng (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ill-considered ANI filing[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 930310 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Another colossal waste of editor time [91] brought to you by those who refuse to accept guidelines and policy. EEng (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sum Ying Fung[edit]

  • Barred from the US in 18xx because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, she was later smuggled into the US by...

...Where did you get the idea of "the US" from? Deryck C. 09:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Canada a wholly owned subsidiary of the US? EEng (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
*Watches the Canadian Parliament write up the EEng Exclusion Act 2015* Well, someone just got barred for life. Now, for the smugglers. Face-wink.svg Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Big deal. Who wants to visit that frozen wasteland anyway? EEng (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hold your breath and count to ten[edit]

Any view? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ... assuming, of course, that you haven't earned yourself a MOS:NUM topic ban by now...

Shucks. I forgot you were a Canadian. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
More of a ham. EEng (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Give my regards to Bjork. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent comments at Skyfall[edit]

I hope you don't mind, but I've moved your comments at Talk:Skyfall#Straw poll: billion vs millions to a better location where it will be seen when consensus is later determined. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. EEng (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And you've also moved some of my "constant off topic jokes and quips"! An outrage. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't want them to be left stranded! ;) --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Awww, that's so sweet of you. That vitally important discussion at Skyfall is really showing off Wikipedia to its best, isn't it. What a good job we're not discussing Skyfall Categories. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A Kitaen for you![edit]

Here. For all your fine work on Wikipedia. Keep it up! Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this. EEng (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

still at it, I see[edit]

Just came across this perverse little brushoff. Who do you think you are, trying to apply logic and common sense to such a sweeping emotional issue? (I was reminded of this classic.) —Steve Summit (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The memory of appreciative comments from my glittering salon of (talk page stalker)s will be a great comfort as the anti-bullying bullies apply the electrodes to my genitals. EEng (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, EEng I think we'd all value a little more civiity bullying consistency around here, if you don't mind! MarjoryManners123 (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
What's civiity? EEng (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, yes it was rather perverse. EEng, It seems I missed the sarcasm, but under the circumstances it wasn't appropriate or appreciated. Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional workspaces, although it seems you will disagree with me on that no matter what policy says. I hope that no electrodes are going to be applied to anyone, anywhere. Shocked-tpvgames.gif Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Future tyrants always forswear the electrodes until they gain power. EEng (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. What sarcasm?
"And how do you like your bullying, Master Bond, shaken but not shit stirred?" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Keith White (disabled yachtsman)[edit]

Please take a look particularly at ALT7 and ALT11. Maybe we could get out of this morass with your help? 7&6=thirteen () 14:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

But do I gather correctly that since your post here the problem has been resolved? I've added the nom to my watchlist so that if there's further trouble I can leap into action.
7&6=thirteen, as you may have realized I've stopped participating regularly at DYK, but you know I love a goofy hook, so any time you have an article that lends itself to such treatment, feel free to call on me. It will bring a ray of sunshine into the life of a forgotten DYK shut-in to know I can still be useful. BTW, have you visited the museums lately? EEng (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I know you love goofy hooks and puns.
I can see why one might avoid WP:DYK, particularly on a daily basis. This article is a good (but by no means the worst) example. Sisyphus comes to mind. If you have any insight, it would be appreciated. Thank you for adding it to your watch. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen () 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not pass go[edit]

Watch it, or after the CivRev (Civility Revolution) you'll get the electrodes [92]. EEng (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If you faked WikiAnemia and WikiFainted unexpectedly, the WikiJailers might not WikiArrestYou. Eman235/talk 04:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bodice-Rippers, again[edit]

Looks like DYKUpdateBot and BattyBot can't agree on where to put a DYK talk banner [93]. Do you think the pair of them would make a good Bodice-Ripper? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: BattyBot uses AWB's talk page general fixes, which follows WP:TALKLEAD. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I just did a random sample of my DYK noms (uno, dos, tres) and all three have the DYK banner at the bottom. It's more that I'm amused when bots can't agree amongst themselves what to do ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It's even more amusing when one bot can't agree with itself what to do. Too bad it wasn't an adminbot, so it could've repeatedly blocked and unblocked itself for edit warring with itself. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So tempted...[edit]

Guardian of User talk:EEng

I am extremely tempted to go click-happy with OneClickArchiver on your talk page...--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The gentleman at right is authorized to mete out justice to busybodies. EEng (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
How dare you say such things about The Sacred Toilet Paper (sc)Rolls‽‽ Eman235/talk 03:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

T. Y.[edit]

It is good to know I have an ally when trouble arises. Thank you for your cogent and temperate support. I owe you other communication. One of these days, perhaps when you have given up all hope. In the meantime, if you would like me to set up auto-archiving on your page here, let me know; I'd be happy to help. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png EEng
Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year!
BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not too late for Christmas gifts[edit]

... because Christmas has 12 days. Here ya go, picked out just for you, because you've been such a good boy: [94]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A perfect gift for those who already know how to dodge tomahawks. FourViolas (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
An important life skill, to be sure. EEng (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2016 . . .[edit]

EEng, may you continue to make Wikipedia a better place in the New Year, while we remember those who Wikipedians who have worked to make it what it is. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia (what it is, 2015)
Wikipedia (vision, 2001)

I share your general generous sentiments, Dirtlawyer1, but feel compelled to point out two things:

  • (a) Your syntax those who Wikipedians who have worked to make it what it is isn't up to your usual snuff.
  • (b) I admit to some ambivalence toward those who Wikipedians you who refer to who have made it what it is. See left and right.

EEng (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Fa hoo doray back at ya! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery[edit]

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Yuckyhulas7890 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How clever of you to copy exactly the warning [95] left by another editor, on your talk page, regarding your behavior in this very matter!
It seems that, stymied in describing King's College as "one of the world's most selective and prestigious" schools [96], you've made it your mission [97][98][99][100][101] (based on your misunderstanding of WP:PEACOCK) to remove the word prestigious from Harvard University, despite the fact that abundant sources support this characterization. You've been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, and repeatedly directed to discussions such as Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_4#The_Header_Dispute; and I'm afraid I must quote something that another editor (an expert on higher education) wrote in that discussion to the last person who went on the same crusade you're on: "I suggest that if you don't know that Harvard is considered one of the world's most prestigious universities then you're incompetent to edit this article." So smarten up. EEng (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Oooh, EEng, you're such a "prestiguous editor". (*swoon*) .... Remnant Visa 123 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
One of the great things about Harvard is that everyone who works there, including the cops, plumbers, and dining hall workers, seems to have some hidden talent or interest. The night guard at Lowell House had an extensive knowledge of the Federalist Papers, and my roommate used to get help with his Greek homework from the guy who checks your bags on the way out of the library. During the long struggle for unionization, the union's motto was "We can't eat prestige". You gotta love the dry humor for a serious situation. EEng (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers"[edit]

Wow, maybe you deserve a fitting memorial?? Nave Mart Sin 123 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
In this edit I was going to request that you or Hafspajen find an image of a rescued martyr indignantly demanding to be cast back into the flames (or whatever), but I got distracted. EEng (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
... "You want Drmies bacon fries© with that??" Smear Vat Inn 123 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Nakon 04:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Words fail. When you unblock me, please make sure your entry in the block log makes clear the nature of your original action in instituting the block; the words "outrageous", "tone-deaf", "absurd", "ridiculous", and "incompetent" would all be good choices. EEng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. And don't forget to restore my user and talk pages to their prior state. EEng (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Unhide for comments from a clueless admin -- see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive277#Review_of_EEng.27s_indefinite_block
A 48 hour block would have been appropriate for the shitty attitude you have been laying down at ANI. While it may be fun and jokes you were getting into topics that did not involve you and grinding your axe. You were adding heat to situations that did not need heat added to them. The indef was over the top, but your behaviour was not so innocent either. The block was excessive but did not occur in a vacuum. Really if a reasonable length block has been made it would have stuck, so don't act too self-righteous. HighInBC 16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC: Pardon me, but what in the world are you talking about? "Grinding axe" -- huh? Here's every ANI post I made in the week before the block. Which ones are in any way inappropriate?
If you're one of these people who thinks that humor doesn't have a useful purpose, including (or even especially) in difficult situations, then please add yourself to the list of admins whose experience of the world is sufficiently limited that you should probably leave behavioral blocks, other than obvious vandalism, to those with a broader perspective and more social clue. EEng (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't accept your false dichotomy. The fact is you are going to topics that don't involve you and taking up space commenting on things that in no way help the situations. I don't think that thinking this is annoying and unhelpful means I don't think humour has a useful purpose. Your humour is taking the form of telling people off. If I have made your "list of admins" that is too bad, but perhaps consider that your behaviour is also a factor. HighInBC 16:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
HighInBC: Again: huh? Of the three posts above, one was an image adding harmless comic relief to the otherwise dreary ANI landscape, and the other three were absolutely serious comments on what was going on (though (d) also carried my notorious ribbing for Drmies). So false dichotomy or not, I must insist that you answer: which of those justified my being blocked? That's a very serious charge, so either put up or shut up. Or do you, like Nakon, just shoot from the hip, and stonewall when called to account? EEng (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a trout may have been sufficient. I know you are having trouble seeing your comments as disruptive, not sure how I can convince you otherwise. HighInBC 18:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, or maybe a small supply of trouts. EEng is often frustrating and exasperating. But I am pretty sure that we dont have a policy that makes that in itself a cause for an indefinite block.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow ·maunus, why not go for the whole farm? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, knock yourself out. ;) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha. That's so appropriate. But thanks ·maunus - I see you've trimmed back and gone for the lower calorie option. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── HighInBC: Oh, I see. First you cast this as "a difference of opinion on what justifies an indef block" [106]. When that turned out to be ridiculous, you wanted 48 hours. Now it's a trout. Have you no idea how corrosive to the project are this kind of careless and imperious pronouncements on the fate of us peons?

Yes, I'm having trouble "seeing [my] comments as disruptive", because you've dodged my repeated demands that you say what talking about. And now that Nakon has issued a full (and very gracious) retraction and apology [107], you're alone in insisting that I did anything wrong at all. So you have two choices now: admit you were just shooting your mouth off, or make it obvious you're one of those people who has to always insist he's right, no matter what. (I put that last bit in big-bold so that, since you undoubtedly will continue to bob and weave, it will be obvious to everyone, at a glance, what's going on here.) EEng (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

  • You are to be commended for graciously accepting Nakon's apology. Now, that seems like an odd thing to say, but around here, some people are only interested in perpetuating the drama no matter what. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM (a fellow back pain sufferer) 21:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • EEng, it is obvious from HighinBC's comments that he is a prime example of what I have been saying for years about administrators around here. Their first rule- Protect their own. High's defense of a outrageously bad block which was followed by a pathetic defense that no one but the hardcore administrators will ever defend. What Nakon did is just another example of why administrators are allowed to get away with almost anything whereas we editors get routinely shafted on a regular basis....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm genuinely puzzled by HighinBC's views, because I have always regarded High as someone with good judgment (and I'll refrain from suggesting any relationship between height and cough syrup). I guess it just comes down to the difficulty of assessing humor online. EEng, I hope your back feels better soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Ditto. He used to be pretty chilled out, din't he? But now he's just "High"? Is one expected to simply jump? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy notice for Nakon's block review at AN[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. While you guys are at it, you might take a look at Nakon's reversion (here) of my clearly constructive changes (which, while fit subjects for discussion as all edits are, certainly don't deserve a high-handed no-edit-summary trashing). Perhaps this is Nakon's subtle way of underscoring the need for effective mechanisms for recall of heavy-handed admins who, having made essentially no edits in six months [108], suddenly appear out of nowhere to throw their weight around in situations they know nothing about, then mysteriously go silent when called to account. EEng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the edits to Deletion process. Looks pretty strongly like a rollback by mistake, so I've assumed as such and undone it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I fully agree with IJBall in this edit; I'm happy to remain blocked as long as it take for Nakon to come to his senses. Wikipedia doesn't need me nearly as much as it needs to come to grips with the problem of this kind of admin. EEng (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Nice to see you online. I am confident this will be resolved soon enough. Best regards. Dr. K. 06:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately a cramped ride in a crowded taxi recently left me with a herniated disk. It hurts like the dickens, so until it's treated on Monday I have to get up every 2-3 hours and walk around to relieve the pressure on the spine.
If you look at my block log you'll see I'm quite used to this kind of crap, and I hope it won't sound wrong when I say I wasn't worried for a second about how this would turn out. I appreciate your taking the time to get the ball rolling on clearing things up, and when this is all over please take a few moments to visit the Museums. EEng (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Fwiw, I wasn't worried about the long term either, since this case is clearly that of a bad block but, as you say, I simply wanted to get the ball rolling to resolve this as soon as possible given always the on-wiki constraints. Thank you for your kind words EEng and for the invitation to the museums. Very interesting places indeed. :) I wish you a speedy recovery and a Happy New Year! Dr. K. 07:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have unblocked, as this is clearly an unjustified block and current consensus agrees. Blocking for that reason, without discussion, was not acceptable. Discussion will carry on at AN, I'm sure. WormTT(talk) 09:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, though I would have preferred that Nakon clean up his own mess. I assume he'll be restoring my talk page, of course. EEng (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I considered leaving you blocked a couple of people suggested (and you agreed), but I refuse to see a bad block stay in place until the blocking admin sees the light. Especially as the blocking admin hadn't posted for 3 hours. If you want to take it further, go ahead, I'll be willing to comment in any forum you bring it to. WormTT(talk) 14:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • One more comment, and then I'm going back to suffering horizontally for a few hours instead of vertically... With regard to this comment [109] by IJBall: Obviously Nakon make a mistake, but it was a mistake no admin should ever, EVER be making. Consider the exchange which Nakon cited [110] as the basis for blocking me:
Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Drmies: "Next time just post on EEng's talk page. Not only do they know a thing or two about Wikipedia policy, they also have lots of time on their hands."
EEng: "Drmies, shouldn't you be cabaling with your fellow Arbcom-ers?"
Next to my comment, I posted the image you see at right. Someone who can't see that Drmies was teasing me, and I was teasing him/her (I'll figure out which someday) back, shouldn't be an admin, much less (as Nakon is) on the OTRS and UTRS teams.
Add to this the facts that...
  • everyone knows that Drmies is perfectly capable of taking care of himself/herself;
  • Nakon, asked to account for his actions, still failed to see the absurdity of what he'd done, pointing to the completely innocent exchange (quoted above) as justification for the block; and
  • Nakon, by blocking both my email-this-user and my talkpage access, was forcing me to appeal my block through the very UTRS system for which he is one of the gatekeepers...
...then we have here either grossly poor judgment or heedless arrogance. Take your pick.
EEng (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey EEng, sorry I missed the party--that was a bad block and I suppose Nakon knows this by now. FWIW, I enjoyed your comment, as wrong as it was--when you made it I was either doing dishes, singing karaoke, reading Paul Theroux, or sleeping--or all four simultaneously. The secret ArbCom cabal doesn't meet anymore on Fridays (don't tell anyone) in part because of all the young people, like Kirill, GW, Keilana, and DGG; Friday nights it's usually dancing and then Waffle House. I'm obviously not invited to those events. Again, my apologies for that block; may we have many more fringey conversations together. Try not to get a spike through your head. Happy Saturday morning, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I doubt Nakon understands how wrong what he did is (though of course he understands everyone else is telling him it was wrong). I suspect he rationalizes it as just a minor mistake. You know me well enough to know I don't give a whit, for myself, about being blocked, but the demoralizing effect of this kind of behavior on the rank and file is substantial. You have a forgiving nature, but please consider what I said at AN [111]:
I don't think it aggrandizes my momentary martyrdom to say that the outcome of this thread will tell us plebians once and for all whether admins are subject to even the most minimal standards of accountability, or can do whatever the fuck they want with no meaningful consequences, ever. Imagine if I'd been a new user‍—‌score another one for editor retention!
I, and many others I'm sure, would like to see you take the lead in not letting this end up just another monument to uncontrolled admin misbehavior. If I may suggest you might start by emailing Nakon and making clear to him that he's expected to participate in the AN discussion. EEng (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I've spent a few hours today looking into Nakon and his actions. He's not a bad admin, he's hard working and a massive benefit to the encyclopedia. It just seems that last night he went... off. I've put detailed explanation of the issues at his talk page - but given his history, unless he comes back and goes off the deep end, I don't believe that anything is going to come out of this. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes, and as far as I can see, this is a one-off mistake. I'll be keeping an eye on what happens and may well have more to say. WormTT(talk) 15:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Worm. EEng, I have not seen the AN discussion (unless I edited from my phone, in which case I don't know what I did, haha) but I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Holy bleep, EEng! I was logged out throughout this entire fiasco, but now that I've seen it, I am appalled at what happened to you. Heck, you've said way worse to me, and I don't have a problem with anything you said to me. There was nothing remotely block-worthy here. At least this particular admin came around to making a genuine apology, which I think does count for something. In any case, your literal pain in the back sounds far worse than the figurative pain in the neck, and at least there was no iron through the skull, so I wish you a rapid recovery, even though you clearly never lacked for a spine! Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, EEng, I hope that your injured back is starting to feel better! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Mills of God[edit]

Wikipedia is something of a millstone round our necks. After some such tribulation, I started a page about Tennyson's poem and, by coincidence, I notice a burst of activity there, years later. See also illegitimi non carborundum... Andrew D. (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Though the mills of God grind slowly; Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience He stands waiting, With exactness grinds He all.
Does He do bump and grind, too? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My two cents[edit]

I've been around in Wikipedia for a while now, love EEng's humor, and don't know the particulars of what the current dispute is about, but my two cents is that an indefinite block is way too much punishment, that we need sharp guys like EEng in Wikipedia if only to help others think, and that EEng does contribute to the encyclopedia. But I haven't examined this subject in depth -- it is my two cent opinion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Lack of in-depth examination was the problem here, Tomwsulcer. As an ArbCom member I charge more than two cents for my opinion, of course. Kelapstick, what's our going rate? And do we accept gold nuggets and bauxite? Drmies (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I suppose I could charge more than my two cents for an in-depth examination, but I'd probably fall asleep mid-examination on this one. Good idea to keep me off of ArbCom for the foreseeable future; better yet, we'll pay you ArbCom members in 100% pure bauxite for your judgments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tomwsulcer, are you gonna make that trip to Boston any time soon? EEng (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sooner or later I'll probably visit Boston again. Right now, I'm promoting my new novel Jakk's Journey about, as you may have guessed, a high school boy who builds a spaceship, flies to Betelgeuse, meets sexy aliens, has adventures, and learns how to become a human! Sooner or later Jakk may get a page in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • WikiJail! I told you! Honestly, though, this is like a judge who got annoyed at that guy in the peanut gallery, and gave him a life sentence. Eman235/talk 18:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no previous knowledge of Nakon, but I see that he may in fact be an Obotrite leader who flourished 954 – ca. 966. Well he's certainly not flourishing now, I'd say. I'm sure it's very easy to react, on the spur of the moment, to comments at AN/I which don't immediately appear to be constructive. But in this case, I think a lot of editors who have been watching from the sidelines, think he may have made what is commonly termed "a mistake". I'm just wondering if he should admit that, or even offer some kind of apology as a result? Or maybe he thinks that admins all "reside in a "ringwall" of fortresses"? And that whatever mistake one administrator makes can be neatly corrected by the prompt action of a second administrator? It would be nice to know. Just as a detail of medieval Slavic tribal history, of course. Remnant Visa 123 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
p.s. well I obviously should have checked before I started writing this! He has done the very noble and polite thing and offered an unreserved apology. And that's something that, in general, is rarer than hen's teeth around here. I have great respect for that and I applaud him for his honesty. A Tanner Vims 123 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
A contrite admin rues his flu-fogged brain's choice to mix cough syrup with WP...
  • ...Wow. Rather odd, sociologically speaking, that a mouse click and a few comments from a rhinovirally impaired Internet user could have caused such consternation among so many. Glad to have you back, EEng, and please don't take it out on your poor fellow invalid; as Airman Vents notes, we don't say sorry to our friends when we hurt their feelings as often as we should, and those who do so are greatly to be admired. Pip pip, rest well! FourViolas (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Restored headers and messages[edit]

