User talk:EEng

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

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


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)
Your reply here reminds me of one of Mark Twain's quotes: "Anybody can have ideas—the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph." — President Lethe (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
And your post reminds me of the old joke about the ambiguous letter of recommendation: "You will be lucky if you can get this man to work for you." EEng 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

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 [5]. 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 [6]. EEng (talk) 22:28, 25 January 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)
Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

John Harvard (clergyman)[edit]

Nothing you ever did or said regarding the use of "emigrate" or "immigrate" made any sense to me. [7] 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 [8]:

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 [9]: 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 [10]: As seen here [11] 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] [12]: 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." [13] 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! [14][15] Some of them are even "last" warnings! [16] 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)

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)


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)

Cash for you[edit]

American Cash.JPG Cash
Here's some cash for coming up with that alt hook [17]. --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)

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? [18] 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)

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 [19] 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 [20] 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" [21] -- 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" [22]. 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:
  • [23] vs. [24]
  • [25] -- 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 blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

See the article history: [26]
  • Admin Bgwhite is WP:INVOLVED, as he and I have had trouble before re this very article [27] (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. [28][29][30]
  • Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Bgwhite blocked me [31] seven hours after my last edit, and after another editor had restored the article to "my" version [32]. 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 [33] -- 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)

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)

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 [34][35]. 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)
[36] 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. [37][38] 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 [39]] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this [40]]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry [41]. 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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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.

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 [42] has left little time for actual hooking. But I did manage to get in [43]
... that ISIS may have killed an ibis?
EEng (talk) 11:51, 28 May 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? [44] 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 [45] 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" [46], 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 [47] 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 [48] 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)


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)

Barnstar of Good Humor[edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Here, add another to your collection. You had me shaking. [49] ~ 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)

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 vain idle-headed bum-bailey. 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 [50]. Don't forget to stop by the museums while you're here. EEng (talk) 17:40, 20 August 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)

Do not pass go[edit]

Watch it, or after the CivRev (Civility Revolution) you'll get the electrodes [51]. 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 [52]. 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)

"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)
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" [57]. 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 [58], 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 [59], 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 [60] 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 [61] 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 [62]:
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! [63]. —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 [64]? 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: [65]. 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)

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 [66]. 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 [67].
"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. [68] 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)

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 [69]
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 [70] 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 [71] 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 [72]. 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)

Gawker FYI[edit]

Principled Wikipedia editor in no moo

FYI: [73] 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)

"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 [74]. 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. [75] 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 [76]) 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 [77] :
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 [78]:
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)

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)

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 [79]... 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 [80]. 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)

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 [81]. 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)

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* [82]
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)

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)

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 [83] 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)

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)

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)

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.jpgThis 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 [84]. (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [85] 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".[86] 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)

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.

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 second 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

</joke> I couldn't resist :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Goodness. Sounds WP ist being unterentertained at the moment. Polentarion Talk 18:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • (For those playing along at home, this is re [88].) Perfect. Now it can truly be said that I've been blocked so many times, it's a joke. EEng 18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • EEng, from now on, nobody can accuse you of having the most idiosyncratic sense of humor on the project. You have been surpassed in terms of utter weirdness. And once again, I missed all the fun! Only one second, and I wasn't even here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Hey, I just realized that the "Wikipedians who have been nominated for deletion" category has gone blue! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Just letting you know your improvements to the Fred West article are appreciated from the heart, EEng. Sometimes overlapping information and personal lexicon can be overlooked. Seasons Greetings, too. Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


I've had my own share of disagreements with The Rambling Man, but please don't do this again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

[FBDB]Even though I'm on Arbcom, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Well, I won't do it that way again -- wasn't intending to -- but I was absolutely serious in what I said here [89] and will periodically remind DYKers of it until people seem comfortable simply ignoring those of his comments that deserve ignoring. Whatever the value of some of his complaints, they are largely (and perhaps completely -- more than completely) outweighed by his insistence on drowning them in a sea of trivial niggles. It's a shame, because he has an eye for potential problems but no sense of priority. EEng 04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand your substantive point, but a nasty presentation risks distracting from it. (FYI, I'm forever recused on anything TRM-related, so my arbship really is irrelevant here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'd characterize my presentation as forceful, but your point is valid and I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for visiting, Your Arbship. (BTW, I pointed out to Drmies the other day that one anagram of Arbitration Committee is Motto: recriminate a bit. Perfect, don't you think?) EEng 04:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that His Arbship is a lot better looking than that image. Anyway, he gave good advice. And now I know what gave rise to: [90]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe can we call you Newyorksilverback from now on? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record:[edit] the proposer, I am not actually wanting this to pass. I rather want to lay the issue to rest against a tendentious argument. Thanks for your support by so clearly opposing (one of the odder thanks I've given another editor, to be sure). Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, as any member of my glittering array of talk page stalkers will attest, I specialize in not giving people the opposite response to the counterfactual strawman they didn't propose. Have you visited The Museums? EEng 01:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

"Eisbock": an indefinite bock, imposed by ArbCom, when an editor has been overly chilling, resulting in higher than average sourgrapes content.

You callin' ArbCom a bunch of chickens?[91] DMacks (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not a chicken reference. See Bock. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm... Indefinite Bock...O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll endlessly drink to that NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Orff, that was a bad pun. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
If ever there was an idea for a Wikipedia themed beer. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah!!! Imagine having to appeal that to AE :o >>>> O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

EEng, I could be way off base here, but I thought Eisbock was awarded for chilling effects that produce great unhoppiness, whereas sour grapes are related more with the award for acetic whining. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake. Brexiteer123 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course. EEng 20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Poe's law[edit]

Almost nudged you to be more civil over this thread at the time, suspecting that your opening comment might just goad the other editor into being elaborately defensive of something that didn't matter, and I see this has now happened. Someone made an edit without being aware of policy, we made them aware of policy, they went silent: you should WP:DROPTHESTICK at that point. Civility policy is there to avoid wasting everybody's time with unnecessary arguments, as much as anything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

[For those playing along at home, we're talking about this reversion [92] and this talk page thread [93]] Oh, please. Mr. Dyspeptic called fixing the typo uttrerly in a quotation "the edge of vandalism" and "deliberately destructive" because (he still says even now, though he can't seem to explain how) the error is "textually significant". EEng 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Tunisia tozeur mos eisley 20101225-125321.jpg The MoS Eisley barnstar
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious... O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A shiny whistle for you[edit]

Wistle.jpg A shiny whistle
Here's a whistle for you to blow at some point. I hope you don't anytime soon though! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I will treasure it always. EEng 05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Clueless editors on parade (part II)[edit]

Original section heading: "January 2017"

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I'm one of those people that doesn't get the joke. Wikipedia welcomes your edits but there are other venues for your off-topic discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC) ─────────────────────────

For those playing along at home, this concerns a discussion at Talk:DYK which a certain dyspeptic editor has repeatedly tried to close, because in his opinion it's not useful [94][95], notwithstanding that the discussion was immediately ongoing (e.g. witness the timestamps on the left side of those two diffs, showing that others had commented just minutes before the unilateral "closes").

Unhatting [96] [97] a discussion which was inappropriately hatted, so that it can continue, is not "reverting to a preferred version". In fact, our mutual friend's latest "close" even removed another editor's post‍—‌my post, if you can believe the nerve [98]. So if anything, it's our dyspeptic friend who is "reverting to a preferred version". Next time, get a clue before butting in.

And the discussion's not off topic. While you may be unable to comprehend it, we're discussing the extent to which politically charged hooks are appropriate. The fact that we're having a little fun along the way, or that you personally are unable to share in that, makes it no less true. Welcome to Wikipedia! EEng 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Whichever way you look at it, you continually reverted TRM in violation of 3RR, and you shouldn’t because it’s against policy and can get you into trouble. So please desist. And a heads up – TRM has continued the conversation on my talk page and I’ve decided to report him to AN3. When they look into it, they may or may not have something to say to you as well. Hence my note to you. Schwede66 18:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Schwede66, looks like you got your hand slapped for trying to do something sensible‍—‌welcome to adminship! As you've now learned, our dyspeptic friend has a talent for busybody fussing about nothing, followed by wasting others' time trying to salve his bruised ego by proving he was right‍—‌yours is not the only talk page he's posted to about this. He's like Malleus but less clever. (Tip: watch out for anyone who pluralizes forum as fora [99].)
Just to make sure it's clear on the record, I'll point out again that he repeatedly declared the discussion at an end just minutes after others had posted to it [100][101], which is completely inappropriate, and it's no kind of edit warring that I unhatted every time so that discussion could continue. And (importantly) at one point he deleted a post of mine [102], which is completely beyond the pale. It's a great example of the confrontational shit-stirring which earned him both a desysopping and an editing restriction prohibiting him from "insulting and/or belittling other editors". EEng 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For taking up the cause at University of Texas Tower Shooting, which, although you may not know it, was started by a brand new editor from basically scratch, and was probably the best first article I've ever seen. It's good to see the thing stick and get substantive attention from an experienced editor, which is exactly how this whole thing is supposed to work. TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Happy to help. But unless I'm wrong the material was mostly split off from the Whitman article. Since you're here, maybe you have some bright ideas at Talk:University_of_Texas_Tower_Shooting. EEng 16:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Some of it was; some of it wasn't. After the draft was made into an article, I did a bit trying to walk the user through the merging process, which they began, but haven't yet completed. Admittedly I've knowingly let a lot of duplication of content sit in mainspace for a while, but the editor seemed enthusiastic and competent, if intermittent, so I figured I would let nature run it's course, and mentor as best I could, since the experience would probably be a valuable one for them. I'll take a look at the article's talk and look toward getting more involved over the next week. TimothyJosephWood 16:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Me and Charlies are from the same home town. I grew up with (older) neighbors who knew him. I've heard anecdotes about him from people who knew him and I actually got caught by a cop egging the church he went to. (The cop was protestant and Irish, so he let us go when we gave our excuse as "it's a catholic church").
Anyways, my point is, if you piss me off, you'd better steer clear of tall buildings.
me, giving you the stink-eye.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. You might be interested in the handy template {{fbdb}}, which I invented after this bizarre episode. You fuckface.[FBDB] EEng 00:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I like being able to wrap the vicious insultjoke itself into the link, but the tooltip is a great idea which I will be shamelessly stealing from you this weekend.
I've already been accused of using my links (I have two, the other one is here) to hide my personal attacks. To be fair, I had used the text "Shut your stupid pie-hole" as the link text, so not exactly a huge leap there. But it got me to thinking: who, in the grips of a red-hot, raging butthurt would think to try to avoid a block for insulting someone? No-one. So who would put thought into it, and try to be more devious by insulting people with phrases linked to a page which serves only to make it clear they didn't really mean that? Well, the odd moron might, but frankly anyone with some creativity can insult the living hell out of another editor without ever getting so overt as to be blocked. Hell, without even the person being insulted realizing that they're being insulted. It's not hard, and it's not like you're on the spot: you can plan a good insult for hours without anyone knowing that you're not just busy IRL. So I'm curious as to whether anything like that has ever actually happened.
Both you and I independently thought to make "joke" tags of some short. Shirly, we can't be the first. I'm wondering if, buried deep within the dark and musty depths of the ANI archives or the Arbcom archives, is there a case of an editor making a "joke" tag and then actually trying to use it to get away with hurling a bit of nastiness around? One of these days, I'll put on my fedora, strap on my whip and go spelunking for answers, I think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: "who, in the grips of a red-hot, raging butthurt would think to try to avoid a block for insulting someone? No-one." Wanna bet? There's at least one (currently blocked, I think) editor who used to write things like, "This is a really interesting article for you to look at." --NeilN talk to me 00:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
NeilN, I want to act shocked, but I've been on the internet before. Did they actually argue that that wasn't a personal attack?
For future reference, if I ever say something that implies there is a minimum level of intelligence which is universal in humans; No. I'm not willing to bet on it.
@MjolnirPants: Yes, they said something like, "What? I just linked to an article they might be interested in." --NeilN talk to me 02:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
EEng I think it might say something about me that I just noticed that you actually used that template to call me a fuckface. I'm not willing to hazard a guess as to what it says. Feel free to speculate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For making me laugh out loud with this and this. Well played, sir. bonadea contributions talk 14:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've seriously considered the possibility that everything he "writes" is computer-generated. It's like he's paid by the word. I'm also tickled by the "Greetings, Earthlings!" flavor here [103]. Have you visited The Museums? EEng 14:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I have now! I like the way your mind works. --bonadea contributions talk 16:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I should stop baiting the army of ipsocks - you can almost see how he cringes at having his own words fed back to him.... but it's not worth risking a 3rr violation. It has cheered me right up, though. Hopefully some admin will close the afd soon and put the article out of its misery. --bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. This back and forth as we home in on a subset of the subject's publications which concisely reflect his artistic outlook is Wikipedia collaboration at its best. EEng 19:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
[FBDB] Come now, EEng, you know that you are a master baiter! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
That {{fbdb}} sure comes in handy, doesn't it? EEng 22:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's in your hand, then yes! By the way, I just noticed that one of your categories, just below, turned into an italic font, and thus: [104]. Clearly, the humor-impaired have you in their sights! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
So in this case "deletion" means that the categories are still there and in use, but if you click on a category name you go to the parent category and have to click again on the "Redirected from" link to see the actual list of pages in the category? And some editors think that making this sort of "improvement" counts as constructive activity on Wikipedia? Hmm. (By the way, EEng, your "most illegible bachelor" joke on the Ozee AfD made me actually laugh out loud. So thanks for that.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't believe you fell for the ol' "My ma and pa have been married for 35 years!" bit. I have to thank you for the "illegible bachelor", however; I'll add it to my bag of tricks. EEng 01:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one very important mention...[edit]

In space, no-one can hear you archive EEng's talk page. But it doesn't load any faster there, either.
Thoughts of Julian, and Phineus prior to his becoming shish-kabob.
I heard somebody stole her smartphone, and started posting all kinds of steamy stuff on some Harvard dude's talk page.

As a (talk page stalker), I am frigging glad that I don't have to keep up with your TP posts on my cell phone. Atsme📞📧 18:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: In the distant past, ancient versions of the Mediawiki software skins had a stock RSS feed built into pages, so you could do just that. Meanwhile, there is an extension to put a Twitter feed on a wiki page, but not the reverse. However, necessity is the mother of invention.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333, and how exactly do we gage (no freaking pun intended!!) the level of necessity where EEng is concerned? He's off the charts, affectionally speaking. Ok, so my curiosity led me to the following discovery - a purely mathematical computation demonstrated below (and I'm no math whiz):
Total of EEng's archives, 4 mind you, only 4 TP archives totaling 859 kB beginning with the 1st archive thread dated 13 November 2008, Thursday (8 years, 3 months, 28 days ago), and the last archive thread dated 24 October 2016, Monday (4 months, 16 days ago) which averages out to be 2 archives/YEAR. Now get a load of this...the current TP total is 1626 kB - nearly double the size of all 4 archives. I wonder if he takes the time to tie his shoes, or maybe he wears Sperry Topsiders. Regardless, I'd say the man is growing in popularity, wouldn't you? %Þ Gotta love it!! Cheers wine Atsme📞📧 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Well clearly EEng is compensating for something with the size of his talk page. Mind you, your user page has you hob-nobbing with the stars on an ego trip; when are you going to put up the picture of "Sacred Betty Wills and The Pope in an audience at The Vatican", "Supreme Overlord Betty Wills with Kim Jong Il at the Best North Korean Rally in the World ever (volume 3)" and .... of course .... "Dedicated Wikipedian Betty Wills sharing a 'fun' moment with Jimbo Wales" (although who the "fun" was being had by is left as an exercise for the reader". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I would upload them tomorrow if I could remember where I put my image archives!! I'm pretty sure my papal days date back to when I was 10 or 11, determined to become a nun. Fortunately, time wounds all heals, and the rumors about the "cloth" finally caught up and frightened a lot of parents. I really was "saved", so my aspirations went from being a patron of the church to aspirations of becoming the first female jockey at Churchill Downs. My main obstacles were the many talented male jockeys. As for Kim...I'll be kind and just say I never really liked "Gangnam Style". Now Jimbo is a different story...if he looked more like Julian Assange, we would not be having this discussion...which reminds me, I have a few words I wouldn't mind sharing with Pamela Anderson. (°₀°) Atsme📞📧 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Important lessons[edit]

Tanks. You're welcome.

