User talk:EEng

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 6 as User talk:EEng/Archive 5 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

↓ 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.

File:Князь Данило Острозький у битві на Синіх Водах.1362 рік.jpg

Mongol hordes attempting to enter EEng's talk page are repulsed by the maze of disorienting section headings and the brigade of fervently deranged talk page stalkers. Many die of carpal tunnel syndrome while scrolling to the bottom of the page.

Wikipedia Must Be The Saddest Place on Earth

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

—Softlavender[2]

FDA Warning: Pagescrolling-related unilateral musculoskeletal asymmetry

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

—Belle[3]

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

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

Lee Harvey Oswald

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

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

Genealogy databases

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

• The post referred to is [6].

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

	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

The Whiffenpoofs poised to perform the Fantasies of Victimization of 1912

EEng, shockingly, I find I quite like you. The change came when I began to put your comments in the voice of Seth Green's character in Party Monster. It's no insult. He's mesmerizing. And when I imagine Seth Green's voice saying the phrases "Naturally I thought Lockley was behind this at first" and "be careful not to feed Lockley's fantasy of victimization" in the same breath, it makes a lot more sense. Now do let's leave each other alone for awhile if you can stand it.--Lockley (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I never saw PM and have only just now checked it out. Your comparison to me took on a disturbing quality when I read, ...which details his friendship with Alig, that later fell apart as Alig's drug addiction worsened, and ended after he murdered Angel Melendez and went to prison, until I realized that the Seth Green character is the friend, not the murderer. EEng (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that hate-turns-to-love thing a lot, though usually it takes years. I'm assuming you've alredy seen [7]. Shall we now, together, tell PBS to go soak his or her head? What a schoolmarm! It's like Atilla the Hun has appeared to dispense justice on my behalf. Saints preserve us! EEng (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Be more careful who you hang out with -- that Binky guy's up to no good.

P.P.S. Pull any more of that Yale shit and I'll have you boiled in oil.

okay, got it, no more Yalie stuff. --Lockley (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, Lockley, I'd have thought, in this day and age, that you'd know better than to make fun of Poofs [8]. EEng (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doubting Thomas

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

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

Precious

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

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

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

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

<Bows, acknowledges applause> My only aim is to serve my fellow editors and the project. I am unworthy of your praise. EEng (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Please visit User talk:Martinevans123 and help talk him down off the ledge.

bzzt, I tried --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 463 of Precious, a prize of QAI! bzzt: I have a FAC open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right

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

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

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

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

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

Costco run

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

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

Another clueless editor drops in to visit

Hello, I'm ChrisGualtieri. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

• Re next time I will report it to an administrator because your hostile attacks of "MOS Nazi" or any type of "Nazi" unacceptable under WP:NPA:

(For those playing along at home here's the edit summary [11] Chris is so up in arms about.) I could change my wording from "MOS Nazis" to "bossy schoolmarmish MOS-haunting tin-ear-for-language knowitalls" -- would you prefer that? Anyway, if you don't recognize yourself in those descriptions, what does any of this have to do with you? And if you do, then how is it a personal attack to describe you in a manner which you agree is accurate?

In any event, here's what I predict an administrator would say about all this:

• First, he or she will tell me that -- though it's understandable I was pissed off at you for making a complete mess of an article and then, when challenged, posting a list of nonsense justifications for what you'd done, but falling strangely silent when those justifications were answered -- I should have heeded the better angels of my nature and moderated my condemnation of your absurd waste of my time and your own time.
• Second, he or she will counsel you to stop being a crybaby. You fucked up the article, wouldn't admit it, and almost a month later are still sulking because you were called out for it.

• As to Making personal attacks and deliberately making up things you know nothing about to attack editors is a problem: What the fuck are you talking about? What can "making up things you know nothing about" even mean?'
• And Some misunderstanding completely unrelated to your issue has no place being on the talk page: What the fuck are you talking about here, either?
• As to massive COI and ownership... well, I'll deal with those laughable ideas on the article talk page.

Do you understand? EEng (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

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

You're confusing ownership and stewardship -- see WP:OAS. As to "formatting and size issues" (and "13 characters") please post a description of them at the article Talk, in a way others can understand what you're talking about. I suspect you've got zoom set high and/or text size (if you're using IE) set to "Largest" or something. EEng (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll like this [12] better, though it has its own drawbacks. EEng (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It is better, but your assumptions of what I am using is wrong. I'm not going to argue with you about this; it's why I've purposely avoided responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation. You are emotionally and academically invested in the page and it is only out of respect for actual experts on Wikipedia (we have too few) that I don't want any dramatics. I mean no offense and I hope you understand my position. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. "I'm not going to argue with you about this" -- you don't argue (or discuss) anything. What you do, as just seen, is complain vaguely ("formatting and size issues") but then never explain what you're talking about; you've been doing this for a month without making a single suggestion for anything to change. If telling yourself you're "avoiding responding to your borderline diatribes because its not going to resolve the situation" makes you feel better, fine, but the the important thing is that you've decided to move on to wasting others' time instead of mine. Call it selfish if you want. You're practically the Wikipedia poster-boy for the Dunning–Kruger effect. EEng (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You made an improvement to the rendered page - it is not my preference, but it is better. So why would I need to reiterate or argue after its resolution? I see you have asked for clarification on my arguments - and normally I'd be happy to explain further, but you don't want to listen to me. You are an expert on Gage, while I dislike the significant conflict of interest generated by extensively using both you and your co-author's work, I respect your position. If I wanted to be a thorn in your side, trust me, I could, but we both have better things to do than indulge in dramatics. That is why I asked you stop the personal attacks, but I've realized by not responding in kind or getting upset gives more time to you to improve the content. So long as you seek to improve Wikipedia, even just this one page, I'll respect your stewardship. If you really want to make a fight, WP:COIN and a few other places would be a good proving ground to see if those "MOS Nazis" could explain in more detail why your page presents significant problems with its excessive and unnecessary usage of various templates. Your call. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For the 100th time:

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

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

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

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

John Harvard (clergyman)

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

---

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

There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject. One "immigrates to" and "emigrates from" Consult any grammarian source if in doubt.

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

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

• Argument logical [15]: Under your theory this sentence is verboten --

He emigrated from England to America.

because (you say) one can't emigrate to somewhere. And the following is also a no-no --

He immigrated to America from England.

because (according to you) one can't immigrate from somewhere. So, presumably, you would have this --

He emigrated from England and immigrated to America.

inflicted on the reader, and that's ridiculous. QED.

• Argument empirical general [16]: As seen here [17] examples of emigrated to are thick on the ground in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Courts of sundry states of said United States, and the esteemed and honorable Courts Supreme (or other highest courts) of numerous other jurisdictions and sovereignties. High court justices are usually considered exemplary expositors.

And as if that's not enough, no less luminous a legal legend than the great Epaphroditus Peck quoted the digest of a Massachusetts court's opinion thus:

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  [18]: Emmanuel College's tablet "In Memory of John Harvard A.M." describes the man as "A member of Emmanuel College who emigrated to Massachusetts Bay...", and later describes itself as "erected by Harvard men ... in the College which fostered his beneficent spirit." Since as is well known Harvard men think they're always right, and Emmanuel men pretty much are always right, this wording (passed by both) must surely be considered dispositive.

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

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

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

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

Telegrams from near and far

The very model of a Modern Emigrantical

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

Not everyone shares your high opinion, Mr. Jonesey (assuming you weren't being facetious). Aside from ol' CG (abovebelow) we have this effusive praise: "so snobbish and pigheaded that I could only make it through three sentences until I couldn't force myself to continue." [19] Noting, however, that it was this critic himself who wrote the bulk of my post's opening (i.e. "There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject ... Consult any grammarian source if in doubt") I must complement the gentleman on his candid self-evaluation. EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I could not have been farther (further?) from Facetious, wherever that may be. Mesmerized was more like it. Gobsmacked. Enthralled. I smile enigmatically at you, and my eyes follow you about your chambers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My attorney will need your address for the restraining order. It would be best if you cooperate. EEng (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Many people leaving Facetious find themselves in Synecdoche (and of course when I say Synecdoche I really mean the greater Synecdoche area).

Personal attack? You decide! [Section heading not supplied by ChrisGualtieri]

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!
Chief among our differences, CG, is that you seem to think that beautiful portraits (or fine Wikipedia articles) are created by dutifully coloring between lines set out for us by our betters, instead of considering what will please the eye or nourish the intellect. Perhaps you would have asked da Vinci, "Did you really need to spend all that time making such a picture?"?

EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. What is it that's ironic

I'd watch those personal attacks and bearing false witness because I don't tolerate such abuse sitting down. Your comment shows your ignorance and folly - but if you take such pride in burning bridges, far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last with I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Far be it from me to tell you what I just told you.

Second on the list of differences between us is that you think everything's a personal attack. You certainly don't take anything lying down -- you get right in there and issue stern warnings! [20][21] Some of them are even "last" warnings! [22] And "bearing false witness" -- what... gonna report me for violating WP:TENCOMMANDMENTS?

Re "Far be it from me to tell you that you've burnt the last [bridge] with I"... Is that meant to be some kind of brain teaser? It's like a kid saying, "I'm not gonna tell you that mom has milk and cookies in the kitchen."

Anyway, that's "burnt the last with me," Einstein EEng (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Humor…on Wikipedia?

File:Jokey-Smurf-Gift-256.gif

This edit was a joke, right?

• ["Good, gooooood!! My plan is working puhrrrrfectly!"]

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

Please accept this modest gift (to your right).

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

Thanks. However, due to terrorist threats against local bridges, you won't mind if I x-ray it first? EEng (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Followup: you were very modest, startswithj, about your humor-detecting talents. But take heart, there's someone even more humor-impaired than you apparently imagine yourself to be, as seen in the next section. So feel yourself lucky -- as the old proverb says, "I cried because I had no WiFi, until I met a man who had no laptop." EEng (talk)

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

A friendly note

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

For those who may be wondering, we're talking about the text removed here [26], which can be seen in context here [27].

Sorry, I missed this until now. Quoting a post of yours, giving full context, is not refactoring, whether you subsequently deleted it or not. (And in quoting it I noted that you had deleted it.) EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Query

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

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

Specific units table

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

I dunno. It seemed like too much trouble to merge all the adjacent empties (and doing so would create a lot of potential for rowspan mess-ups), so I drew the line where the entire "category" (Information) has empty comments. My motivation was to eliminate the unpleasant visual effect of all those parallel lines blocked together and that's the most important example of it. If you want to extend that to the rest, or revert my one merge, that's fine. EEng (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the visual cleanliness, but we should be consistent — both within the table and across tables generally. It actually works well (at least on my browser: Firefox 27.0.1 for Mac OS X) to omit the final cell in a row when it's not needed; it has the same visual appearance without the messy rowspan parameters that are prone to tripping editors up. I'll give that a go but feel free to revert if it doesn't look right. —sroc 💬 12:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

-------------------
| val | val |     |
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val |     |
-------------------

you get

-------------
| val | val |  
------+-----+------
| val | val | val |
------+-----+------
| val | val |
-------------

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

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

Ah, yes, I see the ASCII art. (How'd you do that?) My browser shows as the first case, but I feared some other browsers would show as the second case (or something else weird). Let's see what happens. (grabs popcorn) —sroc 💬 14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If the more than 50% of the characters in a block of text are hyphen, plus, or pipe, the browser detects ascii art and renders it that way.

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

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

Ha! —sroc 💬 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page comment

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

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

1 for 3

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

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

I'm having difficulty digesting this Inedible post. EEng (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just thought if you'd been the type to believe in the hoo-ha, you'd have liked the heads up. I had to ask a Wikifriend to revert mine. It's an awkward request. If you run into any bad luck, hope for sevens. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know? Seven minutes between my post and your reply, and an inverted 23 here. You'll be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Believe in the hoo-hah? Please, not this again! EEng (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

But how else could Stan ever hope to land Wendy? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

This is where I begin to wish Wikipedia was WP:CENSORED. EEng (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Have a good one! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry!

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

Oh! Too bad I didn't get this sooner -- the unmanned killer drone has already been dispatched. EEng (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Luckily I was able to get the killer drone recalled. Sorry if it gave you a fright.

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Manistee Watch Company

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

I'll ring the reviewer's Belle. EEng (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. You are forgiven for removing the image. See [28]

You are a funny man. I missed that one all together.......--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What -- you thought I just stuck a large sea mammal in for no reason? EEng (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There's never any predicting what dugong a do. Belle (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cash for you

	Cash
	Here's some cash for coming up with that alt hook [29]. --Jakob (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This beats that stupid wikilove and the kittens any day. I'm rich! EEng (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

EEng demonstrates the "DYK reviewer somersault". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

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

Per COMMONSENSE, you're just too funny. I've never seen anyone revert a dummy edit before -- much less twice! [30] The important thing is that through collaborative editing the article is incrementally improved relative to its state when the sun came up this morning. EEng (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I'm making this the founding entry in the Museum of Bizarre Reversions on my userpage.

And per any of the measures of most editing, you are patronising, boorish, and certainly nowhere near as good as you think you are. The article hasn't improved much, and some of your edits have been a step backwards: Milligan "later told someone"? that's just laughably poor. I hope not ever to be back here, so feel free to leave some "witty" (tedious and tiresome) comment to close it off. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of amusement here without my contributing anything. Your reversion of a dummy edit is worth the price of admission alone. EEng (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I stand by all of them, which with perhaps one or two exceptions are straightforward corrections -- for example, the insertion of a missing quote mark [39] and changing [40]

died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, 26 years to the day

to

died of a heart attack at 52 during surgery on 24 July 2006, twenty-six years to the day

You've listed all my edits to this one article, even those obviously appropriate, which implies you're just one of these OWNy editors who can't stand fresh eyes. If you'll say why you think any of them inappropriate, I'll be happy to discuss. EEng (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I like fresh eyes, but not the ones with shit in them. Your cliche OWN accusation is also more predictable than your "humour". Oh, and thread properly as it becomes more readable and easier to respond. Cassianto^talk 4:39 pm, Today (UTC−4)

A cogent argument indeed. And please don't reformat my posts [41] EEng (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you've turned your hand to rewriting featured articles now? Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL! "And please don't reformat my posts"? That's a nice use of a conjunction to start a sentence EEng. It's edits like that which makes your grammar all the more laughable! Cassianto^talk 21:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be hinting that And at the start of a sentence is a blunder, which it's not. But people who take comfort in rigid rules often say it is. As for --

It's edits like that which makes

-- I'm sure you know better, so I'll take it as a measure of the extent to which you're just lashing out blindly. Still waiting for specific comment on any of my edits you complain about above. EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Grammar Nazis FTW. At. On. On top of. Of off. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Maunus! Why such a stranger? EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I don't get the At. On. On top of. stuff.

As a gesture of respect for the Grammar Nazis and their selfless and untrankful work I made a point of ending my sentence with a couple of prepositions for them to clean up at. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I see -- you were giving them something to be angry at. The thing is, a grammar Nazi is someone who actually knows his grammar but applies it inflexibly and thoughtlessly; here we have someone who doesn't even know the grammar.