Hi EEng sorry to see what happened, personally I appreciate your sense of humor. Anyway I've taken the liberty of restoring your page headers, and also all of your old messages have been moved to User talk:EEng/Archive 3. So your talk page is fixed a bit better anyway. Good luck with things --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick! ... someone get a lock on that archive. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Something to Brighton up this talk page.
Welcome to...The New EEng Show! Eman235/talk 22:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I guess there's an upside to everything. At least this talk page got archived. Yipee! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disappoint, but as most of know I prefer to let it all hang out, so for the moment I've restored everything. However, I promise to do at least some archiving soon, or maybe reorganize into subpages. Not just now, but soon. Thanks to everyone for their marvelous performances in the latest production of Through the Looking-Glass, and What EEng Found There. EEng (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Aagh! (Tryptofish runs crying from the room.) It breaks my computer again! (And are you sure you want to talk about letting it all hang out in a discussion about it being too long? Sorry, I couldn't resist!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Contributions from friends near and far[edit]

You should have plenty of time to concentrate on you User Page and Talk Page from now on, EEng, "fnarr, fnarr".... A Rams Invent 123 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC) p.s. but now very pleased, of course that your Talk Page is a reasonable length, at last. oh no! ... where's that new "dislike button" again?
spirale of justice
A Rams Invent 123, you wouldn't be implying EEng's Talk page was bloated, now, would you? Nah. Welcome back, EEng, missed ya. Now, how do I dispose of these "Justice for EEng" tee shirts? Hertz1888 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still knitting mine, if you don't mind!!! We all knew it had to happen. *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's a design for t-shirts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked![edit]

Todays's brain teaser: arrange these carelessly strewn blocks onto a handy future blacklisting

I am blocking you for your continued disruptive levity toward a serious and important educational enterprise.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, 3family6. I must compliment you on your Easter eggs, which rival Martinevans123's. EEng (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome! Thinking this one up gave me a mental diversion from my job.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I am totally indebted to the influence of Martin for the Easter eggs, though.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Small world[edit]

Jimbo announces Greatest Stature Award, to be given annually in honor of EEng

I'm at a birthday party in London for Wikipedia – surrounded by the celebrities like Jimmy Wales and the WMUK crowd, cutting the birthday cake. They have a visualization of Wikipedia running on a big screen here and I was watching the edits just now. I recognised many of the topics and was especially tickled when I saw an edit to Phineas Gage pop up. I said, "I bet I know who did that – it must be EEng". I was right – don't you ever stop tinkering with this thing? Anyway, thanks for beavering away to provide the cabaret while we party on... Andrew D. (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Damn right he don't!" Naves Arm Tin 123 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
As I've noted before, EEng's fine work, indeed tireless work, on this encyclopedia is well worth being observed and acknowledged. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Even on the toilet, apparently... (Caption by EEng)
" if I can just tamp down this blasting powder into this hole..." (Caption by ME123)
The day may come when I'll switch to maintenance mode for Gage, but not likely soon. Research continues.
Until recently I thought I toiled in obscurity, except of course for my periodic trips to ANI. It was a shock, therefore, when during the recent fiasco an editor commented that "Blocking an editor of EEng's stature is [something] [somethine] [something]". So apparently I've got stature‍—‌my mother is so proud! If you send a self-addressed, stamped envelope I'm giving free autographs for a limited time.
That visualization thingee is cute. I'm sorry to be missing the party. Re your userpage photo, I've been meaning to mention that I was in London recently (30% Gage research, 70% pleasure -- my favorite place in the world) and for the first was able to fit in some followup at BL. When I saw that sculpture of Newton out front I was instantly reminded of this quote from him:

I keep [a] subject constantly before me, and wait 'till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light.

See right. EEng (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
That sculpture looks familiar! [112]. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
That's the one. When I first saw it, in situ, I honestly thought it was a guy on the toilet. I thought, "Why does the British Library have a statue of a guy on the toilet." EEng 03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
You can blame Blake for the pose. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Ignorant me, I never knew the Blake connection until now. I'm not sure anyone got the point of my caption at right. I had always remembered the quote, "I keep the subject constantly before me, and wait 'till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light." So when I saw this statue of what appeared to be -- incongruously, here in the forecourt of the British Library -- a man sitting on the toilet, then saw that it was meant to be Newton, I thought, Well, I guess he really did keep the subject constantly before him! EEng 06:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Even though it is clearly a chair, I've always though that Jeremy Bentham's auto-icon looks too much like a stall. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • In view of my newly declared stature, I've decided to adopt a fancy user signature. EEng 08:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Why do they both go to section #s? Is there something fancy hiding there? Let's see Martin "Easter" Evans beet those. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB]Good observation, Dr. Crazy; I expected nothing less of someone of your caliber. The answer is: No, there's no #s as of now, but it gives me the flexibility to send the click somewhere special, should I desire that in the future. EEng 02:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
*shocked and awed silence* 'Nuff said but you forgot to code properly. Had to change the <code></code> because it was a tad /small. I so want to anchor it to THE Dramaboard of Wiki but who would know if I'd end up blocked, boomeranged or site-banned? Now, I do think I said I was eccentric, not demented in my collection of useless factoids but you're welcome to check. I bow before the Master of Easter. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh Wile E., you're such a Genius! (Also -- are you insulting yourself?) Eman235/talk 03:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Phineas Gage[edit]

Hi, You have more than 2,500 edits to Phineas Gage (talk+article), and still why this article is not good article or featured article? You have devoted your entire life for this article and you read this article daily for 700-800 times which is quite amazing thing. I think you should nominate it for FA. Your efforts worth more than FA. Currently that article has more than 37,000 characters/bytes, I hope one day you will have more edits to article than number of characters in article. That will be a distinct and unique record. Best of luck. Cheers. --Human3015 It will rain  16:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I cannot remember how long I've been stalking, or exactly why, but Harvard springs to mind, and this, the rather bitter dispute over it some time ago, between who I cannot remember, and do not care. wow. Point is that I've read the Gage article many times since, and it is fascinating, and thought you should know. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB] Goodness me, I thought some fool had tried to make it a "Good Article". But I can clarify that EEng has not devoted his whole life to this article. He has also spent whole years on the Museums on his Talk Page, in constructing the world's longest Talk Page, and in making inappropriate puns and convoluted lame jokes on other editor's Talk Pages. He deserves a permanent topic ban from Gage for relentless WP:OWN issues. Isn't that right Trippy? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be Prof Trippy to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB] Personally I think maybe the topicban should be broader, as I sense that maybe EEng has a close personal connection to all articles about people whose brains have been damaged by metal bars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB] I'm still sulking because he anagrammed my username to Prof Shitty! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
You have to admit, "Prof. Shitty" is startlingly funny. You do know, BTW, that I got that from an anagram generator [113]? EEng 08:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, it's disturbingly apt! But here I thought that you were clever enough (FBDB) to have come up with it yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Too bad you're not a head chef (Fry This Pot) or a waiter with limited English (Try Pot Fish!). EEng 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Try Pot Fish? Oh, no! I am a fish! Oh, but wait a minute... maybe that's the other kind of pot? Yes, then I'll try it! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I should have thought of that, an exhortation to lessened seriousness: Try pot, Fish!. EEng 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Fish heads emerging from mouse holes... a bargain: [1]
Or a nice fish pie, maybe? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The photo of that pie is the only explanation that anyone needs for why the American Revolution took place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
No way. LA rules: [114]. Martinevans123 (talk)
I think the colonists could have tolerated the baked fish heads. I think they could even have put up with the fact that "oils released during cooking [flow] back into the pie". The point at which it was realized that "in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" must have come, I think, at the revelation that "The dish is traditionally held to have originated from the village of Mousehole". EEng
Haha. That is very funny. But it is true, in fact! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"!" Eman235/talk 00:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"Eugene" -- it means "well born". EEng 08:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
A misnomer, then? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm all nurture, no nature. EEng 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added my new {{FBDB}} template to some of the posts above, so no one gets blocked.
  • I appreciate the kind comments. My experience with GA has not been good, unfortunately, largely because (IMO) too many people do the one thing you're absolutely not supposed to do when reviewing, which is to impose their personal preferences (about what an article ought to look like) instead of sticking to the actual list of GA requirements. If people want to try again maybe the time is right, but here's what I'd ask to happen first: maybe everyone could take an informal look at the article versus the criteria (which are presented and discussed at WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not). Then problems can be fixed before nomination. Are there two or three of you who'd like to volunteer?
EEng 08:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not volunteering for that, and I have a hunch it's a recipe for a repeat of what has happened in the past. But – on the plus side, FBDB made me LOL! Well-played! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're right, but sooner or later someone's bound to nominate it, so better it be planned than a surprise. Anyone else? EEng 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid something like that is waaay above my pay-grade. I could use a "This isn't bullying, nor is it a personal attack" template though? -doxy the Rog™ woof 16:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thus we see the chilling effect of the roving enforcers, though in case it wasn't clear, what I'm asking for is an unofficial review against GA criteria, not an actual GA review. But anyway...


Veering off topic[edit]

Roxy the dog, I'll be happy to set up for you a {TIBNAPA} template -- "This Isn't Bullying, Nor A Personal Attack". Or maybe {TIBNAPAJAF} (which really rolls off the tongue) -- "This Isn't Bullying, Nor A Personal Attack, Just Adducing Facts. What would you want the documentation say? -- see Template:FBDB. EEng 17:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think, therefore, I know exactly which talkpage this would be going onto, the CO-*cough, cough*. Such a pesky user on there. Hopefully they've ducked down now that the headsman was brought up.
Ah well, as always EEng manages to make the shortest of things! Nice to see the talkpage back at a respectable length, though how am I now supposed to exercise my scrolling finger??[FBDB] Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

About the finger that one might give, I see from the TOC that there are now 208 sections to this talk page. I guess it's a baby-step in the right direction. But as Kirsten Dunst said in her film debut, "I want more!" (or actually, less). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the {TIBNAPAJAF} template, I would like the documentation to say ... someone is wrong on the Internet. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Say what?[edit]

Since you seem to think engineers are mindless robots blindly applying rigid rules, - After I said, "I'm the engineer type"? Logic fault. ―Mandruss  05:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, Did you notice the [FBDB] tag? While you're here, perhaps you'll take a moment to drop by the museums. EEng 05:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it didn't say just how far your tongue was imbedded into your cheek area. Museum is cool and I wish I could feel that humorous when I'm at Wikipedia. I've been trained well, and it doesn't turn on and off very easily, so I generally just leave it off while I'm here. How sad is that? (Although I was cracked up by "with no respect intended".) ―Mandruss  07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Glad I made your crack up.
(English idioms are really difficult to get right, eh?) BushelCandle (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolubey. I wouldn't wish this dumb language on my worst enema. ―Mandruss  11:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"Mindless robots blindly applying rigid rules"?? Oh, puh-leeze... just leave me alone, why dontcha!? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI about MOS:Images[edit]

At WP:ANI, I reported a matter you have been involved in: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for full protection of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images page. Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd laugh if this kind of nonsense didn't represent such a colossal waste of editor time as you seek (unsuccessfully) salve for your bruised ego. EEng 19:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A request[edit]

Hi Eng, I'd appreciate it if you would not change the policies and guidelines around image sizes without consensus. It's a contentious issue and one that has caused a lot of bad feeling between editors in the past. People have to be given the chance to express a view about changes that might affect the way they edit, especially changes to policy. All the best, SarahSV (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your apology accepted in advance [115]. EEng 00:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't see anything contentious in Adam's edit, whereas you removed this, for example, which is widely relied upon, implying in your edit summary that you thought it belonged in the MoS instead. If you want to downgrade something from policy to guideline, it's better to check on the talk page first. People need the policies to be pretty stable. SarahSV (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Your link shows me removing something which wasn't there until Adam added it today, and the first part of my edit summary explained why I didn't think it should be added. So your idea that I was "downgrading something from policy to guideline" is completely wrong.
My edit summary's tail, anyway, this entire section really should be eliminated after merging to MOS/Images--doesn't belong here, was simply a suggestion for what we should do in the future to consolidate formatting advice, with the implication that in the meantime, we at least shouldn't be adding mere formatting stuff to Image Use Policy, thus exacerbating the already serious problem of fragmentation of that advice all over the place. EEng 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Now that I've got that off my chest, let me say that I wouldn't be so pissy had this not been the second time in recent days you've got the wrong end of the stick. If you think any of my changes to WP:Manual of Style/Images were anything more than changes to organization and presentation -- that is, if you think any of my changes actually changed the actual advice being given in the guideline -- then please point out an example -- either something that got dropped, something that got added, or something that was substantively changed. Please note that what may at first appear to be new material e.g. the preference for upright and deprecation of px -- is in fact imported from longstanding provisions of WP:Image use policy, and obviously no discussion is needed before bringing that stuff over.
Certainly it's possible I might have inadvertently changed something substantive, but that's easily fixed and not an excuse for reverting the whole suite of changes which, I will modestly say, are a vast improvement over the prior vague, repetitive, randomly ordered presentation. Minor errors can just be fixed. EEng 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I've lost track of what you're doing there and at the guideline, but you now seem to have restored something you earlier argued was new and should go. I wish you would leave things as they are. SarahSV (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks to all the confusion you've sown, I mistakenly reverted just the second of a pair of edits. Now fixed by BushelCandle [116].
"I wish you would leave things as they are." I wish you would take the time to figure out what's going on before butting in and getting everything mixed up -- removing nonsubstantive changes with a call to "get consensus", then reverting the removal of undiscussed substantive changes, again with a call to "get consensus". You've made an already confusing situation worse, as not just I have tried to explain to you a couple of times now. [117] EEng 10:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No response. Big surprise. EEng 04:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And furthermore ...[edit]

Caption added by EEng: Speaking truth to power

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

😁 Building blocks to a smile[edit]

Stackable WTF blocks
You are the recipient of a WTF Block
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're an mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. I even have some! Face-grin.svg Atsme📞📧 03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment. [118]

A little belated, don't you think? X-) Eman235/talk 06:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Eman235, in my case, the "clock started at the time of discovery, as with your belated reply which I just now read. My stackable WTF blocks probably run a close second to EEng's but I'd win hands-down if AE warnings for puns and emojis were counted. 8-) Atsme📞📧 02:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
"malfunction of the emoji tool bar" -- likely story. EEng 02:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Ha!! Your example was a malefunction whereas a rogue emoji is far more believable (and true) of a (computer) brain malfunction. Atsme📞📧 18:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
A malefunction? Better, I suppose, than a female dysfunction. EEng 14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
....that and the laywomen's definition of men-o'pause, ^_^. Atsme📞📧 22:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Laywomen? Now there's a euphemism. EEng 22:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC) If we keep this up I fear we're gonna get in trouble.
(~_~) - it was a slip of the keyboard due to my irregular finger sizes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. [pause to treat rug burns from rotflmao]. Only you would have caught that - ❤️ your wit!!! Atsme📞📧 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally North Korea gets something right[edit]

Harvard college denounced as breeding nest of vicious parasites, leeching all goodness from this world. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You realize we have ways of dealing with people like you, yes? EEng 05:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
As a vicious parasite myself, I'm amused by the spelling of "leeching". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I wondered at first whether that might be a bit of sophisticated wordplay on the part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea News Service. I decided the answer's No when I realized they don't seem to know there's an apostrophe in Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Gosh, can't they find even one commie fascist totalitarian apparatchik who's fully literate in English? EEng 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I think they used Google Translate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In fact, that's a parody account run by the Popehat account. They quite often get quoted by unknowing news sources. ghytred talk 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
That explains why they got Harvard mixed up with Yale. Even North Korea knows better than to fuck with Harvard. EEng 16:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, such fucking risks getting very expensive, per the editor who, a few talk sections below, points out his talents as a hooker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


If you don't understand the grammar, don't try to "improve" if you can't. There's no need for such a dickish edit summary either, which just compounds the show of ignorance. – SchroCat (talk)

You don't often see constructions of the form ; I'll add it to my treasury of especially clear writing exemplars. Also, it's a shame you corrected [119] your original post, because now my droll observation—
"There's boned for such a dickish edit summary"‍—‌what a curious way you have of expressing yourself!
—loses much of what modest punch it had in the first place.
Anyway, it's not always easy to guess which pretentious shibboleth you're harping on, but this time I'm guessing you hair's on fire about the shocking false title introduced here [120]. You realize, do you not, that denunciations from angry editor SchroCat (or should I say, "the angry editor SchroCat") are practically a badge of honor among the community at large? EEng 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If you don't have the intelligence to understand the difference in variants, then there's little I can do to lift you from the slough of ignorance you choose to inhabit. – SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that in Wiltshire? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Your comments are withering. EEng 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Ooh, this place! Like a period drama sometimes! Between maid 123 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Period drama. EEng 22:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"groan" Almost as rivetting as a legal drama. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Putting aside the question of whether that's actually what's going on, indeed you'd be the last person I'd nominate to lift someone from a slough of ignorance (you're so cute with those quaint expressions‍—‌you're like Maugham, except of course not really at all) so no disappointment there. But if that fantasy helps you sleep at night, by all means cherish it.
Sustained rounds of sputtering denunciation from you being particularly prized, can you please keep it up? And can you upload a photo of yourself turning various shades of red? I've added a placeholder at right. EEng 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC) You forgot to tell me whether the dread "false title" was the pretentious shibboleth troubling you.
  • No further entertainment was forthcoming, unfortunately. But nothing like a good dustup to draw a crowd [121]. EEng 01:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Validation of advisories...[edit]

Well, I noticed you received some very nice compliments from some members of Proj Med for doing something commendable, and because of that, I figured it elevated you to a level that I could trust your input regarding some warnings issued over a highly utilized cure for bashfulness. I thought it best to ask you directly rather than bother more important editors like Tryptofish and Doc James with such trivia, especially if there was no cause for alarm. Please watch the following video and let me know if you think there is any need for me to be concerned. [122]. Atsme📞📧 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There you have it, EEng. I am officially more important than you are. But of course we all knew that all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course the true power is behind the throne. Oh but look, Your Majesty -- you have an important state dinner to attend just now. Don't worry, I'll mind the store. EEng 19:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Tea, tequila, Tryptofish: all so nicely alliterative (even if I am being a pain in the assonance)! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Proj Med kudos are misleading, being based (most likely) on edit counts; I'm probably in the top N because of my 2000+ (no kidding) to a single article, Phineas Gage. Interestingly for your query, the remedy you're asking about has effects not entirely unlike those of the treatment Mr. Gage received i.e. an iron bar through the front of the brain, those effects including (to an extent not entirely clear) becoming a difficult person who can't make up his mind and stick to a plan. On the whole I think the "T" treatment is probably a better choice than that received by Mr. Gage.