You may wish to take a gander at User talk:Robert Towers#Important Lessons Learned, point 2 (in this case, don't call your sandbox "Eat my faaaart"). I feel the two of you may have much to talk about.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel you're trying to typecast me lately. There's more to me than crude humor. EEng 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I think your humour's quite intelligent, actually. Indeed, the comparison here is that this guy appeared to be writing serious computing history drafts, and got stung by admins who didn't have his sense of humour. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I was just fishing for praise. Worked perfectly. EEng 00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Fishing for prey? Help! Help! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I like this guy, especially if "How can I vandalize my own userspace?" is meant as a genuine request for assistance rather than a rhetorical question. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
With regard to your edit summary here [105], I will thank you to attend to your own regardles and leave mine unmolested. EEng 00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Needles to say, I will respect your wishes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Tank you very much. EEng 04:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK favor[edit]

Could you help out with a review of Template:Did_you_know_nominations/George_Ronald_Richards I was hoping for an April 3rd DYK. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The Great and Powerful Oz will attend to your request right after breakfast. EEng 16:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your work on Mark Barr. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Start over?[edit]

EEng, I've been considering this for sometime. As to what I've been considering, I mean starting over. I don't like how we've generally left things between us because of how we've butted heads at the MOS:IMAGES guideline. Because of that, it now seems that there is some tension between us when we are involved in the same discussion; I don't think I'm imagining that. Anyway, I see you around often enough and appreciate the work you do. And I'd rather be on good terms with editors, unless they are the few who I have a significant tempestuous history with and I know we will never have a decent working relationship. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

MoS talk: ie, eg and etc[edit]

Another editor requested the discussion was made an RfC as we appeared to be going round in circles. There is some point to it, I might add, even if you do not agree. I will thank you for responding, though. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"A change of this kind needs to be treated as a proper RfC and closed by a non-involved person" is what another editor said, because you seemed to be trying to close the discussion yourself with your own proposal as the conclusion. This is a nonstarter and a waste of time. Sorry, but I'm grumpy tonight and you really should have realized this by now. EEng 00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cake for you!![edit]

Oh, yeah - well go ahead and cake it on...but wait for the best part: the icing on the cake...yep...WAIT FOR IT....and just keep waiting cuz it may never come. It needs a hook that only EEng can provide. Atsme📞📧 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
For good sharpshooting comrade. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Da! EEng 17:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in...[edit]

A new forum for dispute resolution that's currently under development. Wikipedia:Angry Mob Noticeboard. You know, for when you need an angry mob. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

At first I thought he was kidding EEng, and then I realized the new forum will be held in the newly formed Angry Mob Court presided over by none other than Judge Roy Bean. Their main objective is to lighten the load of ArbCom. Atsme📞📧 20:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Their main objective is to lighten the load of ArbCom. To be fair, we're also trying to do something about the huge pitchfork and torch surplus burdening our economy lately. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
There was a time when there was a demand for pitchforks & torches; Sam Walton couldn't keep enough in stock. Wait...Walton? G'nite John Boy. Atsme📞📧 23:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Goodnight, Atsme. Goodnight, Eeng. Goodnight, stalkers. (Now, I'm resisting the urge to segue into Goodnight Moon.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Cite errors at Lindbergh[edit]

Hola, I have fixed[106][107] two cite errors you introduced[108][109] in January. Months after the fact, it took me about 30 minutes to hunt them down (WikiBlame was no help for this purpose). Please watch for introduction of this type of cite error, especially when making major edits to well-cited articles. Gracias, adios. ―Mandruss  21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I made 170 edits which removed 25% of this badly overdetailed article, and the only thing that went wrong was that I accidentally killed two sources? I think I should get a medal. Nonetheless this vexes me, as I do try to be careful in such things. Thanks for noticing and fixing. EEng 02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, if only people got what they deserved, here and everywhere. Thanks for making 170 edits which removed 25% of that badly overdetailed article, assuming that's what happened (I haven't conducted that review). ―Mandruss  07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Actually, turns out that was just the decrease in raw source size. I checked just now, and in terms of rendered text, the reduction was to 8,200 words from 13,200, a decrease of 40%. And to my astonishment, I got almost no pushback. It was amazingly bloated. EEng 17:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 (1)[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Leprof 7272. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Don't do this, and don't do this. Needlessly insulting the user isn't helping anyone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, clearly nothing else is helping. Desperate times call for desperate measures. EEng 02:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Great! Last time I was only in the top 300 [110]. Presumably 100 of them died off after following the advice in my medical contributions. EEng 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

"Astoundingly atrociously poor block"[edit]

May 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for harassing 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

I make no comment on the merits of the point you were making, but it is never, and never will be, acceptable to call another editor a disruptive prick. --John (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Astoundingly atrociously poor block - Given the tenor and context of that ANI discussion, one would think that a bit of leeway should be provided for emotional outbursts rather than resorting straight to a punitive block.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
    I agree WaltCip as I was far more offended by the unwarranted allegation of racism. I thought blocks were to be used to end disruption, yet in this case, it appears the disruption of changing an entire categorization norm and the unwarranted allegation of racism remains a nonissue. I am very disheartened over this block. Atsme📞📧 14:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sometimes some of us act like disruptive pricks, and sometimes we tell others when they do. A block can be a handy reminder to dial it back down. I know I've had a few bad blocks, too. This will pass. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocking admin has always been a prick. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Either myself, or the blocking admin, requires a refresher in English. Probably myself. Jrcla2 was offering a way to see what you're doing as the result of a cultural difference rather than you just being a disruptive prick. Where in this is EEng actually calling Djln Djln a "disruptive prick"? My reading of this is that EEng is telling Djln that Jrcla2 was suggesting an alternative explanation for Djln's inability to understand the issue that did not resort to calling Djln a "disruptive prick". The reason for EEng to bring this up is obviously the fact that Djln telling Jrcla that they are being "borderline racist" is an extremely prick-like thing to do in response to a non-prick-like explanation. On top of the fact that making mass changes to categories is (or could be readily construed as) disruptive. I.e., In other words "you're Irish and so might not understand American Football" does not deserve the response of "that's racist". I can't really think of another way to spell this out. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Mr. Dude's interpretation is 100% correct (and despite WaltCip's comment, emotionalism played no part in what I posted). Like His Arbship said,
Face-angel.svg                                          Face-devil-grin.svg
EEng (despite his block log, which is not as bad as it looks at first glance if you understand it) ...

Doug Weller[111]

It's a shame this is happening on a Sunday, when so many of my glittering array of talk page stalkers are, of course, in church; think of the bon mots we're missing out on! EEng 17:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Church, yeah... that'll be the communion wine... :) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, some are editing Wiccapedia, of course. EEng 17:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • John, while I've warned EEng about inappropriate jokes in the past, if this diff is really your sole basis for a 48-hour block (I assume it is, given that it's the only diff you've offered in your block notice) it's one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. Please reconsider it—the drama of an arbcom case will waste everybody's time and the result of any such case is an utterly foregone conclusion. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Just to be clear, there was nothing joking in my ANI post at issue. EEng 18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @John, This looks like a good case for you coming to this page and posting something like, "Hey EEng, this was not helpful or constructive." That would be about as effective as a surprise block, minus the extra drama. ~Awilley (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen enters, stage left, to the relief of cowering talk page stalkers.

Unblocked #2[edit]

I've asked User:John to lift the block, as I think it was based on a misunderstanding — basically, I agree with Mr rnddude's comment here — and have notified him that in case he isn't online, I'll do it myself. He doesn't seem to be, so here goes: you have been unblocked. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC).

PS, bad ping: repinging User:John. Bishonen | talk 18:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
Thanks, Bishonen. Our sovereign lord Jimbo 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 the Arbitration Committee, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save Jimbo! EEng 18:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I would say post a humorous comment at this sub-thread review of your block, but, I'm afraid of it earning you another block. Personally, I'd just leave an "Overturn block" and sign. Slightly taunting. That's just my sense of humour though. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Well! This has had one silver lining at least... after nearly eighteen months, Mr rnddude owns up to having a sense of humour!!! :p :D — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Especially important since none of us would have noticed otherwise.[FBDB] EEng 19:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd of commented sooner, just got around to this (I stalk only when I see a lot of activity in a short amount of time, which usually means some of the best entertainment on Wikipedia). I read the discussion, think all people who over-categorize should be topic-banned, and finally came to your perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation and just the appropriate amount of EEngness EEngitude to catch the editor's attention enough for things to be better absorbed. I'd say "nice work", and we've all learned a bit more about the way all points of view have to be considered by everybody, as far as is possible. Randy Kryn 19:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
EEngness: I believe the OED prefers EEngitude. EEng 19:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Struck and corrected, per obscure Wikipedia policy. Randy Kryn 19:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation...[edit]

The following is actually how I have always related to the slang use of the word: Prick (slang)#Psychology The prick, in some crazy way, is feminine....The prick does not play by the rules: he (she) is a narcisstic [sic] tease who persuades by means of attraction and resistance, not by orderly systemic discourse. The latter interpretation is harmless and how I've always perceived its use. In fact, my fun Wiki❤️ banner confirms my position, so I hope there's no chance of blockage if I use them as [FBDB]. Atsme📞📧 18:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not in any way suggest the other editor was a prick (whatever the interpretation of that). I was saying that another editor was trying hard not to do that. EEng 18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Roxy's block[edit]

Lost in all this is that Roxy got blocked in the crossfire. Not to canvass, but comment may be helpful at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_3_and_revocation_of_talk_page_access:_Roxy_the_dog. EEng 19:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A reminder: gender-neutral obscenities only, please[edit]

Duplicated here, for the enlightenment of those assembled, from User talk:John (where the discussion was peremptorily hatted immediately after this post):

Do you get some sort of kick out of causing disruption by using gendered obscenities, EEng? If not, why don't you go and learn from your lucky escape instead of joking about it like it was some sort of badge of pride? Also, do you stand by your comment I highlighted in the diff above? If you do, I agree with The Rambling Man that you may quickly work up to another block. If you don't, you should reflect on what a fool you've made of yourself and the degree of disruption you have caused with your unsolicited intervention at AN/I; two blocks and one unblock, so far. --John (talk) 6:07 pm, Today (UTC−4)

  • do you stand by your comment I highlighted: If you're talking about [112], yes I do.
  • Do you get some sort of kick out of causing disruption by using gendered obscenities I take no more delight in obscenities than in any other words chosen to do their job. But I'm fascinated by this idea of gendered obscenities. I notice you didn't object to my saying, earlier in the same thread, of "Oh for fuck sake"; is that OK because you see fuck as ungendered? If so, I think that's very narrow of you: what if it's a gay male fuck? Or a lesbian fuck (if there is such a thing, I guess)? I think you need to reflect on your heterosexist biases.
  • disruption... two blocks and one unblock: Well let's see... one of the blocks was the one you imposed; the unblock was an Arbcom member reversing the block after giving you time to do it yourself; and the other block was someone who got understandably pissed off at you for imposing the block which the Arbcom member reversed after giving you time to do it yourself. So really, I think the disruption's all on you.
  • reflect on what a fool you've made of yourself: Speaking of reflection, look in the mirror.
  • unsolicited intervention at AN/I: Is there solicited intervention at ANI? Can I get on a list???
  • your lucky escape: If Trump ever needs a new press secretary, you'd be a great candidate.
  • badge of pride: If there's any pride, it's at being part of a community robust enough to self-correct so promptly and decisively.
EEng 23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Alas, I am late, as usual, to the block party. (But no, I wasn't in church.) So, if I follow the situation correctly, it is OK to say "fuck" or "cunt" (the latter having been an entire ArbCom case a few years back), but no good to say "prick". I'm not sure that I can figure out my own thoughts on this, but I am simultaneously in agreement that it's good to be "part of a community robust enough to self-correct so promptly and decisively", and yet also wishing for more WP:CIVIL. Facepalm Facepalm Anyway, I'm glad about the self-correction, and sorry that it was needed in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You and your fucking johnny-come-lately platitudes.[FBDB] EEng 00:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Show some respect. That would be Dr. fucking johnny-come-lately to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You didn't say [FBDB] so don't be surprised if some prick comes by and blocks you. EEng 00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't even be surprised if some block pricked me. Is that the same thing as a cock-block? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You scintillate tonight. EEng 01:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. As long as I don't glow in the dark. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 (3)[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been astoundingly atrociously cockblocked for pussy-grabbing other users. Once the cockblock has expired, you are welcome to make welcome advances. If you think there are good reasons why you should be uncockblocked, you may request an uncockblock by first reading the guide to unappealing cockblocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{fbdb|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

PS: Check out the hatnote at the top of Cockblock. It's museum-worthy! --Tryptofish (talk) 9:21 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Honestly, I think that the behaviour of a few admins involved here was completely unacceptable (and to think we nearly had a WP:WHEEL situation too). I just read the hatnote, however, and it made me laugh. Anyway, there we have it - another block for your hall of fame, eh EEng? [FBDB] Patient Zerotalk 13:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Guerre des roues[edit]

Admins wheeling

An admin is threatening another admin with a block! [113]

Like us on Facebook or follow the discussion on Twitter and Instagram. EEng 02:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Diagram showing interrelationship of noticeboard discussions, userpage discussion, relevant block logs, and so on

Pricks and ruffled feathers[edit]

Caribbean parakeets (Aratinga pertinax).jpg
How To Avoid Pricks

When you land in a place that is prickly at best,
And feathers get ruffled – you've disturbed someone's nest;
Be cautious when offering friendly advice,
Or you'll suddenly find your two orbs in a vise.
Lessons are learned, but to do so takes practice,

To avoid getting pricked when you land on a cactus.