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

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

You missed an apostrophe this time. And a hyphen. For someone who picks fights over grammar and usage, based on age-old grammatical rules that have split opinions, you're certainly having trouble. Still waiting for specific comments on my edits which you complain about in your opening post. EEng (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Die Gammar Nazis (FTW TM) rule at FAC. Got in Himmel. Damned right too. We can't afford to have these casual passers-by mess with our firmament. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

To be precise: "Gott im Himmel" - if he needs to be called in such a case, Thanks for entertainment to all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Some don't get the joke, even when it's on them. See next subsection. BTW, did you notice my comment here [42]? EEng (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Hi to you too, TRM. You seem to be everywhere recently. EEng (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

Oooh! You won't hesitate! Oooh! I'm scared. Report away, but watch for the ol' boomerang. You're ridiculous. (For those who are wondering, SC's got his knickers in a twist over this [43] -- click back back earlier from there to for some world-class Angry Edit Summary contenders from SchroCat and his co-owner Cassianto -- more from the latter above in this very thread! EEng (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Postscript, 22:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC): Since I ran into this while on another errand a moment ago, I thought I'd insert it here:

• Uncle G to Schrodinger's cat is alive: "You demonstrate exactly the sort of non-collaborative non-effort-expending attitude on the part of an editor with an account that makes editing so bad for so many, and that people rightly ridicule in cases like this where myopic Wikipedians foolishly fight to un-write the encyclopaedia. Calling someone who in no article edit did anything but add verifiable content and cite sources intended to support it a "vandal" is almost merely icing on the cake of how unproductive, uncollaborative, and un-Wikipedian that attitude is. ... You're supposed to be a collaborative editor. Stop thinking that your purpose here is no more than to sit in an armchair, mark other people's work, and use the undo tool, without otherwise lifting a finger to help when an article needs fixing." posted on WP:AN#Editor Dr. Blofeld, 03:22 19 December 2012 (UTC)

EEng (talk)

Seriously, do you have nothing better to do rather than stoke up dead-in-the-water disputes? Cassianto^talk 23:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A different editor responded in far more appropriate terms to Uncle G's rather sanctimonious wailings that failed to take into account anything based in policy, most importantly WP:BLP. Still, always nice to have an admin veer into incivility about one. Anyway, you want me to drag through your ANI performances? Life is too short to do so, but I wonder why you bothered to do it with mine... How pointless to drag up something from 18 months ago. As you probably didn't bother to look into it in much detail, I stand by my response given at the time. As per the above, move on, it only poorly reflects on you, not others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This made me smile :) Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Pearl's a swinger (allegedly)

I've used that about 10 times in the past 5 years and you're the first person who seems to have got it. EEng (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We should use humour more often, DYK? Mine was also not noticed, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny bone: beware kids, this could happen to you if you get hooked on wikipedia! (Speaking of children.) - peda-goggles?

Sorry, I'm against humour and even humor, though I don't mind getting my funny bone tickled now and then. EEng (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In the linked discussion, do you prefer the seriuz comments? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering

...whether this page lacks dignity. EEng (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

...you're looking for the easy way out, I feel. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I worry people may misunderstand your reference unless they've seen my earlier edit summary [44] EEng (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

you and your beads, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Just because your reputation is already in the crapper. EEng (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Article just linked contains disturbing reference to "floating ballcock". EEng (talk)

The answer is yes, it lacks dignity. As well as archiving. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You should know better than to behave this way. Orlady (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

So should you. Honestly, can't you just let something fun and interesting, like a weird old word almost no one's seen in 200 years, live and grow? [45] EEng (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

[EC] The discussion is, as you know, occurring at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

See my prior response. EEng (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I see the balloon's gone up over this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

[At this point I'll just quote a bit of Orlady's post (above) here, adding my own bolding, since she's ludicrously determined to draw attention to her own silliness and fuss over the utterly trivial... Here goes:]

Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Where were you when your fellow less mature editors needed support for their antics? EEng (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we can all find out only too easily... tee-hee. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, something's just come up with "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days" (using my DYK checker tool). Not sure what to do about that. Seems a real shame.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, um, what article are you talking about? EEng (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The very lousy one, of course! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Martin, that DYKchecker tool is just a tool for use by humans. Humans aren't suppose to let the tool make decisions for them. Humans can -- and do, on a regular basis -- understand that articles are eligible for DYK if they were nominated within the specified time window. Eligibility doesn't automatically expire for nominations sitting on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Martin, is your concern whether the nomination was within the idiotic 7-day limit? EEng (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But then I'm only human, alas. And only mostly idiotic. I'm guessing that it was indeed nominated within 7 days of its passing GA (if that was what's required). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think the nom is timely. As you know I never pass up any opportunity to point out that the idiotic 7-day idiotic requirement is idiotically idiotic. So can you complete the review? EEng (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

All looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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!

	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!

	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)

Hawksmoor

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

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

Love it

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

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

3RR at Phineas Gage

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

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

Today's drama-fest will begin at 1400 hours. Refreshments and snacks will be provided for the peanut gallery.Turkish Delight also available.

Without wishing to comment on who's right and who's wrong, I threw together User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors today, and one point I made in it is that the typical Wikipedia reader won't be too fussed about what citation templates are used in an article. I can barely master {{sfn}}, and even then it's akin to drawing a pentagram on the floor and hope the formatting doesn't cause errors or get reverted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not content with getting a metal bar stuck in your head, you now seem to be responsible for ruining a perfectly good ancient Turkish city! Shame on you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI is a cool place to hang out. Most people there find it so cool that's the only place they do hang out. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a good sense of humor, but I don't find this one funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do hope you're not suggesting it's some kind of piranha pool. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Oppose: that's how we do things round here when asked for a comment (I know you didn't ask me to comment, but that's par for the course too) Belle (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Further to Ritchie: Your essay is bang on. You might want to draw on this by Beyond My Ken (you'll find it linked under Thoughts or something from his userpage):

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Thin-skinned admin blocks for criticism of himself!

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

August 2014

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

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

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

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

In other words, it stings because it's so true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is appropriate.

I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness. Along those lines I'd appreciate it if you'd note this block in the ANI discussion -- unless you'd prefer others not see your action side by side with the "offense" that prompted it.

EEng (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Will you be blocking Nyttend as well? After all, he called you an "amateur" [50] -- that must have stung pretty bad too. Or that mean Ritchie333, who called you "a stereotypical Wikipedian, who makes a large amount of similar changes to pages, despite having had no evidence of being previously interested in any of them" (not by name, of course, but then I didn't call you by name either -- you just seemed to know it was you that I was referring to -- funny, isn't it). Ritchie also mentioned that "One of the reasons hit and run editors have gained prominence in [the area of trivial formatting changes] is that writing the encyclopaedia has become more difficult. The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime". That must really hurt. You should definitely block Ritchie333 for that!

EEng requesting in your talk page that other people get blocked is not very nice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, if you actually think that what I wrote was a suggestion that Nyttend or Ritchie333 (or, for that matter, Beyond My Ken or BedsBookworm) be blocked, then words fail. EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

But I'm not sure if blocking someone is that much nicer? I certainly wouldn't condone "personal attacks", but goodness me, compared to what I've been called on occasion, this looks like a rather mild but candid observation. Could Bgwhite be regarded as "involved" in any way here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, perhaps you'll be kind enough to post a mention of this block at the ANI thread. I want it in the record there before it gets archived. Bgwhite apparently prefers to work under cover of darkness. EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already noted there. Yes, he may be a bit of a "rover" (allegedly). But at least he doesn't go sneaking off to the dentist for some off-wiki relaxation! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

@Bgwhite: probably does not agree with your continued snark and attacks, but I do not think changing the header to "Admin blocks for criticism of himself" is appropriate here. It does not seem to follow the talk page guidelines and I've warned you repeatedly for making gross abuses of my own text. Please stop inflaming the situation - this is getting beyond distasteful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change words I wrote. For the record, I had edited the ANI discussion three times and not on the thread you responded too. You were responding to John and Typto's comments. The examples you gave were John's and you took a swipe at John. Your words were directed at all editors editing Gage. Other admins at the ANI page said you did a blockable offense. At least now you are directing your hate at me instead of Chris, John, Typto and everybody else. Just drop it and edit Phineas Gage‎ with Chris. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record: No editor contested the blocked while it was active and no unblock has been requested. Eeng remained blocked for 48 hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, I disagree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's almost artistic -- the way in which your spare, innocent obliviousness makes my point more eloquently than I could ever hope to make it myself. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Do you think you have to be blocked for using the expression "thin-skinned bully" or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't have to be blocked -- what a weird way you have of expressing yourself -- but if a thin-skinned bully wanted to further underscore what a thin-skinned bully he is, that would be a great way for him to do it. EEng (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

License to female

Re: DYK prep 2. I was told - by the horse people - that "female" is a term better suited to animals than women, was just invited to a project "women writers" and see that term in a category. How about "licensed women architect?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Take a look now. EEng (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You deserve extra praise for edit summaries, - but not for talk page archiving ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Some style

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

Opinion is split on that, with no middle ground -- it seems an editor can either love my style, or burn with hatred for it, with no middle ground ever. Submitted for your consideration:

• [52] vs. [53]
• [54] -- scroll back to see how that started, and be sure to continue into the next section ("Humor... on Wikipedia?").

EEng (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not every teenage girl lets you read her diary! ("blush") Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The phrase in dispute was is remarkably small, which leads me hope the teenage girl wasn't someone he was dating -- though that would explain the autonomic hostility. EEng (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We shall have to call you "Lupin", I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Too many pies, that's you problem...!"

Did you know that ... Kim Jong-un the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army and beloved leader of North Korea, is so fat that he's fractured his ankles? (in fact ... "North Korean workers at the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea receive Choco Pies as part of their compensation"). DYK beckons? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait... are you saying there's a viable (new, etc.) DYK in there? Or just trying to whet my appetite? I've mostly been tinkering hooks in prep for grammar, fmt, and plain good fun-ness. For a while I when through new noms offering modified hooks but it's too taxing, especially because of the stupid system under which noms are organized by the date the article was expanded etc., instead of simply by when the nom was posted -- so you have to search for new things among a week of old stuff. Have you been watching the idiotic discussions about whether to increase the burn rate? [55].

Listen, on PG, it would be really nice if you could participate. There's a detail of Tfish's proposal he's going to have to mock up so we can see it, but after that, when the two approaches are clear we could really use a 3O. I feel he and I are talking past each other somehow (I just don't see what problem he's solving, and there are clearly downsides to what he's proposing) so could I ping you when he and I have agreed the two approaches are being presented with crystal clarity? EEng (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But at least you are talking?! Wow 3O!! .. is that like 3OH!3 (featuring Katy Perry) ... or maybe related to the I-THREES (as seen on Tuff Gong TV!). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tfish and I never really had a problem. I think I pissed him off because I didn't knuckle under to the know-nothings in the interests of the greater good, as he saw it, plus I lost my temper a few times at you-know-who. EEng (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was because you won't knuckle under to the know-somethings. But I agree we never really had a problem between us. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who says that a caption can't say "Note detached bone flap above forehead" on the grounds of a complete misinterpretation of MOS:NOTED is a know-nothing (in the sense of someone who wants to pretend that they don't know, or don't understand, something when they really do -- and just can't bear to admit it.) I think you missed the origin of all the animosity from this crew over this past year, which started with a string of discussions like [56]. This was my first exposure to the high-handed, semi-informed, hyper-rigid self-certainty of this particular breed of editor. (And note -- oops, there's that word again! -- I only made the OP and the contraption came to life all on its own!) EEng (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, EEng, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Even you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

ah yes, those, lesser breeds without the Law... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

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)

This 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).

EEng (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

See the article history: [57]

• Admin Bgwhite is WP:INVOLVED, as he and I have had trouble before re this very article [58] (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. [59][60][61]
• Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Bgwhite blocked me [62] seven hours after my last edit, and after another editor had restored the article to "my" version [63]. 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{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).

}}

Discussion

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

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 [64] -- 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)

TfD

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

Disagree. This is a severe and chronic WP:COMPETENCE/WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation and it's time that became clear, as large amounts of editor time are being wasted on this person, to no effect whatsoever for more than a year. [65] EEng (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Hookers

How far from Connecticut to DYK? Original title: "Hooker's Company reach the Connecticut"

You wrote "Proving once again that hookers don't get the respect they deserve, despite providing an important service." Were you thinking of Anthony Mitchell or something else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'm having trouble coming up with an appropriately suggestive pun on this, perhaps because "Parramatta Eels", "Sydney Roosters", and "hookers" make a frightening combination. EEng (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So you've got hookers here, and you posted only about adult diapers on my talk page? Be careful your computer doesn't get a virus! (I always knew there was something shadey about DYK.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC) If only you knew... EEng (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

	A barnstar for you!
	A barnstar for your ongoing efforts and work in WP:DYK-related matters on Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone appreciates it. EEng (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some thought that the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Steak burger was too cutesy-poo per word choice in it. Either way, the Steak burger page received 9,648 page views, per Stats.grok.se for the time it was present on Main page prior to being pulled. I notice that you re-opened the DYK discussion. I have added a comment and ALT3 there. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No one thought it was too cutesy-poo except a couple of schoolmarms. Ridiculous. EEng (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

All right, but I'm going to stay neutral regarding various editor opinions about the hook that was run. People have divergent opinions. Perhaps consider adding a new hook as an ALT4 there! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a point beyond which opinion becomes hypersensitive idiocy. EEng (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

EEng, in my opinion you don't have a leg to stand on. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you come up with this stuff? It's uncanny. EEng (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

One of my favourite Far Side cartoons. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for linking Far Side, because otherwise I wouldn't have known what that is. Anyway, here's one of my all-time favorite somethings. [66] -- sww "Secrets of the honeybee" story. One day at work they almost sent me home early because I couldn't stop bursting out laughing on conference calls with clients etc. EEng (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha, that is very funny. Although, of course, that's why they're called Bee Featers. But I must stop droning on. Time for me to buzz off, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. helpful captions show how Wikipedia (any many other organisations) work

Hm. I thought they were raven feeders. (Linking raven feeders partly on the off chance you don't know about the ravens, but mostly so you can follow it to find out about Charlie's "ignominious end".) EEng (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC) I've often wondered which end of a raven is the ignominious one. Now we know. And see last hook here [67] -- probably we'll all end up at ANI.