Thank you indeed for bringing this matter to my attention. It will likely end up in one of the Museums in due course. EEng 22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Talk page stalkers are encouraged to click the link in the OP.

I got your ping (which for reasons I cannot explain seems to me to be vaguely related to validations of advisories) at that DYK discussion. I've gotta say, my first reaction was confoundment that WP didn't until just recently have a page about that, then I realized it was because of promotion to GA, then I began to feel like it was April 1, and then I figured April 1 is over so I would not comment there and would instead come here. Anyway, I wish you and the other editors a fertile discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Fertile discussion -- and I suppose you think that's funny? EEng 21:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively, maybe I'm just full of fertilizer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
💩💩💩💩💩💩💩 (_*_) <---- fertile discussion? Atsme📞📧 01:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King. EEng 02:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
"And a monk expressed his displeasure at an abbot. In the margins of a guide to moral conduct. Because of course." The Queen of Atsmepediatree has disembarked this jester's court. Atsme📞📧 02:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad you're back![edit]

DYK needs more humor! Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well thank you, Yoninah! Since I'd just made my first nom in a long time, I thought I talk a walk down memory lane. Any maybe I will again now and then, but I don't think I'll be there regularly -- too much trouble for too little result. But feel free to call on me for my talents as a hooker. EEng 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Kype (anatomy). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Tryptofish, just noticed this. If you can get the article to GA, I'll come up with an off-color hook about male salmon and their big kypes. EEng 08:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably not, but it took me an awfully long time just to find this section on your talk page. And stop groping the salmon with your tiny fins. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Woolly Bugger[edit]

"C'mon now dude, don't be a douche". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"DYK that ..... for any WP system, there will always be statements about the AGF quota due to an IP that are true, but that are unprovable within the system". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

please read this; and please don't restate other people's personal attacks.. (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You probably mean reinstate, Einstein. You're a forum-shopping crank who's been harassing an established and respected user. Go soak your head. EEng 14:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
meant restate, which you did on his talk page and again here...but reinstate too as far as the revert...your behavior is against policy and inappropriate. how long you've been "established" on here is no defense.. (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I see you've been blocked. Thanks for playing our game, though. EEng 22:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Gödel's incompleteness theorems[edit]

Per the ArbCom motion, suggestions Hewitt makes on talk pages should be "brief", and Hewitt was reminded that he is still restricted from self-promotional editing per the original ArbCom case. The posted references do not contribute to the argument and are self-promotional. Do not act as the enabler of Hewitt. If you restore the material I removed again, you will be restricted from doing so. —Ruud 19:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ruud Koot, please lay off the threats against another experienced, good-faith editor i.e. me. What the restriction says is [123]
The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
Hewitt's original post was indeed brief [124] and even if you think it wasn't, that doesn't excuse what you're doing. If you want to mark it "edit request declined" that's fine; or if removal of his complete post is justified, that's fine; or if you think he's violating his restrictions then take that to the appropriate venue. But you should not be materially altering another's post [125] in a way that misleads others as to its content (in this case, making it look like he posted proposed text without sources -- inappropriate though those sources seem to be).
I think Hewitt's a crackpot, but that doesn't excuse your heavyhanded actions at the article talk, or your highhanded attitude here, and I expect a response per WP:ADMINACCT. David Eppstein, if I'm missing something in all this please enlighten me. EEng 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hewitt may or may not be a crackpot but he's also a sockpuppeteer, heavy self-promoter, and problem for the project. Hence his ban. If left to do what he wants he will filibuster the Gödel talk page into unusability; see the "arguments" links in the archive navbox of the talk page. So in this case, I do think it's reasonable to remove the comments (or move them to arguments). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, removing Hewitt's post might be fine, but check the third link in my OP -- what was done was to silently modify his post very substantially, and that seems inadmissible under any circumstances -- wouldn't you agree? EEng 20:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No. You fail to see the tactic Hewitt is employing here: he posts a semi-legitimate point for discussion and then uses this as a coatrack for self-promotion, disrupting the talk page in the process. If the post is removed completely, he will claim that he is being "censored" and revert back to sockpuppeteering, causing more disruption to the talk page. Those references are tangential to the argument, and removing them thus do not "substantially alter" his argument. If he notices his self-promotionalism is not allowed to stand, he may eventually give up on this, without being able claim he was mistreated. Do not allow yourself to be played as pawn in Hewitt's game. —Ruud 21:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't asking if you agree, I was asking David Eppstein, whose comments so far support simple removal of Hewitt's post, or moving them elsewhere -- but not altering them. Inclined as Hewitt is already to claim he's being mistreated, you're giving him more ammunition by altering his post to remove the sources he'd included. I see nothing anywhere justifying such modification. Everyone can see the sources are self-promotional, so why don't you just let his post speak for itself (possibly assisted by a comment you add)?
I still haven't heard anything from you about your dickish threat against me. Admins who throw their weight around are a real hot button for me. EEng 22:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
If that material is left to stand, it would incentivize Hewitt to post more of such material in the future. If the material is removed, it might discourage Hewitt from posting such material in the future. The latter would minimize the disruption of the talk page.
I consider the removal of this material arbitration enforcement. I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so. If you disagree with my interpretation of the restrictions placed upon Hewitt, I suggest you take your issues to the ArbCom here. —Ruud 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
An admin upholds one of the five pillars without throwing his weight around.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Again with the threats ("I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so") instead of engaging what I've said. I guess I can add one to the count of highhanded dick admins who resort to threats as a substitute for engaging what another has said.

Just as I predicted, your altering of Hewitt's post has given him one more thing to complain about [126]. While he'd complain no matter what, this way a bystander (unable to see what the refs were) might mistakenly believe the refs were appropriate, and sympathize with Hewitt. Great work, Mr. Admin. EEng 14:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • So I guess it's official:
count_of_highhanded_dick_admins_who_resort_to_threats_as_a_substitute_for_engaging_what_another_has_said ++;
EEng 03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


About this, wow! I may not have seen nuttin, but I sure am seeing a nutter! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I eat a lot of nuts, myself, and you are what you eat! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Gawker FYI[edit]

Principled Wikipedia editor in no moo

FYI: [127] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My mother is so proud. EEng 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • WPO watch out! Now Gawker sez all your internets are mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, Tfish, I have no idea what any of that meant. EEng 05:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that wasn't one of my better efforts. WPO: where they also wikigroan. I was trying to say that they now have Gawker as competition. As for the latter part, woopsy, I was misremembering this. I hope that my errors didn't dampen your moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Gahh now the world expects Wikipedians to walk around quoting Cato. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My favorite bit is "Wikipedia’s principled editor’s are in no moo." EEng 05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) I'm (ahem) principled, so watch it with the comments, insects!
Congrats from this insect on the fact that you actually archived something from your talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

You're not allowed to revert edits because of a topic ban if the edits occurred BEFORE the ban. Please follow policy.--Sailor Haumea (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting because of your topic ban -- that was just additional information so other editors would know what we're dealing with here. There's absolutely zero patience for more of this longevity/GNG nonsense. EEng 00:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I plan on appealing my topic ban and proposing a topic ban against you, Legacypac, and DerbyCountyInNZ. Tag-teaming like you're doing is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if all else fails, I'll be getting in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation about the behavior you've shown. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Please hurry, as it will speed the day you're indefinitely blocked along with your fellow longevity zealots, so the rest of us can go back to working in peace. Catch you on the rebound! EEng 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
BTW, how was it you were able to recreate word-for-word an article deleted five years ago? EEng 01:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, archives exist. Secondly, you'll be the one indefinitely blocked. Have a nice weekend...until the hammer comes down on you! Sailor Haumea (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Sailor Haumea has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horrifico. clpo13(talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Whew! Because for a minute there I was really afraid that he/she/it/they might get me blocked. That was a close one! Charmed life, it seems. EEng 02:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Words that Bug Me"[edit]

It's from the Greek entomon, meaning "insect"! Eman235/talk 02:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You have always been one of my favorite stalkers. EEng 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Tonight on "Things That Sound Really Strange When Taken Out Of Context"... Eman235/talk 00:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You may recall that Jeffrey Dahmer was killed during a fight in prison. So... What did Jeffrey Dahmer say just before the big fight in prison where he got killed?

"Aah -- I used to eat guys like you for breakfast!"

Reminds me of Hannibal Lecter: "I'm having an old friend for dinner." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Duh! Why not just get one of your sock puppets to do this for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB]Oh yeah? How 'bout if I have one of my sockpuppets give you a punch in the schnozzola? EEng 00:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey, now looky here Buddy, my socks are darn tough, okay?? So just take a hike, why don'tcha?! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, look, another high-handed member of the "admin 3%" drops in to deliver an arrogant lecture on his backward understanding of how things are supposed to work, leavened by ominous threats. See [128]. EEng 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten[edit]

Original section heading by OP: "Conduct Concerns"

Recently I've noticed that a number of your comments this month have not met the expectations outlined in our civility and no personal attacks policies. Examples include referring to a user as a "prick" and "completely tonedeaf" multiple times, using images and captions to insult other users (1, 2), making personal attacks towards others, and general incivility on a policy discussion page. (e.g. "The last time [you] had to deal with [me]"? Was there another time you gave a high-handed lecture showing you have a backwards understanding of how things are supposed to be done? You don't "have" to deal with me, and as NE Ent so effectively explains below, you're arguing in support of those who have kne-jerk reverted in violation of PGBOLD, so perhaps you should leave the refereeing of minor squabbles over nonsubstantive changes to those with a better understanding of guidelines, policy, and just-plain-how-things-are-done.") Such comments are not appropriate and don't contribute to a constructive editing environment. Please stop with this behavior or your account may be blocked. Best, Mike VTalk 17:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear for bystanders, all those links relate to my criticism of the bullshit behavior of admin Bbb23, who (surprise!) canvassed you to come to his aid. [129] Thanks, but I don't need any lectures on appropriate behavior. Bbb23's kneejerk reversion (without substantive comment) of multiple other editors' contributions, and subsequent refusal to participate in discussion, doesn't contribute to a constructive editing environment either, and it's healthy for someone to point that out; if Bbb23 doesn't like it, he should cut out that kind of behavior. I'm sure he's an effective checkuser and vandal fighter, and in the capacity I'm sure he has your respect, but out in the wide world of real editing (where one deals with actual other editors, not SPAs and vandals needing mass reversion [130]) his knowledge and behavior leave much to be desired. When an admin behaves as he has‍—‌papering over his own bad behavior with even more bad behavior, including high-handed block threats‍—‌most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat. Quoting myself [131] :
And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3%—​​whoa, boy, watch out!
In summary, I stand by my comments. EEng 18:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The comment you left above is a continuation of the behavior that I've asked you to stop. I have blocked your account for 3 days. Mike VTalk 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow -- just this morning I was groping for an example of unintentional self-parody, and here you've served one up on a silver platter. If you were shocked that I didn't bow and scrape in your presence, then you must have missed this userbox at the top of User:EEng:
Octagon-warning.svg This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (see my block log here!).
Welcome to the 3%! Further to the quote I gave earlier (above), here's more [132]:
When users do something that administrators don't like, but when the users not only disagree but have the temerity to object to the sanctions levied against them by administrators, is this an unacceptable dissent against the powers-that-be that must, always, be quashed by any means necessary?
We say "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "The benevolent dictatorship encyclopedia that docile and compliant rule-followers can edit as long as they remember their place and are always properly respectful towards ADMINISTRATORS." So, please, if that's not the message you want to send, just let these userboxes go. And if you want to boot a user off the project for not being here to help build the encyclopedia, please do it for a more substantive reason than that the user refuses to say "Uncle" when confronted by admins. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
EEng 20:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You blocked for a personal attack or harassment. Where is the personal attack? Saying behavior is bad is not the same thing as saying someone is bad. You should unblock.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Criticism and commentary is fine, however it must be undertaken in a constructive manner. Mischaracterizing my comments by changing the header title to "Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten", claiming Bbb23 was acting with a "bullshit behavior", improperly suggesting that Bbb23 was canvassing me to engage in the conversation despite not engaging in the conversation, and using uncivil language, such as "lectures on appropriate behavior", "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion", and "high-handed block threats‍—‌most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat" is poor conduct towards other editors and is not permitted. EEng was warned that this behavior was not appropriate, but still continued. I don't feel the block should be lifted. Mike VTalk 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Many of us here at Wikipedia have gotten used to EEng's rather acerbic and, shall we say, direct style, and like him for it, and while I'm kind of nodding my head here, I continue to think EEng is a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community, who may be in need of lessons in ettiquete?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Holy Jesus. If "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion" is now part of a block rationale, block us all. What a shite block, a complete kneejerk reaction, utterly bogus, high-handed admin behaviour that needs to be called out, it's utter nonsense. And that, folks, is just the opening sentence of my memoirs of reading utter tripe on Wikipedia. Hardback due out just in time for Christmas. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


User:Mike V, after your warning ("conduct concerns") on this page, EEng posted this in response. He also made a few innocuous edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, but I'm sure your block had nothing to do with those. You blocked for his response to your warning, and I don't think that was reasonable. The response wasn't very polite, indeed. It didn't defer to you as admin. The worst of it was that he changed your header, which is certainly inappropriate. But was it a disruptive edit, enough reason to block? No. Mainly it was an explanation of his criticisms of Bbb23. It didn't contain any personal attacks against Bbb23 or anybody else AFAICS. I've unblocked. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

Well thanks, Bishonen -- not because I care a whit about an enforced break per se, or about my block log (I got over that long ago), but because it's nice to know that there are at least some admins who will stand up to the 3% who think that being an admin entitles one to imperiousy demand that the rest of us show deference to their superior status, and cower and beg for mercy at their whim, whether what they're saying conforms to policy and guidelines or not. EEng 01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Telegrams from near and far[edit]

  • Dammit, I was logged out during all the fun! I'd like to propose two actions. First, I think EEng should be blocked again because when I clicked that link he gave to Bbb23's user contributions, it made my Firefox hang up, and we certainly cannot have that. Secondly, I propose that we tattoo [FBDB] across any available portion of EEng's anatomy. In one fish's opinion, both Bbb23 and Mike V are, on the whole, excellent administrators and very helpful members of the community. What happened here, however, was what seems to happen all too frequently on Wikipedia: people getting pissed off over stuff that would seem unimportant after a good night's sleep. Ironically, Mike V's initial warning was good advice. Ironically too, EEng is cognitively incapable of following that kind of advice (something to do with brain damage at Harvard), and believe me, I've tried many times to no avail. Unfortunately, when Mike V observed EEng's response, he overreacted. Bish, as always, and I do mean always, got it right. EEng was disrespectful but not disruptive. Group hug. Now where is that tattoo needle? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well how about re-imposing a block for having a too long talk page? Is that a blockable offense? Surely there should be some fingerwagging!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely. That also does bad things to my browser performance. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, tripping up Tryptofish's browser => BAD, EEng, bad bad bad, you should be tattooed bigtime for such horrors. (Me, too, for extending an already too-long talk page)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
EEng's talkpage, more than ready for archiving --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • About an hour ago I figured that, while blocked, I might as well spend some time doing what some of you desire so much, which is to trim this page. Unfortunately, a few trims into the project I realized that silly ol' Bishonen had unblocked me, so if it's still too long complain to her. EEng 01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    Or block this EEng joker for being more of a truth-to-power curmudgeon than me. Horning in on my territory? This will not do.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You know, this talk page reminds me of a long beard:
  1. It makes the owner look moſte wise.
  2. The longer it gets, the more tangles you can see
  3. It is a great inconvenience.
Eman235/talk 04:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is everybody???[edit]

A very good question - which may serve as the anthem of a frustrated editor facing one ANI too many. Credits to Nine Inch (0.011 chains, 0.23 m) Nails. Possible answers:

  1. Everyone's Gone To The Moon - which is 381,550 kilometres (237,080 mi) away
  2. They've been amazed at our dazzling erudition and wait with bated breath for the outcome of our deliberations
  3. They've got bored
  4. They're wondering how many editors can dance on the head of a pin, and don't know if there's enough room for them to join in. BTW - there's loads of room - drop in here.

You might well think that they would be rated (in descending order of likelihood) 3 (0011), 1 (0001), 4 (0100) and 2 (0010), but I couldn't possibly comment on that. Robevans123 (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You'll find the Nine Inch Nails behind the four candles: [133] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • For a moment I thought it said defibrillations. Perhaps we can work "Everybody's Gone to the Moon" (or maybe "Fly Me to the Moon") into the examples somehow. You two might be interested in a "discussion" I'm having with a troglodyte who thinks humor has no place in serious discussions -- Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Continued_obstruction. EEng 10:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I think I'd rather stick pins in my eyes, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
More than interested! Happy to be a nosey bystander though. I'll join the discussion after we've sorted out units, and I've brought clarity, peace, tranquility and a common sense of purpose to This RFC - that should give me 5 years minimum, and there'll still be humourless trogs to deal with.
Personally, I think a bit a humour greases the wheels of collegiate editing, or something. It's been fun to have a joke on the side of the rather dry topic of units.
By the way, you spoke to soon, it's all kicking off over there on units.
I'll wade in a bit later if needed, but I need to disappear for a few hours for a hospital visit (not that far away from defibrillators and drug doses...) Robevans123 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
If you mean wade in on units, great, but if you mean on sockpuppetry, please don't -- I didn't mean to canvass you, just thought you might be amused to gawk at the humorlessness -- I do so cherish the quote at the top of User:EEng. I've run into this prick before and he's/she's completely tonedeaf. Hope your hospital visit's not troubling. EEng 14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely units only! Didn't feel canvassed, it's definitely an area of watch, don't touch. Hospital visit was fine thank you. Just a follow up on some routine blood tests - all in the green zone. Going to have a quiet night off, so I'm ready to deal with some people who are fantastic at saying what they don't like, but surprisingly quiet at putting something else forward. All will be done as politely as possible, and in the best possible taste. Nil illegitimi carborundum. Robevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh no you got blocked again...[edit]

Well, what else is new. My two cents is that EEng is a valuable addition to Wikipedia, if a bit difficult at times, although I've sometimes considered that maybe he should be blocked for having a too long talk page. Just kidding. Just saying' hello, EEng, hope you'll be back soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you know ...
... that 3% "is an upcoming Brazilian thriller series?" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Your fave topic, now a political buzzword[edit] Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for this -- it's perfect for an upcoming talk on Gage in pop culture. It's vaguely similar to a youtube video I grabbed about six years ago (now no longer posted, AFAICT) in which the US is metaphorically Gage (a stockbroker named "Phineas Geiger" in the vid, for some reason) and the WTC attack was the iron-bar-through-the-head turning America/Gage into an irritable, unpredictable, bullying, angry psychopath etc.
Interesting detail about the post you link: The discussants don't seem to think that anyone reading needs Phineas Gage linked or explained. I wonder if there'll be an uptake on the Sudden-(explained)-viewspike_detector. EEng 04:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a feeling that Trump would actually like being compared to an iron rod. So is your viewspike detector a Geiger counter, or a Gage gauge? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure he would. He just said the US needs to be less predictable. EEng 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. to David Eppstein: I did use it in my talk, to good effect, because it shows the extent that Gage can be invoked without introduction in at least some circles. (I also found some tweets in which people say things like, "I'm gonna go all Phineas Gage in a minute!") You may also have noticed I've used it at The Museums. EEng 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The greatness of the Galbraiths[edit]

Funny you should mention; I've been dealing with a lot of great things someone wrote about his second son. FourViolas (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"How WP:MoS Works" (Part 62a)[edit]

In honour of the glorious contribution of lowly Belgium to the forthcoming trench warfare of Euro 2016. Part 62a: Use of the word kibosh: Note: [134]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Further note: "The song has the metre of Tramp! Tramp! Tramp!."