Face-grin.svg Atsme📞📧

  • Could be worse: your prick could land on the cactus, I guess. Did you write that yourself? It's really good. EEng 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I also shot the scene with the parakeets, which took place about 50 ft. from my window...and heard the sounds that accompany the ruffled feathers as the birds played their game of thorns. Atsme📞📧 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oops, yes, I realized it was your pic and meant to compliment you on it. EEng 05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my - I didn't mean to come across as 🎣 for a compliment but thank you! I was actually eluding to the sounds of squawking Caribbean parakeets with their feathers ruffled which can be quite loud and boisterous...not unlike whistle britches' recent outburst. [114] Atsme📞📧 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I just want to point out how easy it is, all things considered, to misread this last comment. "Oops, yes, I realized it was your prick and meant to compliment you on it." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well as we've seen, we get some of the best pricks Wikipedia has to offer dropping in here from time to time. EEng 17:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
As well as some masterful baiting of some deserving admins, by Wikipedia's many master baiters. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Close enough for government work. Hardban him.--WaltCip (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh noes! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
My talk page is like Garp come to life. EEng 16:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
THE T.S. Garp, or Garp (pick one)? Atsme📞📧 16:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
In that it contains a great deal of lunacy and sorrow? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course. OK now, party's over. Back to editing! `EEng 16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And back to archiving your talk page – much appreciated! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
No, EEng's talk page has passed beyond "annoyingly large" and moved into "awesomely large" territory. The time for archiving has long since passed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
See that? Start a talk section about pricks, and the discussion goes quickly to size. But no, it's actually "awesomely annoying". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Dickwins Law? Atsme📞📧 01:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you know how I know there's no hope for humanity? Because we went through this entire thread without a single chance to make a good "that's what she said" joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
───────────────────────── There's still time...Atsme📞📧 04:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what she said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Get thee behind me, Satan![edit]

For anyone out there who does not believe temptation is placed in our paths to test us, please consider that there is, right now – today of all days – an ANI thread centered on this user. Talk about potential for gendered obscenities! EEng 02:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


Given your interest in museums, you might be entertained by the wonderful The Museum of Curiosity! PamD 15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It's things like that that make me feel sometimes that I should just move to England. EEng 16:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
But you might not want to move to Iceland. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm...looks like the Ice Queen has already been there. Atsme📞📧 20:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

X-day/week "embargo" on articles on breaking-news topics[edit]

For those in a hurry, I've taken the liberty of putting the proposal highlights in bold. -- EEng

Have you made your 3-month proposal anywhere? If you haven't started an RFC about it somewhere, then I guess the first thing to do would be to figure out where the RFC ought to be located, and whether similar ideas have already been rejected. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I really do think it would be highly salutary, but it would be a seismic shift in policy. If a number of very respected editors got behind it informally, and work out some details (like what counts as being out of the headlines, so to speak) then we could propose it formally. But I'm not holding my breath. EEng 23:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There could simply be a rule that no article at Wikipedia can rely upon any source that is less than three months old, except to update information that is outdated. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we want to forbid an article on a new asteroid or something. Maybe it's things in certain topic areas? What we'd be trying to prevent, I guess I know it when I see it, but it's hard to define. EEng 06:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Randomly chiming in here: the topic areas this proposal should affect, in my opinion, is politics and crimes. Too many times do I see hastily made articles all revolving around these areas of interest as soon as the ink dries in the presses. I do not believe crimes, in this context, should extend to terrorist attacks. Some editors may be turned off by the 3-month time period, others by how to go about policing this policy. But I believe you have a truly brilliant idea going on here; hopefully, this is pursued further. I offer you my support!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
It might be helpful to choose a sample set of articles as test cases, or imagine hypothetical articles. I was considering the case of a trial with political implications where the defendant is acquitted – not reporting the acquittal for three months would not be ideal.
The nature, frequency and quantity of news has changed so much in the last decade I wonder whether this is a solution to that problem or a band aid. Or maybe a solution to a problem distinct from this other problem. Whichever it is some solution is necessary. The short-term and long-term effects of editors using breaking news articles to shape perception and even reporting in some cases are significant, not only in terms of disruption but it attracts exactly the wrong kind of editor. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Three months is excessive, but a cool-off period of 3 days on creating articles based on political "breaking news" would be most welcome. That would help "break" the tyranny of the headline-grabbing news cycle. Asteroids are apolitical, so astronomers are safe. — JFG talk 08:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Followed from ANI, but it sounds like a reasonable idea. I have seen so many articles pop up within hours of breaking news only to be abandoned within a week or two. Generally though the initial AFD it is all the historic significance of this or that, we MUST keep it etc etc etc. Then dead. Three days sounds a lot easier to swallow and get people to agree to I think, perhaps even up to five but might be a bit much. BTW Chelyabinsk meteor would disagree with you. Clearly the asteroid was working with Obama to attack the Russians. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn right, asteroids are unfairly biased towards Russia: 1007 Pawlowia, 1059 Mussorgskia, 1074 Beljawskya, 1094 Siberia, and when we go land on a comet, it has to be 67P/Churyumov–GerasimenkoRhâââ, those Russians!JFG talk 15:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Three months, it said. I warmed up my snotty responses for this, then discovered (after waiting for this page to load, and scrolling for hours) that it isn't block related. It is the basis of a good idea though. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think of this idea as a temporary "embargo" on creating an article on new topic. The idea is to avoid the huge waste -- in terms of editor time, frequent ANI visits, AfD disputes, sockpuppetry, etc. -- that often comes with editing an articles during the initial period when there's new stuff coming out all the time, arguments about conflicting sources, high emotions, and so on.
  • My original idea was that something would need to be "out of the headlines" for a stated period before we start an article on it. This way, lots of sources are available, erroneous "breaking news" reports which turn out not to be true are in better perspective. I don't quite see how to define that though. For American topics of national interest, this might mean something like there's been no front-page story on it in the NYT or Washington Post or [insert more here] for X weeks. This would have to be carefully defined if endless arguments are to be avoided.
  • So here's another idea, weaker but much easier to define. How about if an article on topic X is embargoed until the initial sources are at least time=T old? That doesn't mean the topic's not still in the headlines but at least it will have some maturity and perspective, and notability issues will be much clearer. How about that? If T was even ten days that might help immensely.
Imagine all the trouble that would have been saved if the Comey article was just being started now. And who is served by an instant article on the first day something like that happens? A mess of conflicting claims and quotes from various people, first unbalanced one way, then the other. Our readers could turn on CNN for that. We're an encyclopedia for the ages, not today's news. That's why Wikinews is a separate project.
Here's another example. Sometime in the next 48 hours someone's gonna create an article with a title like "Proposed impeachment of Donald Trump". Now, I have little doubt such an article will be created some day. But what will the edit history and Talk page of such an article look like if it was started today? And how, in these first ten days, would such an article serve our readers any better than reading the news? EEng 16:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
You're way behind the curve—that article's existed since before he even took office. ‑ Iridescent 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
One day I am gong to write the essay WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD, because its basically guaranteed at this point. NOTNEWS has no teeth anymore, and while Wikinews exists, I'm under the impression that it is basically dead. I personally would very strongly support some sort of pause-period that would avoid TRUMPSCANDALAFD, but the fact that many of these articles are snow kept even when they are in horrible shape suggests to me that we aren't likely to get consensus for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I see my impeachment example was ill-chosen, because it's too diffuse a topic. I think the idea makes the most sense for "event" articles like Comey's firing, disappearing airplanes, and so on. Let's keep brainstorming. EEng 17:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────To help with the brainstorm, here are some recent examples:

In summary, my hunch would be to suggest a 3-day ban on creating new articles based on "breaking news" in the political domain. People could still add such stuff in existing articles, but at least they would get some eyeballs to evaluate due weight, and we might avoid AfD drama, link-spamming of navboxes or See also sections in dozens of marginally related articles, and monstrous cleanup tasks when finally the pile of rambling "he said-she said" quotes has to be sorted and summarized into something vaguely encyclopedic and readable (while being accused of censorship). Another bonus: existing articles on controversial subjects are often restricted to some degree, whereas new articles are a free-for-all until an admin wakes up and slaps an 1RR/DS restriction which nobody understands, and we spend more time explaining the sanctions than editing or even arguing the merits of the edits... Thoughts? Choice of venue? Popcorn? — JFG talk 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Collapse complaints from someone who (and I am not making this up) thinks I'm part of a conspiracy to suppress or soft-pedal anti-Trump material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talkcontribs) 17:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Gee, all of these "recent examples" have to do with, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... news stories which make Trump look bad! Holy crap what an amazing coincidence! A suspicious person might get the idea that the purpose behind this proposal is NOT to actually address any existing problem on Wikipedia, but rather to prevent the media reports on the Trump presidency from being written about on Wikipedia, for as long as possible. I mean that would explain a lot, but, you know, AGF and all, I'm sure nobody would be that cynical, so this correlation between the proposal and the news-that-makes-Trump-look-bad must be just a coincidence! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey Marek cut it out with the ABF snark, will you? During campaign season, there were plenty such "breaking news" about Hillary Clinton's alleged misdeeds or disease or whatnot and they damn well shouldn't have gotten their own article either. Shit doesn't care which way the wind blows. — JFG talk 08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
But that's exactly the point JFG. You weren't running around demanding that we "embargo" news stories when Clinton was in the news, where you? If I'm wrong about that, my apologies. If I'm right than my ABF snark stands.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Your "evidence" is circumstantial at best. Nothing is ever as black-and-white as chronic ABF-failers make them out to be. The world just ain't that simple. ABF is nothing more than hyper-cynicism, a tendency to suspect foul play when there is any explanation that could justify the suspicion. The community has done everything possible to prevent this kind of thinking and set the bar higher, as evidenced in the first bullet of the nutshell at WP:AGF. You are not even close to the clear evidence required there. I don't know whether the instigator of this initiative has a rep for Trump POV-pushing (have you shown that?), but I know damn well I don't and I don't think many of the others interested in this do either. Now try to get a grip and stop it, please. No stick ever needed dropping more. ―Mandruss  16:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Get a grip is right, Volunteer Marek. It seems impossible that there can be anyone in the project who thinks I'm trying to protect Trump [115]. EEng 17:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that at all and nowhere have I said that. I *do* think that the reason why JFG (and a couple others) are so gung ho on this proposal IS because they're annoyed by all the Trump-looks-bad stories that have come out recently. How else do you explain his ... peculiar, choice of examples? They're all exactly what I say they are - recent Trump-looks-bad news stories. You? I think your intentions are good and noble, but yeah, these guys are trying to use you. Anyway, since this has no chance in hell of succeeding, that's all from me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't care what their motives are. Trump looks like an incompetent narcissistic idiot whether an article on something he's done appears right away or three days later. So our only question is whether we're going to squander the substantial resources sucked up during those first three days, or conserve them. (Please note that I'm not saying Trump's an incompetent narcissistic idiot, just that he looks like an incompetent narcissistic idiot.) EEng 21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Volunteer Marek: Your recurring aspersions are disappointing. For the record, I spent countless hours defending the primary season pages of both Democratic and Republican parties against vandals and sneaky bad-faith editors, and I have dozens of witnesses who appreciated my work then. At that time, the most aggressive were Bernie Bros spewing all kinds of nonsense theories against an imagined cabal of paid Hillary shills. So, the examples I choose today are Trumpian because that's what shows up on the radar. Rewind a year to springtime 2016 and I'd be busy whacking a different set of moles. Apologies to EEng for bludgeoning his neatly-collapsed thread, but I won't stand to be disparaged.JFG talk 23:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that we have WP:NOTNEWS, I have long been bothered by the same things, and I think this would be a very good idea. So now, I'm going to rain on the parade. Never gonna happen. There are simply too many other users who will show up at an RfC and say no! no! because they love to do instant news edits, plus all the others who never like anything that would be a change. It will never get consensus. Just won't. But I'll take you up on the popcorn. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's a longshot, but let's not give up the ship right off. EEng 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Dancing cranes
Dancing Bishonen
Hear, hear!JFG talk 00:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
So would we define breaking news as "all sources which form the basis of the topic's notability are less than X days old"? (Let's keep the X flexible for now.) EEng 00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
You phrased it best! — JFG talk 00:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Another argument favouring such a cool-off period: in the heat of the news cycle, as mere mortals feverishly scan their TV while editing, reporters who missed the initial scoop come and pickup further clues on Wikipedia, resulting in a fertile breeding ground for citogenesis. Very hard to track down in the brouhaha, although I'm pretty sure it happened. Optimists call it collective intelligence… — JFG talk 01:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a great additional point. EEng 01:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging a coupla random wise people for their thoughts. (I'd like to start the discussion small, so this is a random subset that comes to mind -- don't be offended if I left you out.) Iridescent, Bishonen, Drmies, Dweller. EEng 15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wise..? Sorry, I hardly ever engage with news articles, and besides, I'd feel like a sparrow dancing with the cranes in that company. Take it, Iridescent! Bishonen | talk 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC).
    Well, I seldom engage in such articles either, but we all see/deal with the fireworks related to them at the noticeboards. EEng 17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    (I will never look at sparrows the same way again, alas!) There are more urgent things that need to be improved with the way Wikipedia operates than putting a time delay on political news articles (see my user page). But I agree that when a Wikipedia article is at the top of Google News, there is enormous pressure encouraging some editors to be amateur opinion journalists here at Wikipedia. Even for longstanding Wikipedia articles, such pressure is often evident, but it gets magnified a hundred fold for new newsy articles. A time delay might make things a bit more boring behind the scenes at Wikipedia, but sometimes boring is good (just ask Elon Musk!). Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice little point to the boring company ;(') d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. Well, let's see what others say. EEng 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I saw this unfold and wanted to wait a bit to see what other had to say before weighing in. Here's my opinion: Wikipedia is not the news because it does not give a hoot about Homicide #17 of Oklahoma City, the lorry that overturned on the M6, or the three hoodlums who skipped school and are now raking leaves in the park. Wikipedia rights about whatever is notable. When the stabbings happened at Ohio State, I didn't read any other opinion piece from what we call the news service, I read our article on it (granted, it was 18 hours old by the time I got around to it). James Comey's dismissal is definitely notable, and so was Brexit and Deepwater Horizon. Putting a delay in creation that is longer than a reasonable 48 hours does not do an ounce (kg if you're metric) of good. I feel that if anything should be proposed, it should be a 30 day deletion insurance: If an article with a credible hint of notability (think A7) is created and does not qualify for any speedy deletion criteria (e.g. Attack page, advertising, gibberish) and has at least X reliable sources at the bottom, it may not be nominated for deletion for at least a month. Something like that. Remember when United Express (exercised their rights) threw David Dao off the 3411? AE3411 ended up being notable, and Dao was deleted. By trying to enforce NOTNEWS while being oblivious to the world going crazy over the situation, they nominators basically ensured a Keep !outcome and took up a lot of time that could have been spent improving the article. About now is the time to check for SUSTAINED, and to nominate the articles if those editors still desire. And they all went on to SNOW uphold at DelReview as well (quite predictable, and a little bludgeony given the number of proper editors who !voted) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and notable events are covered here. (I notice Danielle "cash me ousside" Bregoni has a redirect and no article). TLDR: if its notable it stays, and AfD should be forbidden under specific circumstances to prevent time wasting. Thats what I think. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Shaping a proposal[edit]

Taking into account both this thread and the parallel thread at ANI, there's at least some hope for some version of something like this getting some serious consideration. Who would like to be pinged when I'm ready to start seriously shaping a proposal (which might be a week+ from now)? Add your ~~~ (three ~s) below, please. Pinging Drmies, Softlavender, Ritchie333, David Eppstein to see if they can be tempted into helping. Others, feel free to ping in others you think can help. EEng 03:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I-want-to-be-pinged list:

Choice of venue?[edit]

Where should this generic proposal be submitted? In closing the ANI thread, NeilN suggested WP:VPP. Thoughts? I'm not familiar with proposing site-wide RfCs. Hopefully it doesn't end up at WP:PERENNIAL. My hunch would be to suggest this in a limited-scope subject area, such as US politics, so the community could ascertain its effectiveness on real-life cases without disturbing the bulk of Wikipedia. Is there a venue for this? WT:WikiProject Politics/American politics perhaps? That place looks strangely inactive. — JFG talk 02:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess Village Pump, but let's worry about that after we know what we want to propose. I'd like to do this here, "between friends", before widening the circle. EEng 03:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll wait until there's a fleshed out proposal before I offer an opinion, but I did want to comment to say VPP is really the only possible venue (short of a specialized RfC page that is cross-posted to WP:CENT, WP:VPP, etc - a CENT posting will also be needed). Anything less public than VPP doesn't have the broad reach necessary to change something as well-grounded in broad community consensus as our base notability guidelines. ~ Rob13Talk 03:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:VPP sounds like a good idea. I was originally thinking Wikipedia talk:Notability (events), but VPP would probably attract a wider audience. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Resuming discussion[edit]