We all know that Charlie will not have an ignominious end. Not if his bird has anything to do with it! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC) ... or maybe end up at the Tower

On another note, how would you like to review [68]? EEng (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not while you've got 211 threads on your Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. Perhaps you could give us a chapter-by-chapter plot spoiler and tell us if earth actually survives. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stay with the discussion if you would be so kind. This is a classic example of the spinning wheel of random DYK requirements, depending on who happens by. EEng (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

"Hungry Horseburger", anyone? See what you've done now! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

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

No insults

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

It wasn't an insult, I wasn't talking about you (or anyone else for that matter) [69], and there's nothing to apologize for. However, the fact that you feel compelled to imagine it was directed at you is something you might want to think about. EEng (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you don't see what is wrong with your behavior is something YOU might want to think about. HalfGig talk 20:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's OK that you misunderstood, but not OK that you can't just say, "Oh, I see, I misunderstood." For the last time: I wasn't referring to you (or, indeed, to anyone), there's nothing to apologize for, you embarrass yourself by continuing to whine about this, so please put a sock in it. As mentioned elsewhere, if you want to have the last word please do -- I'm unlikely to respond because experience shows you're unlikely to say anything new. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the phrase "punkin heads" was a bad idea, whomever it referred to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, why don't you read the thread linked in my post above, Tfish, and see that it referred to no one. As Martinevans was able to see with ease (see below) this is all in the complainant's mind. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, scary. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously good advice. HalfGig, I'm guessing that you won't get that apology, but I want you to know that I think that you are in the right, insofar as how editors should treat one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think HalfGig is in the right too, as far as how editors should treat one another i.e. civilly. Unfortunately that has no relevance here, since nothing, nothing in this matter has been in any way uncivil, unless you count HalfGig continuing to make accusations about an imagined slight. EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. In the crooked eye of the beholder, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HalfGig, I too found the grammatical ambiguity in your first hook quite amusing. I assume it was unintentional. It's unfortunate that you took EEng's poking fun at that as poking fun at you. I'm sure you're the type of editor who likes a good Luffa now and again. I'm the true pun-kin head around here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking one for the team, are you, ME123? EEng (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Without doubt one of the lamest edit wars ever

NPA

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

Oh, please. If he can't take it he shouldn't be dishing it out [70][71]. 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)

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

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

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

November 2014

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

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

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

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

It's more convincing when the person warning about "edit warring" isn't one of those doing the reverting. You're obviously angry about other things. [73][74] EEng (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

November 2014

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

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

See [75]] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this [76]]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry [77]. Hopefully this will allow him to cool down. EEng (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Friendly suggestion

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

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

Pearls before swine

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

ANI Notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving a talk page

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

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

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

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

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

Here's how you do a review! None of that messy question and answer stuff. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, yes. While he was well-intentioned, I'm afraid our friend fell into what appears to be an endemic trap at GA, which is WP:Reviewing_good_articles#Imposing_your_personal_criteria. Please stay with it. I need your honest opinion on whether you can see these "image and quote" problems. If so, I'll fix them. Either way, after that I'd like to renominate and get a proper (i.e. stick-to-the-criteria) review from you. EEng (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that User:ChrisGualtieri has had a input. Perhaps he'd like to take on a second review? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify

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

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

OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

John Harvard (clergyman)

He was not the founder. The Colony decided to create New College. Harvard's will gave some (half?) of his estate to the endevor. In return, the colony named the college for him. Read the article. - Denimadept (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The facts are correct as far as you state them, but you misunderstand the use of the word "founder" in the context of John Harvard. I've augmented the article to cclarify [78]. EEng (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Dispute

EE, I really don't want to get into a public dispute with you, but you're making it difficult. I have a good cite at Harvard Bridge. You can't say the same about the one at John Harvard. - Denimadept (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read my edit summary [79], and an article on a bridge article shouldn't be discussing who founded Harvard College anyway. This has been elaborately explained elsewhere as well [80], plus additional citations were added this morning which you seem to have overlooked [81]. EEng (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI

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

EEng, I'm saying this as one friend to another - leave ANI alone. Rubbing Drmies up the wrong way is likely to result in a block, possibly an indefinite one. Now, don't take that as meaning I support or want you to be blocked - I don't! But the peanut gallery at ANI generally don't tend to evaluate the pros and cons of an editor, and once you've been dragged there a few times and blocked, it's easy for said peanut gallery to think "he's not here to write an encyclopedia" and break out the banhammers. Please, just stick to articles and DYKs - whatever other disagreements we've had recently I can honestly say your work at DYK is a good thing and very much appreciated for keeping the quality of the main page upheld. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I doubt that anyone is going to blocked for rubbing me the wrong way, and I'm not going to block for it. And Ritchie, it wasn't just the peanut gallery, if that's what those folks were: ANI, as I feel I have to explain constantly, is not a forum--and so, EEng, it doesn't matter whether something takes three hours or not. It's consensus plus an admin's judgment, and in this case the admin is me. Few people dislike the forumy peanuty chatter at ANI more than I do--but I hope that there's at least one person in the room who understands that the constant reopening of threads and the persistent shit-smearing in that discussion is, in general and in the long run, what makes ANI the barrel o' crap it is. So, EEng, you made a comment, I (and a couple of others) thought it violated guidelines for talk page behavior, I removed it--and really that's all there is to it. I got no problem with you, and you can complain as much as you like as long as it's not too disruptive. Also, I don't work for Harvard either--does that help? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What, I should just sit around while ol' BGwhite just makes up stuff up (e.g. that I work for Harvard)? I understand what you're saying, but I feel the best thing you can do (for me, for you, and for WP) is to speak up yourself and say what you think. These people are out of control.

Thanks for the complements re DYK. I'm not mad at you re GA, but I do think you misunderstand what the standard is meant to be there, along with most everyone else at GA, which is why it seems few quality editors care about GA status for articles anymore -- articles get GA status for conforming to very cramped ideas of what articles should look (not stated in the GACR, though) with little regard for whether they're anything anyone would actually care to read. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please accept this charming complimentary box of peanuts, kindly donated by this season's gallery sponsor. Enjoy! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

First they came for the userboxes...

Your contribution to the day's events is of course most welcome. As mentioned to Ritchie above, though, speaking up at the venue is important too almost as important. At heart this intolerance of criticism is a serious threat to the project. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"I had one of them poleminks once, but it died." PineMartin123 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Did someone mention star chasms? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I dare you to change the lead to "Another Brick in the Wall comprises of three songs". I double dare you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ouch!. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Heraldry of Harvard University

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

"Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten" -- I guess I've been confused all these years, because I thought adding relevant sources is what we're supposed to do. Anyway, the article may be rotten (and it is) but that's got nothing to do with AfD. The article was unsourced, but if you'd simply googled the article title you would have come up with several good sources immediately, and saved us all this trouble. It's not a "PA" to point out that you apparently didn't do that, as WP:BEFORE calls for you to do. You seem to be under a misapprehension about how AfD works -- articles don't pass or fail AfD, rather their subjects do, regardless of what's in the article. EEng (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, what you did was skip WP:RS by adding related sources. The Banner talk 23:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Eliot Morison was a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. Mason Hammond was one of the real-life "Monuments Men" you may have learned a bit about in the recent film of that title. If you're seriously suggesting they're not reliable sources then I'm afraid there's a gap between us that further discussion will be unable to bridge. EEng (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sorry if I seemed pissy...

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

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

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

Can you fill me in?

What's the problem with Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) in a nutshell? I'd like to take a crack at whatever's wrong. thanks--A21sauce (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to explain if you don't know the background. "Longevity" has been target to an amazing amount of POV-pushing and spamming for about 10 years. RY was eventually blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry; see [82] and also [83]. Of course none of that has anything to do with notabilty, except that you can always rely that whatever sources are offered are the most marginal, strained, thin ones you can imagine. There's an overview of the sources at User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#He.27s_baaaaack_(again). If no other sources are added in the next week or so I'll be taking it to AfD. EEng (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. What is AfD again? It's hard to find stuff quickly in Wikipedia's help desk. thanks

"Articles for Deletion", where editors discuss whether a subject meets the minimum notability criteria to have its own article -- see [84]. In rereading that, I find a post by RY which pretty much sums up the bizarre flavor of everything related to him and longevity: he describes himself as "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet". Eventually he was topic-banned from longevity (see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Ryoung122) and later blocked indefinitely for continuing to edit in that area via sockpuppets. I believe you'll find that most editors feel that the longevity quagmire, in terms of the amount of community time spent refereeing behavioral problems, has been one of the most destructive and wasteful in WP's history. EEng (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Drive by thank you....

...your User Page is quite entertaining! Thank you for the invite. Atsme☯^{Consult 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. Atsme☯^Consult 01:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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... Hafspajen (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Change to WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

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

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

Spaced en dash with a range of approximate dates?

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

A quick check doesn't find that the interaction between c. (& c.) and spacing of the en dash was ever explicitly stated, but anyway I added something [85]. Does that do the trick? EEng (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's great, thanks much! Chris the speller ^yack 04:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to discussion about WP:MONTH and YYYY-MM

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

I recall that clusterfuck but I thought there might be something else, in the absence of which I'll just preserve the text on this as is, but not add this as a ref 'cause I think that to do so will just cause trouble. (There'll be trouble sooner or later on this, of course -- a house divided against itself cannot stand -- but I don't want to be the one to spark it.) But if you think it's helpful go an ahead and add it yourself (as a footnote, I would think) -- it's your funeral. EEng (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yech. No thanks. Rumors that I am eager to attend my own funeral have been greatly exaggerated. There's a reason I put it here instead of at the sinkhole that is Talk:MOS:DATE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK rules

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

Good ole Godwin

You're missing some excellent fulfillment of the prophesy on ANI: [86]. Softlavender (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent perhaps, but unintelligible certainly. EEng (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

A barnstar for you!

	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!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I lost track of the number of times you literally made me laugh out loud while reading your comments. The latest being this - NQ (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You are too kind. Have you visited the funnest place in the saddest place on earth recently? EEng (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Never the Twain

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

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

Yikes

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

Indeed, and thanks for catching it. For some reason stuff like that only happens when I'm being a smartalec. EEng (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Anytime ;) Eman235/talk 23:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

While you're here, take a moment to stop by The Museums. EEng (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

	The Rather Unusual User Page Award
	Not sure what my definition of a "rather usual" userpage would be, but it wouldn't be that.

Ahem, yes. That took quite a longer time than a moment, but was well worth it. Most amusing.

However, it does need additional sauces for verdefication...but I'll stop there, I wouldn't want tomatoes thrown at me. Eman235/talk 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a very long page

You may want to consider clicking about 120 times. Eman235/talk 13:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I already did. This is what was left. EEng (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

And then some. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

'Twas but a suggestion. Alternatively, there is lowercase sigmabot III. Eman235/talk 16:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your medicine against chronic wikidespair.

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

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

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

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

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

Wait a second -- it can't be "borderline" and also "cross the line". Jeesh! But I will agree temptation got the best of me. EEng (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Seriously, Ritchie333, you should lighten up on the revdel. I still like you, though. EEng (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oy - I've only used revdel twice and got yanked off to ANI for the first time ever for it. You can't see the diff now because your prayers were finally answered when another admin deleted the article per WP:CSD#G3. I'm sure I could sit down with Dr Thabet and have a nice cup of tea and some chocolate digestives. Maybe I'll bring some Wickedly Welsh Chocolate along. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course I know about your trouble re revdel, which is why I gave you a hard time about it. Just to, you know, twist the knife a little. I'd stay away from this Thabet character -- she might atomize you into dark-matter interstellar space or something. EEng (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a Hawkwind album. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Where have you been lately?

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 [87] has left little time for actual hooking. But I did manage to get in [88]

... that ISIS may have killed an ibis?

EEng (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Highlighting

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

fifty.... Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

yep! Eman235/talk 22:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

and this? 117.192.161.52 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

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

The grrrr of my edit summary distills what the edit itself says: "I'm beginning to see why everyone's so pissed off at you." For example, you keep fussing that date-format choices for particular articles shouldn't be decided at Talk:MOS. That's true -- but nobody's proposing to do that nor is trying to do that. Your "You do understand this, don't you?" was the icing on the cake. EEng (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that - and your incorrect perception - but could you answer my question, please? Evading the point just makes me more curious to hear your explanation. --Pete (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Here are the answers to the questions in your OP:

Q: Looking at your edit summary here, could you clarify your intent?

A: As already explained, grrrr expressed frustration.

Q: Did you mean to be offensive?

A: No.

Q: If you are trying to piss off other editors - to use your phrasing - why complain at all?

A: Aside from being rhetorical, question is counterfactual since I'm not trying to piss off other editors.

Q: It's okay when you do it and you're special?

A: I don't know what it refers to, but we're all special in our own ways.

Now I have a question: Will you stop wasting my time with riddles, and go away? EEng (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm astonished that you don't see how your edit summary could be taken as offensive, but your answers make this clearer. Perhaps you could be more careful in future? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You're easily astonished, and no extra care is needed. Now stop wasting my time trying to conform my edit summaries (!) to your delicate sensibilities. EEng (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Anchor?

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

Happy to explain. In the "wikisource" of Charles R. Apted there's a passage

The Harvard Glee Club sang [[The Mikado#behold|"Behold the Lord High Executioner"]].

which renders as

The Harvard Glee Club sang "Behold the Lord High Executioner".

Hover your mouse over the link and you'll see it points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mikado#behold. If you click on the link you'll see it takes you not only into the Mikado article, but the #behold makes it go specifically to the location of the {{anchor|behold}}, where that particular song is discussed.

Does that make sense? Generally if you find an "anchor" in an article you should just leave it. EEng (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Super-indenting

Stop doing things like this. I know you think what you have to say trumps all other editors, but really, it doesn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I always find your indenting just super too. But you really need to watch that dreadful trumping. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC) .. it's so far to the bottom of this page that one feels like Arnie Saknussen....

Oh, shut up. Over-indenting an earlier comment (as I've done here) makes clear that I'm responding to you, not to the immediately prior post. EEng (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm appalled! I've never been so super indented. Martinevans123 (talk)

Enough

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? [89] 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 [90] 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.

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" [91], 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 [92] 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 [93] fitting into the picture? Do you think it's OK for an editor (an admin at that) to go around saying things like that (and he's been saying it about me for almost a year) with impunity? See, I don't give a shit about being blocked, but I do give a shit about aspersions about my editing, competency, and adherence to policy and guidelines. So again, please explain how what I said at that diff figured into your decision to block.

And while you're at it, given that you felt block(s) were needed (and they weren't -- TRM and I are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves), please complete your sentence addressed to TRM here --

I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting.

-- using the word but, as in --

I seriously debated blocking you as well for blatant baiting, but I didn't because _______________________.

You fill in the blank, please. EEng (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. The [name of impressive laboratory device] is warmed up now, so I'll be gone until sometime tomorrow -- take your time.

(a) Only one person was making personal attacks. (b) You had been warned. I actually came here to warn you, and blocked only after I saw this section. I'm done engaging here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And so, having ignored both questions, the drive-by admin declares the discussion closed and drives on. So much for WP:ADMINACCT:

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Only blocking one party in this playground squabble seems a bit unbalanced. I think I'd personally take "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre" as a personal attack. As EEng points out he doesn't "do DYK reviews nor put prep sets together". It's a shame that Old Rambler hadn't "done engaging" a lot sooner too. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. I thought it was EEng's hopelessly juvenile "orgasm" comment that tipped the balance and led you to block him for "disruptive editing"?

Thanks, Martin. EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC) I thought after "pointedly titular" the sky was the limit.