I don't know what I did to deserve you. EEng 22:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
What you did was fail to archive your talk page. Now take your punishment! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Fortunately, it was a previous life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


Hey, that's no laughing matter -- it happened to me! I was on a long bike ride and there was this string of ducklings (or goslings? who cares, they're all the same) lined up on the bike trail. I shooed them away and all of a sudden Big Mama Duck/Goose/Thing comes swooping down and pecks at my helmet. Scared me a little but it wasn't fatal as far as I remember. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Y92.482 Bicycle path as place of occurrence
  • V10.3 Person boarding or alighting a pedal cycle injured in collision with pedestrian or animal
  • W61.59 Other contact with goose
EEng 03:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No fowl, no harm. I suspect that bird just wanted some compensation, so you could have put it on her bill. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Good one. You know it's funny, we've got WP:DUCK, WP:HORSE, WP:TROUT, WP:BEAR, WP:CAMEL, WP:GOOSE and who knows what else (plus WP:BIKE, of course). I think we should have Category: Wikipedia project page shortcuts named for animals. Also WP:NOFOWLNOHARM. I'll work all this into the Museums in due course, but right now I've got a big project on the stove [135]. EEng 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and happy cooking – looks good! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
"Time to load up tha' old trusty Kentucky Fried Cannon, folks!" Col S. A. Unders123 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Someday someone's gonna cook your goose, ME123. EEng 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, see a bumpy road ahead. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Adding to the menagerie: Jonah was swallowed by a whale.[Cetacean needed] I stole this joke from Opabinia regalis, but that's OK – it's covered by the Sea-Sea-by-SA license. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
For WP:BALANCE: The traditional account, that Jonah made his home in a fish's abdomen, has been publicly criticized by revisionist scholars.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourViolas (talkcontribs) 21:39, June 13, 2016‎
Hmm, sounds kinda fringey to me... burps suspiciously --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You scintillate tonight. EEng 02:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Bioluminescence, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm just glad Trypto got the opportunaty to reuse it! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Now, I'll clam up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Sadly, WP:DOGS redirects to one of the Wikiprojects, and not to Wikipedia:Let sleeping dogs lie, so it doesn't fit. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I wondered why my ears, floppy, were burning. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have the weirdest, weirdest stalkers. It's you, the many stalkettes gathered here from all walks of life, each making his or her little dysfunction- or neurosis-revealing contribution, who make this talkpage what it is (whatever unspeakable thing that may be). EEng 00:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
EEng's talkpage—the secret scroll of toilet paper made of...beard fibers!? Find out in the next unspeakable episode! Eman235/talk 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Not forgetting, your favourite ... WP:JACKASS. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Life, Sportin' (1935). "It Ain't Necessarily So". In Gershwin, George (Ed. and composer). Porgy and Bess. New York: Carnegie Hall. 

Trout love[edit]

Tetsuyas-Ocean-Trout.jpg A lovely slice of trout
An piece of delicious trout for you, to calm your antagonism over how to present the story of sockpuppets [136]... Deryck C. 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The love goes right back atcha, Deryck Chan. I like your close‍—‌"with a reminder that editors – admin or not – should refrain from causing unnecessary antagonism in discussions, and from placing disproportionate emphasis on following processes"‍—‌with the understanding that the antagonism (mine, at least) was a direct result of that disproportionate emphasis on process over substance. Not sure you realize it, but I got blocked by one of those high-handed process-fixated admins over this‍—‌see [137]. And proud I am of it, too. EEng 17:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. have you visited The Museums lately?
No, I wasn't aware of your very short recent block until reading your reply above. It simply adds to the farce of the whole fiasco... Deryck C. 21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi, EEng. I believe you have a typo here. Take care. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax: There's no typo. If you click on the link (red though it may be) and then look at F.I.M.'s comment just above my post, you'll see what I was getting at. EEng 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Side ping to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.
Ha! REEL clever! ;) And it took agrees before I clocked it. Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 08:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, EEng. You got me twice because I did not know who F.I.M. was. I make that kind of typo now and then. Brain says one thing; fingers another. OK, now can you advise me of any other point? BTW, I found NOTNOT to be interesting too. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
What's NOTNOT? EEng 01:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, sounds a lot like me: Brian says one thing, but fingers do another, while the keyboard has a mind all of its own…. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC) … it sounds like it might be a Scottish story?

serving notice[edit]

I am sending you a bill for a new keyboard and my ENT's treatment of the coffee burns on the insides of my nostrils.
"Traditionally served with iceberg lettuce". What is the matter with you?
-- stunned museum visitor (still reeling)

We're all assuming that's a rhetorical question. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It's the bar through the brain [138]. Anyway, you were warned it was tasteless. The great thing about Harvard topics is there are always people wandering about saying droll things:
None of you write back for the next four days, please -- I have to get this talk ready. EEng 14:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Is not - Is too[edit]


Smile.png I apologize for reverting your edit over at "What Wikipedia is not" (diff [139]). I am an experienced editor, but forays into policy and guideline pages are new to me - so I admit I was being rigid. Having looked over your user page and talk page I see that you are a very experienced editor and that you know what you are doing. So, in the future I think I will do the same for any editor who edits guideline and policy pages - before I revert with an intention to save the Universe and Wikipedia.

I also noticed that you are immersed in humor; so I hope you like the title of this section. As an aside, perhaps editors should ask why is there no guideline page that describes "What Wikipedia is too!" (as an argument that counters "is not"). Smile.png OK. I know that sounds a little nonsensical. Smile.png Regards ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for at all. I don't always know what I'm doing, and your edit, following my edit, stimulated me to think things through afresh and make an even better edit. That's the way it's supposed to work, and Wikipedia at its best. Keep up the good work.
As for being immersed in humor: I'm drowning in it, actually, and none of my worthless talk page stalkers seems inclined to throw me a lifeline. EEng 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
WP:What Wikipedia is too could redirect to WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as WP:What Wikipedia is does. Although WP:WABBITSEASON seems to be closely related. FourViolas (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll show you contrite!
Didn't I unfriend you for missing my talk? EEng 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey, so how did the talk go? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I was a little apprehensive because of the amount of new material I'd developed, but I think it went well, other than the fact that my laptop crashed 2/3 of the way through so that I had to ad lib while it rebooted. The evening as a whole (i.e. including the other speakers) was certainly wonderful from my perspective. We ran maybe 75 minutes over and almost everyone stayed to the end, if that means anything.
The big announcement of the evening, and the unstated (until that night) reason for the whole thing, was that the very nice couple who had the daguerreotype all those years (without realizing it) have donated it to Harvard, so that it's now part of the Warren Museum collection along with the skull, tamping iron, life mask, etc. It's an amazing story -- what's the probability of that thing not only surviving all these years, but being identified? The mind boggles. EEng 21:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Good! (So your laptop crashed – was that because it tried to load your user talk page?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's a WW2 army-surplus laptop which overheats every now and then. That problem seemed to have gone away after I upgraded to Windows 10 but -- just my luck -- it chose that moment to reassert itself. In a way it may have made for a better session, since we had Q&A during the reboot, and a lot of good questions were asked. EEng 22:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
You got me! For a moment, I was actually wondering to myself how there could have been laptops during WW2. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serial killer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serial killer. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

EEng, your comments are requested on...Talk:Serial killer. You do, however, have the right to remain silent. Eman235/talk 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You may have noticed that accounts that bother me here often fall mysteriously silent soon afterward. Ever think about that? EEng 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you available for hire? I have a long list of accounts that I could submit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
┬┴┬┴┤(o_├┬┴┬┴ Eman235/talk 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please apologize[edit]

I am going to request that you strike your "Delusional smoke and mirrors" comment at the Ameen AfD. That was out of line. Reasonable minds can differ. Montanabw(talk) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

EEng, I have not seen the AFD mentioned here. However, at AFD:Octaviano Tenorio, you can see that Montanabw has engaged in a protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors, and is also demanding apologies. I don't know if the issues are connected. I wrote a looong reply on my talk[140] to Montanabw's complaint there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (uninvolved) I'm going to suggest that persons actually interested in retaining the article spend their time adding citations and content to it, rather than arguing needlessly over other people's AfD comments. Softlavender (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Indeed! Nothing stops an AfD like RS citiations. If none are available, then what's the point in debating? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I would wholeheartedly agree, and on that article BHG mentions, John Pack Lambert did so, my position is that his work was adequate, BHG's position is that it is not. I am tired of being repeated accused of "dishonesty" and a "protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors." My position is sincerely held and made in good faith -- on an article on a topic involving conservative white men instead of third-world progressive women, no less (I am trying to be fair in my assessments at AfD). The RfC is a slow-developing process and is raising a number of good discussions about the misapplication of WP:N. Frankly, I am finding this exhausting, but I cannot allow the ad hominem remarks of BHG, who I used to respect as an editor, to continue to the point that I permit myself to be bullied. She is crossing a line here and so did Eeng. Reasonable minds can differ, and even heatedly, but we can remain civil. Montanabw(talk) 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
.... You're doing it again. Just stick to adding RS citations and content -- ignore the opposing comments of others. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
My problem, Softlavender, is that I don't care enough about the JPL articles to work on them; I do care that I am being insulted and attacked. If others would stick to only their own cogent arguments and lay off trying to tell me that I am wrong, stupid, bad, dishonest, manipulative and whatever else they are throwing around, we would all be much better off. Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If you don't care enough to improve an article (or at least find and provide links to RS that provide significant coverage), then don't argue on AfD -- just place your !vote but don't add the AfD to your watchlist. If you get that bothered about being insulted/attacked/labeled, and if you react to such insults, then in my opinion you won't have a good time on Wikipedia; I've said as much before. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
.... So simple that it's WP:BASIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
BASIC is a guideline; WP:N is the policy. The rest is interpretation. And reasonable minds can differ. Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you, talk page stalkers. I saw Montanabw's message early this morning and composed an appropriate apology. but rushed off without sending it. Here it is: Montanabw, I'm sorry you're delusional, even if sincerely so. Ecstatic hand waving can't make up for absent sources. I came up with the "smoke and mirrors" image entirely on my own, and the coincidence of plural editors doing so independently should give you pause. EEng 18:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

EEng, I am so sorry that you can only respond to a reasonable request by WP:BAITING. You have now officially and directly called me "delusional" which is a personal attack and has crossed the WP:NPA line. It is unfortunate that you can only deal with disagreement by devolving into attacking the individual. Now I understand the kind of person you are. Thank you for clarifying your views so precisely. Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Your delusions apparently extend even to the meaning of the word delusional. I doubt strongly that you understand, or indeed are capable of understanding, the kind of person I am. As I just suggested to you elsewhere, WP:STOPDIGGING. EEng 22:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, delusional is commonly a reference to having a psychiatric condition wherein an individual has had a break with reality and is in need of psychaitric hospitalization. That is, for someone who is not suffering from that condition, a belittling insult. For someone who does suffer from that condition, it is cruel. Let's try for some civility. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Montana, and I say this as someone with personal appreciation and respect for EEng and general admiration for his stalkers, trying to get him to apologize for incivility on his talk page is all but permitting yourself to be bullied. I suggest you stop trying to get blood from stones, and file a complaint if you need to or go do something nice with someone you love if you don't. FourViolas (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── A delusion is a strongly held belief that is stubbornly resistant to being displaced by superior evidence. It's meant that for at least 400 years, and only comparatively recently took on the specific medical meaning you for some reason want to give it in reference to yourself. It is at this point that many editors in my position would issue a stay-off-my-talk-page "order", but I've never done that and expect I never will, because I fear no man or woman's criticism or denunciation‍—‌I'm secure in my own skin, you see, and happy to let observers judge for themselves. But please, for you own sake, stop embarrassing yourself and take FourViolas' excellent advice. Kid's got a good heart and is wise beyond his years. EEng 00:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your insights, FourViolas. It is clear from the above comments that I am dealing with an abusive personality here and there is a time to stop beating my head against the wall. I have a number of other projects and AfD is most definitely in need of attention. I shall step out of this particular talk page discussion, with considerable disappointment. Montanabw(talk) 00:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Exit Montanabw, stage right, draped magnificently in victimhood. Presently he or she is heard offstage, demanding apologies and retractions from numerous editors in rotation. EEng 01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've never understood the Wikipedia bent for requesting (or demanding) apologies. For an apology to be meaningful it must be freely given, at the initiative of the person who offers it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It's especially puzzling since it gives abusive personalities such as myself the opportunity to flagellate anew the hapless, innocent victim who sought only to offer the aggressor the chance to purify his soul via confession and contrition. EEng 01:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth I think you're going a bit overboard on the mockery. (I've probably managed to piss off both you and Montanabw here, but what the hell, somebody has to say these things.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot imagine what you think you've done to offend or annoy me, and if someone comes repeatedly to my talk page begging to be called out as a fool, who am I to disappoint? EEng 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


I'd revert this: [141] We all get carried away but I think it's unworthy of you. Msnicki (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a chance -- see above in this thread, plus User:EEng#get the joke. If Atsme or Randy Kitty were somehow offended (and see elsewhere on that page where we'd been enjoying each other's company) they would have spoken up for themselves. What WP doesn't need is yet another tone-deaf, tsk-tsking scold poking her nose into others' friendly interactions. EEng 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This is truly unnecessary. Name-calling is a clear personal attack on another editor, the sort of thing that can get you blocked in a heartbeat by the first admin who spots it (and frankly, I'd support it, given your determination to double down on this). Your conversations at an AfD are not private and if you think you might be annoyed if someone else interjected their own remarks, perhaps an AfD is not for you. In any event, I urge you reconsider. There are always ways to tell someone precisely what you think of them without crossing the line. This was not the way. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary perhaps, but not unwarranted, and there's no doubling down. I realize you mean well, but you obviously haven't absorbed what's going on here. Of course anyone's free to interject his or her own comments, but Nosy Parkers who get the wrong end of the WP:STICK in others' completely friendly interactions, because they apparently lack the capacity to understand them, and scold people for imagined offenses within a conversation in which they were not previously involved, are a particular pet peeve of mine. There's enough real friction at WP without someone inventing it where there is none. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about you here.) EEng 05:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


I've reported our latest friend here because I have a feeling he's related to the previous troublemaker on the Harvard article. I also have half a mind to MFD WP:UNIGUIDE seeing how it is constantly misrepresented and flies in contradiction to WP:V. Calidum ¤ 02:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Fool! Use the secure channel! Say, who's in charge of world copper prices next month, me or you? EEng 03:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) I wouldn't bother about UNIGUIDE. (a) I'm not sure it's really so troublesome in general, and (b) there's wide latitude for essays. Unfortunately we seem to have lost ElKevbo, but I wonder whether David Eppstein has an opinion on it.
Avoiding phrasing like "highly prestigious" for Podunk Junior Community College sounds like good advice to me. The difference is that for Harvard it happens to be true, and also arguably an accurate summary of the later "University rankings" section. Anyway, it's an essay, and you can find one of those to support any point you'd want to make (and many you wouldn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I was specifically wondering what you thought about Calidum's idea of sending UNIGUIDE to MfD. I say don't bother. EEng 04:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to accomplish much, regardless of which way the discussion goes. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia has ruined you when ...[edit]

... the phrase "In some 1,500 articles, many representing original research by the finest Celtic scholars", instead of exciting you, makes you twitch. "OR? The bastards! How dare they!" --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