Feel free to continue constructive conversation here. For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc. None of that can be known until there's an actual proposal to discuss.
I'm pretty busy for the next couple of weeksmonths, so it may be some time before I can give this the attention it deserves in order to develop a viable proposal. I'm the meantime I'm gratified by the thought being put into the discussion, which will help make whatever we come up with as good as possible. EEng
  • This 3-day proposal that is starting to take shape may actually make WP:NOTNEWS a legitimate policy again. Has anyone else noticed that the main arguments at AfDs for new political or crime-based articles are usually defended with WP:RUSH? It defeats the very foundation of NOTNEWS because keep voters claim sources will soon arise which, by the way, also conflicts with WP:CRYSTALBALL. With three days, sources that may exist will actually exist. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, that's another great argument to ensure consistency of purpose: inform readers, be neutral, and dare I say combat rampant tabloïdism. — JFG talk 02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a perfect illustration of the usefulness of the proposed cool-down period: press writes a story, editor creates article, spams it into visible places, regulars take notice, some open an AfD, others "enrich" the piece by coatracking every possible related subject. Meanwhile the same news story is copied into said related subjects. Several talk page discussions get started in parallel, replete with WP:PA, WP:LAWYERS and WP:ABF, then a week later some poor souls will pick up the crumbs and clean up the mess while dodging calls of censorship or WP:TENDinitis. If such a proposal ever has a chance to pass, the time to act is now. — JFG talk 02:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If an article is created within 24 hours of it first being reported by a major agency, it will have 24 hours of FULL dropped on it. Howzabout that? d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No, that would just freeze it in an arbitrary state. Better to have nothing at all for a period.
Collapsing comments from people who don't read instructions i.e. what it says at top of this very thread: "Please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talkcontribs) 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll be opposing this proposal, beit 3 months or 3 days—I want Wikipedia to be up-to-date, and even with all the trouble, an artificial cool-down period seems like a detriment to the project's reputation. I realise the current political climate in the US is a lot, but a pivotal shift in policy is not the way to respond to that. El_C 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
What part of For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc. None of that can be known until there's an actual proposal to discuss do you not understand? If you think the only question is "3 months or 3 days" they you obviously didn't read the discussion above -- in fact, you didn't even read the bolded bits. EEng 03:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I read and I understood it, I just disagree. El_C 03:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Uh huh. And For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc. ? I guess you just disagree with that too, it seems. EEng 03:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This whole cooling off period is counter-productive to building an encyclopedia. You want people to edit this site and they edit stuff that they are interested. Right now, this stuff with Trump is hot. Will that mean that a few articles get created that shouldn't? Absolutely and there is a tool for that: WP:AFD. However, having a lot of editors focused on a subject that is likely to be of historic importance (e.g. Russian interference in the US election), sure makes it easier for that editor 5 to 10 years down the road to make a WP:FA. Moreover, getting what are very likely historic but current events in as good as shape as possible will only help the reader today. Don't fix what isn't broken My 2 cents.Casprings (talk)
Oh for god's sake, could you at least have read my plea at the top of this thread before commenting? EEng 03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Casprings: If you're motivated by building possibly a WP:FA "5 to 10 years down the road", then surely you can wait 2-3 days to get started. Or to push the "breaking historic news" into the lead of related articles. We can't judge what will be historical while we have our noses rubbed in today's mush. — JFG talk 08:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with TGS about our NOTNEWS policy which may well make Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn a candidate for prod or even G11 when stacked with WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BREAKING and BLP policy overall. It's very disconcerting to see the frenzy, and it may very well clear a path for the same thing to start happening with the Clinton investigations et al. Lawdy, things are bad enough now trying to clear the WP:NPR backlog. Atsme📞📧 03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
And I'll add, there's real breaking news regarding Anthony Weiner sexting scandals - WaPo, CNN, LA Times, etc. published earlier today that he pleaded guilty, but it has gone unnoticed in WP. [117] I think it demonstrates that proposed waiting period for breaking news shouldn't be an issue, and that the motivation to create "breaking news" stubs may be political which isn't helpful to the project. Atsme📞📧 03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, nobody can control which subject attracts the creativity of WP editors… We can't deal with politically-motivated smear jobs by blocking Tendentious Faction 1 on odd days, and Tendentious Faction 2 on even days. With the cool-down proposal, it doesn't matter which way the wind blows: readers and curators alike would get back a precious part of their sanity and life-wiki balance. — JFG talk 08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Note on historical value of news – Our colleague Casprings made the following argument over at the previous thread:

Many of the articles created quickly after "breaking news" will likely be important 10 years from now. These include Dismissal of James Comey, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia.

The key point about breaking news is that we can't judge today whether they will be historically significant. History has a pesky tendency to erase the details and focus on the essentials. So with those example, I bet that the WP:10YT situation would have "Dismissal" as a section of the James Comey article, "Russian interference" renamed either Events leading to Donald Trump's impeachment or Great Russian Hysteria of 2016–2017 (depending how history actually unfolds), and the "disclosure" article merged into a couple sentences of that one. — JFG talk 08:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, first there has to be verifiable evidence that a crime has been committed per WP:V, especially when a BLP is the topic. Politically motivated breaking news that cites anonymous sources could damage the credibility of the project if it turns out to be unsupported or fake news for bait & click. Our job is to make sure WP:V and WP:NPOV have been satisfied. Example: the breaking news about Weiner clearly has staying power - the man pleaded guilty so we're not dealing with allegations from anonymous sources. The only question at this point is whether or not he'll serve time and for how long. Politically based allegations disguised as "breaking news" which are obviously published by propagandists using anonymous sources can easily turn out to be an effort to boost ratings and/or increase click revenue. At the very least, if "breaking news" is going to remain in the WP landscape, a waiting period makes sense as does enforcement of our PAGs regarding such information. The main objective should be to preserve the credibility of the project and reduce the potential of unsustainable activity at AfD and ANI. Question - would it help, if it is even possible, to automatically direct articles into draft space that involve allegations of crime or are considered "breaking news", especially that which is politically motivated and includes information that fails V? I know there's a template for breaking news that should be used, but rarely is. Atsme📞📧 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's one more example of a WP:RECENT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOT#NEWS article:

  • 2017 United States-Saudi Arabia arms deal should be a paragraph in Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Interestingly, even a supporter of the article in the inevitable AfD debate says: I think this article should've been created in another two weeks. Or a month. But the notability of this arms deal is clearly significant. Deleting this particular article is pointless. And here we hit the crux of our modest proposal: if the arms deal gets more coverage in the next weeks or months, it may be spun off as its own article, but if it remains a one-day news story, then it will have been properly documented in the relevant article from the onset, and a lot of editor time and content duplication will have been saved. — JFG talk 11:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You'll likely have more luck getting this adopted if you add a list of exceptions. Example: A story that appears above the fold in every major world newspaper. --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me say in passing that, even though this effort is temporarily dormant (see next ===-section below), people are welcome to add thoughts which may help in fashioning a proposal. Now then... Your suggestion seems to concern mostly the idea (mentioned somewhere above) that a short embargo will help put notability in better perspective, and in particular avoid starting articles on topics which turn out to be flashes in the pan. (Your point, I assume, is that if it's above the fold on most major newspapers, it's almost certainly notable -- and I agree with that.)
But notability isn't the main point of an embargo. The main point is that the reporting of breaking news is often chaotic in the extreme, especially in the early days. The point of the embargo is to give the reporting a bit of time to settle down, so things can be a little bit in perspective, early spurious reports can be weeded out, etc. Take a look at the first version of 2017 Resorts World Manila attack, started 9 hours ago [118]. It reads: On June 1, 2017, Resorts World Manila in the Philippines was the subject of a terrorist attack initially believed to be perpetrated by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Well, that wasn't true. What good does such an article do the reader? In fact, right on the Talk page is the following thread:
Has anyone actually read that this may not be a terror attack [119]?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
It may very well not be a terrorist attack, but so far ISIL has claimed responsibility (whether that be true or not) so they are regarded as the probable perpetrators until something else is proven. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Sigh... this is why breaking news stories need a small waiting period to sort the facts. I find it terribly problematic that we cannot even confirm whether this is a coordinated attack by ISIL or a robbery gone wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
What was missing here, but often seen in such situations, is angry edit warring over conflicting narratives by people watching different news feeds and therefore in different states of up-to-dateness. EEng 03:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you have to choose between putting forth a proposal that shuts down the perceived problem completely and a proposal that helps mitigate the issue and has a chance of being adopted. --NeilN talk to me 04:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Two more recent examples:

Both of these cases perfectly illustrate the rationale behind the envisioned proposal: encourage editors to place "breaking news" stories into the most relevant existing articles. According to its AfD discussion, Covfefe was speedy deleted and recreated several times, whereas a redirect to Donald Trump on social media#Covfefe would have contained the issue safely and immediately. There's always time to WP:SPINOFF a full article if covfefe expands beyond the initial excitement. — JFG talk 09:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Another example: Talk page for June 2017 London attack [120], and the consequent ANI thread [121]. This is a typical struggle for control of the narrative of a breaking event, with tussles over interpretation of early sources etc. EEng 06:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
And now a second ANI thread! [122] EEng 17:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, excellent. EEng 00:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
See also discussion in this thread. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Here we go again.[124] Time to act yet? — JFG talk 22:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm writing one paper and two magazine articles. It will be quite a while. Sorry. EEng 02:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • EEng & JFG instant news is like "instant grits"...tasteless and without substance. I prefer homemade grits that have substance and are seasoned with a bit of salt and real butter. Seriously, we're seeing the same feeding frenzy in WP editors that we're seeing in the hungry fake news journalists pundits who are losing their jobs because they've caused their respective network ratings to plummet. No news is better than fake news. Atsme📞📧 01:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, what journalists/pundits are you talking about? EEng 02:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
EEng - most recently the 3 from CNN and not so recently The Ascent of Punditry, pg 19. Having worked with CNN as a field producer back in the day, it strikes a special cord for me to see the deterioration of ethical journalism. Some of the sources used by MSM are less credible than those used by WP, and that's sad. Atsme📞📧 02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The resignations are a sign that standards are being uphelp. While I regret the complete loss in the last 20 years of the formerly iron wall between straight reporting and commentary (in both broadcasting and print) you can't seriously be proposing that CNN offers "fake news". EEng 02:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a sign that standards are being upheld but based on my first-hand experiences I'm more inclined to believe it was the result of them getting caught and publicly exposed. But who the hell knows what's true anymore? The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (in 2013, I believe) is when journalism started going to hell in a hand basket. When the Director of the FBI calls out the NYTimes for inaccuracies, and undercover cameras capture producers saying the reporting is all about ratings, I can assure you, it's a hard pill to swallow, especially for someone like me who swore the oath of ethical journalism and accuracy in reporting, and did so from an emotionless, matter-of-fact POV for many years before and after retirement. Regardless, I still maintain faith that things will iron out, and it's one of the reasons behind my supporting your proposal for a latency period before publishing "breaking news". We're dealing with a ratings race so it's not surprising that news organizations are trying to be the first to broadcast the scoop and now that the restrictive laws have been repealed, they have all kinds of leeway to say whatever the hell they please with -0- consequences. Atsme📞📧 03:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


This is on my mind, but it will be some time before I can get to it. But I will... eventually... and you'll all get pinged at the appropiate moment. EEng 03:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. ―Mandruss  03:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I'll unfriend you. EEng 03:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I continue to appreciate the good examples being added to the list above now and then. When the time for the revolution is ripe, they will help in shaping a proposal. Our day will come, comrades! EEng 23:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I have advocated in the past for an essay entitled WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD, but I am hopeful one day that your proposal will make it unnecessary. And I apparently advocated for it on this page, ah, well, its been a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How low can we go?[edit]

How low can you go? --Tryptofish
I have a better one...Monica Lewisky blew it, an article describing her internship and why she got fired. EEng will have fun with this - it's kinda like creating DYK hooks. Atsme📞📧 16:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Blew what? EEng 17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
The job. She blew the job; i.e. in future perfect the command would be: blow job. Atsme📞📧 23:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • As handshakes are being DYK'ed (no pun intended), editors have been emboldened to create this beauty: Trump Speeches on Unite The Right. More tea covfefe, please. — JFG talk 17:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion[edit]

For use in the discussion in the halcyon future when we get back to this, there was a a related thread at What WP is Not. EEng 21:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack at WP:ANI removed[edit]

EEng, you should really know better than to make a "joke" which is nothing but a personal attack, even if it is against someone from the extreme right. Comments like this are not relevant to the article or the dispute and can do nothing but make the situation worse. Fram (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 13:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment was totally harmless, those twins are nasty. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Roxy, I'm very disappointed in you. Can you imagine the bullying she suffered during her formative years? EEng 14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • How did my comment make the situation worse? Honestly, it's so distressing to have your sympathy for someone's plight labeled a personal attack. And her extreme right views have nothing to do with it; I think Subcommandante Marcos has an idiot name too (the difference being, of course, that he apparently inflicted it on himself). EEng 14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
EEng, drop it. Mocking people for their name is what one expects from a 7-year old child. If you continue like this, you will be blocked. Fram (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, running around on a horse smoking a pipe and calling yourself a "Subcommandante" is what one expects from a 7-year-old child (well, maybe not the smoking). Honestly, haven't you got some vandalism to fight or something? If you continue like this, you will make even more people laugh. EEng 17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Clarification: It's not the horse who smokes the pipe. EEng 17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, that just took all the fun out of imagining that... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
How he got into my pajamas I'll never know. ―Mandruss  03:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You may have fooled one gullible admin, and you may fool others as well, but your pretense of innocence is only making you look worse. If you want to insult people, do it offwiki.
Information icon Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.
Fram (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Fram, and thanks for the laughs [125]. Now please fuck off. You'll be welcome back here when you gain some perspective on the role of an administrator. EEng 09:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is indeed an interesting page to follow![126] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP violation at WP:ANI[edit]