• I am unblocking based on "time served", on the T:DYK thread being hatted, and on TRM asserting on my talk that he will not continue the feud, shrugging it off as "a clash of egos". Since we can't leave people blocked when the cause of disruption goes away, I'm doing it now. There now follows a choice of viewing. On BBC ANI, a discussion on censorship between Derek Hart, the Bishop of Woolwich and a nude man, and on BBC Eeng, me telling you this. And now.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture, Ritchie, but I'd rather that during the dispute you'd taken the time to see what Martin sees so clearly above: TRM attacked me repeatedly (and falsely) with impunity, and when I finally told him to shove it up his ass, I got blocked. EEng (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"Cut to a group of Gumbys, all with rolled-up trousers and knotted handkerchiefs on their heads, attempting to shout in unison and failing miserably." ... what are you suggesting?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I often do think "My brain hurts" when reading ANI.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	"The Alfred Kinsey Memorial Barnstar of Shame"
	For making 2,700 year-old coral just that little bit more interesting. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		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)

Edit comment: "Type 'a' when you want 'a', a 'b' when you want 'b' ..."

Are you serious [94]? It's no issue to me (and I will not argue the point), but I couldn't believe that those edit notes make any worthwhile difference. My logic is as follows:

• There are those who are familiar with editing tables and for whom the edit summary is distracting.
• There are those who are not as familiar with editing tables, but try and notice that they've messed up the table, and then figure out how to fix it.
• There are those who are unfamiliar with editing tables and would not notice that they'd messed it up but happen to take note of the edit note. But then they would probably mess up the table in other ways at the same time, even if they'd taken note of the edit note.
• There are those who just don't pay attention to anything, including the edit note.

The edit note usefully addresses only the subset of the third bullet who did not mess up the table in any other way. Also, editors do not stay in that category for long (they tend to move up the list fairly fast), and the edit rate of this table is probably not high, especially since the less experienced editors probably do not make many edits to the MoS (at least edits that will not be reverted in their entirety anyway). Given this "nonempirical logic", I'm interested to know whether you've found that the edit notes have made any observable difference? Or are they there mainly to express frustration? —Quondum 17:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I created that table and have nursed it even since. When I added the warning, problems with people forgetting to adjust the rowspans -- including those not carrying that note -- seem to decrease. It's easy to overlook that the rowspans are there at all, and this acts as an alert. They're certainly not hurting anything and they may be helping, so let's leave them. EEng (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If it makes a difference, I guess it is worth it. I hadn't expected that. —Quondum 00:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A(nother) barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

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

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

Does Victuallers have the film rights for this barnstar? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

My worry is that even if the sulky child is demanding something sensible then why would I support their agenda. The demands won't be complete until we include the silliest of ideas like "lazy redirects"... ???? At some point we have to say that Wikipedia is flawed. Always is, always will be. Getting the main page to FA status is just a crazy idea. If you think that doing "X" would mean that we wouldn't have to listen to uncivil and irrational demands then I do hope you are right, but I fear that you are being over optimistic. Talk at DYK is just toxic - we need to find somewhere else or ignore uncivil comments entirely. I'm trying to do thr latter and others are too, if you discuss there then you may feel alone - but you are not. Meanwhile Well done. Victuallers (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, nonsense like "lazy redirects" is... well, nonsense, but I asking that an article linked from MP have no obvious grammar boners does seem realistic. If you haven't already please do comment at the link I gave. I'd appreciate it. EEng (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Accusation struck

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

Let me see if I have this right. I promoted the hook

... that '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|Grace Kelly]]''' won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then retired from acting the following year at the age of 26?

An IP complained [95] that Grace Kelly should link to Grace Kelly, not to Grace Kelly filmography, so you changed the hook to

... that [[Grace Kelly]] won the [[Academy Award for Best Actress|Best Actress Oscar]] in 1955, then '''[[Grace Kelly filmography|retired from acting]]''' the following year at the age of 26?

And that's what you called my "continual acceptance, even promotion, of the mediocre, or worse" that "is damaging Wikipedia"???[96] I appreciate the strike, but please tell me you see how outrageous -- bizarre, really -- an accusation that was. EEng (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• No, it was a pisspoor choice of a hook

If you think linking to Grace Kelly versus to Grace Kelly filmography is anything like a shocking indictment of DYK then you've lost all perspective.

• Believe it or not, that actually flatters you. It was worse than mediocre.

Again with the insults you so freely spit at everyone.

• Who knows, it may be the only one you've ever done to that standard.

If you don't know whether it's "the only one", then what possible justification could you have had for your comment that I "continually accept, even promote, the mediocre, or worse"? It's nice that you've now retracted that statement‍—‌days after you were challenged to back it up and refused to do so‍—‌but that you insisted on leaving it in place for so long makes you... yes, a liar if you knew it was inappropriate all along, or... just plain deluded if you actually think it was appropriate i.e. that the isolated example of the mistaken (as you see it) link discussed above justifies such calumny. Take your pick.

Fuebaey described your behavior very well:

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

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

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

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

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

Note, this was not yet another opportunity for you to keep the fight going. I have no interest in you repeatedly and repetitively going over old ground. If you wish to move forward, let's do that, if you don't, just say so, leave the personal attacks and the repeated claims all over the encyclopedia, and I'll know exactly where I stand and where to go next. That you ignored pretty much every sentence of my note speaks volumes in that regard. I will not be watching this page for a response, as it seems fruitless to do so. Moreover I will continue to fix up the articles that are being promoted to the main page via DYK despite some of them being "abysmal" and will comment accordingly. The sooner you realise that your approach has also turned off many editors, and driven some away (myself included, temporarily) , so much the better for you and the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The only criticism I've received in this matter is from admins warning me not to call you a liar, and they're right -- I should have called your comments "grossly unfair and contrary to fact", not called you a liar. As for what others think of your behavior I again refer to Fuebaey's comment above. And -- oh yes -- this and this and this and this and this and ... EEng (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the tip on the link-coloring js.

"Lord St. Simon"

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

Actually, I remembered that B-G had said something about this, but I'm at that age where I'm sometimes too lazy to get out of my chair to go find out exactly what. Thanks for taking the time. But who's this Conan Doyle? EEng (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

He reportedly had some ill-defined role in relaying Watson's accounts of the Adventures to the editors of The Strand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"A-steamin' and a-rollin', toot toot!!"

	The Casey Jones "Cannonball Express" Barnstar Whistle of Railroadery
	"Look out folks! There's a huge pile of ballast on the track up ahead!!" A lemon split REMEMBER: "Ya'll need Casey's piggery-jokery like ya need a hole in the head!" .... "toot, toot"

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

Barnstar of Good Humor

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Here, add another to your collection. You had me shaking. [101] ~ RobTalk 20:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Seconded—although, to be fair, it seems our colleague's primary concern was actually that the article would lead to sweeping bans on meat consumption, and that incensed meat lovers, driven savage by frustrated bloodlust, would seek gory revenge at health food stores. FourViolas (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you had me shaking as well, EEngy, having to drag myself all the way down here again. Still, the lighting is nice and subdued, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

0:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at the Skintern DYK nom

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

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

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

You've been around long enough to know you should keep your own DYK nominations watchlisted. The term is nothing more than a neologism for an age-old phenomenon that does not itself merit an article: young people who don't know how to dress at work. The OR is extensive, the article a kind of coatrack for stories of mis-attired young people who happen to work, specifically, in Congress. EEng (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. No apology whatsoever, no consideration given to the idea that I might have had hurt feelings, not even transparently insincere lip service. Instead, a lecture (which you should not have presumed to give) on how you think I'm supposed to handle my workload (something not even the Eric Corbetts of the world would have done), and a clear demonstration of your congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach ).

I knew I was right not to check back here.

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

Do you really want transparently insincere lip service?

• There's nothing to apologize for, and I have no idea what you mean about a "lecture". As Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article says, "Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion."
• Should I ever end up at Arbcom (and it happens to the best of us) I'll just stand on my record, thanks very much. Being blocked for calling someone‍—‌the blocking admin himself, in fact!‍—‌a "self-satisfied roving enforcer" is hardly a badge of shame [102], especially when an admin such as yourself feels free to refer to another editor's "congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach)."
• Anyway, sorry to disappoint you but my parents were the first in their (working-class) families to attend college‍—‌state schools, by the way‍—‌so no legacy I. Scholarship, too‍—‌does that fill you with even more resentment and anger?

EEng (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I'm sorry for your hurt feelings. It must be upsetting to have your article criticized so comprehensively.

Even so, I wonder if you'd like to strike any of your comment. It's probably not the place of a relatively new user like myself to remind you to comment on content, not contributors, but I'm saddened to see an oversighter resort to an ad hominem vulgarity over an AfD. WP consensus on the limits of civility may have its vagaries, but one's interlocutors' anuses are generally not discussed IRL. FourViolas (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the less oversight of interlocutory anuses, the better, though of course this isn't real life. EEng (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I think you may be confusing ad hominem arguments with ad homonym arguments. That happens a lot since they sound alike. (I've made that joke before but I like to trot it out now and then.)

Zenobia

This is not Zenobia

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Neither is this

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

Happy to help. Imagine the clicks, though, if we'd been able to use Ibis/ISIS! Call on me any time. EEng (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You did the same thing I did years ago, when I created a userbox with the image File:MagrittePipe.jpg and a caption "This is not a userbox." Here I managed to beat the bot before it could drop by to unceremoniously remove the non-free image, and have instead replaced it with a crude substitute. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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:

		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 fobbing reeling-ripe puttock. Click here for fresh abrasions. EEng (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

HeeHee

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

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 [103]. Don't forget to stop by the museums while you're here. EEng (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments

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

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

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

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

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

Ill-considered ANI filing

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

Another colossal waste of editor time [104] brought to you by those who refuse to accept guidelines and policy. EEng (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sum Ying Fung

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

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

Isn't Canada a wholly owned subsidiary of the US? EEng (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

*Watches the Canadian Parliament write up the EEng Exclusion Act 2015* Well, someone just got barred for life. Now, for the smugglers. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Big deal. Who wants to visit that frozen wasteland anyway? EEng (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hold your breath and count to ten

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

Shucks. I forgot you were a Canadian. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

More of a ham. EEng (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Give my regards to Bjork. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent comments at Skyfall

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

No problem. EEng (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And you've also moved some of my "constant off topic jokes and quips"! An outrage. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want them to be left stranded! ;) --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Awww, that's so sweet of you. That vitally important discussion at Skyfall is really showing off Wikipedia to its best, isn't it. What a good job we're not discussing Skyfall Categories. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A Kitaen for you!

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

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

Chuckle of the Day

"Non-notability is not a reason that normally leads to deletion." [105] One may only wonder how AfD functions as well as it does. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

still at it, I see

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. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Future tyrants always forswear the electrodes until they gain power. EEng (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC) p.s. What sarcasm?

"And how do you like your bullying, Master Bond, shaken but not shit stirred?" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

But do I gather correctly that since your post here the problem has been resolved? I've added the nom to my watchlist so that if there's further trouble I can leap into action.

7&6=thirteen, as you may have realized I've stopped participating regularly at DYK, but you know I love a goofy hook, so any time you have an article that lends itself to such treatment, feel free to call on me. It will bring a ray of sunshine into the life of a forgotten DYK shut-in to know I can still be useful. BTW, have you visited the museums lately? EEng (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I know you love goofy hooks and puns.

I can see why one might avoid WP:DYK, particularly on a daily basis. This article is a good (but by no means the worst) example. Sisyphus comes to mind. If you have any insight, it would be appreciated. Thank you for adding it to your watch. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not pass go

While this looks suspiciously like a barnstar, it's actually a prison tattoo.

Once you've seen one content dispute, you've seen 'em all!

You've won a free trip to WikiJail!

The discussion at WT:CIVILITY is hilariously ironic. You being (or being perceived as being) uncivil, then getting uncivil templates on your talk page because of it. Eman235/talk 00:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Watch it, or after the CivRev (Civility Revolution) you'll get the electrodes [106]. 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)

[[File:Domine,_quo_vadis.jpg]] Caption

Hey EEng, shouldn't the caption say "If you want to take on metrics vs. imperials in articles, that's your business. I've got a more pleasant appointment to keep." not "English" since even the English don't use their own system anymore? Or have I missed something here? Probably missed something, but still ... Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sheesh, and I thought my easter egg link farming was tortuous! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC) I wait all night for calls like these.

Who said your links weren't tortuous or torturous Martinevans123? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the physical hypothesis is currently more fashionable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Bodice-Rippers, again

Looks like DYKUpdateBot and BattyBot can't agree on where to put a DYK talk banner [107]. Do you think the pair of them would make a good Bodice-Ripper? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: BattyBot uses AWB's talk page general fixes, which follows WP:TALKLEAD. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I just did a random sample of my DYK noms (uno, dos, tres) and all three have the DYK banner at the bottom. It's more that I'm amused when bots can't agree amongst themselves what to do ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's even more amusing when one bot can't agree with itself what to do. Too bad it wasn't an adminbot, so it could've repeatedly blocked and unblocked itself for edit warring with itself. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So tempted...

Guardian of User talk:EEng

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

The gentleman at right is authorized to mete out justice to busybodies. EEng (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How dare you say such things about The Sacred Toilet Paper (sc)Rolls‽‽ Eman235/talk 03:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

T. Y.

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

A beer for you!

EEng Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year! BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not too late for Christmas gifts

... because Christmas has 12 days. Here ya go, picked out just for you, because you've been such a good boy: [108]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A perfect gift for those who already know how to dodge tomahawks. FourViolas (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

An important life skill, to be sure. EEng (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2016 . . .

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

Wikipedia (what it is, 2015)

Wikipedia (vision, 2001)

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

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

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

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

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

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

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

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

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

How clever of you to copy exactly the warning [109] left by another editor, on your talk page, regarding your behavior in this very matter!

It seems that, stymied in describing King's College as "one of the world's most selective and prestigious" schools [110], you've made it your mission [111][112][113][114][115] (based on your misunderstanding of WP:PEACOCK) to remove the word prestigious from Harvard University, despite the fact that abundant sources support this characterization. You've been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, and repeatedly directed to discussions such as Talk:Harvard_University/Archive_4#The_Header_Dispute; and I'm afraid I must quote something that another editor (an expert on higher education) wrote in that discussion to the last person who went on the same crusade you're on: "I suggest that if you don't know that Harvard is considered one of the world's most prestigious universities then you're incompetent to edit this article." So smarten up. EEng (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oooh, EEng, you're such a "prestiguous editor". (*swoon*) .... Remnant Visa 123 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the great things about Harvard is that everyone who works there, including the cops, plumbers, and dining hall workers, seems to have some hidden talent or interest. The night guard at Lowell House had an extensive knowledge of the Federalist Papers, and my roommate used to get help with his Greek homework from the guy who checks your bags on the way out of the library. During the long struggle for unionization, the union's motto was "We can't eat prestige". You gotta love the dry humor for a serious situation. EEng (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Main page: WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive277 § Review_of_EEng.27s_indefinite_block

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

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

Nakon 04:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Words fail. When you unblock me, please make sure your entry in the block log makes clear the nature of your original action in instituting the block; the words "outrageous", "tone-deaf", "absurd", "ridiculous", and "incompetent" would all be good choices. EEng (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And don't forget to restore my user and talk pages to their prior state. EEng (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unhide for comments from a clueless admin -- see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive277#Review_of_EEng.27s_indefinite_block

A 48 hour block would have been appropriate for the shitty attitude you have been laying down at ANI. While it may be fun and jokes you were getting into topics that did not involve you and grinding your axe. You were adding heat to situations that did not need heat added to them. The indef was over the top, but your behaviour was not so innocent either. The block was excessive but did not occur in a vacuum. Really if a reasonable length block has been made it would have stuck, so don't act too self-righteous. HighInBC 16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC) HighInBC: Pardon me, but what in the world are you talking about? "Grinding axe" -- huh? Here's every ANI post I made in the week before the block. Which ones are in any way inappropriate? (a) [116] (b) [117] (c) [118] (d) [119] 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" [120]. 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 [121], 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

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 [122], 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/^2¢/_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. Worm^TT(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. Worm^TT(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 [123] 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 [124] 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 [125]:

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. Worm^TT(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

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

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

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

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!