And no UNDO button, even. How do you like my Trump-Hitler retrospective at User:EEng? I'm surprised no one seems to have noticed it. EEng 07:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's been noticed and appreciated! Robevans123 (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I keep typing and erasing replies. I've tried evasiveness, wryness, silliness, sarcasm, black humour, acerbity, seriousness, ponderousness, but nothing I can come up with sounds appropriate. I want to say something wise, witty or at least coherent and worthy of reading, but words fail me. I find the topic too depressing, and I feel as if making light of it mocks survivors and victims – and those who find themselves in a much more precarious position than I believe myself to be, who live in immediate, mortal, existential fear. It feels so privileged. I don't know; I just don't think it's my place to talk.
So, keeping in mind Wittgenstein's famous sentence, I'll just limit myself to: I've seen it, and read through it. Thank you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw it but felt it best not to call attention to it. (Oops.) By coincidence I am reading Ian Kershaw's two-volume Hitler biography and am presently up to mid-1933. Some of the parallels between current events and then are... thought provoking. You could take whole sentences and just change the names or places and it would be impossible to tell whether they were from the book or today's newspaper. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes you don't even have to change names. One quotation I was struck by is Ludwig Thoma's undisguised complaint about Berlin, the supposed incompetence of the government, the local socialists and "orientals", in 1920. It sounds like a letter to the editor or web comment written by any reactionary Bavarian curmudgeon today. Except that the "orientals" today are Muslims (the Kreuzberg quarter is particularly well-known for its population of Turkish Germans) rather than Jews. The Nazis denounced Berlin as "verniggert", presumably because of the popularity of American cultural products such as jazz – Afro-Germans did exist, but I believe were more of a rarity even in Berlin. I was shocked to hear that, according to a poll in 2008, as many as 26% of the German population still insisted that dark-skinned people don't fit into Germany, and 50% didn't want to live in the same building together with "Turks" (I fear it has only become worse since then). That's, like, the definition of racism. Clearly, even tons of people here have learnt nothing from history, and going over all this stuff at school was an exercise in futility. :( --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
No! Not futile! 100% - 26% = 74%. EEng 03:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't shake the impression that Germany really does consist of 50% I'm-not-racist-but-heads and 50% pc Cultural Marxists® and Antifa anarcho-punks. (At least street battles like in the twenties aren't common.) I still guess we commies have more fun. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If you have the time and stomach for it, I have a modest proposal for EEng and his glittering admirers.
  1. Read the exquisitely judicious Can the treatment of animals be compared to the Holocaust?, by ethicist and survivor's son David Sztybel.
  2. Come to a personal position on whether he's on or off his rocker, and how many of his arguments fail and why.
  3. Go back and reconsider our host's well-chosen and -illustrated gallery, and try to resolve any internal hypocrisies.
I'm currently glumly pondering step 3.
On a tangential note, I just saw the '61 West Side Story for the first time and found it remarkably topical as well: the core theme (optimistic if anything) about the plague on both our houses is the story of our current global failure-of-politics plotlines, of course, but the film also fits in still-thoughtful treatment of immigration, racism, misogyny, gender nonconformity, and even headscarf symboism. FourViolas (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll get on it as soon as I've finished this steak. BTW, the next time we have to relitigate whether Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities" [142] we can just point out that Trump called Iraq "Harvard for terrorism" [143]. Yale, eat your heart out. EEng 06:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Time to get out the canoes and paddle to section, Wadsworth old fellow
Hey, I hear we do pretty well ourselves. That "source", incidentally, states that Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities"; also, that we "boat" a 201-acre main campus.
What are you doing eating steak at midnight? 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I always eat raw meat at the witching hour, after strangling the animal to death with my bare hands and drinking its blood. Believe it or not the Charles, as recently as 1958 or so, has risen to the point that sandbags were needed as far upstream as Eliot House. EEng 00:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of school spirit, I have in fact been closely watching the Hitler/Trump quiz. It troubles me that I scored 100% on telling them apart (and with no peeking at the answers), because it would seem to indicate that I understand too well some things I'd rather not be familiar with (maybe too much time spent with ArbCom and GMOs). I just figured that I wouldn't gloat about it until now, because of my, um, educational commitment to humility (ha, ha). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
So if you eat foods containing GMOs you turn into an expert on the nuances of racialism and demagoguery? Who knew those geneticists were so clever. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe I'm just addled. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Honestly I don't expect it to actually be hard to tell who said what, because of the strong stylistic cues (Hitler being decidedly more literate than Trump). EEng 00:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk about damning with faint praise – it's pretty grim when Hitler comes out with the better of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hitler? or Trump? – "A highly intelligent man should take a primitive and stupid woman. Imagine if, on top of everything else, I had a woman who interfered with my work!" EEng 02:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
(Voice of Mel Brooks...) "I've got da Vestern Front! – da Eastern Front! – dat fat pig Goering! – zose Juden! – Und jetzt, on top of all dat, dat voman is driving me meshuggana! Oy vey!"

Hitler, though it could easily have been Trump ("You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass") of course. I've always loved the bit about on top of everything else; see right.

I think I would have gotten that one right, too, but your talk page is so slow to load (ahem!) that I could see the hidden answer before it finished loading. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if that's how all those DNC emails got out. EEng 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
"Hey Stalin, if you're listening out there, if you can find FDR's letters, I'm sure that the press here will reward you mightily." followed by: "I vas just being sarcastic!" --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As I follow your embellishments of your user page, I've gotten an idea for some alternatives to the ostrich, courtesy of a joke told by Bill Maher: 1, 2. Gets the affect and the hair rather well, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I was saving that for later. Or on second thought, the ostrich could be Eric Trump. EEng 16:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In any case, all the evidence is finally in, in the Scopes trial. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You've inspired me [144]. EEng 06:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
And now, he's probably going to start throwing his poop at Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
That's not a complete impossibility, come to think of it. Then you and I can be interviewed on CNN, responding to Trump saying we should be shot (digitally, of course)! EEng 08:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
After all, you and I are the co-founders of ISIS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

At least it's not another "Barnstar of Good Humor"...[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Yuge Barnstar
That's one hell of a user page you've got there. I tried to print a copy out (in case my internet goes down), but I don't have the required 63 pages to get the whole thing. I'm off to the store in the morning to buy paper. Anyhow, here's a Trump-sized reward for having a liberal sense of humor. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It's even the same size as Trump's hands! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
If you're talking about User:EEng, don't you mean "Trump's ego"? If you mean the little star at the left of the box there, don't you mean "Trump's genitals"? EEng 00:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Colonel Wilhelm Klink, I stole some of your images,
You know, I was about to say "the same size as his hands", but then I thought "his" might be mistaken for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to keep it clean... I guess I don't have the political skills of Lyin' Ted or Little Marky. And I'm flattered you stole "my" images; whatever contributes to the cause of comedy. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In other news...[edit]

I am the only one here to receive an email (via "Email this user") from Hillbillyholiday reading something like --

Dear Mr Eeng,
Just came across our "eeng" article what was recently updated by User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink. Not sure if it's owt to do with you but sounds a bit like a HOECS to me! Don't forget, online pedophiles can actually make your keyboard release toxic vapors that make you suggestible ... [youtube link redacted]
This email was sent by user "Hillbillyholiday" on the English Wikipedia to user "EEng". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

--? EEng 04:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you smell like hammers. --Hillbillyholiday talk 05:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one. But please, no more such emails. I almost reported you at ANI as a compromised account. EEng 05:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, I am humor-impaired (hangs head in shame). I had to google it. Yuck. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
"Toxic vapors? You smell like hammers? Fuck this, I'm going to bed."
I'll respond to this now; I saw it here yesterday, and I still don't understand it. I get the whole "Klink is a stalker" thing, but the rest is just a bit too far out there for me, and, given the nature of this conversation ("online pedophiles", "compromised account", "yuck"), it can't be pleasant. Ignorance is bliss, right? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 15:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I still don't know what all this is. I think you got dragged into it only because you happened to be near the top of the page's edit history. I hope this won't cause you to drop your membership in my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng 16:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think my nagging wit would let me leave even if I wanted to. And my apologies for any misunderstandings over the edit... I came across the page while attempting to come here, and stub sorted it. (And if you believe that...) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 17:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think any of it had anything to do with the good Colonel. And when the proprietor said "Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one", I took it to mean that it was a joke that EEng understood and I didn't. So I did some searching online, and the sentences in question come from an episode of some British comedy TV show. (I have no idea why any of it is considered funny. I suppose that it just means that the sun has set on the British Empire. At least it made me feel slightly better about TV in the US.) The episode was very controversial, because it centered on jokes about pedophilia. And that is why I said "yuck". (At least I am happy to see from the image here that a certain political candidate is reading about it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I only understood in the sense that by that point I'd realized ME123 was involved, which explains anything. EEng 01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Aha! Then you are so much more perceptive than is WMF's software for identifying IP addresses. Good for you! OK, so here is what is going on. The entire population of Wales (the nation of Welchers, not the co-founder of that website) has been viewing your talk page, and thus, the large spike in viewings. These people have four national characteristics: a tendency to cough up hairballs when they speak, hillbilly-like tendencies, inexplicable sense of humor (and it's not worth bothering to try), and warm feet. That explains everything (although I admit that my explanation requires explanation). In any case, the good Colonel has nothing to be worried about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
"OMFG"!! (as they say in Ystradgynlais) Don't think you'll escape unscathed after THAT outrageous contribution, fishio!! "I am a sock, not a number!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Welchers"?! bliss out, dude!
In his edit summary, our hillbilly friend calls me a "butty boy". So, after posting about pedophilia, he calls me a "boy" and refers to my posterior. Wow! Don't they have farm animals in Wales? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK's finest (... as if you didn't know). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC) *seething* [145]
That's unusual... I had always considered Wales to be one of the more grounded countries. Perhaps being so close to England is finally taking its toll. And, oddly enough, I received a pamphlet in the mail today urging me to -- get this -- "save the whales." (!) Have I done anything to piss off British conservationists? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) That was never here. Please excuse my ignorance. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
cetacean needed --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
[slams head on desk] Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


EEng to the rescue! I saw what you just did, and I thank you for your support. I have been very remiss in not communicating with you, and hope to remedy that very soon. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


I'd like you to self-revert your last edit. We can discuss the 400 bytes of text in the "proponents" section, you may make some valid points, but blanking 6,000 bytes of text you haven't iterated an issue with is problematic. LavaBaron (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


You are the subject of a discussion at the 3RR noticeboard here. Thank you for your time. LavaBaron (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

LavaBaron (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

But great to see Trump's "softer, more caring side" now coming to the fore. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Malcolm X[edit]

Please don't commit wholesale reversions of technical edits done by others. Your claim of "wasting time" is specious, when it wasn't your time to begin with. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 23:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a technical edit -- it's just a gnome swooping in to "improve" an article by doing something which has no effect on what the reader sees, merely changing one form of valid markup to another form which the gnome prefers, or which he/she mistakenly thinks is the "right" form because that's what he/she happens to be more familiar with. See WP:MOS: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The watchlists of those who maintain a given article are gummed up by, and their time is wasted in reviewing, such worthless busywork. EEng 23:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Puff Daddy[edit]

Regarding User:EEng#Museum of Puffed-Out Chests, I have a (bad) idea for an additional specimen for the museum, but I dare not add it without the curator's approval. In fact, I'm ashamed of even having thought of it. Sorry. Really, this is in very poor taste. Please be warned: the link leads to disturbing content. I mean it.

This museum is about EEng's psychiatric condition. For the endocrine condition, see Breast hypertrophy.

Sorry, --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed you should be ashamed, but we must face the situation unflinchingly. I encourage you to add the following code, which modifies your proposal slightly and gives credit where credit is due:
::''This museum is about EEng's psyche. For the endocrine condition, see [[Breast hypertrophy]].'' {{mdash}}<small>~~~</small>
EEng 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright then, the unconditional psyche. But sign it? No way! It's merely a tip-of-the-hatnote, and I don't want anyone associating that with me. I've got my rep-pew-tation to protect! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Leave out the signature if you like. EEng 00:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not signing anything without either my lawyer or my shrink. But for now, modesty demands that I bid adieu! (I must be tryping.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

One of the entries that made Leo Kearse the UK Pun Champion at the Leicester Comedy festival in 2015:

  • "I was in hospital last week. I asked the nurse if I could do my own stitches. She said "suture self".

Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) to Martinevans123 now THAT's funny!! ^_^ Atsme📞📧 21:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I can perform an appendectomy with my bare teeth. And you should see me remove a hemorrhoid. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I'd rather look away, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC) [147]
The pathologist said: "It may be shit to you, but it's my bread and butter." (True story: when I took Biochem 10 at Harvard, the professor actually told that joke in the final lecture of the course.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm banning both of you from this page for 48 hours to give you two a chance come to your senses, sober up, or whatever it is that's needed. EEng 21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't wait to see you take me to ANI for violating the ban! May I come to someone else's senses? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"The innocents can all sleep safely." Andypartridge123 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
"And all the world is football-shaped": so is that real football, or that boring soccer thing? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
[148] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
"... 'ere, EEngie, when I was over in Rio recently I 'ad to use one of them new "Olympic toilets" ... you get robbed at gun-point, you lose $1 million and you can't even lochte the door properly!" **tee-hee** Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC) "... come on in, the water's boiling!"
"I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make User:EEng pay for that wall. Mark my words." [149]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "I was shuffling through the Harvard sand, but my head's in Mississippi". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
"Hey there, foxy Harvard boy. Need a stylish dinner date?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok Martinevans123 I haven't met any of you in person so I have no clue which one is the "foxy Harvard boy" - do tell - or is WP fortunate enough that all of you fit that description? yes Atsme📞📧 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Aww, bless you. Ok, we'll just leave it to your imagination. I must say, I've seen you over at your User Page and it's really you who are the foxy one! ... we're just the other type :) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
^^One of the reasons I love volunteering here. Real people seeing each other as real people but having said that, you must surely be referring to the red fox jacket as being "foxy" because the dry suit image is closer to the "real me". 8-[, but please carry on and I, too, will bask in the wonders of the brilliant minds I've been so fortunate to experience here and throughout WP. Atsme📞📧 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm stalking this page until the day I die because of this conversation. Cards84664 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Good, goooood! Igor, add Mr. Cards to The List, will you?
I nearly died getting to the bottom of this talk page... *grrr, grrr*. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Sounds a little fatalistic.... but in case you get bored: [150].
What a perspicacious tool! It produced "Martin Evans is a totally overrated clown who speaks without knowing the facts". Robevans123 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
At this moment, I'm regretting that I have Hovercards enabled. Colonel "Ah! My eyes!" Klink (Peroxide Rinse|Blindfold)
Yes, Christmas just comes too early, these days.
...hovercard? ...schmovercard! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I hope you don't work with children. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't even work with animals. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't you mean work with animals? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
oh, shucks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert of edits adding country into US place articles[edit]

Dear EEng, I see that you have made several reverts of edits of mine such as this one with the comment "...we don't qualify US states as being in the US -- WP:USPLACE". I believe that you are in error. The page you linked to does not relate to content but the convention of US place names as article titles, the opening paragraph of the guide says "...This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places" (my underlining). I have been editing a long time, although not so much recently, and it was my impression that putting the name of the nation into an article lede is promoted since it helps search engines. I would be grateful if you would either revert your edits of mine or provide me with a guideline (or rule) which indicates that US articles, or articles generally, should not have the nations name in the article text. As you have reverted a number of good faith edits by me, it is for you to prove that your edits are in line with current WP practice. I shall watch your page for your reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I've already answered you on this twice. First was in a thread you yourself opened [151], where you'll notice multiple editors joined in explaining why what you're doing is inappropriate. Second was in the edit summaries I used (e.g. [152]) in reverting your changes. I might also add that I only had to revert some of your changes, as the rest were reverted by various other editors before I got there. EEng 23:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I will respond there - suffice to say that a guideline relating to titles has no effect upon content; it is why the title of the guide refers only to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Boilerplate notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 

[Leaving this because of what looks like mass WP:ASPERSION-casting and mischaracterization of the views of everyone on the other side of style dispute, made by you in a extraneous WP:POINTy image sidebar at WT:MOS earlier today, and which you defended as appropriate at my talk page after why it is not appropriate was explained. You last received a WP:ARBATC DS notice in 2014, and were not engaging in things like this in the year after that notice, so maybe this will have the desired effect.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)]

What some people think reading an article should feel like to the reader

Sandy's mad that I added the image seen at right to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style -- says it was a "smear". EEng 23:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Our words should be as dry as dead bones in the desert? Where's the personal attack in that? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, what I was saying was that some people seem to think that articles should be dry as bones in the desert [153], which he says is a personal attack. Then this morning I got pinged into this maelstrom [154]. EEng 04:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a personal attack, its a straw man psychological projection and mischaracterization of everyone who disagrees with you about decorative quotation boxes, to character-assassinate them has holding a stupid/crazy position that they do not in fact hold, and thus a civility problem and, as a big extraneous sidebox jammed into an RfC discussion it probably qualifies as WP:POINT disruption. You should have had the grace to remove it when it was objected to.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not character assassination (!) to say that some (not "all") editors think that articles are supposed to be dry as dust. Lots of editors express such a view, asserting that dry, flat, cold = something they call "professional". Please now have the last word in this completely insane discussion on this trivial matter. EEng 13:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing that out. I was remembering from my days on OTRS, fielding demands from academics to cite their own work. It's pretty clear that self-citation is a bad idea, and wide-scale self-citation doubly so. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't agree it's always a bad idea. I've done it myself. EEng 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:EEng[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User:EEng, 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/User:EEng and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EEng 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. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • And people wonder why editors who actually write articles get pissed off at gnomes who tinker, fiddle, and fuss over nothing. EEng 07:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As you were. But maybe think about archiving some of this talk page? --NeilN talk to me 07:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Damn, I missed all the fun. I didn't know that we could delete editors! For a price, I know someone who can do that the old-fashioned way (joke). Or maybe just witness protection. Anyway, +1 to what NeilN said about archiving. Please, please, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Beginning of tasteless dick jokes[edit]

Ha ha! You're not gonna get me with that one!