I'm sure that it was unintentional but you recently added a BLP violation to WP:ANI. I have removed it and will post a section at WP:AN which you may be interested in viewing. I have no greater liking for the man than you do but we need to leave aside our feelings on the matter. Take a quick review of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns the following segment of the current ANI thread re the article Pets of Vladimir Putin. The portions redacted by CambridgeBayWeather [127] as "BLP violations" I have underlined:
  • I do not think Putin would be interested at all, but right now there are a lot of cases in Russia when people are jailed for twits etc. The signals typically come from, um, unstable whistleblowers. I am not currently in Russia, but still...--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Good thing for Trump we don't jail people for twits here in the US. EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Putin is too busy running the White House to be bothered with these editors. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Content note: Article contains the passage: Three dolphins applauded the president for feeding them fish, while the walruses even shook his hand. EEng 17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I prefer Adorned in white overalls to resemble a bird, Putin did manage to get some cranes to fly. ‑ Iridescent 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a shame the title of this thread isn't something like BITEy behavior at Pets of Vladimir Putin. EEng 18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
[... Irrelevant intervening posts omitted...]
  • I voted to keep the article since it is as good as the other similar pages, some of which I was already aware of. Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS? Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Wait... Donald Trump is tracked by Russian GPS??? EEng 19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Setting aside the dog crack (which I agree is purely a personal insult, but a harmless one against as public a figure as it is possible to be), in what way was it a BLP violation for Legacypac to suggest that Putin is running the White House? Negative speculation about current political events is a very different thing than a personal attack. Also, CambridgeBayWeather, when you redact others' comments even for good reason you should be careful to do it in a way that doesn't make those editors appear to say something they never said. Your edits make it look like EEng removed someone else's joke, rather than what actually happened, which is that he made a joke and some busybody decided that ANI is too serious a place for jokes. For your future busybody-work, you might find the {{Redacted}} template helpful. But I think the bigger problem here is that too many people want to be the thought police of Wikipedia. This attitude is a big part of what makes Wikipedia as hostile as it can sometimes be. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of dog cracks. EEng 04:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The things I miss by not watching television. Or, I suppose, by not deliberately searching the net for dog-butt-related content. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Given a current effort to BLP ban me going on a ANi, this post on my talk page is pretty unwelcome, especially since no one can see what I said. In about 5 minutes someone is going to point to it as proof I can't be trusted. There are enough RS to build an article on the specific ideas you deleted. Google "Putin's pet" or "Putin's dog" and enjoy. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Does Stephen Colbert count as a reliable source because he's pretty well said that Putin is running the white house and the comment by EEng about Russian satellites tracking Donald Trump is nowhere near anything approaching from miles away being a BLP violation. Uh, it's the insinuation that Trump is Putin's dog that is the issue, I'd say that's two steps up from being his cockholster. We're all being tracked by Russian satellites, are we all BLP violations? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • EEng knows me well enough to know that I consider him a wiki-friend, and that I consider the current US administration and the alt-right to be... otherwise. But having watched the ANI stuff and the two talk sections here, I think that it's possible that no one is entirely in the right. I don't think that the ANI comments were bad enough to have made this much of a stink over (but I do appreciate that CambridgeBayWeather was very courteous, unlike... someone else). Then again, just because an editor may make certain jokes, does not mean that they should make those jokes, and certainly not that they need to make those jokes. I do not go as far as to say that ANI is too serious a place for jokes. I've even made some jokes there myself. But WP:CESSPIT ain't for nothing. It's the Wikipedia place for lost souls, people (real people!) who may be idiots or jerks, but who are nonetheless likely to be upset about something, and being an idiot or a jerk does not mean that they need to be made more upset, or deserve it, or that doing so helps anyone else. EEng, going from ANI section to ANI section to make snarky, albeit clever, comments is likely to make somebody upset. It's not helpful. Now I know that you usually brush off my advice, but I also know that you are very smart (almost as smart as I am), so please think about being a bit more judicious about your ANI comedy routine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Acceptability of comments isn't determined by the most sensitive one or two admins looking on. As CBW noted at AN, this material stood for more than 24 hours, during which several admins posted to the thread, unknowable other admins perused it, and finally, an admin closed it – all without acting on these "BLP violations".
I have a question, while we're on the subject: even assuming that Putin is too busy running the White House to be bothered with these editors is a BLP violation who's the LP who's being besmirched? Is it Putin? Trump? Reince Priebus (who's supposed to be running the White House)? Putin's actual dogs?
EEng 02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. for CambridgeBayWeather: I do appreciate your courteous attitude. And P.S. for Tryptofish: they're not snarky comments, just fun stuff meant to lighten the mood (when they're not actually making a point re the topic of the post, which is most of the time, actually).
I agree that acceptability of comments is not determined by a few admins, or at least shouldn't be. But I think that you will see that I was not concerned about offending admins. Although a small number of them may, in fact, be lost souls, most are not, and should be expected to be measured in their propensities to be offended. The lost souls about whom I was talking are non-admin users, and I stand by what I said. And I, too, am underwhelmed by the theory that the Putin comment was a BLP violation. As for snark, I accept that you do not intend them to be snarky. But they do read that way sometimes, and perhaps you do not realize that. And, as I said, it's frequently unhelpful to try to lighten the mood when other people are not... in the mood. And as for your effectiveness in lightening the mood, I'd say, based upon the reactions you have gotten here, don't give up your day job. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to be more judicious. EEng 07:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that, my friend! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
All of the above, except that the last is a BLD violation. ―Mandruss  03:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly you besmirched the reputation of dogs. They are fine and noble animals whose loyalty can be utterly selfless. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If I ref my statement with RS will it be ok? I was not trying to disparage
Putin, he is doing a great job meeting his objectives. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was/am not attempting to get anybody banned or blocked on BLP grounds. Both comments were minor and removing the one by Legacypac was probably too much. The one by EEng seemed to me to imply that one was the others bitch. I have no liking for either of the two politicians concerned but making those comments without some sources leaves Wikipedia open to accusations of partisanship. Disparaging comments about politician A are removed immediately but those on politician B are allowed to stand is seen all the time and I guess it was one time too many. Legacypac, I'm not going to reply on your talk page, unless you want me to, as I think that it would just make things worse. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Partisanship on articles is a problem. Partisanship on talk pages (and ANI is a talk page) is not so problematic, and is definitely not something that should be redacted. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Look, what BLP says is Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Information. Information. When someone says, "Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS?", a response of "Wait... Donald Trump is tracked by Russian GPS???" is not information. It's not an assertion of fact. It's a joke. No one with common sense would actually think I was actually suggesting that Trump is a dog, much less Putin's dog. What I might have been implying beyond that is left to the reader's intelligence, but it's at best a puckish thought, not any kind of information as covered by BLP. Same goes for Putin is too busy running the White House. Thinking that stuff like this, outside article space (not that either of these would be found in article space) needs to be hunted down and stamped out stems from an absurd misunderstanding of the purpose of BLP. It's a tiny minority of admins who worry about this -- that should tell you something. EEng 23:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) 🍿🍿🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺 This rounds on me. Atsme📞📧 03:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree, strongly. As I see it, it's not a BLP violation if no reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no non-notable (thus not in the public eye) person is besmirched by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Small but critical adjustment to what Tfish has said: The key point here is not that no reasonable person would believe it to be true, but that no reasonable person would interpret it as intended as a statement of fact in the first place. EEng 07:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is indeed more accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Shucks. Where's a strong and masterful leader like Dubya when ya need one? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Care to explain your enigmatic message? EEng 18:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Some crazy homeless guy was shouting at me on my watchlist. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You think so? Screaming down this road will get people attention and urge you off the road. O__O KGirl (Wanna chat?) 19:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw OH2, and wondered if it was an alternative to H2O. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

──── I figured that was it. See, the problem is that my fellow editors respect me to the point of veneration, and simply assume that any edit I make is ipso facto correct – see [128]. So if I want someone to check what I've done, I have to raise a ruckus. I hope you checked (assuming you actually understand how all those moving parts in pending changes work, which I'm not sure anyone does). EEng 19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Would it help if I say that I do not venerate you? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I would probably employ more classic new editor tricks, like... if anything on my watchlist uses the word "truth" in any way shape or form, I'm 100% checking it. TimothyJosephWood 19:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to your recent ornithological question at WP:ANI[edit]

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

And the student was enlightened. EEng 11:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
EEng asked: "are there any nonavian fowl?" Perhaps, but there is certainly such a thing as foul tweeting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC) aka Gomphosus varius


...this,[129] I can only say... Hallelujah! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Was that the block where I made a fool of myself, or just one of many? Also, are the 'facts' on the reddit thread accurate? Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Just one of many. For the Lord God Omnipotent raineth on the just as well as the unjust. As for the facts, see User:EEng#thread. EEng 09:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It is too early in my morning for a witty rejoinder, but thanks. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Bio profs[edit]

Re: Go ahead and snark, but for what it's worth, Pardis (as a practicing geneticist yet) manages to fit a nod to the limitations of twin studies [ghastly section, btw] and common abuses of "heritability" into her intro genetics course, while Wilson couldn't resist gambling the credibility gained through a career of stellar entomology on a bunch of cockamamie just-so stories about hard genetic determinism"sociobiology". So. FourViolas (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

When someone's entire contribution history looks like [130] I feel comfortable erring on the side of ascribing promotionalism. If you, personally, want to vouch for this person I won't oppose it. Maybe some sunny day we'll come up with inclusion criteria. EEng 01:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
No, I wasn't actually suggesting she passes whatever impossible threshold of academic superstardom would make her more worthy of the shortlist than Wilson, just griping. This is too complicated to implement, but if I were in charge I'd make a points system: three points for a Nobel or Fields, two for a Pulitzer, one for each NYT bestseller, one for being a fellow of the AAAS or field equivalent, one for being the subject of someone else's course, one-half for each published biography, etc., and then include people with a score of 5 or higher. FourViolas (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) FourViolas, I'm agassed!! Methinks perhaps that criteria may be too encyclopedic for the average encyclopediaphobe. WP would shrink to fewer pages than the # of baseballs (or bananas) that Johnny Bench can hold in one hand. Atsme📞📧 00:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You're agassed? Sorry! I'll try to be more careful about what I eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I spelled it that way for a reason...I was showing sensitivity to EEng's intellectual faculties by appealing to his sense of humor, which I sensed you would help provoke, you lil provocateur you. It's also possible that FV's words, she passes may have triggered it. Atsme📞📧 01:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm only talking about the criteria for the super-elite shortlist on Harvard_University#Faculty. For general NACADEMIC purposes, I'd be willing to relax the standard to, say, either winning a Nobel Prize or personally developing a technology which ruins ≥10,000 people's lives. EEng, can you do anything about your TPSs' gassed-ly puns? They stink. FourViolas (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
FourViolas, can we have a similar point system for soccer players? Or is it only academics that you want to impose actual standards on? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how serious you're being, but I'm talking about the criteria for inclusion in Harvard University#Faculty, not NACADEMIC. The soccer parallel would be something like "who gets to be in the lede of List of Peru international footballers?" Anyway, soccer players already have a points system. FourViolas (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Not completely serious, but inclusion on that list rather than inclusion in Wikipedia makes more sense of your Nobel-is-only-halfway scale. Do we get to choose who Harvard hires now? I had no idea we had achieved such power! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
If we can choose, then let's raise the bar on porn stars and hockey players, too. Is there a Hall of Shame Fame we can use as the minimum requirement for pornies? I think hockey is pretty much the same as soccer, or it may be more relaxed. Atsme📞📧 13:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hitting each other with sticks is more relaxed than grass-diving? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Uh oh...since porn is part of the equation, I'm afraid my answer to the sticks and grass-diving question will only get me in trouble, regardless of how innocent it might be. Atsme📞📧 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Did someone mention porn stars? The Porn King 123 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Your edit summaries are entertaining. I was watching the proj med editing feed.

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   01:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), listen... I'm very glad you brought this up. Do you know where these editors are popping up from all of a sudden? I really should reach out to them to explain why I'm slashing and burning their added material, but I've just been too exhausted (I'm taking care of my 7-yo nephew all this week). I don't want to drive new editors away, but that stuff was way over the top. Is there an instructor in charge of them somewhere? EEng 01:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know any of the details about this, but if you are concerned that this is a class project where the instructor needs to be contacted, anyone can ask for help with working things out with the student editors and instructor at WP:ENB or WP:ENBI. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You mentioned "the proj med editing feed" -- where's that? EEng 02:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Jeopardy's HD Monitors[edit]

Jeopardy's game board game uses Sony monitors caused it is produced by Sony Pictures Television. I agree with AldezD's edit. ACMEDeputy (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And that advances the reader's understanding of Jeopardy!... how? [131] EEng 14:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm disappointed at getting no response, especially since I phrased my response in the form of a question. EEng 12:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's handy[edit]

Some people have too much time on their hands..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

When shaking hands with Donald Trump, I'd worry about what else might be on his hands. EEng 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I heard that one in the hand is worth two Bushes.:-P No need for you to worry...he's probably read your user page which in itself is built-in protection against a Trump handshake. Atsme📞📧 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Today's puzzle[edit]

Does anyone know what "Created claim" means? See the following diff: [132] I didn't think WP considered "humans" above notability.<---that's probably going to go over quite a few heads but I adore the guy who said it and it's fun to repeat so let's just say it's an inside joke and focus on the diff..Atsme📞📧 21:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Puzzle is right. I've been in that discussion, and I did not understand what Drmies meant when he said that, and I have no idea what you mean by what you are saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • If I remember aright, on Wikidata certain datums (!) are considered "claims" until they're confirmed in some designated way. As for the other guy, I'm staying out of that except to note that I see my [FBDB] innovation has found uses I never anticipated. EEng 23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
EEng, you saw that?!! I'm impressed! Hey, Tryp - it's Friday night and it's happy hour. For the next 3 or 4 hours, we have a license to not care. I blame my OCD for getting me in that mess and for not letting me get out of it...but I'm more befuddled over this, which I imagine few saw in my post at that TP because they're too frigging busy arguing for their own OR. %Þ 🍺!!! Atsme📞📧 00:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
[FBDB]Yes, fool, I saw that. EEng 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Then you must know I have access to Daenerys’ trio of dragons. Atsme📞📧 00:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, you really don't need to ping me every time you mention me on a talk page that I'm already watching, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Bad habit I recently developed when responding to a question/statement in one of the mile long threads I've been subjected to this past week...or has it been a year? Atsme📞📧 00:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
EEng, you really don't need to ping me every time you mention me on a talk page that I'm already watching, OK? --Sauron (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Tryp...pings are like the low voltage lights that light your way to the exit just before the plane crashes. Atsme📞📧 00:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

So I read in a fortune cookie! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding like a supremacist...maybe I spelled that wrong...fortune cookies don't solve the hunger you get an hour after eating Chinese food at 2:00am - yes, I did that and at 5 am I was starving - while riding horses down the esplanade of a busy boulevard. Atsme📞📧 00:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)<---I have Ritchie333 to thank for keeping me up with the time. Atsme📞📧 00:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: At least you're driving on that busy road that will take 2 hours from that Chinese restaurant lol. 😋 KGirl (Wanna chat?) 02:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


When I saw this, I felt a major earth tremor. I also heard on CNN that one of the satellites that allows us to view your UP from space lost its orbit - but then, it was CNN. Anyway, not sure what it all indicates but I seriously doubt your UP can handle a sure enough response from the chief architect. Atsme📞📧 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, let us wait and see. EEng 20:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your answer reminds me of this:

A man is granted three questions to God;

His first question is `God, how long is a million years? God replies `To me, it`s about a second. His second question is `God, how much is a million dollars? God says, `To me it`s about a penny. So the clever man asks his third question; God may I have a penny?

God says `Can you wait a second?