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

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)

---

"...now 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! [126]. —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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [127]? 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: [128]. 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)

"You...GENE...you!" 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

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?? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

About the finger that one might give, I see from the TOC that there are now 208 sections to this talk page. I guess it's a baby-step in the right direction. But as Kirsten Dunst said in her film debut, "I want more!" (or actually, less). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the {TIBNAPAJAF} template, I would like the documentation to say ... someone is wrong on the Internet. -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Say what?

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

Mandruss, Did you notice the tag? While you're here, perhaps you'll take a moment to drop by the museums. EEng 05:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it didn't say just how far your tongue was imbedded into your cheek area. Museum is cool and I wish I could feel that humorous when I'm at Wikipedia. I've been trained well, and it doesn't turn on and off very easily, so I generally just leave it off while I'm here. How sad is that? (Although I was cracked up by "with no respect intended".) ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad I made your crack up.

(English idioms are really difficult to get right, eh?) BushelCandle (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolubey. I wouldn't wish this dumb language on my worst enema. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

"Mindless robots blindly applying rigid rules"?? Oh, puh-leeze... just leave me alone, why dontcha!? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI about MOS:Images

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

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

A request

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 [129]. 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 [130].

"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. [131] EEng 10:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

And furthermore ...

Caption added by EEng: Speaking truth to power

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

😁 Building blocks to a smile

Stackable WTF blocks	You are the recipient of a WTF Block
	Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're an mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. I even have some! Atsme📞📧 03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment. [132]

A little belated, don't you think? Eman235/talk 06:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Eman235, in my case, the "clock started at the time of discovery, as with your belated reply which I just now read. My stackable WTF blocks probably run a close second to EEng's but I'd win hands-down if AE warnings for puns and emojis were counted. Atsme^📞📧 02:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"malfunction of the emoji tool bar" -- likely story. EEng 02:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha!! Your example was a malefunction whereas a rogue emoji is far more believable (and true) of a (computer) brain malfunction. Atsme^📞📧 18:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A malefunction? Better, I suppose, than a female dysfunction. EEng 14:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

....that and the laywomen's definition of men-o'pause, . Atsme^📞📧 22:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Laywomen? Now there's a euphemism. EEng 22:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC) If we keep this up I fear we're gonna get in trouble.

- it was a slip of the keyboard due to my irregular finger sizes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. [pause to treat rug burns from rotflmao]. Only you would have caught that - ❤️ your wit!!! Atsme^📞📧 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Finally North Korea gets something right

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

You realize we have ways of dealing with people like you, yes? EEng 05:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As a vicious parasite myself, I'm amused by the spelling of "leeching". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I wondered at first whether that might be a bit of sophisticated wordplay on the part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea News Service. I decided the answer's No when I realized they don't seem to know there's an apostrophe in Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Gosh, can't they find even one commie fascist totalitarian apparatchik who's fully literate in English? EEng 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they used Google Translate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, that's a parody account run by the Popehat account. They quite often get quoted by unknowing news sources. ghytred talk 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That explains why they got Harvard mixed up with Yale. Even North Korea knows better than to fuck with Harvard. EEng 16:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, such fucking risks getting very expensive, per the editor who, a few talk sections below, points out his talents as a hooker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:DICK

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

You don't often see constructions of the form $\neg A\to (\neg B\gets \neg C)$; I'll add it to my treasury of especially clear writing exemplars. Also, it's a shame you corrected [133] your original post, because now my droll observation—

"There's boned for such a dickish edit summary"‍—‌what a curious way you have of expressing yourself!

—loses much of what modest punch it had in the first place.

Anyway, it's not always easy to guess which pretentious shibboleth you're harping on, but this time I'm guessing you hair's on fire about the shocking false title introduced here [134]. You realize, do you not, that denunciations from angry editor SchroCat (or should I say, "the angry editor SchroCat") are practically a badge of honor among the community at large? EEng 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have the intelligence to understand the difference in variants, then there's little I can do to lift you from the slough of ignorance you choose to inhabit. – SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that in Wiltshire? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are withering. EEng 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, this place! Like a period drama sometimes! Between maid 123 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Period drama. EEng 22:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"groan" Almost as rivetting as a legal drama. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of whether that's actually what's going on, indeed you'd be the last person I'd nominate to lift someone from a slough of ignorance (you're so cute with those quaint expressions‍—‌you're like Maugham, except of course not really at all) so no disappointment there. But if that fantasy helps you sleep at night, by all means cherish it.

Sustained rounds of sputtering denunciation from you being particularly prized, can you please keep it up? And can you upload a photo of yourself turning various shades of red? I've added a placeholder at right. EEng 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC) You forgot to tell me whether the dread "false title" was the pretentious shibboleth troubling you.

• No further entertainment was forthcoming, unfortunately. But nothing like a good dustup to draw a crowd [135]. EEng 01:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Validation of advisories...

Well, I noticed you received some very nice compliments from some members of Proj Med for doing something commendable, and because of that, I figured it elevated you to a level that I could trust your input regarding some warnings issued over a highly utilized cure for bashfulness. I thought it best to ask you directly rather than bother more important editors like Tryptofish and Doc James with such trivia, especially if there was no cause for alarm. Please watch the following video and let me know if you think there is any need for me to be concerned. [136]. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There you have it, EEng. I am officially more important than you are. But of course we all knew that all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course the true power is behind the throne. Oh but look, Your Majesty -- you have an important state dinner to attend just now. Don't worry, I'll mind the store. EEng 19:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tea, tequila, Tryptofish: all so nicely alliterative (even if I am being a pain in the assonance)! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I got your ping (which for reasons I cannot explain seems to me to be vaguely related to validations of advisories) at that DYK discussion. I've gotta say, my first reaction was confoundment that WP didn't until just recently have a page about that, then I realized it was because of promotion to GA, then I began to feel like it was April 1, and then I figured April 1 is over so I would not comment there and would instead come here. Anyway, I wish you and the other editors a fertile discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fertile discussion -- and I suppose you think that's funny? EEng 21:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, maybe I'm just full of fertilizer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

💩💩💩💩💩💩💩 <---- fertile discussion? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King. EEng 02:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"And a monk expressed his displeasure at an abbot. In the margins of a guide to moral conduct. Because of course." The Queen of Atsmepediatree has disembarked this jester's court. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad you're back!

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

Well thank you, Yoninah! Since I'd just made my first nom in a long time, I thought I talk a walk down memory lane. Any maybe I will again now and then, but I don't think I'll be there regularly -- too much trouble for too little result. But feel free to call on me for my talents as a hooker. EEng 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Kype (anatomy). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Tryptofish, just noticed this. If you can get the article to GA, I'll come up with an off-color hook about male salmon and their big kypes. EEng 08:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, but it took me an awfully long time just to find this section on your talk page. And stop groping the salmon with your tiny fins. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Woolly Bugger

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

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

Personal Attacks

please read this; and please don't restate other people's personal attacks.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks68.48.241.158 (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..68.48.241.158 (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

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 [137]

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 [138] 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 [139] 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 [140]. 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)

Nuts

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

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

Gawker FYI

Principled Wikipedia editor in no moo

FYI: [141] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My mother is so proud. EEng 17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• WPO watch out! Now Gawker sez all your internets are mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, Tfish, I have no idea what any of that meant. EEng 05:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't one of my better efforts. WPO: where they also wikigroan. I was trying to say that they now have Gawker as competition. As for the latter part, woopsy, I was misremembering this. I hope that my errors didn't dampen your moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Gahh now the world expects Wikipedians to walk around quoting Cato. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• My favorite bit is "Wikipedia’s principled editor’s are in no moo." EEng 05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) I'm (ahem) principled, so watch it with the comments, insects!

Congrats from this insect on the fact that you actually archived something from your talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

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

I wasn't reverting because of your topic ban -- that was just additional information so other editors would know what we're dealing with here. There's absolutely zero patience for more of this longevity/GNG nonsense. EEng 00:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I plan on appealing my topic ban and proposing a topic ban against you, Legacypac, and DerbyCountyInNZ. Tag-teaming like you're doing is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if all else fails, I'll be getting in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation about the behavior you've shown. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please hurry, as it will speed the day you're indefinitely blocked along with your fellow longevity zealots, so the rest of us can go back to working in peace. Catch you on the rebound! EEng 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, how was it you were able to recreate word-for-word an article deleted five years ago? EEng 01:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, archives exist. Secondly, you'll be the one indefinitely blocked. Have a nice weekend...until the hammer comes down on you! Sailor Haumea (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Sailor Haumea has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horrifico. clpo13_(talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Whew! Because for a minute there I was really afraid that he/she/it/they might get me blocked. That was a close one! Charmed life, it seems. EEng 02:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"Words that Bug Me"

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?

Ready?
"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

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)

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 [142]. EEng 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten

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 V • Talk 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. [143] 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 [144]) 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 [145] :

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 V • Talk 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:

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 [146]:

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 V • Talk 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)

Unblocked

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

• 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 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• You know, this talk page reminds me of a long beard:

1. It makes the owner look moſte wise.
2. The longer it gets, the more tangles you can see
3. It is a great inconvenience.

Eman235/talk 04:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is everybody???

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

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

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

You'll find the Nine Inch Nails behind the four candles: [147] Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• For a moment I thought it said defibrillations. Perhaps we can work "Everybody's Gone to the Moon" (or maybe "Fly Me to the Moon") into the examples somehow. You two might be interested in a "discussion" I'm having with a troglodyte who thinks humor has no place in serious discussions -- Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#Continued_obstruction. EEng 10:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'd rather stick pins in my eyes, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

More than interested! Happy to be a nosey bystander though. I'll join the discussion after we've sorted out units, and I've brought clarity, peace, tranquility and a common sense of purpose to This RFC - that should give me 5 years minimum, and there'll still be humourless trogs to deal with.

Personally, I think a bit a humour greases the wheels of collegiate editing, or something. It's been fun to have a joke on the side of the rather dry topic of units.

By the way, you spoke to soon, it's all kicking off over there on units.

I'll wade in a bit later if needed, but I need to disappear for a few hours for a hospital visit (not that far away from defibrillators and drug doses...) Robevans123 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you mean wade in on units, great, but if you mean on sockpuppetry, please don't -- I didn't mean to canvass you, just thought you might be amused to gawk at the humorlessness -- I do so cherish the quote at the top of User:EEng. I've run into this prick before and he's/she's completely tonedeaf. Hope your hospital visit's not troubling. EEng 14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely units only! Didn't feel canvassed, it's definitely an area of watch, don't touch. Hospital visit was fine thank you. Just a follow up on some routine blood tests - all in the green zone. Going to have a quiet night off, so I'm ready to deal with some people who are fantastic at saying what they don't like, but surprisingly quiet at putting something else forward. All will be done as politely as possible, and in the best possible taste. Nil illegitimi carborundum. Robevans123 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh no you got blocked again...

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

http://www.metafilter.com/160081/159-days-to-go-Stay-strong#6549438 —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for this -- it's perfect for an upcoming talk on Gage in pop culture. It's vaguely similar to a youtube video I grabbed about six years ago (now no longer posted, AFAICT) in which the US is metaphorically Gage (a stockbroker named "Phineas Geiger" in the vid, for some reason) and the WTC attack was the iron-bar-through-the-head turning America/Gage into an irritable, unpredictable, bullying, angry psychopath etc.

Interesting detail about the post you link: The discussants don't seem to think that anyone reading needs Phineas Gage linked or explained. I wonder if there'll be an uptake on the Sudden-(explained)-viewspike_detector. EEng 04:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Trump would actually like being compared to an iron rod. So is your viewspike detector a Geiger counter, or a Gage gauge? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure he would. He just said the US needs to be less predictable. EEng 14:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• P.S. to David Eppstein: I did use it in my talk, to good effect, because it shows the extent that Gage can be invoked without introduction in at least some circles. (I also found some tweets in which people say things like, "I'm gonna go all Phineas Gage in a minute!") You may also have noticed I've used it at The Museums. EEng 08:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The greatness of the Galbraiths

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

"How WP:MoS Works" (Part 62a)

In honour of the glorious contribution of lowly Belgium to the forthcoming trench warfare of Euro 2016. Part 62a: Use of the word kibosh: Note: [148]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Further note: "The song has the metre of Tramp! Tramp! Tramp!."

I don't know what I did to deserve you. EEng 22:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What you did was fail to archive your talk page. Now take your punishment! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Fortunately, it was a previous life. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

W61.62

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

• Y92.482 Bicycle path as place of occurrence
• V10.3 Person boarding or alighting a pedal cycle injured in collision with pedestrian or animal
• W61.59 Other contact with goose

EEng 03:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No fowl, no harm. I suspect that bird just wanted some compensation, so you could have put it on her bill. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Good one. You know it's funny, we've got WP:DUCK, WP:HORSE, WP:TROUT, WP:BEAR, WP:CAMEL, WP:GOOSE and who knows what else (plus WP:BIKE, of course). I think we should have Category: Wikipedia project page shortcuts named for animals. Also WP:NOFOWLNOHARM. I'll work all this into the Museums in due course, but right now I've got a big project on the stove [149]. EEng 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy cooking – looks good! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Time to load up tha' old trusty Kentucky Fried Cannon, folks!" Col S. A. Unders123 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Someday someone's gonna cook your goose, ME123. EEng 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, see a bumpy road ahead. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the menagerie: Jonah was swallowed by a whale.^{[Cetacean needed]} I stole this joke from Opabinia regalis, but that's OK – it's covered by the Sea-Sea-by-SA license. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

For WP:BALANCE: The traditional account, that Jonah made his home in a fish's abdomen, has been publicly criticized by revisionist scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourViolas (talk • contribs) 21:39, June 13, 2016‎

Hmm, sounds kinda fringey to me... burps suspiciously --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You scintillate tonight. EEng 02:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bioluminescence, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just glad Trypto got the opportunaty to reuse it! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Now, I'll clam up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, WP:DOGS redirects to one of the Wikiprojects, and not to Wikipedia:Let sleeping dogs lie, so it doesn't fit. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wondered why my ears, floppy, were burning. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have the weirdest, weirdest stalkers. It's you, the many stalkettes gathered here from all walks of life, each making his or her little dysfunction- or neurosis-revealing contribution, who make this talkpage what it is (whatever unspeakable thing that may be). EEng 00:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

EEng's talkpage—the secret scroll of toilet paper made of...beard fibers!? Find out in the next unspeakable episode! Eman235/talk 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not forgetting, your favourite ... WP:JACKASS. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Trout love

	A lovely slice of trout
	An piece of delicious trout for you, to calm your antagonism over how to present the story of sockpuppets [150]... 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 [151]. 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)

Typo

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

Checkingfax: There's no typo. If you click on the link (red though it may be) and then look at F.I.M.'s comment just above my post, you'll see what I was getting at. EEng 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Side ping to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi.