"This dick tastes like banana bread with raisins..." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
For once, you came up with a YouTube link that I actually found interesting enough to watch through, and then watch several more that came after. (In fairness, several of the US foods are things that I've never seen in the US.) So, spotted dick comes in a can, and you can put your spotted dick in a microwave. Does that clear up the spots? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Shucks, will try better next time. Everyone knows that spotted dick comes from too much Fanny Cradock. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
and we all want our doughnuts to turn out like her's. Robevans123 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, Martin, if you are trying better, you'll have to be more careful about talking about pulling a dick out of a Fanny! And how many Evans123 family members are there? Sounds like they are reproducing like Welsh rabbits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
"'Ere Tryppy, I 'ad that Evans family from St Mary-le-Bow in the back of me hutch last week." Evanevans1234 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • And WP:DICK is a soft redirect. Well, at least we must keep a stiff upper lip. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
"Horny Baby", anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
No thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, if that archiving is really happening, it might be better to put this section away sooner rather than later; for convenience, I've erected a section heading. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 22:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC) (And if you decide not to archive it, you could at least put it in a hat.... okay, I'm done now.)
There seems to be an awful lot of erection going on here... --Tryptofish (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
... you really missed my whole point about bargaining? At least we're down to a mere 238 threads now. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm a bit upset over this whole archiving business; it's just not right to deconstruct the only man-made talk page that can be seen from space. Perhaps I can dicker with EEng on the matter.... (bold and italics highlighting what was apparently MartinEvans123's point all along.) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are warped." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

End of dick jokes...?[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User:EEng, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for enshrining which involves creating multiple copies to be held in every museum of national heritage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for enshrining/User:EEng and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EEng during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for enshrining template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the enshrining discussion. Thank you. Robevans123 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

EEng, ever thought of writing for a quality UK publication?? We were all waiting for a "full retraction". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Gosh, it's nice to know my humble page brings enjoyment to so many. What's canfassing, and is it legal in all 50 states? EEng 20:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. 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. If you're not interested in discussion, then please keep your ad homiems to yourself RexxS (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Saying "RexxS is simply behind the times -- see note at..." and linking to a recent (July 2016) guideline change which you apparently missed [156] isn't a personal attack. You're being ridiculous. (And we'll leave it to others here to judge whether, in this context, saying "You're being ridiculous" is a personal attack.) EEng 21:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


What is your strategy for archiving your talk page, noticeably your third archive looks much greater than the other two, I need your guidance. Cards84664 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My third archive has size zero. Do the others have negative size? If you're looking for any kind of guidance from me, you must be desperate. EEng 03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)p
I'm desperate. How about archiving a lot more, and then transcluding the archives you cannot live without back to here? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey, that's a great idea! I'll give that some thought. EEng 06:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Life's too short. EEng 06:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
But your talk page isn't. Now, I can't get this image out of my head: tiny Australian people herding tiny sheep. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
All called Bruce, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jane Austen[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jane Austen. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Way too short. EEng 04:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Harvard University[edit]

Please source your edits at Harvard University, so the information you're adding may be verified. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits don't need sources; information one adds needs sources. I didn't add the information, just copyedited the text to say the same thing a different way. EEng 08:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As I said, "the information you're adding" needs to be verified, per WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, it will likely be challenged and/or removed. If you've just moved info already sourced, please copy the source(s) to that section as well, to avoid confusion. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't add anything. If you think I did, show me the diff. EEng 08:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Your edit. X4n6 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What information was added by that edit? EEng 08:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
01:35, 8 September 2016‎ . . (-404) . . could not find information added. - NQ (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
My (talk page stalker)s for sure have too much time on their hands. If only all that talent, time and effort could be tamed and used for the betterment of humanity. EEng 09:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If the source(s) for this information is/are listed elsewhere in the article, please also attach them here, or the edit risks being removed. X4n6 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I take it, by your failure to respond to my question, that you've realized that I added no new information. Since I didn't add it, I have no idea where it might be sourced. Why are you still wasting our time on this? Before you get any bright ideas, BTW, I remind you that BURDEN sets the standard for removal of unsourced material (outside BLPs) as being that you genuinely believe no source exists -- not just because you can challenge it. So please don't get any WP:POINTY ideas. EEng 09:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What you should have gleaned from my response, is that I had no interest in playing games. As you're clearly not interested in claiming ownership of this unsourced material - and since you appear equally disinterested in providing appropriate sources for it, I've removed it per WP:VERIFY. X4n6 (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
And I've restored it. There's no reason for me to "take ownership" of this information since, as now both I and another editor have told you, I didn't add it. And VERIFY doesn't require, in order that material remain in an article, that it be verified, merely that it be verifiable. Did you make even the most basic attempt to find a source before engaging me in this nonsense waste of time? The fact that you can remove something unsourced doesn't mean you should, especially material this new and duly tagged [citation needed]. EEng 10:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.X4n6 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@X4n6: Why are you quibbling over this nonsense? What’s the point of adding the [citation needed] tag if you are hell bent to edit war and remove it altogether? Take heed of EEng's advice or find something better to do. - NQ (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


I just looked at your page for the first time. The Trump stuff. Hilarious? Not really. It's childish and irresponsible. This is not the place to do this. Try to imagine doing the same thing, but with Hillary Clinton on your page. Doc talk 09:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871, I'm fairly certain that there quite a few in there disparaging Clinton (and Obama) as well. Just not nearly as many as there are for Trump. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a limit, in size and scope, when it comes to user pages. It's a little out of hand. I'm not running to report it, just noting it. Doc talk 10:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Everything on my user page is there either to increase other editors' pleasure in contributing (by providing modest amusement they can enjoy during breaks from editing) or to assist them in becoming more effective editors (by illustrating various aspects of Wikipedia as a social environment e.g. [157]). Democratic figures are featured as well as Republican (e.g. [158]) though unfortunately those opportunities don't arise very often, because e.g. Clinton and Obama just aren't as amusing. EEng 10:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
That's cute! There's no question that you have a good sense of humor. For me, the thing is really this: why put your politics on display here? What purpose does it actually serve? Who really gives a crap if you're a liberal or a conservative? It's an allegedly unbiased encyclopedia. We should try to strive for neutrality. You're just showing your hand. I would take any edit you make in the political realm with a grain of salt as biased, based on your user page. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Granting for a moment, for the sake of argument, that I am indeed "showing my hand" via my user page, then I guess that would act as a sort of COI disclosure should I edit any political articles (which I don't). Editors aren't personally required to have a neutral point of view‍—‌only articles are. EEng 10:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. What I'm really getting at, in a roundabout way, is that you can't use your user page to store a ton of... "funny stuff" that is really not related to Wikipedia. That's what private webpages are for. MySpace, etc. The servers are not here to host comedy pages. Doc talk 10:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, as seen numerous places on my talk page (e.g. here), many editors find my userpage a refreshing place to take a break from editing or (e.g. here) to find "medicine against chronic wikidespair". Certainly that's good for the project. Thank you for the complement on my sense of humor, though not everyone agrees with you on that (image at right). EEng 11:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) I'm afraid I have to go back to bed now -- midnight snack -- but please visit The Museums frequently.
This is not a host for you to defame BLP subjects.[159] Don't restore that material. Doc talk 11:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Doc, you're out of line. While I'm not necessarily a fan of the user's talk page, you've gone too far. First, you're being contradictory when you say you're not running to report the user's page - then you unilaterally choose to censor it? Second, you're also being hypocritical, as one of your own userboxes identifies you as a Republican. Why is it fine for you to "show your hand" but not this user? As for your claims of "defamation?" No wikilawyering please. Parody is protected speech. Per CENSOR, even on this project. So if there is a COI here, it's in your removal of content on another user's page. You know better. You need to self-revert - and if you don't, the user would be justified in reporting you. As the line goes, if it offends you - don't look. X4n6 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Images for Trump's family are listed on the pages they are used on Wikipedia. We don't use those images on a user's page under "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers". It's completely against BLP. Doc talk 11:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • First, personal pages are not BLPs. So I'm not seeing any validity to that argument. Second, again, parody is protected speech. Third, you're editing another user's page. Since you can spout policy vios, you're well aware of the many that violates, so don't make me list them. Fourth, you have a COI, so you're really not in the best position to complain. You just look like a pov pusher yourself. But again, if you are offended - or just humor challenged - I'd suggest you just not engage further with this user or his page. But if you are too vexed, vigilantism is still not the answer. It all too often boomerangs. Take it to the proper forum. Where - as you probably already now - you'll likely get told exactly what I've already said. And risk possible sanctions yourself for vandalizing a user's personal page. But the choice is yours. X4n6 (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, you two, thank you for your comments. In the morning I'll adjust the content to address Doc's concerns. After all, the kids (though they've chosen to put themselves into the spotlight) can't help who their father is, and the wife probably didn't know what she was getting herself into. Now, may I get back to sleep, please? EEng 12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Ya know, if you put a little effort into it instead of just straight-up deriding, it could actually be amusingly clever and inoffensive. Think SNL humor. "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers" is desperate. Work on the material and get back to me. Doc talk 12:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
And to all a goodnight! X4n6 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
POLEMIC? I didn't know one could use polecats? Hmm, "childish and irresponsible"... which politician immediately springs to mind there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me that if we start prohibiting editors from expressing their political opinions on their user pages, there are an awful lot of user boxes that will have to be removed. And as for the dividing line between acceptable commentary, and commentary that "goes too far", there is no practical way to establish a consensus as to where that line would be. A user page is not an article for our readers. If one does not like a particular user page, then don't look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
... or else just put up a good sturdy fence? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the problem with Pole Mics?

I don't understand - what's all the fuss about Pole Mics? They are very useful for recording the sounds of silly hats, silly skirts, and scottish monster shepherds, and all from a safe distance.

This one's even got a nice, furry spoffle (the microphone, not the shepherd). Robevans123 (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, Miss Litella, I believe that's... —Steve Summit (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
What was that?
Never mind. Bitch (sotto voce).[FBDB] Robevans123 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

On a side note...[edit]

This thread (or maybe this liquor) has gotten me thinking: what's going to happen to the content of EEng's userpage on November 9, the day after election day? If Trump loses, it will be irrelevant; if Trump wins, we'll have bigger things to worry about. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If Trump wins, I have little doubt that most of the participants on this page won't be worrying, or even thinking, about anything much longer anyway. EEng 23:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
And when I hear people say "If Trump wins", I laugh. There's a fine line between comedy and tragedy, isn't there? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Absolute stupidity to equate Trump with Nazism. The Nazis actually murdered millions of people!!! Alarmist types that equate a potential Trump presidency to Nazism?! Sheer lunacy. Doc talk 08:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, if you read a good history covering the rise of Hitler during the period 1930-1933 (e.g., Ian Kershaw's two-volume bio) there are some very interesting parallels. I don't think Trump is plotting mass extermination. But the electoral tactics and the appeal of authoritarianism to disaffected segments of the populace, "restore our former glory" type rhetoric, laying the blame for national decline on certain ethnic groups and the like are strikingly similar. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, to be fair to Hitler I don't recall that he was plotting mass extermination when he first came to power either. In the present case, time will tell. EEng 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolute fucking nonsense. Talk about "fear-mongering"?! Just pathetic. Doc talk 15:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's a well-reasoned reply: Godwin's Law. Read the last sentence in the paragraph. Doc talk 16:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately you don't seem to have read Godwin's recent article [160] cited by the very sentence you link, nor the Peter Bergen piece (cited with approval, in turn, by Godwin in that same article) which concludes that Trump is indeed a fascist, with only the exception that he's not (yet) openly calling for violence. Godwin's Law warns against glib comparisons to fascism, not all such comparisons.
That otherwise seemingly intelligent persons continue to deny what is so obviously going on here is the reason I opened my very first post on Trump with Huxley: "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach."
Now, if I may, I would like to exercise the Museum Curator's privilege by asking that this debate be halted. It's not in keeping with the spirit of fun I like to promote here. EEng 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, Trump's campaign has made explicit (but dog-whistle, so plausibly deniable) call-outs to actual neo-nazis. Or did you miss the significance of the 88 in his "88 generals" endorsement? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop that. Stop it. Will you stop that. Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say "Trump is a fascist." EEng 17:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
And with that, EEng gets the trains running on time again. Now if he could only archive his fucking talk page.... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, surely Colonel Wilhelm Klink would be in a position to know. EEng 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hogannnn!!! Doc talk 08:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Dis-missed! Hmmph! But anyway, sidestepping the somewhat dubious origins of my username, perhaps it's time to bring this conversation to a close, no? Nothing constructive can come out of it at this point. Que sera sera, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hostilities resume[edit]

At 0028 hours local time, I mentioned [161] that "My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment." Within hours...

...the following post was transferred here from another page...

I really didn’t see your "final answer"[162] until today. I was amused, but not in a good way. You’ve been here since 2006, and yet you claim to know more than me about several things. Here’s a few where you’re totally dead wrong:
  • WP:BLP, very first sentence: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.” Any page actually applies to what you deem to be “personal pages”.
  • Parody is protected speech… by whom? Wikipedia? This is a private website, not a government. BLP policy is normally strictly enforced here over "parody".
  • Editing another user’s page does not violate "many" policies. I don’t even know what that means. What policies? Meh...
  • You have zero evidence of me having a COI on anything. On what are you basing that accusation? It’s one of several personal attacks you used to dismiss legitimate concerns. I'm also a “POV pusher”, “vigilante”, and a “vandal”. The vandalism charge is just truly ignorant of policy. Very sad for an editor of your tenure. Why did EEng not consider it vandalism? Because... it wasn't! Amazing...
So, this is really not an insult; please don’t take it as one. In the future: know what the hell you’re talking about before you chastise an editor who’s been around as long as me. I predict that you'll just erase this thread with a nasty edit summary and not even take any consideration to what I wrote. Doc talk 06:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

...and the fireworks began... ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As you can see, Doc, I've moved your post above from my talk page, where you saw fit to leave it - a full ten days after this was discussed - to where it belongs. Here. If anywhere. Beyond that, my own responses will be of appropriate length, even though, so many days later, I truly care less than a tinker's damn. But first, an admonition: kindly stay the hell off my talk page with this kind of crap. Any need you had for a 10 day old rebuttal belonged here. Or just screamed at the top of your lungs inside your bathroom. As someone who has "been around as long as me" - you really should know that. However, it must also be noted that, the only likely reason you posted on my talk, was so other editors, like Patient Zero, who reverted you; or Tryptofish, whose advice, similar to mine, you also ignored; or Martinevans123 and Robevans123, who were amused by your woeful misuse of polemic; or Colonel Wilhelm Klink, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and David Eppstein, who challenged your pov, as well as your grasp of logic. But so much for all that now. Oops. Still, since frankly, I can't resist a point-by-point refutation of your polemic:

  • 1) This project grants "considerable leeway" on userpages, per WP:USERPAGE. Also, your cherry-picked, yet painful misinterpretation of WP:BLP is pretty transparently wrong - as the very next sentence following your quote is: "We must get the article right. You've "been around" long enough to know that userpages are not articles.
  • 2) As I tried to explain to you, parody is not only protected speech, but it also does not form the basis for a defamation tort. Your response was "by whom? Wikipedia? This is a private website, not a government.". The subjects of the parody are also public figures. So I'll just direct you to the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruling can be read at Opinion of the Court. In brief:

    ""At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.

    ...Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here."[163]

So, put both politely and succinctly: your claims of injury, defamation, or any other potential liability to this project, from the clearly intended parody posted on a userpage - are all crap. With that, I'll also advise you - perhaps preemptively - that the Wikimedia Foundation is an American non-profit organization; and as such, is subject to all the applicable laws of the United States.

Also, as to your claim that: "The vandalism charge is just truly ignorant of policy. Very sad for an editor of your tenure. Why did EEng not consider it vandalism? Because... it wasn't! Amazing... Tell ya what: while you're bringing yourself up to speed on all the other WP links I've already given you, add this one to your homework. From the policy on WP:VANDALISM, the section "User and user talk page vandalism": "Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism." It was. And I did.

Finally, as regards this little passive-aggressive gem: "So, this is really not an insult; please don’t take it as one. In the future: know what the hell you’re talking about before you chastise an editor who’s been around as long as me." Here's my response in summary:

  • a) Stay the hell off my talk page with this waste of my time. Especially when I was right;
  • b) In the future, know what the hell you're talking about;
  • c) Stop pov pushing anywhere on this project; and
  • d) Before you try to throw weight around that you don't have - you should know that someone who really had "been around", would have been smart enough to check the Users list first - to know with whom they were talking. So you've been "around" over "eight years?" Want a cookie? I've been around over ten.

One more thing: I responded. So much for that last prediction: "I predict that you'll just erase this thread with a nasty edit summary and not even take any consideration to what I wrote." Seems your predictions are as empty as your other claims. But careful what you ask for, huh? But hey, feel free to come up with whatever tortured little allegedly clever defense/harangue/riposte/screed you'd like, okay? Yawn. While I, out of respect for both EEng's talk page; as well as my own natural inclination in this case, will blissfully return to caring less than a fraction of a damn. X4n6 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Your WP:LASTWORD smarm can go suck an egg. The disussion was already way over! I wrote that on your page... 3 days ago. We've moved on. You're certainly not convincing me, or anyone else, of anything with your addition. Piss. Off. Doc talk 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Is it OK come to somone else's Talk Page, to edit war and tell a third party to piss off? Or does the careful use of that piss period mean it's not a real insult? I guess it's pretty much up to EEng what he wants on his Talk Page. Much like his User Page, really. By the way, I was fully convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. sorry if I've "trumped" your WP:LASTWORD last word.

Henry Trengrouse[edit]

My word, that was brave. But his article gives no indication that he ever travelled further north than London?? If the Humphry Davy vs George Stephenson safety-lamps-at-dawn is any guide, it must have been some canny Geordie, not some posh softie Cornwallite, who was the true inventor? But I'm happy to leave as is, pending more research! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If you'll scare up some good sources on the rocket thing, we could put together a new article with a catchy DYK:
...that a 19th-century shipwreck victim might find a rocket coming toward him?
Something like that. EEng 20:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow yes, just gagging for that "quirky eighth slot". Fram never gives anyone a rocket, does he. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your page is to be enshrined[edit]

Tapisserie moines mannequins.jpg By Order of the Illuminators Puirsuivant in Waiting

Henry VIII playing harp.jpg

You are hereby informed that your page has been selected for complete enshrinement and grilling while wearing silly hats and maintaining a safe distance from User:Ritchie333 unless suitably attired.

Please be aware that this process can take up to ten years and you should avoid making any changes to the page during this period. The serf is currently preparing the vellum (he's chasing a calf, but that's a typical Saturday night on the Levels), while the chief scribe is preparing his quills, the milliner-in-chief is measuring everyone's head, and the proof-reader in waiting is searching for his rubbers erasers. Everyone is keeping a safe distance from the tanner-in-residence.

The enshrined page will include an illustration of HRH EEng, wearing a silly hat, pleasantly plucking away while Rome burns, with the fool worrying about the next BLP violation. Robevans123 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks to everyone who participated. I am unworthy. EEng 20:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of shrines for unenshrinement[edit]

Great. Now I'm in the middle of an enshrinement war. Anyway, I think the word is unshrinement. EEng 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
You mean disenshrinification. HTH, HAND. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Trypto needs to be careful - he might bring down the wrath of the cabal of antidisenshrinificationists. Robevans123 (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Who, me? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Your "threats" against JamesJohnson2[edit]

You will forever look like this in my mind's eye from now on. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Get in line, Mr. Pants. EEng 17:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
.. whereas most other editors think of you like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 :) EEng 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It's much better than being thought of like this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Pants, I could get you blocked at ANI for even suggesting that. EEng 19:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
oooh! nice pony. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by admin once more gets the wrong end of the stick, and drops by to threaten and lecture[edit]

Original section heading: "Last Warning on Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions"

Reminder User talk:EEng/Archive_2#Notification of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions

user:Jayaguru-Shishya sent me an email about this pair of edits 1 2, which was a follow up to a post JS made to my page on, See User talk:PBS#Problems at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

I agree with the substance of user:Jayaguru-Shishya accusations.