Atsme📞📧 21:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Very nice![edit]

Your redundant close of the AN/I complaint about DoRD confused me until what you had done suddenly struck me. Very nice!! One of your better ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My redundant close of the AN/I complaint about DoRD confused you until what I had done suddenly struck you? Very nice? One of my better ones? EEng 00:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
LOL (literally). Yes, I literally did. Laugh out loud, that is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
You can say that again! EEng 16:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
..until your computer running Windows 7 crashes!! 🖥🔨 :D KGirl (Wanna chat?) 16:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you so much for all your improvements to Death of Nicole van den Hurk! Linguist111 20:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I always say that if there's anything we can do to improve someone's death, we should do it. EEng 20:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense at talk:Mary Kay Letourneau[edit]

You have now inserted this nonsense 3 times into the talk page. Please do not reinsert again, or I will have to report the edit warring at WP:ANI. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Shoot! I saw this just moments after restoring the comment again. I'm now very, very afraid you'll raise this at ANI. EEng 22:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, wait. You've opened an ANEW report [133] about how you editwarred to remove another editor's talk-page post? Now I'm really worried. EEng 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) ??? Just curious...where in the museum will this one be going? Atsme📞📧 23:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Rarely have I seen editors moving their vowels so openly. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Gross! EEng 00:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a bloke in this grave! -Roxy the dog. bark 00:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Maintaining Tryp's news is competing with EEng for witty hooks. Atsme📞📧 00:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The story you link, "VENEZUELAN PROTESTORS PREPARE TO LAUNCH A SHIT BOMB PROTEST", reads in part, "Now protesters have decided to organize what they are deeming the 'shit march.' A flyer circulating on social media reads, 'They have gas; we have excrement'... Parts of the Venezuelan military have already begun to defect and join the protesters."
I thought it said defecate and join the protesters. EEng 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for my crappy sense of humor. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Apologize all you want...nobody gives a crap.[FBDB] Atsme📞📧 18:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
I always love seeing your antagonitic comments on ANI. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's high praise coming from a nihilist. EEng 05:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For introducing me to the term "ANI flu". "Please excuse me from WP:ADMINACCT, I have a cough." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
ANI flew? Where did it fly to? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
To the land of Achoo. -Atsme📞📧 23:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Which Chu's land is that? ("A barnstar for you because ANI flew to the land of Achoo": nice rhyme!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I was concerned about Ritch's cough, so I sent up smoke signals to Dr. Thaddeus Schmidlap. Atsme📞📧 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Cough medicine for Ritchie333. Delivered by Dr. Thaddeus Schmidlap, maker of miracle elixirs from the land of Achoo, a small country in the Federated States of Chu.
  • I rush to point out that I did not originate the term ANI flu; it was someone much cleverer than I (maybe Iridescent? Softlavender?). EEng 03:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I've never used the term. The first time I personally saw it mentioned was by Opabinia regalis in the recent Arthur Rubin RFAR. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't remember exactly where I've used it, but I believe I stole it from Iridescent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Me: here was its first appearance on Wikipedia. I also gave Wikipedia "civility police", "Facebook for ugly people" and "Bradspeak". You're welcome. ‑ Iridescent 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent you coined the phrase "civility police" and I felt it my duty to provide the visuals. I will not pursue the others for I fear potential retaliation from FB users, and I don't have a clue what "Bradspeak" means. Atsme📞📧 17:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Happily, WP:Bradspeak exists to enlighten you. (Despite appearances, it wasn't intended as an insult—it was an observation that NYB was more dedicated than most to avoiding ambiguity, and that his consequent refusal to use words with more than one meaning led to some extremely odd looking phrasing.) I believe I was also the first person to use the phrase "indefinite doesn't mean infinite" on Wikipedia as well, but I can't really take credit for that—before c. 2007 the block interface had separate settings for indefinite ("we haven't decided when to unblock you") and infinite ("fuck off and don't come back") so when blocking someone the situation didn't need to be explained. ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I can happily provide the visuals for "Bradspeak". Atsme📞📧 18:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers! A gadget everyone should install![edit]

You know how you have buttons Save changes and Show preview and Show changes when you edit? This adds Show preview and changes in a single button! It's amazing! Seriously, add this to your common.js e.g. User:SoAndSo/common.js:


Report bugs (and there are some minor ones) at User_talk:Writ_Keeper/Scripts/previewAndDiff.js.

Also, you can use <ctl><alt>o as a keyboard shortcut instead of clicking the button.

EEng 00:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why this wasn't the design from the very first day. It defies reason. EEng 23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm editing this section in Firefox, and at the bottom is Edit summary, Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, Show preview and changes, Citations and Cancel.
I clicked on Show preview and changes and can see what I just typed above but in order to see a preview of what I'm typing now, my only options are Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, and Cancel. I will click on Show changes. Now I have the Show preview and changes option again. How cool is that? ❤️ Thank you, EEng and Writ Keeper!! Wow! Atsme📞📧 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I use Firefox (but in Windows, not Mac), and that never happened for me. Was this your first edit after installing the gadget in your JS file? If so, maybe the new code had not yet loaded until your second try. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense, Tryp. I waited a few days, and here goes. I'm seeing the full menu below Edit summary; i.e. Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, Citations, Show preview and changes, Cancel. I'm going to click on Show preview and changes.....Yep - that was it!! Needed to clear cache. That's what excitement will do for you - I got in too big a hurry to use the new feature and instead of doing a cache check, my check bounced. Atsme📞📧 22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Now in Safari browser.
I clicked on Show preview and changes, AWESOME, and now I'm typing this and can see the full menu again, unlike what happened in Firefox. The Show preview and changes remains with each edit. Not sure if it's worth reporting the bug to Writ Keeper although it would save an extra step in Firefox (using a Mac). Atsme📞📧 15:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Yup I use that. It's really fun and useful. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 16:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Orgasmic? EEng, you are so easy! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice! Face-smile.svg nagualdesign 17:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
Just for this. Well done. Home Lander (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, but the lion's share of the credit belongs to the Wikipedia community, which provides the raw material to which I am honored to be allowed to apply such humble talents as I have been lucky enough to be endowed with. EEng 03:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I don't know if that last bit was grammatical, but it's late.
It was grammatical, more like fanatical, from our favorite radical, but it will pass along with the gas that keeps your ass in high gear, n'er failing to be witty and tart...(finish the poem 🤓). Atsme📞📧 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I certainly enjoyed navigating through that sentence. Sometimes, "taking it slow" is the best approach on a Friday night, which results in agreement and appreciation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Inserted text[edit]

Hi, re this edit: the opposite of <del>...</del> is <ins>...</ins>, see HTML5 spec, section 4.6. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll add that to my reading list should I ever be sentenced to life in prison. EEng 22:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Incident board trolling[edit]

Babs wants to break free...User:Begoon

You're a fine one to accuse me of trolling, calling my plan 'dumb', calling me a 'schoolboy' and criticising my spelling. Especially, as I tried to defuse the situation, and provided a rational and plausible explanation for my posts, neither of which is in keeping with the definition of a troll. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about this [134]? OK, well, if you're not a schoolboy I can certainly substitute language applicable to a grownup fool who wastes others' time wanting help designing an idiot experiment [135]. You do know the difference between diffuse and defuse – I'll hand you that. EEng 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. Re [136][137][138]: Have you heard of the Streisand effect?

Personal comments[edit]

I'm afraid I think this edit oversteps the boundaries of no personal attacks and civility. Please desist. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Making the question even more urgent: Why are you wasting the time of so many editors? When are you going to get a clue? EEng 03:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I was away for the weekend and only just received it.
I realise that you have a problem with my behaviour. But this is not the place to discuss that. This is about your behaviour.
I'm interpreting your response as meaning that you see nothing wrong with the edit in question, and will continue to make similar ones unless this is escalated, is that a fair conclusion? Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's escalate!
I'm interpreting your response as meaning you're even more clueless than anyone thought. Do you really so need to humiliate yourself that you just can't resist coming back here?
  • I was away for the weekend and only just received it. – Thanks for explaining. I was counting the hours until I heard from you.
  • I realise that you have a problem with my behaviour. But this is not the place to discuss that. – Who the fuck are you to tell me what can be discussed on my talk page?
  • This is about your behaviour. – No, it really is about your behavior.
  • unless this is escalated – Christ, please escalate. It's been a while since one of you grandfathered admins made a fool of himself like this. Always entertaining.
Pinging Johnuniq. EEng 00:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Andrewa: Things might have changed since whatever halcyon days you are remembering. I feel I can speak for EEng and myself in saying that we do not want the issue escalated because we have things to do and further pointless banter would be very unproductive. However, I guarantee that escalation would achieve nothing apart from providing light entertainment. The way to avoid people poking fun at you is to stop wasting time. Regarding Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, you have made 97 edits since 14 August 2017—has anything been achieved? Of course you are welcome to waste your time however you like, but WP:TPG is important—1,019 people watch the page, of whom 95 have checked the talk page recently; in all, the talk page has been viewed 2,598 times in the past 30 days. That means the pointless banter is wasting a lot of other people's time. Please find something useful to do. If you really really really want to continue, make an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I had it in mind that an escalation might be useful as a vehicle for Andrewa learning something, but experience shows that's very unlikely so, yes, it would indeed be a waste of time. [User:EEng#s|E]]Eng 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
You may be right. I guess there's only one way to find out. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack by EEng. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Andrewa, did you learn anything [139]? EEng 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
EEng's ode to Newyorkbrad. Gotta love Brad's diplomacy. Atsme📞📧 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, you are quite right, the bar on personal attacks is lower than it once was, and consensus is clear that your post was quite in order. Perhaps that is one reason we have concerns about contributor retention... but that's a discussion for another time.
So we can regard this complaint as resolved in your favour, and I have indeed learned something. Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're trying to say the bar is higher, but that's OK (and I don't agree, by the way – we've just stopped trying to police personal interactions the way grade-school teachers patrol the playground). Anyway, this wasn't resolved in anyone's favour, because WP:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. But we might say it was resolved in favour of a principle – the principle that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about whining. I'm glad you learned something, but I dare not ask what that is. Now please stop wasting my time and go deny the antecedent, or affirm the consequent, or accentuate the positive, or whatever it is you think you're doing, somewhere else. EEng 22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Plimpton 322 NPOV[edit]

I have mentioned you on the NPOV noticeboard 9and50swans (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not before I mentioned you! EEng 04:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Plimpton 322[edit]

Enough Notice. I'm putting you on suspension.
There are worse suspensions, I suppose.

I mentioned you on the NPOV noticeboard discussion 9and50swans (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

WTF? 21 minutes later? EEng 04:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Did I mention, I mentioned you on the NPOV noticeboard discussion? Keira1996 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You've mentioned mentioning that you mentioned me on the NPOV noticeboard discussion. EEng 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned you on any NPOV noticeboard discussion. Am I missing out? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We must mention EEng at NPOV-N since he's mentioned that others have mentioned mentioning him and we don't want to be left out of the mention tension.Atsme📞📧 13:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It's all part of the mention tension convention. EEng 13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Enough nonsense. I'm putting you on suspension. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Enforced abstention? EEng 13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, is this how it's done? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No, SBHB - you simply have to mention it. Was not that style of mention mentioned to you as we have intentionally mentioned in the mention tension convention while you attempted suspension, unless enforced abstention was your contention? Atsme📞📧 16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
And now EEng will get no pension. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Henchmen comment As long as he and his never get Tension. BTW, I feel the infobox image needs to be removed. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What infobox? EEng 03:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The Infobox medical condition on Tension headache.L3X1 (distænt write) 03:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You want my blessing? EEng 04:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If you don't think otherwise I'll be bold tomorrow and remove it. L3X1 (distænt write) 04:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
😂 Atsme📞📧 04:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
LOL, you'll won't get this blessing and this craziness. :D KGirl (Wanna chat?) 14:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Which one is more reasonable: A. Someone has a recent grudge from an encounter with installing Windows B. I seem to remember raiding a cult hideout and they had this projected on the wall over their altar. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plimpton 322[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plimpton 322. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Just so long as you haven't mentioned me there. EEng 04:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Tit for tat[edit]

In exchange for calling me to Talk:Ted Kaczynski maybe you could look at Maryanthe Malliaris and User talk:Adam8592. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've looked over the discussion and hope your advice got through. I'll keep an eye. Your ran/rma infection seems chronic. EEng 05:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Was it necessary?[edit]

This was dickish. You won your point. Learn how to win with grace, or you will lilely run afoul of other editors as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Responded here [140]. I wish you'd make up your mind, though, whether I'm a dick or a douche. (Is your confusion that they both go into ladyparts?) EEng 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

One more for the collection[edit]

Courtesy of Jytdog and Sugarcube73, User talk:Jytdog#Foreskin article. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear God, please deliver me from all this. EEng 22:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Smell me, buy me, and deliver me. I won't change. What am I? Atsme📞📧 01:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I had been afraid to ask, but I see the answer is at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Right you are[edit]

Don't know whether he's a sock or just a troll, but I'm sorry you are the target. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Better me than anyone else; it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I kind of like having the block log I have because it draws the crazies like moths to the flame, thus we know quickly who's who. BTW, he seems to want us to think he's this guy [141]. He's probably qualified for a WP:IMPERSONATE block, but I'm not going to initiate that unless he keeps behaving in a way that embarrasses the real person with that name. EEng 01:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, impressive sleuthing on your part! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I simply googled Carole Chaski‎‎ Robert Kwasny. It's on the first page of results. I don't think it's him, though. No responsible academic would behave that way; more likely it's someone out to embarrass him and/or embarrass Chaski. EEng 02:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Well, this page is over one million bytes now, so I guess you can have this as a reward. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 02:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
He'd rather have pancakes. (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
EEng/Tryptofish... You watch it, cupcake!.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it was the Russians[edit]

2017 NCAA Division I men's basketball corruption scandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talkcontribs)

Falling standards[edit]

Show des Batchieaux Jersey Boat Show 2013 54.jpg

Can any of you lot think of a witty caption to the picture on the right? Something about "falling standards", perhaps? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Standards and falls in the same place! Tryptofish (talk)

A header[edit]

Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
As the barnstar documentation says, for lightening the mood, defusing conflicts, and generally making Wikipedia a better place to be. Including this. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
He's "smarter than your average moron". Don vs Rex.... bring it on!! - Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Since you sent Thanks, I thought I ought read this talk page. My first reaction was "how can one editor be so talented?" Then the answer hit: no effor required—each night you tilt Wikipedia and next morning les noix roll in—as if this were Orange County. User:Neonorange (Phil) 07:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Are there many nut trees here in OC? I hadn't noticed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
My second post is almost a duplicate, but not quite. A clue is to be found by clicking on the subject line of that second post. — (Phil) 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Orange County[edit]

Since you sent thanks I thought I ought read your talk page. My first reaction was "how can one editor be so talented?" Then the answer hit: each night you tilt Wikipedia and next morning les noix roll in as if this page were Orange County. Neorange (Phil) 07:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


I wish to commend you for your great sense of humour, as well as for your exquisite taste for NOT adding a picture of a boomerang in the ANI thread. Dr. K. 03:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You are much too kind. EEng 12:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Am drams[edit]

User:Ritchie333/Any 'Dmin Will Do - currently running at the Dramaboard Playhouse Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have the best talk-page stalkers. EEng 18:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to Death of Elisa Lam[edit]

I actually agree with most of them; I tend to err on the side of more information rather than less when I write articles as (as I'm sure you know) it's much easier to cut later than add (and also a sort of a defense against casual tagging ... I think I put in the names of the pathologists because a) I wasn't sure how often I'd have to refer to the writers when I began that section and I didn't want to keep saying "the pathologists" and b) I've had people tag that sort of thing with {{who}} a few too many times). I was sad to see those bits about the black water go but ... it has been over four years now and I have not found anything about what happened with the lawsuit over it, so I guess all we need to do now is note it and move on.

I did, however, restore the "mechanics of the body removal" because it's a subtle way of debunking one of the so-called "mysteries" of the case intended to suggest paranormal involvement, i.e. people who think themselves clever and ask "If they had to cut her body out, HOW COULD SHE HAVE GOTTEN IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? HUH? HUH?" With that explanation in the article and cited to a reliable source, people can link to our article (as a lot of web forums do) and quote that part and shut that down real quick. (I also read somewhere, but haven't found an RS repeating this, that (rather sensibly when you think about it) the rigor mortis was so advanced they couldn't pull the body back through the hatch without severely damaging it in the process).

(BTW, maybe I should take the time now to apologize for things I said during that long war we had over at DYK two summers ago. So, I'm sorry). Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • As the wise man said, Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. Good writing often springs from the dynamic between a writer who who writes too much and an editor who cuts, chooses, and prunes.
  • Don't worry about the other, Daniel Case. As I'm sure you know I've been on the receiving end of worse.
EEng 03:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Who is the wise man? Or did you mean wise guy? But hey, does that mean that if I eat prunes I'll become a good writer? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Tryp, your fins could use a little pruning. Atsme📞📧 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
As long as my intestines don't need prunes. (Yes, I know that was a crappy joke.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

Joke icon This is your only warning; if you trim out blatantly excessive text from a long standing rights description page making the text far more digestible and less complex for the average reader, as you did with this edit, I shall have to praise you again.