Ha! REEL clever! ;) And it took agrees before I clocked it. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, EEng. You got me twice because I did not know who F.I.M. was. I make that kind of typo now and then. Brain says one thing; fingers another. OK, now can you advise me of any other point? BTW, I found NOTNOT to be interesting too. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What's NOTNOT? EEng 01:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sounds a lot like me: Brian says one thing, but fingers do another, while the keyboard has a mind all of its own…. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC) … it sounds like it might be a Scottish story?

serving notice

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 [152]. Anyway, you were warned it was tasteless. The great thing about Harvard topics is there are always people wandering about saying droll things:

• Widener Library#cite_note-75
• Eleanor Elkins Widener#Second marriage and South American adventures
• John Harvard (statue)#Recent_incidents
• Lionel de Jersey Harvard#cite_note-49
• Sacred Cod#.22Cod-napping.22_and_other_incidents
• History_and_traditions_of_Harvard_commencements#George_Bernard_Shaw

None of you write back for the next four days, please -- I have to get this talk ready. EEng 14:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Is not - Is too

Hello,

I apologize for reverting your edit over at "What Wikipedia is not" (diff [153]). I am an experienced editor, but forays into policy and guideline pages are new to me - so I admit I was being rigid. Having looked over your user page and talk page I see that you are a very experienced editor and that you know what you are doing. So, in the future I think I will do the same for any editor who edits guideline and policy pages - before I revert with an intention to save the Universe and Wikipedia.

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

You have nothing to apologize for at all. I don't always know what I'm doing, and your edit, following my edit, stimulated me to think things through afresh and make an even better edit. That's the way it's supposed to work, and Wikipedia at its best. Keep up the good work.

As for being immersed in humor: I'm drowning in it, actually, and none of my worthless talk page stalkers seems inclined to throw me a lifeline. EEng 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:What Wikipedia is too could redirect to WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as WP:What Wikipedia is does. Although WP:WABBITSEASON seems to be closely related. FourViolas (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll show you contrite!

Didn't I unfriend you for missing my talk? EEng 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, so how did the talk go? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was a little apprehensive because of the amount of new material I'd developed, but I think it went well, other than the fact that my laptop crashed 2/3 of the way through so that I had to ad lib while it rebooted. The evening as a whole (i.e. including the other speakers) was certainly wonderful from my perspective. We ran maybe 75 minutes over and almost everyone stayed to the end, if that means anything.

The big announcement of the evening, and the unstated (until that night) reason for the whole thing, was that the very nice couple who had the daguerreotype all those years (without realizing it) have donated it to Harvard, so that it's now part of the Warren Museum collection along with the skull, tamping iron, life mask, etc. It's an amazing story -- what's the probability of that thing not only surviving all these years, but being identified? The mind boggles. EEng 21:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Good! (So your laptop crashed – was that because it tried to load your user talk page?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a WW2 army-surplus laptop which overheats every now and then. That problem seemed to have gone away after I upgraded to Windows 10 but -- just my luck -- it chose that moment to reassert itself. In a way it may have made for a better session, since we had Q&A during the reboot, and a lot of good questions were asked. EEng 22:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You got me! For a moment, I was actually wondering to myself how there could have been laptops during WW2. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serial killer

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

EEng, your comments are requested on...Talk:Serial killer. You do, however, have the right to remain silent. Eman235/talk 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You may have noticed that accounts that bother me here often fall mysteriously silent soon afterward. Ever think about that? EEng 02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you available for hire? I have a long list of accounts that I could submit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

┬┴┬┴┤(ｏ_├┬┴┬┴ Eman235/talk 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please apologize

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

EEng, I have not seen the AFD mentioned here. However, at AFD:Octaviano Tenorio, you can see that Montanabw has engaged in a protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors, and is also demanding apologies. I don't know if the issues are connected. I wrote a looong reply on my talk[154] to Montanabw's complaint there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) I'm going to suggest that persons actually interested in retaining the article spend their time adding citations and content to it, rather than arguing needlessly over other people's AfD comments. Softlavender (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Indeed! Nothing stops an AfD like RS citiations. If none are available, then what's the point in debating? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would wholeheartedly agree, and on that article BHG mentions, John Pack Lambert did so, my position is that his work was adequate, BHG's position is that it is not. I am tired of being repeated accused of "dishonesty" and a "protracted exercise of smoke and mirrors." My position is sincerely held and made in good faith -- on an article on a topic involving conservative white men instead of third-world progressive women, no less (I am trying to be fair in my assessments at AfD). The RfC is a slow-developing process and is raising a number of good discussions about the misapplication of WP:N. Frankly, I am finding this exhausting, but I cannot allow the ad hominem remarks of BHG, who I used to respect as an editor, to continue to the point that I permit myself to be bullied. She is crossing a line here and so did Eeng. Reasonable minds can differ, and even heatedly, but we can remain civil. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

.... You're doing it again. Just stick to adding RS citations and content -- ignore the opposing comments of others. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My problem, Softlavender, is that I don't care enough about the JPL articles to work on them; I do care that I am being insulted and attacked. If others would stick to only their own cogent arguments and lay off trying to tell me that I am wrong, stupid, bad, dishonest, manipulative and whatever else they are throwing around, we would all be much better off. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't care enough to improve an article (or at least find and provide links to RS that provide significant coverage), then don't argue on AfD -- just place your !vote but don't add the AfD to your watchlist. If you get that bothered about being insulted/attacked/labeled, and if you react to such insults, then in my opinion you won't have a good time on Wikipedia; I've said as much before. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

.... So simple that it's WP:BASIC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

BASIC is a guideline; WP:N is the policy. The rest is interpretation. And reasonable minds can differ. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

EEng, I am so sorry that you can only respond to a reasonable request by WP:BAITING. You have now officially and directly called me "delusional" which is a personal attack and has crossed the WP:NPA line. It is unfortunate that you can only deal with disagreement by devolving into attacking the individual. Now I understand the kind of person you are. Thank you for clarifying your views so precisely. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your delusions apparently extend even to the meaning of the word delusional. I doubt strongly that you understand, or indeed are capable of understanding, the kind of person I am. As I just suggested to you elsewhere, WP:STOPDIGGING. EEng 22:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, delusional is commonly a reference to having a psychiatric condition wherein an individual has had a break with reality and is in need of psychaitric hospitalization. That is, for someone who is not suffering from that condition, a belittling insult. For someone who does suffer from that condition, it is cruel. Let's try for some civility. Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Montana, and I say this as someone with personal appreciation and respect for EEng and general admiration for his stalkers, trying to get him to apologize for incivility on his talk page is all but permitting yourself to be bullied. I suggest you stop trying to get blood from stones, and file a complaint if you need to or go do something nice with someone you love if you don't. FourViolas (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

• Thank you for your insights, FourViolas. It is clear from the above comments that I am dealing with an abusive personality here and there is a time to stop beating my head against the wall. I have a number of other projects and AfD is most definitely in need of attention. I shall step out of this particular talk page discussion, with considerable disappointment. Montanabw^(talk) 00:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Exit Montanabw, stage right, draped magnificently in victimhood. Presently he or she is heard offstage, demanding apologies and retractions from numerous editors in rotation. EEng 01:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've never understood the Wikipedia bent for requesting (or demanding) apologies. For an apology to be meaningful it must be freely given, at the initiative of the person who offers it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's especially puzzling since it gives abusive personalities such as myself the opportunity to flagellate anew the hapless, innocent victim who sought only to offer the aggressor the chance to purify his soul via confession and contrition. EEng 01:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think you're going a bit overboard on the mockery. (I've probably managed to piss off both you and Montanabw here, but what the hell, somebody has to say these things.) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I cannot imagine what you think you've done to offend or annoy me, and if someone comes repeatedly to my talk page begging to be called out as a fool, who am I to disappoint? EEng 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd revert this: [155] We all get carried away but I think it's unworthy of you. Msnicki (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a chance -- see above in this thread, plus User:EEng#get the joke. If Atsme or Randy Kitty were somehow offended (and see elsewhere on that page where we'd been enjoying each other's company) they would have spoken up for themselves. What WP doesn't need is yet another tone-deaf, tsk-tsking scold poking her nose into others' friendly interactions. EEng 03:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is truly unnecessary. Name-calling is a clear personal attack on another editor, the sort of thing that can get you blocked in a heartbeat by the first admin who spots it (and frankly, I'd support it, given your determination to double down on this). Your conversations at an AfD are not private and if you think you might be annoyed if someone else interjected their own remarks, perhaps an AfD is not for you. In any event, I urge you reconsider. There are always ways to tell someone precisely what you think of them without crossing the line. This was not the way. Msnicki (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary perhaps, but not unwarranted, and there's no doubling down. I realize you mean well, but you obviously haven't absorbed what's going on here. Of course anyone's free to interject his or her own comments, but Nosy Parkers who get the wrong end of the WP:STICK in others' completely friendly interactions, because they apparently lack the capacity to understand them, and scold people for imagined offenses within a conversation in which they were not previously involved, are a particular pet peeve of mine. There's enough real friction at WP without someone inventing it where there is none. (And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about you here.) EEng 05:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI

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

Fool! Use the secure channel! Say, who's in charge of world copper prices next month, me or you? EEng 03:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC) I wouldn't bother about UNIGUIDE. (a) I'm not sure it's really so troublesome in general, and (b) there's wide latitude for essays. Unfortunately we seem to have lost ElKevbo, but I wonder whether David Eppstein has an opinion on it.

Avoiding phrasing like "highly prestigious" for Podunk Junior Community College sounds like good advice to me. The difference is that for Harvard it happens to be true, and also arguably an accurate summary of the later "University rankings" section. Anyway, it's an essay, and you can find one of those to support any point you'd want to make (and many you wouldn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I was specifically wondering what you thought about Calidum's idea of sending UNIGUIDE to MfD. I say don't bother. EEng 04:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlikely to accomplish much, regardless of which way the discussion goes. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

You know Wikipedia has ruined you when ...

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

And no UNDO button, even. How do you like my Trump-Hitler retrospective at User:EEng? I'm surprised no one seems to have noticed it. EEng 07:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been noticed and appreciated! Robevans123 (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I keep typing and erasing replies. I've tried evasiveness, wryness, silliness, sarcasm, black humour, acerbity, seriousness, ponderousness, but nothing I can come up with sounds appropriate. I want to say something wise, witty or at least coherent and worthy of reading, but words fail me. I find the topic too depressing, and I feel as if making light of it mocks survivors and victims – and those who find themselves in a much more precarious position than I believe myself to be, who live in immediate, mortal, existential fear. It feels so privileged. I don't know; I just don't think it's my place to talk.

So, keeping in mind Wittgenstein's famous sentence, I'll just limit myself to: I've seen it, and read through it. Thank you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw it but felt it best not to call attention to it. (Oops.) By coincidence I am reading Ian Kershaw's two-volume Hitler biography and am presently up to mid-1933. Some of the parallels between current events and then are... thought provoking. You could take whole sentences and just change the names or places and it would be impossible to tell whether they were from the book or today's newspaper. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes you don't even have to change names. One quotation I was struck by is Ludwig Thoma's undisguised complaint about Berlin, the supposed incompetence of the government, the local socialists and "orientals", in 1920. It sounds like a letter to the editor or web comment written by any reactionary Bavarian curmudgeon today. Except that the "orientals" today are Muslims (the Kreuzberg quarter is particularly well-known for its population of Turkish Germans) rather than Jews. The Nazis denounced Berlin as "verniggert", presumably because of the popularity of American cultural products such as jazz – Afro-Germans did exist, but I believe were more of a rarity even in Berlin. I was shocked to hear that, according to a poll in 2008, as many as 26% of the German population still insisted that dark-skinned people don't fit into Germany, and 50% didn't want to live in the same building together with "Turks" (I fear it has only become worse since then). That's, like, the definition of racism. Clearly, even tons of people here have learnt nothing from history, and going over all this stuff at school was an exercise in futility. :( --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No! Not futile! 100% - 26% = 74%. EEng 03:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't shake the impression that Germany really does consist of 50% I'm-not-racist-but-heads and 50% pc Cultural Marxists® and Antifa anarcho-punks. (At least street battles like in the twenties aren't common.) I still guess we commies have more fun. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have the time and stomach for it, I have a modest proposal for EEng and his glittering admirers.

1. Read the exquisitely judicious Can the treatment of animals be compared to the Holocaust?, by ethicist and survivor's son David Sztybel.
2. Come to a personal position on whether he's on or off his rocker, and how many of his arguments fail and why.
3. Go back and reconsider our host's well-chosen and -illustrated gallery, and try to resolve any internal hypocrisies.

I'm currently glumly pondering step 3.

On a tangential note, I just saw the '61 West Side Story for the first time and found it remarkably topical as well: the core theme (optimistic if anything) about the plague on both our houses is the story of our current global failure-of-politics plotlines, of course, but the film also fits in still-thoughtful treatment of immigration, racism, misogyny, gender nonconformity, and even headscarf symboism. FourViolas (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll get on it as soon as I've finished this steak. BTW, the next time we have to relitigate whether Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities" [156] we can just point out that Trump called Iraq "Harvard for terrorism" [157]. Yale, eat your heart out. EEng 06:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Time to get out the canoes and paddle to section, Wadsworth old fellow

Hey, I hear we do pretty well ourselves. That "source", incidentally, states that Harvard is "one of the world's most prestigious universities"; also, that we "boat" a 201-acre main campus.

What are you doing eating steak at midnight? 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I always eat raw meat at the witching hour, after strangling the animal to death with my bare hands and drinking its blood. Believe it or not the Charles, as recently as 1958 or so, has risen to the point that sandbags were needed as far upstream as Eliot House. EEng 00:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of school spirit, I have in fact been closely watching the Hitler/Trump quiz. It troubles me that I scored 100% on telling them apart (and with no peeking at the answers), because it would seem to indicate that I understand too well some things I'd rather not be familiar with (maybe too much time spent with ArbCom and GMOs). I just figured that I wouldn't gloat about it until now, because of my, um, educational commitment to humility (ha, ha). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

So if you eat foods containing GMOs you turn into an expert on the nuances of racialism and demagoguery? Who knew those geneticists were so clever. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe I'm just addled. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Talk about damning with faint praise – it's pretty grim when Hitler comes out with the better of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hitler? or Trump? – "A highly intelligent man should take a primitive and stupid woman. Imagine if, on top of everything else, I had a woman who interfered with my work!" EEng 02:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Answer

(Voice of Mel Brooks...) "I've got da Vestern Front! – da Eastern Front! – dat fat pig Goering! – zose Juden! – Und jetzt, on top of all dat, dat voman is driving me meshuggana! Oy vey!‍" Hitler, though it could easily have been Trump ("You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass") of course. I've always loved the bit about on top of everything else; see right.