If you breach WP:TALK again and I am notified, I will take administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you breach basic grammar and punctuation rules, I will take adverse action. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to be clear, The Rambling Man, you're talking not to me but to PBS, right? EEng 21:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Seriously. The guy can't even get the grammar right when giving you a warning about MOS sanctions. It's either irony or a paradox or something that I haven't thought of yet. In any case, I've unsuitably indented my reply a la EEng, just to ensure you know I'm replying at you innit an' not dat uvver fella. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that should be à l'EEng, but of course I would not wish to quibble... --Mirokado (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Shame on you. You should know that over-indenting like that is simply not supported by the Chicago Manual of Style. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Punishment of the Paddle, 1912.jpg This user is an indented servant.
Indented servitude -- that's hysterical. EEng 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It narrowly won in a product comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
And now, we have to figure out how to pronounce "l'EEng". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll take a flier on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • PBS, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I've responded in detail on your talk page [164]. (Connoisseurs of forum-shopping Wikilawyers taking advantage of the credulity of random admins may want to follow that link.) EEng 21:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Recently, you have more than once altered text on a talk page posted by another editor against their objections. You justify that by stating "Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore the edits by other editors that J-G removed without also removing his comments;" removing others comments against the objections of others is a breach of WP:TALK. After their comments were restored, if you though that such a restoration was unjustified, you should have asked an uninvolved administrator (either directly or indirectly via WP:ANI) to intervene. Edit warring over the content of article pages is disruptive, edit warring over the content of talk pages is unnecessary and disruptive (hence the rules over not altering other people's comments). Alter another person's comments on a talk page (other than those small changes sanctioned by WP:TALK talk) and I will take administrative actions. Is that clear? -- PBS (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, looks like we've got another live one with a bad case of WP:IDHT on top. What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to? And since when has admin privilege been required to take obvious corrective actions that aren't actually uses of that privilege? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, PBS (since you have trouble following talk page discussions) D.E. is talking about you. Is that clear? EEng 06:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
PBS, your failure to even acknowledge the unusually strong condemnation by one of your fellow admins, above, of your behavior in this matter adds to the accumulating evidence calling into question your fitness as an administrator. EEng 03:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No response from the drive-by admin. Surprise! EEng 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

From my talk page:
I reverted your [(user:Jayaguru-Shishya)] comments because, in the same edit in which you made them, you deleted and refactored others' comments. One notices PBS has stopped defending you. Get a clue. EEng 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I never "defened" user:Jayaguru-Shishya. So stating that I have "stopped defending [user:Jayaguru-Shishya[" not accurate. I reminded you of my previous warning of MOS descretionary sanctions (User talk:EEng/Archive_2#Notification of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions) and under those sanctions I placed a specific restriction on you not to delete other editors tal page comments. I did this because you seem unable to understand that deleteing other's comments against another editors objections is a direct breach of WP:TALK. I have responded now because you seem to be self justifying you breach of WP:TALK.
Despite you suggestions that an involved administrator ought to be an arbitrator in this issue, it is univolved admins, or as you put it "Drive-by admin[s]", that are preferred for such interventions (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
If it makes you happy to get the last word in then you most likely will, but unless you behave in such a way as to warrent my intervention under the MOS discressionary sanction, I so not intend to engage in further correspondence over this issue. -- PBS (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, look, the drive-by admin pops up to threaten and lecture again!
  • It's somehow not surprising that you and your little pal J-G are still whining about this two weeks later, because you're both clueless.
  • Uninvolved is fine; drive-by, which is what you are, is someone who doesn't bother to understand (or, as is increasingly obvious in your case, is incapable of understanding) what's really going on before issuing pompous lectures and threats. For the nth time, it was J-G who removed and refactored others' comments, not me; I undid his removal and refactoring of others' comments, and for that you're giving me grief, because you're clueless.
  • I repeat what your fellow admin, David Eppstein, said about your actions in this matter: "What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to?" i.e. you're unfit to be an admin, because you're clueless. I notice you became an admin in the old days when that status was essentially anyone's for the asking. It's unfortunate that the voices in the wilderness pointing to your "consistently poor judgement" and predicting that you would "certainty abuse adminship" weren't heeded.
When you're excited either your spelling or your typing deteriorate; slowing down might lead to improvement in those areas, and possibly in your thinking processes (though I can't be sure of that). I'm glad to hear that you plan to stop embarrassing yourself by posting further here, and will (I guess) just go do whatever it is you do when you're not encouraging Wikilawyers and wasting the time of editors who know what they're doing. EEng 07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


Hey @EEng: this may seem like a lot to ask, with us not being acquainted and all, but because you've been active at DYK, and have a reputation as a good copy editor, I thought what's the harm in asking?

I recently made a DYK nomination for an article I made, Timber Sycamore. I'm pretty excited about the article because I was surprised, when I began reading about the program, that I'd never heard of it before.

Do you think I could prevail upon you to perhaps review my article, and the nomination?

Just as a quick FYI, every statement **should** be attributed either to the next citation that follows, or occasionally, to the one preceding. Let me know what you think! -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The Great and Powerful Oz has decided to grant your puny request! However, DYK rules forbid the same person from both copyediting (or doing any significant editing) and also acting as reviewer. So which do you want? Personally I'd rather copyedit, as I haven't done much reviewing for a while and I'm rusty at it. EEng 14:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to amend and copy edit things now, in advance of any review, but if you'd prefer copyediting, I'd appreciate your eyes, oh great one ;) -Darouet (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
[FBDB]Use title case when referencing The Wizard, insect! And it's 'O' not 'Oh' i.e. "O Great One". You are obviously in desperate need of a good copyeditor! The Great and Powerful Oz will attend to the task before the end of one of your puny Earth days! EEng 14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Haha, please do not end my days O Great One: they are so puny! Why trouble Yourself to even consider them? My days are as grass, they pass like the wind; the storms hurl me from my place, and the tempests steal me away in the night!
Seriously though I have no idea how you copyeditors do it. -Darouet (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Beware, lowly Darouet. He calls himself Oz, but admits he's "a little rusty". Need I say more? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Wow, thank you EEng! -Darouet (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Meh. No doubt he'll be telling you next all about the rains down in Africa Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In The News[edit]

Skittles. Yep.[165] Doc talk 07:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I really don't want my talk page to become a debate venue, but I can hardly imagine what we're supposed to conclude from the fact that you've referred us to a New York Post piece by John Podhoretz for what you apparently think is a serious purpose. EEng 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You're using your user page as a venue. What's wrong with discussing things here? Are you saying I can't post here? Doc talk 07:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment. (Wiki-related matters provide enough of the former.) Keeping that in mind, you are a welcome and valued member of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng 07:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of debates: wow! It's already here! Monday, 9PM EST! None of us know what to expect, really. Just a crazy ride we're all on. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It can now be revealed that I'm the Trump stand-in Clinton's been using in preparing for the debate, so in fact I can say with confidence that I do know what will happen. Unfortunately I can't tell you. Sorry. EEng 07:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not bothering to file a tax return to the IRS for more years than I can shake a stick at. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Sniff, sniff. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Return of the bodice-ripping bots[edit]

Looks like the phenomena of bots getting into a bit of "rough and tumble" with each other has made the press. New Scientist article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

And now this. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of bus routes in London[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of bus routes in London. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Ritchie333 feedback request services is asking for participation in watching some grass grow Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

et voila. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You stand around waiting for an RfC and then five come at once... Robevans123 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Harvard University[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. X4n6 (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  • <rolls eyes> EEng 09:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Purely pro forma, baby. You do what you need to do - then let's dance. X4n6 (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, are you taking your medication? EEng 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not OR[edit]

Re: [166]. Firstly, it's really poor form to roll back a whole edit, taking it with other improvements and corrections. If you think a particular sentence violates policy, you should just do something about that.

Secondly, no, looking up an address, and subtracting the date of construction of the bridge from his birthdate is not OR, it's providing context to the reader. That the construction of the bridge began when he was about 7 is trivial maths. That the bridge's on-ramp passes in front of 55 Frankfort St is easily verified. The previous version of the page was factually incorrect (it stated he was born at the location of one end of the bridge, when the bridge didn't exist yet). Please be more careful with your OR sledgehammer. Stevage 07:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Stevage, I've enjoyed working with you on the article, so please let's not fall out over something like this.
  • I don't believe my undo (which you link above) removed anything other than the statement that When he was just seven, the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge began, its northwestern on-ramp passing directly in front of the family home; but if it did, that must be very subtly hidden in the diff. For my peace of mind, can you give me an example of one of the "other improvements and corrections" that my edit removed?
  • Making such a statement, sourced only thus
<ref>40°42′39″N 74°00′12″W / 40.71078°N 74.00341°W / 40.71078; -74.00341 (55 Frankfort St, New York City)</ref>
(so that, presumably, we're supposed to click on the map and conclude that his birthplace address is opposite a Brooklyn Bridge ramp) is absolutely OR. How was the address converted into coordinates? How do we know the street wasn't renumbered at some point (which happens more often than people realize)? How do we know when, during the seven years it took to build the bridge, the ramps were constructed? Was he living there the whole time from his birth until the ramps were constructed?
Since, for whatever reason, you've brought this issue here to my talk page, I'm going to invite members of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers to check out the diff you linked and opine on the OR question. In the meantime, I ask that you reconsider and remove this material yourself. It can't be passed for DYK with this issue outstanding. EEng 07:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Having recently been exhibited at the Museum of Intelligent Life (I'm quite capable of making an exhibition of myself, thank you very much), and now being regarded as part of the glitterati I'm obviously moving in the right circles, but I have to agree that The Great and Powerful Oz is correct in thinking that the early life of someone cannot be inferred from some coordinates... Robevans123 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Only the lonely[edit]

I just learned that we have a page on Radiometric dating. It strikes me as a less-than-ideal way to meet romantic partners. (Although, come to think of it, one might meet someone who is hot.) The curator could perhaps do something with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cryptofish [167]. EEng 05:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
But are there any hot particles in hot pockets? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
That should be Cryptofish, or if there is a pair, Cryptofishs! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
You'll never find me! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump takes the podium[edit]

Hey, I don't want to look at the page history, but did you censor your own joke, or did someone else do it for you?

If it was someone else, I think you'd be forgiven for reverting them. If it was you, I thought I'd tell you that "one of the candidates takes the podium" makes a little less sense, and so is a little less funny, to those outside the US. The image being what it is would make me a lot more like to interpret "candidate" as one of the contenders for the throne in a monarchic state prone to succession disputes.

"One of the candidates in the 2016 presidential race" would probably be the best solution (I probably would have found this more amusing than just saying "Trump", honestly).

Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88, see [168] and [169]. As you'll see from my edit summary I agree with you, but with the adjacent posts talking of small-r republicanism and so on I'm sure most people realized who was who, and I didn't feel like making a fuss. Have you visited The Museums? EEng 22:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"Don'tcha Wish Ya Hill'ry Was Hot Like Me?" - the Dolly Cat Pussies feat. Busta Trump. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
You are one sick puppy. EEng 13:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Bicycle Thieves[edit]

Thanks EEng for your rapid reversion of vandalism of my edit and for your comment supportive of the edit. Best Wishes, Mike Spathaky (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

MOS linking within quotes - strikeout[edit]

You appear to have struck out the wrong version in this edit. Blueboar withdrew the suggestion, but you struck-out Mitch Ames's version. Please fix this ASAP, before the discussion gets even more confusing. (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank goodness you pointed this out. EEng 03:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rico Harris[edit]

Sorry about that. As you can see from the article history, I started reviewing the article at 21:03 UTC, but when I tried to post my review 20 minutes later, you had just started yours. Hope I didn't cause you to lose too much time over it. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sweet Yoninah, I was just kidding. EEng 22:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fussing over userpage content[edit]

You can't include the entire lyrics of a Randy Newman song. Copyright reasons, you know. Take it down; maybe include a small excerpt. DS (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Not that Randy Newman would mind, of course, but you're right – rules are rules, and President Trump is definitely going to be a strong enforcer of intellectual property law, he being such an intellectual himself. Personally, I'm gratified you read far enough to notice. EEng 16:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk page clutter[edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For water bottle policing Ribbet32 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Forget it. Next you'll want 2, then 3... Where will it end? EEng 04:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at that talkpage, I'm afraid the discussion will turn out less like
"Okay, we've settled on a solution for 1. Now how about 2?"
...but instead more like:
"I say it should be 1 AD."
"1 CE is more neutral."
"You atheist! Clearly, it should 1 AD, to reflect common usage!"
"I think, if we use AD, we should prefix it, while CE should always be suffixed. With a grave accent over the E.""
"How about we use (year) to end the religious issues?""
"That's not common usage!! But it's common style on Wikipedia! But it's not—it's—uh—" Editor's head explodes from the contradiction, causing mild confusion as to whether (Gregorian year) or (Julian year) would be more appropriate.
"That previous RfC simply does not show enough consensus. I will take legal action against the Year Name Cabal!!"
...until the discussion sinks to the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and everyone agrees on the eminently sensible [insert your favorite disambiguation here].
Now, to do something useful before I clutter up this talkpage any more... Eman235/talk 16:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I know someone who may be able to contribute usefully. Paging Hertz1888. EEng 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Disgusting words[edit]

This caught my attention as something you might find interesting, if you didn't already know about it: Jean Berko Gleason's disgusting word list. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know about it, so thanks! EEng 05:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations[edit]


Great edits on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article!

Since you have a good grasp of things, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#List of sources and post any updates, etc. that you see fit. I'm about to go through and replace the less desirable sources and your input would be helpful, if you have the time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I think I better restrict myself to strictly stylistic copyedits, staying away from anything substantive. If you check out my user page you'll see why. EEng 05:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, somehow I missed this, but we got there pretty quickly!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
CaroleHenson, I just wanted to thank you for your hard work on the article, and encourage you to keep it up despite the obvious difficulties. It's important. EEng 03:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, That is so very nice of you! Your second comment is lovely and very much appreciated! I do get frustrated sometimes, but mostly I think it's a really good group working on the article, and the individual efforts come together in a lovely synergistic way. It's so nice to see how many editors, like you, make great edits and keep the article in great shape! (I hope that makes sense, I'm getting a little punchy!)--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour.svg The Barnstar of Good Humor
I enjoyed your sense of humor. Regained a part of my lost energy. Thanks! Mhhossein talk 12:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ferdinand Lee Barnett (Chicago)[edit]

Thank you for your help with my first DYK, it has been "promoted". I'm sorry if I misunderstood you at some points, and I'm tickled that an article I worked on might soon be on the front page. I really appreciate your patience and help. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help, and welcome to the elite club if DYKers. EEng 01:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop[edit]

"This candidate makes personal attacks at RfA when they ...."
"Wrong!" ... "...leads to an incivil environment..."
"Wrong!" "...admin numbers are dropping...."

Please desist from further comparisons of Trump to Hitler. It has been categorically denied by someone who should know. Robevans123 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Though I love the bit where he refers to Goebbels as "Skeletor", I actually think this [170] is better. Just to be clear (as you know, but for the benefit of eavesdroppers) I would never seriously compare anyone to Hitler -- that would be a BLP violation. EEng 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely! A purely jocular interjection on my part. I did like the references to Celebrity Apprentice and haircuts though. Robevans123 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I expect we'll get a bunch of people turning up saying RfA is rigged and all Republican editors get strong oppose !votes for no reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The fact that people aren't saying that proves there's a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
From now on, I'm going to keep everyone in suspense about whether or not I'll accept the results at AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Just in case you need a little light relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Marshall Newell[edit]

EEng, per your edits on the Marshall Newell article, I don't see how it's productive to restore html code for those endashes, particularly when the endashes throughout the rest of the article are rendered in wikicode. Using wikicode instead of html code appears to the preferred way do things across Wikipedia. Also, your last edit on the heading of the head coaching record table breaks standard formatting used on thousands of other articles about sports coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Dashes are difficult to distinguish from hyphens in the edit window, so using symbolics (&ndash;, {{ndash}}) makes it immediately obvious that the right character is present. (Had I noticed I would have changed the remaining s to symbolics as well; I won't do that now since I don't want to appear WP:POINTY.) Your idea about "the preferred way of doing things" is an illusion. As my edit summary in moving the coaching record table indicated, I'm not sure of the right way to introduce the table, and you're welcome of course to improve that. EEng 04:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
What's not an illusion is the several years I've spent collaborating with a number of editors to standardize both those endashes and those record tables across thousands of articles. You are welcome to acknowledge that reality whenever you care to. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Also not an illusion is the phenomenon of editors working in this or that narrow sector of the vast Wikipedia enterprise misinterpreting the happenstance of their personal experience for a universal status quo. If there's a guideline or policy backing up your claims about markup, you are welcome to point it out whenever you care to. As to the table, I am now for the third time inviting you to modify it, or its heading or lead-in text, however you think best; but it does not belong sitting alone in its own section. EEng 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Are the wikicoded endashes in Pearl Jam or Tyrannosaurus, two featured articles that fall outside my "narrow sector", an illusion? If you have a problem with that table heading, take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football or related project. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Neither two featured articles nor two thousand featured articles would establish that there's some universal rule -- a policy or guideline would (might) do that, and I note you've declined my invitation to point to one. I say now for the fourth time that I don't care about the table heading and you're free to make it whatever you want.
I have to go back to actually improving articles now, and you have to go back to adding wikiproject templates and fiddling with categories and changing markup in ways that don't affect what the reader sees and other busywork, so I'd like to draw this particular discussion over nothing to a close. Please be my guest and embarrass yourself one final time by having the last word now. EEng 14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You are indeed a smart ass and a disrespectful child as well. When you want to come back to the adult table, I'm here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever helps you sleep at night. For future reference, smartass is one word, or you could hyphenate it: smart-ass. Thanks for playing our game, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng 17:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Please (pretty please with sugar on top) comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair[edit]

The Ritchie333 request service is asking for a witty riposte for some of the banter on the AfD, particularly the reference to Hitler's testicles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No barnstar is better than this barnstar, believe me![edit]

Donald Trump Barnstar.png The Donald Trump Barnstar
Your userpage is hilarious. MB298 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Klaatu[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Klaatu. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Barada nikto! EEng 09:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruption at WT:MOS[edit]

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:LQ is self-contradictory are counter to existing consensus as to the existence of the MOS:LQ guideline. Please seek a new consensus separately if you like, but please refrain from further off-topic disruption of that discussion (arguing against consensus is disruption by definition). The title of the thread is "MOS:LQ is self-contradictory", not "Should MOS:LQ exist?" Thanks. ―Mandruss  07:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, Mandruss is talking about this comment [171]. Mandruss, I have great respect for you as an editor, but on this point you're being ridiculous, particularly your idea that "arguing against consensus is disruption by definition". Consensus can change (though I don't hold out much hope in this case) and if it does, it's because someone spoke up and said something most everyone else disagreed with. EEng 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the respect is generally mutual (and I like your humor when good-natured and in a situation where it's not in the way of important discussion). Also this comment.[172]
Yes consensus can change, but there are better ways to seek it than to make off-topic comments and see who supports you there. Try to imagine a scenario where your comments sparked an outpouring of MOS:LQ opposition in that thread which resulted in the elimination of that guideline. I think that's a highly implausible scenario. That kind of thing needs the structure provided by the RfC format. ―Mandruss  08:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
<extends hand to shake> No hard feelings, pal. LQ is, unfortunately (not that it matters all that much) here to stay, so there's no point in an RfC or whathaveyou. However, I think there's benefit to the occasional subversive aside now and then, just to remind others who may think they're alone that in fact they're not the only ones who have avoided being absorbed into the Borg. EEng 09:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough compromise. Subversive aside noted and on the record. Thank you. Now I hope we can stick to the topic. ―Mandruss  10:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
If 30 other editors each invoke their right to a subversive aside (why should you be special?), and that collectively makes it very difficult to make progress on the thread topic, I think that would reveal a flaw in your approach. Maybe that's premature. ―Mandruss  11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'll try and think of something suitably subversive. Hey you guys, try not to beat yoursleves up so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Subversion: Mandruss asked about EEng's ejaculations at WT:MOS, but maybe they were premature. But don't worry, EEng's hands are just fine, I guarantee you that! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
There's a good reason why Wikipedians(,) at large(,) [see?] exhibit a strong bias in favour of LQ: As you, EEng, have apparently already intuited or even implied, Wikipedia attracts the sort of people who have internalised the fact that – at least in many contexts highly relevant to them – punctuation matters. And who are simply prone to arguing about (what some would call) "stupid, pointless crap". (Or, alternatively, "stupid, pointless crap.") That said, given that LQ has already commonly been called thus since at least the 1960s and had already been in use before that, your assertion that it "was devised by people who mistake English punctuation for a programming language" is almost certainly incorrect. (Interestingly, a reader's comment at the linked Slate article cites an unnamed source alleging that the American convention arose due to a practical consideration in the age of the metal movable-type printing press!) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Tucker (squirrel)[edit]