Seriously, I saw the edit summary and immediately assumed it was vandalism. But, the edit summary was perfect. Nicely done on trimming that text down! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png

You probably deserve the "Iggy Pop Memorial Barnstar of We Take No Textual Passengers." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I counted the number of "blah"s, and you should have had one more. (By the way, I have all of the best "blah"s. When I get done, you'll have so many "blah"s that you'll be getting tired of so much "blah"ing. Everyone else has fake "blah"s.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I did have to add a bit of text back in [142]. Feel free to change it however you wish, but this bit is important because many of the people we want having autopatrolled are not familiar with project space, so we rely on other people to let admins know that they should have the flag. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Earlier this year there was a lot of talk about going around and granting AP to those who qualified, has that all been taken care of? L3X1 (distænt write) 16:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Required notice[edit]

EEng after receiving static.

You're edit-warring and approaching 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We've known each too long for you to give me this kind of static. EEng 09:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Must be just friendly shock tactics? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Gosh, Martin, when did the doctors discharge you?[FBDB] EEng 13:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
As if he would ever dare. You know my motto. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is high voltage. How could anyone not get a charge out of it? Atsme📞📧 20:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorely missed[edit]

Hi EEng, I'm sure that Alfred Schmidt would be having fun if he were alive today. --Mirokado (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

We need people like him and Herblock more than ever now. EEng 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The illustration with the caption "Drawing" (it's quite interesting if you click on it once, then click on "More details" to enlarge it so you can see the details), and the one of Saltholm lend themselves to captions about Wikipedia.  – Corinne (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you![edit]

Házikecske portré.JPG

So where I am from we used to give rope for mere possession of a running brand (Mac10s were ok, you can't hurt anyone with them) but duffing is okay if you rustle goats in odd numbers. (!) So you might want to get a GPS tracker for this goat. And that link is on purpose for 2 reasons: a goat is a goat and a ram is a sheep with an attitude; FCA doesn't make a GT model for the 1500.

L3X1 (distænt write) 04:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What the hell? But thanks for the goat. EEng 04:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the Ram logo as anything else any more —DE
DE, you'll burn in hell for this. —EEng
Where I'm from, a ram is a Dodge dually. Atsme📞📧 04:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
A few weeks ago I was behind a 3500 with RAM written like a foot tall in the tailgate and a badge that looked about 10 inches wide. Any clue what I could have seen??
1 Ton (3500) Dodge RAM truck, probably with dual rear wheels. Atsme📞📧 05:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, gotta say...DE has quite the imagination. Maybe an alternate account as User:GYNng is in order. 😂 Atsme📞📧 16:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Bighorn sheep (Ovaries Ovis canadensis) - for comparison purposes.
And if he's blocked for sockpuppetry he can submit an unblock request to UTRS. EEng 17:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
But who, I'd like to know, put the ram in the rama-lama-lama-lama-ding-ding-dong? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Y'all be confusin' yer animals [143].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

1 Millionth edit on ANI?[edit]

Choco chip cookie.png What do you want a cookie? Well... RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
All hail the God-King and President for Life ... personally I'm going to save my accolades for when this talk page hits 1,000 lv2 sections. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Jesus - that makes EEng a millennial to the 1,000th power? (It's all about editing power, not size.) Atsme📞📧 23:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you make a table of contents for your table of contents? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been deleted from Wikipedia[edit]

Per the discussion at ANI, you are hereby deleted from this world for wasting the 1 millionth edit on ANI. If you wish to appeal this deletion please contact the creator of the universe, whoever that may be.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you do not get the free tin of spam. [144] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted is not that bad, it could be worse. You could have received an admonishment. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I was looking for an image that would illustrate wasting edits, or time, and I came across The Idler (1993). I love the quote from the Ethos section:
  • On the practice of idling, Tom Hodgkinson writes:

[a] characteristic of the idler's work is that it looks suspiciously like play. This, again, makes the non-idler feel uncomfortable. Victims of the Protestant work ethic would like all work to be unpleasant. They feel that work is a curse, that we must suffer on this earth to earn our place in the next. The idler, on the other hand, sees no reason not to use his brain to organise a life for himself where his play is his work, and so attempt to create his own little paradise in the here and now.[1]

 – Corinne (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Phil Hammond (15 September 2010). Sex, Sleep or Scrabble: Seriously Funny Answers to Life's Quirkiest Queries. Black & White Publishing. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-1-84502-526-7.

Can we have him WP:Salted? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I find it highly amusing that a user with the word fish in their name also used the word Salt. Blackmane (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That's because I'm a seasoned editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
See also the Mars-related item at User:SMcCandlish#Funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia (which is nowhere near as well-curated or current as EEng's museum).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
"Curated" is one of those trendy words that makes me want to hit people with wooden rulers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely love Corinne, but it's true. EEng 03:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but what's true?  – Corinne (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
A good question, one that even the Nephelim themselves have struggled to answer. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
That curated is a trendy word. EEng 17:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Did you say curated, or curing?
Young man preparing a pig's head after a sacrifice, or WP:STICK. Vase v. 360-340 BC, National Archaeological Museum of Spain, from Curing (food preservation)
 – Corinne (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sassy Trump[edit]

All those pithy comments about Trump on your user page, including links to YouTube videos, and not a single mention of Peter Serafinowicz's Sassy Trump? For shame! nagualdesign 22:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Funny! I liked the Puerto Rico speech best. :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Puppy Trump is worth consideration as well [145]. Okay, two joke posts in one day are sufficient. I'm heading back to my watchtower.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Did I arks you? nagualdesign 01:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Careful now, Nagual, or we'll get Brother Stanton back again, pushing those crummy magazines. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure they've published some stuff about at least one ark, possibly two.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the edit that dare not speak its name removed by Ivanvector was just a link to the latest Sassy Trump video. I'd link to it here again, minus the title, if I hadn't been threatened by Ivan. For anyone who's interested I've posted it on my talk page. Ask for me tomorrow, and you may find me a grave man. nagualdesign 16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Will someone please email me this link (using Email this user)? I'd like to know what this is all about. EEng 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Hello, EEng. Please check your email; you've got mail!
    It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
    --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a Sassy Trump video, since I was barred from linking to the latest one, but a musical mashup from October last year (with no mention of any allegations of molestation, paedophilia, necrophilia or any other such BLP violating content, it's just a bit of fun): DONALD TRUMP : The Muppet Show Mashup nagualdesign 22:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A stable genius.

A bit of off-Wiki comic relief from all the huffing and puffing that fills Wikipedia talk pages: There's been 3 more Sassy Trump videos released in the last couple of weeks. I won't link to all 3, but this one had me in stitches: Sassy Trump sings 'The Star-Something Hmm-hmm' Face-grin.svg I'm surprised more people don't do funny voiceovers. Maybe it's my puerile sense of humour but I find them hilarious. Bad Lip Reading never fails to amuse me either. nagualdesign 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I share your sense of humor about that (and everyone knows I'm a stable genius). I liked the "no collusion" one too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings[edit]

Want more yams?
No thanks, I'm stuffed.

Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
A Thanksgiving tale...

Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns).
The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?”
The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”.
The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?”

Atsme📞📧 02:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely tasteless for Legobot to have placed this notice directly under a turkey-in-oven photo. EEng 14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
You definitely should take the bot to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Gage article[edit]

I have to know, why is the Phineas Gage article not at the very least recognized as a GA? In my opinion, it deserves its own tier of "GA-ness" or "FA-ness". Something like Bully! article status. Is there anything I can do to help amend this? I do not possess the heroism (or patience) to navigate the depths of your talk page for a similar discussion so I apologize in advance if I am not the first to ask these questions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The very small amount of atten­tion that has been given to [the article] can only be ex­plained by the fact that it far tran­scends any case of recov­ery from inju­ry of the head that can be found in the rec­ords of sur­gery. It was too mon­strous for belief ...

J.B.S. Jackson (1870)

Wow, I just looked through Phineas Gage <badump-tssss> and it does indeed appear to be quite a robust, well covered, well illustrated article. Outstanding (used both as an exclamation and I literally think it stands out in comparison to many other articles). --A Fellow Editor (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I can hand out popcorn if required. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

((_*_) Buttinsky) I totally agree with you TGS and AFE. I can't overemphasize the engaging prose by our one and only EEng, an editor I admire and consider to be extraordinary in so many different ways. I would definitely be among the FA reviewers if PG became a WP:FAC. Atsme📞📧 19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Roxy will need a lot of popcorn for that. I think the reason is that, once one opens the edit window, the page turns gag-inducing. I've given our fine curator a lot of grief over that in the past, but have since lost my appetite for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean to reopen some bad history here. I just think credit should be given for what, in my opinion, surpasses any article I have read on Wikipedia thus far. Honestly, a review just seems like a formality at this point but I can start one if that is the issue. Good idea or doomed to fail? Thoughts?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not certain whether it's doomed to fail, but it is very likely doomed to elicit drama, because that bad history includes a lot of editors who (unlike me) continue to hold a grudge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned before that we need this article like a hole in the head. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Which reminds me, we should add a section about lobotomy to that page. (Now, watch EEng's head explode!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Lobotomy's already covered. Jeesh. EEng 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
If that is what it takes NYB! I am going to ask around to find an experienced GA reviewer who would take the case. I still presume this review would just be a formality but I hope I can trust any issues beyond my control -- like with sources I do not own -- will be dealt with professionally by the article's main contributors. Resentment be damned; such a well-researched piece is worth whatever drama a few editors want to stir up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head—
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

  • First let me say that, while I can't deny I'm the editor most responsible for what you see in the article, many others helped substantially and even indispensably. And anyone who says they don't enjoy, just a teensy bit, seeing their work recognized is fibbing – but at what cost? Please let's not rush into anything. Someone (not me) nominated for GA in 2013, and guess what? Click to find out. I fear that in any renewed effort (whether GA or FA), what will happen is...
    • someone will say there should be fewer quotations, because most articles have fewer quotations, and that quotations shouldn't have links, because otherwise someone might think that the links were in the original 19th-century quotation;
    • someone will say there should be fewer images, because most articles don't have many images;
    • someone will say the citation system should be changed, because most articles use some other citation system, whether it would do good service here or not;
    • someone will say et al. should be italicized;
    • someone else will say et al. should not be italicized;
    • someone will say the sentences should be broken up into short declaratives, that you shouldn't use dashes, and that you can't start a sentence with However or But, because their seventh-grade teacher Miss Snodgrass told them so;
    • someone will say the markup is too complicated (see post above in this thread), without considering what the markup does;
    • someone will say there should be fewer notes, because most articles don't have notes;
    • someone will say that the article's not balanced because (and I am not making this up) it doesn't repeat various things things said in a children's book.
In short, there will be plenty of people advocating for the principle that an "anodyne consistency of style" is what makes for a quality article. And those are just from memory. I don't know if I feel like going through that again. Then of course, the article's not my property and it's not my decision to make.
Maybe we could try a test run with Sacred Cod or Widener Library or John Harvard (statue) or Andrew M. Gleason or Lionel de Jersey Harvard (next spring will be the 100 anniversary of his death, BTW, so that would be nice). But no matter what, can this wait a few weeks? I've got a lot going on just now.
EEng 04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that ANI about the earlier GAN made my head explode! (Certainly wasn't just a formality.) Maybe it would make for a good reply to that survey about ANI posted below. Maybe not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe "et" could be italicized and "al." not. Or the other way around. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be the quintessential Wikipedia compromise. EEng 01:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Except that Solomon actually had good judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"This is ..." [7 sec. vid] --–A Fellow Editor– 23:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
No attempt will be made by me to cite analo­gous nominations, as after ran­sack­ing the lit­er­a­ture in quest of such, I learn that all, or nearly all, soon came to a fatal result.

J.M. Harlow (1868)[H]:344

  • I think that out of friendship and consideration for EEng, please don't do a GAN at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And so it begins... [146] EEng 20:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I have cheese and onion flavour? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • EEng - it's Happy Hour, and all I can do to refrain from sharing my candid thoughts. I can relate to what you've had to endure. (pause to retrieve a chilled mug of... use your imagination). I try to steer clear of things I'm not young enough to change...and I can't understand how in the hell that wonderfully composed and exceptionally well-written article doesn't meet the criteria for FA, never mind GA. Having said that, I understand why you don't want to be subjected to the drill, and decided instead to let it be what it is. Sometimes we just have to stop arguing and simply let them be wrong. Atsme📞📧 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • EEng I'll refrain from this topic for a few weeks. I apologize for causing any grief over what I thought was a bit more straightforward than it turned out to be. I don't know if there is some major politicizing or a grudge match keeping you away from the credit you deserve on the Gage article but I would appreciate if you re-evaluated after a period of time to see if you are up for a GA review.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Must've hit a nerve. Atsme📞📧 21:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not as big a deal as maybe it comes across, and you certainly mean well. As mentioned above, may I suggest we start instead with Lionel de Jersey Harvard or Sacred Cod? EEng 15:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In re any recent uptick in interest about the page: [147]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh, my eyes, my 👀, my O_O!! 🙈 Wish I hadn't read that! The nerve of those people!!! Atsme📞📧 15:29, December 2, 2017
And look how TheGracefulSlick is now harassing one of those poor people! [148] EEng 03:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Reminder: There will be a meeting of the white males immediately after next week's Masonic Rites. If your Trilateral Commission duties will prevent you from attending, please let me know.

UK Urban Dictionary 2017 - available now for re-tweeting[edit]

  • Plonker: British informal. Mid 19th century (as a dialect word meaning ‘something large of its kind’): from the verb plonk + -er. - A foolish or inept person.
  • Prannet: British slang, depreciative. 1970s. Origin uncertain; perhaps an alteration of pranny - An idiot.
  • Pillock: British informal. Mid 16th century: variant of archaic pillicock ‘penis’, the early sense of pillock in northern English. - A stupid person.
  • Prannock: British informal. A cross between a "prannet" and a "pillock" (see above).
  • Prat (occasionally, Pratt): British informal. - An incompetent or stupid person; an idiot.

May come in useful during future state visits? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And that's just the pees. EEng 15:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out how "prannock" can be a cross between an idiot and a stupid person. Maybe it's just inbreeding. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The etymology section of the OED entry for "Pillock" contains the single finest quotation in the entire dictionary, Why did the butterfly flutter by? Because she saw the caterpillar wave his pillock at her. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Is that the etymology section or the entomology section? See also [149]. EEng 21:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Butterfly?? I've always thought of something more creepy crawly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC) ".... and you may find yourself, living in a Shotgun shack: [150]...."
Among similar "P"-Britishisms, I'm fond of "punter" in the sense of a paying customer at a show. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest a punter is just a gullible paying customer, no show required. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"Prat": interesting, per wikt:pratfall. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure there's plenty of folks who were hoping he'd be ancient history by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
In fact, there is a US President precedent: [151]. (Add "prescient", and try saying that three times fast.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I normally make it a rule to only visit this page once a day, as I've limited time on teh internetz. I thought that a youtube [BLOODY SPAM FILTER link] might explain the Trumpton thing. That one made me laugh. It's worth waiting for the fire brigade roll call... Hugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Funny how so many people mis-remember that. There was no Hugh in the Trumpton fire brigade, there were two Pugh's (twins). So it's, "Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub." nagualdesign 05:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"I'm busy throwing hints that he keeps missing": [152] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Was he waiting for an answer?[edit]

Do you think the original poster was waiting for an answer all this time? He must be quite relieved to have gotten one, at Talk:Mafic#Pronounciation [sic]. [153]  – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

But, how does one pronounce "magnesium"? (I do have to admit, Osama Bin Login is a pretty good username.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
"The name is a pun of Osama Bin Laden and a Unix program named /bin/login, which runs to let people log into the system."[154] – And apparently he had to defend it at one point. --–A Fellow Editor– 02:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


Sincere apologies. The article makes no clear distinction between bats, boobies or, of course, ape shit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC) [FBDB]

A barn-appendange[edit]

Big toe.JPG
The Toenail
"Given to editors who have a good sense of humour, and adore using thumbnails."