I think I would have gotten that one right, too, but your talk page is so slow to load (ahem!) that I could see the hidden answer before it finished loading. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if that's how all those DNC emails got out. EEng 22:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Hey Stalin, if you're listening out there, if you can find FDR's letters, I'm sure that the press here will reward you mightily." followed by: "I vas just being sarcastic!" --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• As I follow your embellishments of your user page, I've gotten an idea for some alternatives to the ostrich, courtesy of a joke told by Bill Maher: 1, 2. Gets the affect and the hair rather well, doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I was saving that for later. Or on second thought, the ostrich could be Eric Trump. EEng 16:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

In any case, all the evidence is finally in, in the Scopes trial. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You've inspired me [158]. EEng 06:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

And now, he's probably going to start throwing his poop at Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not a complete impossibility, come to think of it. Then you and I can be interviewed on CNN, responding to Trump saying we should be shot (digitally, of course)! EEng 08:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

After all, you and I are the co-founders of ISIS. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

	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...

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* [159]

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)

WP:ERA

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

A kitten for you!

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

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

hi

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

hello

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

note

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Template:Z33 LavaBaron (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• For those playing along at home, click here [160] to see LavaBaron mistake me for (no kidding) "a supporter of Donald Trump (which is fine) who is non-plussed by a section of this article (which is also fine)." It's EErie how much that sounds like Trump himself ("The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine."). EEng 09:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Malcolm X

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

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

Puff Daddy

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

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

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

Indeed you should be ashamed, but we must face the situation unflinchingly. I encourage you to add the following code, which modifies your proposal slightly and gives credit where credit is due:

::''This museum is about EEng's psyche. For the endocrine condition, see [[Breast hypertrophy]].'' {{mdash}}<small>~~~</small>

EEng 23:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, the unconditional psyche. But sign it? No way! It's merely a tip-of-the-hatnote, and I don't want anyone associating that with me. I've got my rep-pew-tation to protect! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Leave out the signature if you like. EEng 00:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not signing anything without either my lawyer or my shrink. But for now, modesty demands that I bid adieu! (I must be tryping.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

^{(talk page stalker) to Martinevans123 now THAT's funny!! Atsme📞📧 21:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)}

I can perform an appendectomy with my bare teeth. And you should see me remove a hemorrhoid. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd rather look away, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC) [161]

The pathologist said: "It may be shit to you, but it's my bread and butter." (True story: when I took Biochem 10 at Harvard, the professor actually told that joke in the final lecture of the course.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm banning both of you from this page for 48 hours to give you two a chance come to your senses, sober up, or whatever it is that's needed. EEng 21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't wait to see you take me to ANI for violating the ban! May I come to someone else's senses? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"The innocents can all sleep safely." Andypartridge123 (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"And all the world is football-shaped": so is that real football, or that boring soccer thing? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

[162] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"... 'ere, EEngie, when I was over in Rio recently I 'ad to use one of them new "Olympic toilets" ... you get robbed at gun-point, you lose $1 million and you can't even lochte the door properly!" **tee-hee** Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC) "... come on in, the water's boiling!"

"I will build a great wall – and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me – and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make User:EEng pay for that wall. Mark my words." [163]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC) "I was shuffling through the Harvard sand, but my head's in Mississippi". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"Hey there, foxy Harvard boy. Need a stylish dinner date?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

^{Ok Martinevans123 I haven't met any of you in person so I have no clue which one is the "foxy Harvard boy" - do tell - or is WP fortunate enough that all of you fit that description? Atsme📞📧 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)}

^{Aww, bless you. Ok, we'll just leave it to your imagination. I must say, I've seen you over at your User Page and it's really you who are the foxy one! ... we're just the other type :) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)}

^{^^One of the reasons I love volunteering here. Real people seeing each other as real people but having said that, you must surely be referring to the red fox jacket as being "foxy" because the dry suit image is closer to the "real me". , but please carry on and I, too, will bask in the wonders of the brilliant minds I've been so fortunate to experience here and throughout WP. Atsme📞📧 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)}

I'm stalking this page until the day I die because of this conversation. Cards84664 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good, goooood! Igor, add Mr. Cards to The List, will you?

I nearly died getting to the bottom of this talk page... *grrr, grrr*. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Sounds a little fatalistic.... but in case you get bored: [164].

What a perspicacious tool! It produced "Martin Evans is a totally overrated clown who speaks without knowing the facts". Robevans123 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

At this moment, I'm regretting that I have Hovercards enabled. Colonel "Ah! My eyes!" Klink (^{Peroxide Rinse}|_Blindfold)

Yes, Christmas just comes too early, these days.

...hovercard? ...schmovercard! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I hope you don't work with children. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't even work with animals. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't you mean work with animals? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

oh, shucks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert of edits adding country into US place articles

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

I've already answered you on this twice. First was in a thread you yourself opened [165], where you'll notice multiple editors joined in explaining why what you're doing is inappropriate. Second was in the edit summaries I used (e.g. [166]) in reverting your changes. I might also add that I only had to revert some of your changes, as the rest were reverted by various other editors before I got there. EEng 23:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I will respond there - suffice to say that a guideline relating to titles has no effect upon content; it is why the title of the guide refers only to that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Boilerplate notice

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Template:Z33

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

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

Our words should be as dry as dead bones in the desert? Where's the personal attack in that? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, what I was saying was that some people seem to think that articles should be dry as bones in the desert [167], which he says is a personal attack. Then this morning I got pinged into this maelstrom [168]. EEng 04:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a personal attack, its a straw man psychological projection and mischaracterization of everyone who disagrees with you about decorative quotation boxes, to character-assassinate them has holding a stupid/crazy position that they do not in fact hold, and thus a civility problem and, as a big extraneous sidebox jammed into an RfC discussion it probably qualifies as WP:POINT disruption. You should have had the grace to remove it when it was objected to.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not character assassination (!) to say that some (not "all") editors think that articles are supposed to be dry as dust. Lots of editors express such a view, asserting that dry, flat, cold = something they call "professional". Please now have the last word in this completely insane discussion on this trivial matter. EEng 13:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

COI

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

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

MfD nomination of User:EEng

User:EEng, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EEng and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:EEng during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• And people wonder why editors who actually write articles get pissed off at gnomes who tinker, fiddle, and fuss over nothing. EEng 07:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• As you were. But maybe think about archiving some of this talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Damn, I missed all the fun. I didn't know that we could delete editors! For a price, I know someone who can do that the old-fashioned way (joke). Or maybe just witness protection. Anyway, +1 to what NeilN said about archiving. Please, please, please. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Beginning of tasteless dick jokes

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

• "'Dicker' and 'dickering' redirect here. For other uses, see Dicker (disambiguation)." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC) [169]

• OMG, that DAB page! Dickering Wapentake? And I thought Spotted dick sounded weird! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"This dick tastes like banana bread with raisins..." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

For once, you came up with a YouTube link that I actually found interesting enough to watch through, and then watch several more that came after. (In fairness, several of the US foods are things that I've never seen in the US.) So, spotted dick comes in a can, and you can put your spotted dick in a microwave. Does that clear up the spots? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Shucks, will try better next time. Everyone knows that spotted dick comes from too much Fanny Cradock. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

and we all want our doughnuts to turn out like her's. Robevans123 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Martin, if you are trying better, you'll have to be more careful about talking about pulling a dick out of a Fanny! And how many Evans123 family members are there? Sounds like they are reproducing like Welsh rabbits. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"'Ere Tryppy, I 'ad that Evans family from St Mary-le-Bow in the back of me hutch last week." Evanevans1234 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• And WP:DICK is a soft redirect. Well, at least we must keep a stiff upper lip. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Horny Baby", anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, if that archiving is really happening, it might be better to put this section away sooner rather than later; for convenience, I've erected a section heading. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC) (And if you decide not to archive it, you could at least put it in a hat.... okay, I'm done now.)

There seems to be an awful lot of erection going on here... --Tryptofish (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

... you really missed my whole point about bargaining? At least we're down to a mere 238 threads now. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm a bit upset over this whole archiving business; it's just not right to deconstruct the only man-made talk page that can be seen from space. Perhaps I can dicker with EEng on the matter.... (bold and italics highlighting what was apparently MartinEvans123's point all along.) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are warped." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

End of dick jokes...?

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

EEng, ever thought of writing for a quality UK publication?? We were all waiting for a "full retraction". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Now open for votestacking, canfassing and general. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, it's nice to know my humble page brings enjoyment to so many. What's canfassing, and is it legal in all 50 states? EEng 20:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, am I officially in the 'nominated for deletion' club now? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

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 [170] 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)

Blatant

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

My third archive has size zero. Do the others have negative size? If you're looking for any kind of guidance from me, you must be desperate. EEng 03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)p

I'm desperate. How about archiving a lot more, and then transcluding the archives you cannot live without back to here? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, that's a great idea! I'll give that some thought. EEng 06:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd

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

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

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

Harvard University

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

Edits don't need sources; information one adds needs sources. I didn't add the information, just copyedited the text to say the same thing a different way. EEng 08:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• As I said, "the information you're adding" needs to be verified, per WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, it will likely be challenged and/or removed. If you've just moved info already sourced, please copy the source(s) to that section as well, to avoid confusion. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. If you think I did, show me the diff. EEng 08:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edit. X4n6 (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What information was added by that edit? EEng 08:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

01:35, 8 September 2016‎ . . (-404) . . could not find information added. - NQ (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My (talk page stalker)s for sure have too much time on their hands. If only all that talent, time and effort could be tamed and used for the betterment of humanity. EEng 09:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the source(s) for this information is/are listed elsewhere in the article, please also attach them here, or the edit risks being removed. X4n6 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I take it, by your failure to respond to my question, that you've realized that I added no new information. Since I didn't add it, I have no idea where it might be sourced. Why are you still wasting our time on this? Before you get any bright ideas, BTW, I remind you that BURDEN sets the standard for removal of unsourced material (outside BLPs) as being that you genuinely believe no source exists -- not just because you can challenge it. So please don't get any WP:POINTY ideas. EEng 09:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What you should have gleaned from my response, is that I had no interest in playing games. As you're clearly not interested in claiming ownership of this unsourced material - and since you appear equally disinterested in providing appropriate sources for it, I've removed it per WP:VERIFY. X4n6 (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And I've restored it. There's no reason for me to "take ownership" of this information since, as now both I and another editor have told you, I didn't add it. And VERIFY doesn't require, in order that material remain in an article, that it be verified, merely that it be verifiable. Did you make even the most basic attempt to find a source before engaging me in this nonsense waste of time? The fact that you can remove something unsourced doesn't mean you should, especially material this new and duly tagged . EEng 10:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.X4n6 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

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

WP:POLEMIC

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

Doc9871, I'm fairly certain that there quite a few in there disparaging Clinton (and Obama) as well. Just not nearly as many as there are for Trump. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a limit, in size and scope, when it comes to user pages. It's a little out of hand. I'm not running to report it, just noting it. Doc talk 10:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Everything on my user page is there either to increase other editors' pleasure in contributing (by providing modest amusement they can enjoy during breaks from editing) or to assist them in becoming more effective editors (by illustrating various aspects of Wikipedia as a social environment e.g. [171]). Democratic figures are featured as well as Republican (e.g. [172]) though unfortunately those opportunities don't arise very often, because e.g. Clinton and Obama just aren't as amusing. EEng 10:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That's cute! There's no question that you have a good sense of humor. For me, the thing is really this: why put your politics on display here? What purpose does it actually serve? Who really gives a crap if you're a liberal or a conservative? It's an allegedly unbiased encyclopedia. We should try to strive for neutrality. You're just showing your hand. I would take any edit you make in the political realm with a grain of salt as biased, based on your user page. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Granting for a moment, for the sake of argument, that I am indeed "showing my hand" via my user page, then I guess that would act as a sort of COI disclosure should I edit any political articles (which I don't). Editors aren't personally required to have a neutral point of view‍—‌only articles are. EEng 10:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. What I'm really getting at, in a roundabout way, is that you can't use your user page to store a ton of... "funny stuff" that is really not related to Wikipedia. That's what private webpages are for. MySpace, etc. The servers are not here to host comedy pages. Doc talk 10:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, as seen numerous places on my talk page (e.g. here), many editors find my userpage a refreshing place to take a break from editing or (e.g. here) to find "medicine against chronic wikidespair". Certainly that's good for the project. Thank you for the complement on my sense of humor, though not everyone agrees with you on that (image at right). EEng 11:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) I'm afraid I have to go back to bed now -- midnight snack -- but please visit The Museums frequently.

This is not a host for you to defame BLP subjects.[173] Don't restore that material. Doc talk 11:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doc, you're out of line. While I'm not necessarily a fan of the user's talk page, you've gone too far. First, you're being contradictory when you say you're not running to report the user's page - then you unilaterally choose to censor it? Second, you're also being hypocritical, as one of your own userboxes identifies you as a Republican. Why is it fine for you to "show your hand" but not this user? As for your claims of "defamation?" No wikilawyering please. Parody is protected speech. Per CENSOR, even on this project. So if there is a COI here, it's in your removal of content on another user's page. You know better. You need to self-revert - and if you don't, the user would be justified in reporting you. As the line goes, if it offends you - don't look. X4n6 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Images for Trump's family are listed on the pages they are used on Wikipedia. We don't use those images on a user's page under "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers". It's completely against BLP. Doc talk 11:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• First, personal pages are not BLPs. So I'm not seeing any validity to that argument. Second, again, parody is protected speech. Third, you're editing another user's page. Since you can spout policy vios, you're well aware of the many that violates, so don't make me list them. Fourth, you have a COI, so you're really not in the best position to complain. You just look like a pov pusher yourself. But again, if you are offended - or just humor challenged - I'd suggest you just not engage further with this user or his page. But if you are too vexed, vigilantism is still not the answer. It all too often boomerangs. Take it to the proper forum. Where - as you probably already now - you'll likely get told exactly what I've already said. And risk possible sanctions yourself for vandalizing a user's personal page. But the choice is yours. X4n6 (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Meh. Ya know, if you put a little effort into it instead of just straight-up deriding, it could actually be amusingly clever and inoffensive. Think SNL humor. "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers" is desperate. Work on the material and get back to me. Doc talk 12:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And to all a goodnight! X4n6 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

POLEMIC? I didn't know one could use polecats? Hmm, "childish and irresponsible"... which politician immediately springs to mind there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that if we start prohibiting editors from expressing their political opinions on their user pages, there are an awful lot of user boxes that will have to be removed. And as for the dividing line between acceptable commentary, and commentary that "goes too far", there is no practical way to establish a consensus as to where that line would be. A user page is not an article for our readers. If one does not like a particular user page, then don't look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

... or else just put up a good sturdy fence? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What's the problem with Pole Mics?

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

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

Um, excuse me, Miss Litella, I believe that's... —Steve Summit (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What was that?

Never mind. Bitch (sotto voce). Robevans123 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

On a side note...