"Fussing" is insulting. Implying I'm a bigot who thinks "cross-dressing is somehow wrong", if that's what you were trying to do, would be egregiously insulting. When all I did was take the time to provide an in-depth review, and pick the hook where I anticipated there would be the fewest problems, there is no need to be that offensive. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, the OP objects to this post of mine. Even members of my glittering array of talk-page stalkers‍—‌all connoisseurs of half-baked, fly-off-the-handle malapropistic[1] indignation, of which we get a lot around here for some reason‍—‌will enjoy an Eats, shoots, and leaves belly-laugh when they absorb this one. I proposed the DYK "hook"
Did you know ... that a cross-dressing squirrel sold World War II war bonds?
You objected that
Wearing clothing is a human characteristic. An animal can't be a transvestite, or a cross-dresser, really.
Then after some back and forth, I chided you for your continued
fussing that cross-dressing is somehow wrong.
And then you came here to pop your cork, saying that I had implied that you're "a bigot who thinks 'cross-dressing is somehow wrong'". I implied nothing of the sort. You should review MOS:WORDSASWORDS, wherein is explained the difference between my implying that you think
cross-dressing is wrong
and implying that you think
cross-dressing is wrong.
EEng 01:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ Made-up word
  • Well, now we all know what EEng's Halloween costume is going to look like! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
In the words of General McAuliffe: "Nuts!" EEng 15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of going seriously off topic, I can't stop thinking of this advertising campaign, to which the near universal response of children throughout the UK was "Squirrel Shit!" (or in more refined quarters "Squirrel Poo!"). Robevans123 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Juanita Musson[edit]

Petit Verdot.jpg Quirky Hook of the Year
A toast for the quirkiest hook of the year with Juanita Musson, currently appearing in Prep 5. Job well done. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For those playing along at home, Maile's talking about this DYK item:
... that Juanita's Galley was noted for a "fabulous" breakfast, potluck, the proprietor's "unpredictable disposition", and a 40-person brawl featuring car jacks, pipes, steel bars, a fishbowl and an ax?
Like screenwriters, we hookers labor largely in obscurity. By taking time out to visit, Maile66, you've brought a ray of sunshine into the life of an otherwise forgotten shut-in. EEng 00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I sort of doubt I'll be able to get through election night without drinking heavily. But I'll give it my best effort. GABgab 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
To what do I owe this cordial visit? EEng 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, something is brewing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I just like visiting museums, such as the ones you curate. GABgab 18:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just making a joke on "brewing", not really implying that something odd is going on! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


You wouldn't want me on decaf, since that would make me cranky from lack of caffeine. (I'm actually far less cantankerous than people think I am; they seem to assume I'm always being dead serious, and imagine me scowling, when I may be laughing).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Dark November Nights[edit]

Hope this will help bring light to those dark November nights... Robevans123 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Curator has added your contribution to The Permanent Collection. EEng 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dental caries[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dental caries. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I need this like I need a hole in the head. EEng 13:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
So I guess you are not going to bite? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Good one. I'm obviously slipping. EEng 22:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


California Penal Codes[edit]

Hi again EEng. I don't know if you know anything about the citation of penal codes, but I've asked at the Teahouse and before that at the Help desk without much avail. I'm trying to cite these two links: [173] and [174] at Ronald Reagan. I could just leave the links in-line, but I'm not sure whether or not that's MOS or not. Please help. Many thanks,--Nevéselbert 20:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, Neve-selbert, legal citation has a lot of prissy detail used to frighten newcomers, but if I really needed to cite one in an article I'd just do the best I could, not worry about it, and let someone who knows that they're doing come along and fix it. Here's something which might help [175].
But I looked at the article and there's a deeper problem. First, I don't see the need to cite (much less link) the specific penal code section. It's already referred to as the Mulford Act, with a link to an article discussing that act, and that's really enough. Even if you wanted to name the specific penal code section, you'd need to get that from a reliable source, which would give you the citation format; to determine the code section yourself would be WP:OR. And there's another problem: codes get reorganized and amended, so there's a real problem of knowing that you're citing and linking the most up-to-date statute (and in fact one of your links doesn't even seem to work). So, again, I'd just link to the Mulford Act and and leave it at that. If there's some text from the statute which readers should know about, that should come from a RS too. EEng 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
So, I should I just remove those links from the article altogether then?--Nevéselbert 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
That's my suggestion. If there's something we're missing then someone will revert and then you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Good luck! EEng 00:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Death certificate[edit]

Hi again EEng. Just wondering whether you know a good way to cite this death certificate. Should I use {{Cite image}} or something else? Thanks.--Nevéselbert 20:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Official records and so on take some creativity. I'd give it as
Death certificate for Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher, 8 April 2013, BAY 326211, Entry No. 194.
However, there's an issue here a bit similar to the one for the Cal. statute, which is that this is a WP:PRIMARY source, and would not typically be cited to support a fact given in an article e.g. for the cause of death. I know that sounds strange but there are good reasons for this e.g. sometimes such records get amended; thus we depend on secondary sources (e.g. a good biography, which would have researched the question) for such information. The only way I would foresee using such a document is as an image per se, placed in the article to illustrate something mentioned in the article e.g. if there was something interesting or memorable about the document itself. You'll find three examples of such primary images (two newspaper reports and the burial record), appropriately used, at Phineas_Gage#Death_and_exhumation – you'll notice no facts are cited to these images, rather the images illustrate facts cited to secondary sources. There's a long discussion, by yours truly, of these kinds of issues here [176]. EEng 22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Most sources state that she died of a stroke. If I just added "Stroke" to the death_cause = parameter & added a footnote linking to the said death certificate suggesting that she specifically died of an ischaemic stroke, would that be OK?--Nevéselbert 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your post until now, Neve-selbert. (It was election day.) That would still be going beyond what the secondary sources say. If it really was an i. stroke specifically, there should be some secondary source saying that, specifically. Try papers of record like The Times and The (New York) Times. EEng 06:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't think of doing that. Anyway, I've since added merely Stroke to said parameter; as it was this time last year.--Nevéselbert 15:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

Hello EEng. I just wanted to say thank you for your various museums. They have helped me immensely in living through this craziest (the nicest word I could think of - the others are much darker) of elections. Well, the day is finally here and a fellow wikipedian dropped this gem off on my talk page. I thought I would share it with you in appreciation of your sage sensibilities. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I watched the clip, and was not impressed - don't care about the Trump part, just the bullhonkey about Brexit - so am unable to resist responding to it. We've had this little Brexit incident where we voted to leave the European Union. Ah, not that most of us wanted to of course, no no. It was just those people who bothered to vote. Poppycock, you regressives wanting to undermine the democratic process. You had your opportunity, and despite the largest voter turnout for anything in who knows how long (if ever), you lost. You self-righteous buggards. Democracy may be the worst system, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I get that this is meant to be a joke, so no hate directed towards anybody, except for "SavetheDay" as they seem to genuinely believe the hogwash they spread. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Just as it's clear most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so, it's apparent that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, either. Saying so isn't an attempt to undermine the democratic process, but rather a call to strengthen its foundation, which is an educated and informed electorate. I thought the video was brilliant (in the sense in which the English use the word). EEng 18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I hate to point out but your choices in the U.S. give you the option between a liar and an idiot. [I]t's apparently that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, I don't think you could be more wrong. The proof will be in the pudding - if it ever gets baked. The EU is looking more like a trojan horse to me everyday. [A]n educated and informed electorate - you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. There's plenty of informed voters who voted for and against Brexit and whether you like it or not, there's plenty of informed voters voting for Hillary and Trump. Same info, different outcome. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. I don't know whether that's the way you operate, but it's not the way I do. However, facts are facts, and since the overwhelming majority of self-described Trump supporters still think that Obama was born in Kenya, there would seem to be a severe informedness gap. As for Brexit, interviews post election show that many, if not most, Yes voters could not describe coherently what the EU is or does, or even pick it out on a multiple-choice list of descriptions of important international organizations.
However, as I have with other such threads on the page, I would like to declare this debate closed. This page is meant for discussions about improving the encyclopedia, or to provide pleasant relief for editors from the humdrum cares of editing – not political debate. EEng 19:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't engage further except for one minor detail; I don't know whether that's the way you operate - If it were I'd be utterly confounded as to your support of Clinton. As it so happens I am not. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Then I don't see why you ascribed that attitude to me. Anyway, thanks for understanding. EEng 19:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Refer my talk page - unintended consequence of the phrasing. I do not think you hold that attitude. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


I, for one, will be raising a glass to your new Oompa-Loompa Overlord... --Hillbillyholiday talk 05:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My, this is a close election. Not nearly as comically one-sided as projected, yes? Perhaps that can make its way into the "museum"? Doc talk 06:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
If we can think of something comic to say about it, yes. EEng 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, we've certainly trumped Brexit now, have we? Dschslava Δx parlez moi 08:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh, I for one support Brexit. As for the Donald, well, we'll have to wait and see. I had a comic thought about a short trump speech; Trump on the Birther Movement; "She started it", Everybody else; Mr Trump... t-this is the third presidential debate. Not kindergarten. Trump: Wrong! Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ".... most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so", dearest EEng you will next be telling us that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woods (as long as the woods aren't Canadian or Mexican, in which case they just "perform" on the wall instead). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Jeepers. And we all thought Dubya was an "odd choice". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Good to see Donald Tump is having trouble with his "R"s - lets hope nobody throws an elbow into the discussion... Robevans123 (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
When they go low, we go high.
  • Dear EEng: Like many editors here, I am very saddened to learn of the executive order to have you deported to Mexico. Truly, I have enjoyed editing with you. As for me, when they go low, we go high, and several states approved legal cannabis, so I intend to spend the next four years getting high. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
"The Cuervo Gold, The fine Colombian, Make tonight a wonderful thing". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. Guantanamo isn't in Mexico. EEng 18:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Enemy of the State: Do not question the KGB! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think Trump would send anybody to detention camps. He's got the mind of a businessman: while some people would turn to imprisonment, Trump (taking after his good friend, of course) sees a cheap labor source to build his wall. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
My colleagues started drinking around 10:00 PM. It's a shame I can't hold anything stronger than Virgil's. GABgab 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
"Remember kids, a Donald Trump isn't just for Christmas". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Tucker[edit]

Well, it looks like we could have printed any hook and still gotten tens of thousands of hits; I think it was the picture that you posted that did the trick! Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, imagine if we'd called him a cross-dresser! EEng 15:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Or even a Welsh dresser? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. "YGM", "'ere, EEngie mate, leave it aht,will ya?": [177]
Leave it to you to inject something dirty into wholesome kids' entertainment. BTW, did you know we're part of a gay-bashing lynch mob [178]? EEng 23:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"Leave it arht, me ol' china!! Just keep your marf shut, okay?? .. or me and Billy will 'ave to send the boys rahnd. In all clubs you get the occasional drunk and they 'ave to be slung arht. I intend to get married as soon as possible and Billy just wants to be left alone." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
[179], of course. EEng 02:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A song for you[edit]

I dare you to help me get FDT (song) through DYK.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

[FBDB]Challenge accepted, chump. I'll nominate in due course. How about:
... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT (Fuck Donald Trump)"?
EEng 11:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we not get "a ape in heels" in here somehow: [180]? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, Ritchie333, you certainly made this suggestion at just the right moment. But now that the excitement's over, let's go ahead. I supplied the hook, so you make the nomination; I don't want to tempt fate. EEng 03:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The article isn't long enough yet. Let me see if I can ferret out a review of the single - that should do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I decided to "play it safe" and throw up a conversation at WT:DYK#FDT first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey, you guys. Poor Donald. You make me sick. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • BTW, Ritchie333, looks like I win again. EEng 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk, Wikipedia is not about winning. Now go back to Old Kent Road. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement notice[edit]

Please be advised that I have filed an Arbitration Enforcement request regarding your userpage here. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Required notice[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. How come I always attract the attention of admins with under 10K edits who haven't edited in years except to come out of the woodwork to give me the benefit of their gentle minstrations? EEng 00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Menstruations? Spellcheck much? Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Ewww Softy, did you have to say that while I was eating lunch? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody remind me what the problem was with that picture of a gorilla with a caption "Even though I'm an arbcom member, I'm simply commenting here as an everyday, average editor?" I've just made a subtle reference to it elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • There wasn't anything wrong, just Nakon thought there was -- remember, he's the one with the "cold medicine" excuse. Follow the link he refers to here [181] to see the original comment. EEng 17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


I've recreated your userpage as of immediately before the AE posting, minus the disputed section, at User:EEng/temp; feel free to just cut-and-paste it as you see fit. Intentionally created in your userspace rather than mine, to allow you to vanish it just by slapping {{db-u1}} on it if you don't want it hanging around. ‑ Iridescent 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. At least this way it shows

instead of ------------>

like the June 14 version did. For the moment I'll just leave things be, until discussion has concluded. EEng 00:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Great to see your whole User page go up in flames like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I knew something good would come from all of this, and maybe some of that good will be that someone will change the name of that image asap (blp and xyz being taken into account) not to mention that maybe you should throw some obscuring moondust on your caption there. Randy Kryn 01:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to rename the image but file moves on Commons make my head hurt, so I've just had to give some advice at the deletion request instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
...on the other hand (the one holding a blue umbrella), if the young woman does employ herself in our oldest and most honest profession, this is about the best thing that could happen in promotional terms, and my apologies to her for going on about it so. On the complaining page EEng pretty much accused me of being full of lust (per my user/useless name), and, full disclosure, I had no retort or canonical abode to escape such a ludicrously self-evident charge. Randy Kryn 12:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
"Kiss My Fuckin Ass" (as they say in Lexington, Kentucky). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC) (please don't take that personally, dear Rands)
The Hookers chose their name, this woman may have known nothing of this and was on the street hawking blue umbrellas, a semi-trendy tattoo parlor, and Oz slipper knock-offs. Aside from chivalry of some kind and feeling protective of Wikipedia, I pushed at this issue a little because of the humorous irony which EEng pointed out. During a discussion about BLP violations out popped, totally separate from EEng's content, the biggest BLP violation on the site. That's entertainment. Randy Kryn 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm sorry, but your comment assumes that there's something shameful about being a hooker, and is thus a form of hate speech. I'm reporting you at AE. EEng 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I personally like Robert Anton Wilson's definition of the professionals: 'tantric engineers'. Could be a category name. Congrats on the page come-back, I hope the lady in red appears within it, a story to tell your grandchildren. Randy Kryn 3:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I complained here about the userpage. Didn't really do anything about it. Expected Hillary to win, and for it to become a shrine. Of... "hilarity"! Anyhoo, things will surely work themselves out. The financial markets aren't exactly spelling "doom-and-gloom".[182] Don't believe the hype! Cheers :> Doc talk 08:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I missed quite a party! It could never have lasted, I guess. I suggest you put your creative energies towards political cartooning; the Crimson keeps advertising for a contributor, or you could go for national syndication. FourViolas (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I missed it, too. My, oh, my. There's much I could say, although Ritchie said a lot of things much better than I could have. (I find myself half wishing that the Daily Mail had run such a story.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • In American education there's something called "the P.E. Syndrome": the observation that a disproportionate number of Physical Education teachers become, ahem, administrators such as principals and vice-principals. Why? Because P.E. teachers have no lessons to prepare and no homework and exams to grade, leaving ample time to take the supplementary courses in educational theory required to move up through the ranks. As they say, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym" – and then become principal, I guess. There's a similar phenomenon here at WP, and it's especially obvious when you look at the contributions history of the clue-challenged admin who opened that ridiculous discussion. EEng 17:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC) (P.S. No disrespect meant to the many good principals, vice-principals, and coaches out there -- just pointing out that, as in policing – and WP adminship, for that matter! – there are a number of bad apples that make the rest look bad.)
  • I go off Wikipedia for a week, and I miss all the good stuff, sadly. What a ridiculous mess: some Wikipedians just do not have a sense of humor. When I said above that you were going to be deported, I had no idea that it would be true. And of course they got it all wrong: they should have archived this talk page instead. Well, I'm glad to see that EEng's sense of humor has not been quashed. And don't get me started about P.E. teachers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Wow... you get yourself into a lot of trouble, don't you? I suppose that's the ever-present risk of this type of humor: there are always people who cannot find it in themselves to tolerate it, and those people sometimes have the will and the ability to do something about it, even if it flies in the face of what is ultimately the greater good. On a positive note, that printed out copy of your user page I have has greatly increased in value! I would put it up on eBay, where I'm sure it would fetch thousands, but the sentimental value is simply too much. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Didn't the discussion end with saying you can put your user page back, minus some cuts and giggles related to the esteemed leader? Please raise the curtain again, the crowd out here is getting rowdy and none the wiser. Randy Kryn 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Patience, patience, Igor! All in good time! EEng 13:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, I would like to see the long-awaited return of Bishonen's seminal essay, Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Flattering! But that so-called essay (a one-sentence essay) was deleted in 2013 on my own request, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect", where I stated I regretted ever putting it in Wikipedia space. Somebody has pointed the redirect WP:WADR to WP:WikiSpeak#WADR, which the "essay" was anyway redundant with, so all is good, Ritchie333; you can still use WP:WADR in conversation. (If you want to amaze yourself, check out WT:WADR for some of the lamest waste of time discussion and greatest stubbornness over nothing I've seen in all my years here. Appropriate in a twisted way, I suppose.) Bishonen | talk 16:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC).
While I can do all of these things, I just feel the way the sentiment was delivered in the original essay was succinct, direct, and unambiguously to the point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Brilliantly fashioned, if I may presume that my humble opinion is of any value. EEng 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it is (your opinion being of value, that is, although I also agree about the brilliant part), and thank you! The office pool is now open for estimates of the time that will elapse before some defender of the wiki will come along and want me blocked or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I should, on request, email people each one little little bit of The Old Museums for them to add to their user pages. Kind of spread it around. EEng 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, like fertilizer or influenza. (Just don't attempt to email your talk page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD favor?[edit]

Would you be available to close out AFD William A. Whiting? The nominator KAVEBEAR wants it withdrawn because he expanded the article 5X after reconsideration. I can't close it out, because I was involved in the AFD dialogue. — Maile (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 DoneDavid Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! — Maile (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have to lift a finger! – EEng
Your answer is on its way, Maile. EEng
I have the best (talk page stalker)s! EEng 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC) that your selfie? — Maile (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Stay right where you are, Maile. EEng 03:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Moratorium on circumlocutions for boomerangs[edit]

<joke>Since you dislike the use of synonyms for boomerangs, let me be blunt: your comment was offensive enough that it boomeranged on you.