For many funny talk-page sidebar comments in picture form [even if I grumped about two of them].  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • You can't please all the people all the time, I guess: someone was just telling me that they're disruptive and I should stop. Fooey, I say! EEng 22:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your point[edit]

... about the lack of need to state that the quote is by Koenig about Chekov. To my surprise, Template:Quote box says the attribution fields are optional! Ylee (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Situation resolved. Take us out of orbit, set a course for Recreation Planet Svetlana-7! EEng 00:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hab Milch?[edit]

See: User:EEng#Museum of Bad Starts – Tnx 4 sharing dat, EEng. ––A Fellow Editor– 09:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Du vilcommen. EEng 14:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Phineas Gage (2)[edit]

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted. His head shot looks particularly good in the article. I hope you're happy with all that. All the best for Christmas and the New Year. Regards, nagualdesign 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I blamed the other guys[edit]

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   and Merry Christmas 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I will not be out-SNL:d by anyone!!![edit]

But Merry Christmas anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Even your username sounds like an SNL gag. EEng 14:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC) you may have insulted the culture of my people. Stand by for withdrawal of any pickled herring in your possession. Alternatively, watch the 312-minute cut of Fanny and Alexander three times. Bishonen, please block EEng for the rest of the year for cultural insensitivity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I hope I didn't come across as diacritical. EEng 15:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Your pun-ishment should be severe. However, "Swedish also has the letters å, ä, and ö, but these are considered distinct letters, not a and o with diacritics." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
See Diacritic.  – Corinne (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback[edit]

Thanks for posting at the ANI (although the discussion was closed and may be considered bit ill-timed because of that, but whatever, it's fine...). I gained good amount of community feedback (including yours), and I will take it to heart, I will honor it, apply it, learn from it, and carry on positively. I appreciate your input very much, and I thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to repeat what I said on Tony1's talk page, I don't really blame you, because you were just imitating the widespread triggerhappy practices you've seen at ANI regarding so-called legal threats. And you're to be commended for trying to make amends. EEng 04:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Heather Rich[edit]

@EEng: I think that Murder of Heather Rich might need a check-over. Could you please do it? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The Great and Powerful Oz will consider your entreaty, but not for a bit because he can't abide cold oatmeal. EEng 13:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@EEng:. I'd like your help to bring it to GA. It's in a crappy state for a case that got national attention. we can start by giving it an infobox and a picture of Ms. Rich. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I think I've done all I can. The trial stuff probably should be streamlined more, but to be honest all the twists and turns give me a headache. I'm going to have to leave it at that. EEng 20:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

April 1[edit]

I have nominated another article today that I worked on to be included in the DYK section on the main page on April 1. Perhaps I can be the first Wikipedian to have two mentions on April 1! Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have nightmares about that page at least until April. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

My mother's footwear[edit]

She did, in fact, occasionally wear Army boots. My old ones, to be precise; US Army issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

So my intuition was correct. EEng 21:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you intuited that my mother was Barbara Eden, you're off by a bit. My mother's magical powers (including eyes in the back of her head) were very real, and not the result of special effects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Harv citations[edit]

Do you remember the fix for the Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named xxxxx? See Barbara Taylor refs. I bookmarked the fix somewhere, but I can't recall where. Atsme📞📧 20:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no such problem in Barbara Taylor, and I have a script to highlight those errors. If you're using the {{cite}} template series, you need to uses |ref=harv; is that what you're thinking of? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Give me a few and I'll do a screen capture so you can see what's happening. Atsme📞📧 21:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, I'm pretty sure that among the pile of stuff at User:Atsme/common.js there's some code which does this. I get it as well and have learned to ignore it unless I'm cleaning up an article's refs. If you look in User:EEng/common.js you'll see the code I have to do the same thing (stolen from someone, I have no idea who). Try temporarily blanking your common.js and the message should disappear. If it's any comfort normal readers won't see the error because they won't have the js. EEng 21:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Harv citeref error
Ok, I'll log out and use the laptop, a cell phone and iPad, then I'll check back in. Atsme📞📧 21:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Ok, the culprit is importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); Not sure why it shows up as an error or if it's really necessary to fix it but with that script gone, the error disappears. Apologies for any confusion I that js script may have caused. Atsme📞📧 21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It is completely not an error to have citations with no harv link to them. Why that script would flag it as an error is a mystery to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
{{citation}} defines an anchor by default, so it is not (necessarily) an error in that case. It is possible to add |ref=none to suppress the anchor, I keep meaning to document that! {{Cite book}} etc only define an anchor if the |ref= param is set. In that case it is an indication that the intended link to that citation is missing so correcting the problem will probably improve the article. I like the "no errors, no warnings" mantra when adding content or programming, so I would always fix such a message. --Mirokado (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────My only response:
A Game Warden is walking along a beach one morning when he spots a man with a bucket of lobsters.
The Warden walks up to the man, flashes his badge and says, “You’re in big trouble, buddy. Poaching lobsters is a serious offense.”
The man answers, “You’ve got it all wrong, these lobsters are my pets! Every morning I take them out for some exercise.
I let them swim around in the ocean for a few minutes and then whistle them back in.”
The Warden looks at the man skeptically and says, “Okay then, prove it.”
The man proceeds to throw the lobsters into the ocean and both he and the Warden stand there waiting.
After a couple minutes the Warden looks at the man and says, “That’s long enough, now whistle your lobsters back in.”
The man turns to the Warden and says “Lobsters? What lobsters?”
So, David - I ask...What error? "-: Atsme📞📧 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If it's wrong to poach lobsters, is it alright to broil them? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Or even rock them? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Waiter, waiter, this lobster’s only got one claw.
It must have been in a fight, sir.
Then bring me the winner. Atsme📞📧 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd make another joke about this, but that would just be shellfish of me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Waiter! Waiter! There's a fly in my soup!
Just leave it for a few seconds, sir: the lobster will get it.
A happy new year to EEng and all the contributors to his talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just realized...[edit]

I'll probably be indefinitely blocked in the next few minutes for making death threats [155]. EEng 21:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Uh-oh, you said it in terms of the death penalty, which is administered as a part of law, so that made it a legal threat. Alas, you're a goner. If only you had merely threatened to kill someone, that wouldn't have been a legal threat, and no admin would care. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
How very dare you. Reviewers are editor people too, you know!! What's Wiki coming to. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to the death threat...[edit]

Stackable WTF blocks
You are about to be the recipient of a WTF Block...maybe
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid?

Now that you're a mature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable,
they're collectable!! You are already well on your way to surpassing Trump International!
Face-grin.svg Atsme📞📧 21:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I created an article on blocks y'know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  • LOL*
And another one I couldn't resist: Happy New Year, EEng! Atsme📞📧 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts....[edit]

Dax Cowart - perhaps not quite on the level of a Phineas Gage but very close. Give it a look when you have time. I admire and recognize your gift to "engage the reader". Atsme📞📧 00:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to this. I'm surprised I've never heard of the case before. Looks like this wouldn't need much to bring it to GA, and it would make a good DYK, especially wrt his being denied access to an attorney. I'll give it a going over next year, but in the meantime any chance you can revive the U Virginia link, currently 404? EEng 00:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added quite a few RS to the TP of the BLP, and my reason for not editing the article. Atsme📞📧 00:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Adding - a good friend (an attorney), named his daughter after Dax. If my memory serves correctly, he and Dax attended Trial Lawyers College together, and because Dax was blind, Marty read aloud for him, doing whatever he could to help Dax get through the class. In 1985 he created a scholarship in Dax's name. Atsme📞📧 21:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't realize you'd reverted the punctuation at Sacred Cod—I thought I'd simply somehow missed it. Regardless, you're wrong—it's not about the punctuation being in the original or not, it's about what the period is punctuating. The period logically punctuates the enclosing sentence, not the quoted fragment, which is not a complete sentence that can be terminated on its own. I'm not going to editwar over it, but you are totally misunderstanding the "logical" part of "logical quotation". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

*Sigh* ... whatever, man. I get the message—don't fucking touch Sacred Cod. I've got more productive things to do than this bullshit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • For those playing along at home, this has its root in this discussion [156]. Apparently the OP doesn't want an answer, so I won't waste one. EEng 04:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    There was no question to "answer", and my edits had nothing to do with attribution, so they have zero to do with that discussion (they had to do with MOS:LQ and MOS:DASH). You link to an article, I read it, and I correct the MoS errors I find—and you accuse me of bad faith for that? Why the head games? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    Things other than questions can be answered, most editors seem to resolve LQ's contradictory provisions the way I do, and no one's accusing you of bad faith. Obviously you wouldn't be here if not for the discussion I linked. EEng 11:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    "most editors seem to resolve LQ's contradictory provisions the way I do"—uh ... no. I have no idea where you pull these magical statistics from, but I've read, written, and FA-reviewed more than enough articles to negate that statement. If that were the case, you would then have is a hodge-podge of quote fragments, some with the period inside and some out depending on the source rather than the logic of the sentence, which looks broken to the reader (who then may decide to "fix" it by putting them all either in or out, either breaking source–text integrity or MOS:LQ altogether). Surely this is not difficult to understand. MOS:LQ is meant to solve a problem, not cause one.
    "Obviously you wouldn't be here if not for the discussion I linked."—obviously I wouldn't have clicked the link, but that's as far as you can stretch the logic, implying this is a dispute somehow carrying over from another discussion. Is that how you take it? Is it a grudge you carry over from that discussion that led you to revert all my edits? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Your long experience at FA is disconnected from what most editors do, because most editors have no interest in that echo-chamber of rule-bound minutia-hunting unrelated to what makes an article something people would actually want to read. My experience is that most editors (unless they ignore LQ completely, and who can blame them?) simply follow its opening precept – Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark – and ignore its confusing, prissy, and contradictory examples, which in many cases produce jagged-looking results.
    • Over at Talk:MOS you've been huffing about "contextualizing quotations" and the sanctity of attribution and so on, while meanwhile (and I am not making this up) in the article in question you actually changed the wording of a direct quote [157]. Really???
    That's why I reverted your edits. EEng 12:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    The way the source was format, it didn't appear to be a quote. I made a mistake. Whoops!—sorry. That doesn't exceuse the rest of this (it wasn't a single revert), and that sigle error was not why you reverted everything else—including the comma from the date formatting. Seriously?—is that acceptible anywhere?
    Anyways, I had no idea this was all because you had it out for the MoS as a whole or I never would have shown up here to talk sense into you. I apologize for that, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    I think you mean "have it in for", but anyway I harbor no hostility toward MOS – in fact, I'm the primary contributor at MOSNUM [158] and primarily responsible for its organization and presentation. I reserve my hostility for people with cramped and dwarfed ideas about what constitutes good writing who try to impose those ideas on everyone else. As we're seeing at Talk:MOS, LQ's provisions really are, um, shall we say "suboptimal", so I think the sense-talking is going in the other direction. Sorry about the comma on the year, I guess I got distracted by your changing a direct quotation in that same edit.
    I believe my talk page stalkers are no longer enjoying this, so please do have the last word now. I'm sure there are many more featured articles which will get thirty views per day waiting for you to write them. EEng 06:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    Uh ... what we're seeing at Talk:MOS is that every commenter without exception is telling you your interpretation is wrong. Not one has said anything resembling the idea that LQ's provisions are "suboptimal"—only that you're having the most puzzling trouble with what's totally clear to the rest of us. What's now more surprising is that a contributer to MOS:NUM would revert to a non-standard date format (covered in MOS:NUM) and not fix it even after pointing it out.
    "Have it out for" is perfectly standard English, by the way—it's not in the least hard to find real-world examples of it. You're really bending over backwards trying to look me bad, aren't you? It'd be nice if you looked at this as a "how can we solve this?" issue, rather than "how can I beat this fucker?" Your last comment makes it clear that'll never happen.
    Hey, talk page stalkers—EEng keeps calling on you to pile on me. What's holding you back? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    Oops, sorry, didn't notice you were still here. You can find unselfconscious examples of irregardless as well. When someone invites you to have the last word, you do know that's a test, right? EEng 20:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
    When someone politely invites you to correct an error you've reverted, one doesn't expect you to invent English prescriptions at them to make yourself feel better. How many days are they to stay uncorrected, Top-MOS:NUM-Editor? As well as the MOS:LQ errors you've finally gotten around to admitting were your error? Or do we just get more of your headgames as you play The Ultimate Comeback? Given the mess at Talk:MOS, one would expect a little humility at this point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    correct an error you've reverted – huh? When someone invites you to have the last word, you do know that's a test, right? EEng 05:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm talking about your bullshit in article space—you're playing head games. Why is playing head games so much more important to you than fixing your fuckups?
    That's a rhetorical question. Just fix your fuckups. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm talking about the fact that telling someone to correct an error you've reverted makes no sense, since an error that's been reverted has thereby already been corrected. Head games – that's such groovy vernacular! So with it and hip! I dig it, daddy-o! But hey, dude, when someone invites you to have the last word, you do know that's a test, right? EEng 07:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    Jesus fucking Christ. Just fix your fucking fuckup. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • One can't help but notice that any editor can fix another editor's article-space mistakes, instead of throwing a fit to convince them to do it themselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    @MPants at work: so you missed the bit about how this discussion exists only because EEng has been autoreverting my edits to his article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss it. I just don't understand why you don't just fix the part he didn't have a problem with. If you're revert warring, well, that's on you, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't reverted any of his edits, and I'm not about to start—he's been accusing me of bad faith from the get-go. I'm not about to feed that by giving him the excuse to accuse me of editwarring. He's made it clear he doesn't want me touching his article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI...[edit]

...discussion at User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal. Atsme📞📧 19:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I encourage my glittering array of talk page stalkers to take a look. Myself I'm going to just keep watching for now. I long ago decided to let my block log stand as a monument to the 3% of admins who are fools or jackasses (with one or two exceptions, of course) so I don't have the emotional investment many others do. EEng 22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Later clarification: What I meant is that there are one or two exceptions among the admins who have blocked me; among admins in general, 97% are emphatically not fools or jackasses. 16:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
But they can't comment there. They've all been blocked.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
And you're next.[FBDB] EEng 06:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg So if I have blocks on my mind, I guess that makes me a blockhead! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Getting some mileage out of this one - thx Tryp:
  • LOL*
I always figured block logs didn't go anywhere, since they're unable to roll...   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for starting and continuing the discussion. Barbara (WVS)   14:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Based on some of the comments I've read about block logs, we should be proud of them.O_O One argument I've seen more than once over the years is that we should want to keep them in public view because it exposes the insanity that plagues WP. %Þ Atsme📞📧 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I thanked you[edit]

...for comments in your edit summaries. You have a block log? Well, I'll get some popcorn, put on some background music, put my feet up and read the novel for myself. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   13:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope you have a few days to spare... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Day thirteen and I'm still reading the edit summarys and block logs and whatever else I can find. Barbara (WVS)   01:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A warning Cup-a-Soup for you[edit]

CupSoupChicken.jpg A warming Cup-a-Soup for you
Lawrence Oates c1911.jpg

Noddy and the boys send you a hearty Glam rock cup-a-soup to help you warm up!!

But beware... don't leave your cosy tent or you might be "some time".

Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

....or I guess you could always build a nice bonfire?

Hmmm...what I need is a bowl of Oatsmeal. ^_^ Atsme📞📧 01:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Something for your barn[edit]

Yellow Barnstar star.png The Red Barnstar
Because WP lacks an "against my better judgment barnstar",