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

If Trump wins, I have little doubt that most of the participants on this page won't be worrying, or even thinking, about anything much longer anyway. EEng 23:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And when I hear people say "If Trump wins", I laugh. There's a fine line between comedy and tragedy, isn't there? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Nonetheless, if you read a good history covering the rise of Hitler during the period 1930-1933 (e.g., Ian Kershaw's two-volume bio) there are some very interesting parallels. I don't think Trump is plotting mass extermination. But the electoral tactics and the appeal of authoritarianism to disaffected segments of the populace, "restore our former glory" type rhetoric, laying the blame for national decline on certain ethnic groups and the like are strikingly similar. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to Hitler I don't recall that he was plotting mass extermination when he first came to power either. In the present case, time will tell. EEng 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolute fucking nonsense. Talk about "fear-mongering"?! Just pathetic. Doc talk 15:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a well-reasoned reply: Godwin's Law. Read the last sentence in the paragraph. Doc talk 16:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't seem to have read Godwin's recent article [174] cited by the very sentence you link, nor the Peter Bergen piece (cited with approval, in turn, by Godwin in that same article) which concludes that Trump is indeed a fascist, with only the exception that he's not (yet) openly calling for violence. Godwin's Law warns against glib comparisons to fascism, not all such comparisons.

That otherwise seemingly intelligent persons continue to deny what is so obviously going on here is the reason I opened my very first post on Trump with Huxley: "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach."

Now, if I may, I would like to exercise the Museum Curator's privilege by asking that this debate be halted. It's not in keeping with the spirit of fun I like to promote here. EEng 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, Trump's campaign has made explicit (but dog-whistle, so plausibly deniable) call-outs to actual neo-nazis. Or did you miss the significance of the 88 in his "88 generals" endorsement? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop that. Stop it. Will you stop that. Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say "Trump is a fascist." EEng 17:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And with that, EEng gets the trains running on time again. Now if he could only archive his fucking talk page.... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, surely Colonel Wilhelm Klink would be in a position to know. EEng 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hogannnn!!! Doc talk 08:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dis-missed! Hmmph! But anyway, sidestepping the somewhat dubious origins of my username, perhaps it's time to bring this conversation to a close, no? Nothing constructive can come out of it at this point. Que sera sera, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hostilities resume

At 0028 hours local time, I mentioned [175] that "My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment." Within hours...

...the following post was transferred here from another page... I really didn’t see your "final answer"[176] until today. I was amused, but not in a good way. You’ve been here since 2006, and yet you claim to know more than me about several things. Here’s a few where you’re totally dead wrong: WP:BLP, very first sentence: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.” Any page actually applies to what you deem to be “personal pages”. Parody is protected speech… by whom? Wikipedia? This is a private website, not a government. BLP policy is normally strictly enforced here over "parody". Editing another user’s page does not violate "many" policies. I don’t even know what that means. What policies? Meh... You have zero evidence of me having a COI on anything. On what are you basing that accusation? It’s one of several personal attacks you used to dismiss legitimate concerns. I'm also a “POV pusher”, “vigilante”, and a “vandal”. The vandalism charge is just truly ignorant of policy. Very sad for an editor of your tenure. Why did EEng not consider it vandalism? Because... it wasn't! Amazing... So, this is really not an insult; please don’t take it as one. In the future: know what the hell you’re talking about before you chastise an editor who’s been around as long as me. I predict that you'll just erase this thread with a nasty edit summary and not even take any consideration to what I wrote. Doc talk 06:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC) ...and the fireworks began... As you can see, Doc, I've moved your post above from my talk page, where you saw fit to leave it - a full ten days after this was discussed - to where it belongs. Here. If anywhere. Beyond that, my own responses will be of appropriate length, even though, so many days later, I truly care less than a tinker's damn. But first, an admonition: kindly stay the hell off my talk page with this kind of crap. Any need you had for a 10 day old rebuttal belonged here. Or just screamed at the top of your lungs inside your bathroom. As someone who has "been around as long as me" - you really should know that. However, it must also be noted that, the only likely reason you posted on my talk, was so other editors, like Patient Zero, who reverted you; or Tryptofish, whose advice, similar to mine, you also ignored; or Martinevans123 and Robevans123, who were amused by your woeful misuse of polemic; or Colonel Wilhelm Klink, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and David Eppstein, who challenged your pov, as well as your grasp of logic. But so much for all that now. Oops. Still, since frankly, I can't resist a point-by-point refutation of your polemic: 1) This project grants "considerable leeway" on userpages, per WP:USERPAGE. Also, your cherry-picked, yet painful misinterpretation of WP:BLP is pretty transparently wrong - as the very next sentence following your quote is: "We must get the article right. You've "been around" long enough to know that userpages are not articles. 2) As I tried to explain to you, parody is not only protected speech, but it also does not form the basis for a defamation tort. Your response was "by whom? Wikipedia? This is a private website, not a government.". The subjects of the parody are also public figures. So I'll just direct you to the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruling can be read at Opinion of the Court. In brief: ""At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. ...Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here."[177] So, put both politely and succinctly: your claims of injury, defamation, or any other potential liability to this project, from the clearly intended parody posted on a userpage - are all crap. With that, I'll also advise you - perhaps preemptively - that the Wikimedia Foundation is an American non-profit organization; and as such, is subject to all the applicable laws of the United States. 3) You also wrote "Editing another user’s page does not violate "many" policies...". While I note the irony that you named your section: "On Policy", as you don't appear to understand any. So again, maybe study up on WP:USERPAGE, particularly WP:UP#OWN, WP:NOBAN, WP:USERTALKBLOG, WP:UP#DELETE, then WP:DISC and WP:UNCENSORED. The procedure is clear. As I said, you could have reported a userpage that you felt violated policy. Instead, you got on your high horse and tried to unilaterally impose your will. Like Wyatt Earp. Or Barney Fife. 4) "You have zero evidence of me having a COI on anything." Really? Besides your strident responses here, here, here, here and even when politely asked to stop, your response here, before finally relenting here. But no... this edit, was a purely non-partisan edit and in now way a COI, coming from a totally non-pov pushing user whose own political biases are impossible to read - except for the years that you've felt the need to self identify as a Republican on your userpage. Or the comments you've made here. So tell me again the one about the "zero evidence" I have. Also, as to your claim that: "The vandalism charge is just truly ignorant of policy. Very sad for an editor of your tenure. Why did EEng not consider it vandalism? Because... it wasn't! Amazing... Tell ya what: while you're bringing yourself up to speed on all the other WP links I've already given you, add this one to your homework. From the policy on WP:VANDALISM, the section "User and user talk page vandalism": "Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism." It was. And I did. Finally, as regards this little passive-aggressive gem: "So, this is really not an insult; please don’t take it as one. In the future: know what the hell you’re talking about before you chastise an editor who’s been around as long as me." Here's my response in summary: a) Stay the hell off my talk page with this waste of my time. Especially when I was right; b) In the future, know what the hell you're talking about; c) Stop pov pushing anywhere on this project; and d) Before you try to throw weight around that you don't have - you should know that someone who really had "been around", would have been smart enough to check the Users list first - to know with whom they were talking. So you've been "around" over "eight years?" Want a cookie? I've been around over ten. One more thing: I responded. So much for that last prediction: "I predict that you'll just erase this thread with a nasty edit summary and not even take any consideration to what I wrote." Seems your predictions are as empty as your other claims. But careful what you ask for, huh? But hey, feel free to come up with whatever tortured little allegedly clever defense/harangue/riposte/screed you'd like, okay? Yawn. While I, out of respect for both EEng's talk page; as well as my own natural inclination in this case, will blissfully return to caring less than a fraction of a damn. X4n6 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Your WP:LASTWORD smarm can go suck an egg. The disussion was already way over! I wrote that on your page... 3 days ago. We've moved on. You're certainly not convincing me, or anyone else, of anything with your addition. Piss. Off. Doc talk 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Wow. Is it OK come to somone else's Talk Page, to edit war and tell a third party to piss off? Or does the careful use of that piss period mean it's not a real insult? I guess it's pretty much up to EEng what he wants on his Talk Page. Much like his User Page, really. By the way, I was fully convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. sorry if I've "trumped" your WP:LASTWORD last word.

Henry Trengrouse

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

If you'll scare up some good sources on the rocket thing, we could put together a new article with a catchy DYK:

...that a 19th-century shipwreck victim might find a rocket coming toward him?

Something like that. EEng 20:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow yes, just gagging for that "quirky eighth slot". Fram never gives anyone a rocket, does he. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your page is to be enshrined

		By Order of the Illuminators Puirsuivant in Waiting
		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)

• Note: "just one swallow does not a sommers make". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC) ... a typical night on the Gwent Levels

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

Notice of shrines for unenshrinement

Great. Now I'm in the middle of an enshrinement war. Anyway, I think the word is unshrinement. EEng 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean disenshrinification. HTH, HAND. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Trypto needs to be careful - he might bring down the wrath of the cabal of antidisenshrinificationists. Robevans123 (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Who, me? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Your "threats" against JamesJohnson2

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

Get in line, Mr. Pants. EEng 17:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

.. whereas most other editors think of you like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

:) EEng 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It's much better than being thought of like this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Pants, I could get you blocked at ANI for even suggesting that. EEng 19:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

oooh! nice pony. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

This user is an indented servant.

Indented servitude -- that's hysterical. EEng 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It narrowly won in a product comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And now, we have to figure out how to pronounce "l'EEng". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a flier on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• PBS, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I've responded in detail on your talk page [178]. (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)

Favor

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

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

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

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

The Great and Powerful Oz has decided to grant your puny request! However, DYK rules forbid the same person from both copyediting (or doing any significant editing) and also acting as reviewer. So which do you want? Personally I'd rather copyedit, as I haven't done much reviewing for a while and I'm rusty at it. EEng 14:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying to amend and copy edit things now, in advance of any review, but if you'd prefer copyediting, I'd appreciate your eyes, oh great one ;) -Darouet (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Use title case when referencing The Wizard, insect! And it's 'O' not 'Oh' i.e. "O Great One". You are obviously in desperate need of a good copyeditor! The Great and Powerful Oz will attend to the task before the end of one of your puny Earth days! EEng 14:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha, please do not end my days O Great One: they are so puny! Why trouble Yourself to even consider them? My days are as grass, they pass like the wind; the storms hurl me from my place, and the tempests steal me away in the night!

Seriously though I have no idea how you copyeditors do it. -Darouet (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Beware, lowly Darouet. He calls himself Oz, but admits he's "a little rusty". Need I say more? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thank you EEng! -Darouet (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh. No doubt he'll be telling you next all about the rains down in Africa Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In The News

Skittles. Yep.[179] Doc talk 07:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I really don't want my talk page to become a debate venue, but I can hardly imagine what we're supposed to conclude from the fact that you've referred us to a New York Post piece by John Podhoretz for what you apparently think is a serious purpose. EEng 07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You're using your user page as a venue. What's wrong with discussing things here? Are you saying I can't post here? Doc talk 07:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment. (Wiki-related matters provide enough of the former.) Keeping that in mind, you are a welcome and valued member of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng 07:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of debates: wow! It's already here! Monday, 9PM EST! None of us know what to expect, really. Just a crazy ride we're all on. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It can now be revealed that I'm the Trump stand-in Clinton's been using in preparing for the debate, so in fact I can say with confidence that I do know what will happen. Unfortunately I can't tell you. Sorry. EEng 07:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not bothering to file a tax return to the IRS for more years than I can shake a stick at. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sniff, sniff. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Return of the bodice-ripping bots

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

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

Please comment on Talk:List of bus routes in London

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

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

et voila. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Harvard University

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. X4n6 (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• <rolls eyes> EEng 09:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Purely pro forma, baby. You do what you need to do - then let's dance. X4n6 (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, are you taking your medication? EEng 20:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not OR

Re: [180]. Firstly, it's really poor form to roll back a whole edit, taking it with other improvements and corrections. If you think a particular sentence violates policy, you should just do something about that.

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

Stevage, I've enjoyed working with you on the article, so please let's not fall out over something like this.

• I don't believe my undo (which you link above) removed anything other than the statement that When he was just seven, the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge began, its northwestern on-ramp passing directly in front of the family home; but if it did, that must be very subtly hidden in the diff. For my peace of mind, can you give me an example of one of the "other improvements and corrections" that my edit removed?
• Making such a statement, sourced only thus

<ref>40.71078°N 74.00341°W / 40.71078; -74.00341 (55 Frankfort St, New York City)</ref>

(so that, presumably, we're supposed to click on the map and conclude that his birthplace address is opposite a Brooklyn Bridge ramp) is absolutely OR. How was the address converted into coordinates? How do we know the street wasn't renumbered at some point (which happens more often than people realize)? How do we know when, during the seven years it took to build the bridge, the ramps were constructed? Was he living there the whole time from his birth until the ramps were constructed?

Since, for whatever reason, you've brought this issue here to my talk page, I'm going to invite members of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers to check out the diff you linked and opine on the OR question. In the meantime, I ask that you reconsider and remove this material yourself. It can't be passed for DYK with this issue outstanding. EEng 07:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Having recently been exhibited at the Museum of Intelligent Life (I'm quite capable of making an exhibition of myself, thank you very much), and now being regarded as part of the glitterati I'm obviously moving in the right circles, but I have to agree that The Great and Powerful Oz is correct in thinking that the early life of someone cannot be inferred from some coordinates... Robevans123 (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Only the lonely

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

Thanks, Cryptofish [181]. EEng 05:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

But are there any hot particles in hot pockets? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That should be Cryptofish, or if there is a pair, Cryptofishs! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll never find me! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump takes the podium

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

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

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

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

Hijiri88, see [182] and [183]. As you'll see from my edit summary I agree with you, but with the adjacent posts talking of small-r republicanism and so on I'm sure most people realized who was who, and I didn't feel like making a fuss. Have you visited The Museums? EEng 22:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Don'tcha Wish Ya Hill'ry Was Hot Like Me?" - the Dolly Cat Pussies feat. Busta Trump. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You are one sick puppy. EEng 13:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Bicycle Thieves

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

MOS linking within quotes - strikeout

You appear to have struck out the wrong version in this edit. Blueboar withdrew the suggestion, but you struck-out Mitch Ames's version. Please fix this ASAP, before the discussion gets even more confusing. 139.130.72.214 (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Rico Harris

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

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

Fussing over userpage content

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

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

Talk page clutter

Ribbet

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

Please comment on Talk:1

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

Forget it. Next you'll want 2, then 3... Where will it end? EEng 04:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at that talkpage, I'm afraid the discussion will turn out less like

"Okay, we've settled on a solution for 1. Now how about 2?"

...but instead more like:

"I say it should be 1 AD."

"1 CE is more neutral."

"You atheist! Clearly, it should 1 AD, to reflect common usage!"

"I think, if we use AD, we should prefix it, while CE should always be suffixed. With a grave accent over the E.""

"How about we use (year) to end the religious issues?""

"That's not common usage!! But it's common style on Wikipedia! But it's not—it's—uh—" Editor's head explodes from the contradiction, causing mild confusion as to whether (Gregorian year) or (Julian year) would be more appropriate.

"That previous RfC simply does not show enough consensus. I will take legal action against the Year Name Cabal!!"

...until the discussion sinks to the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and everyone agrees on the eminently sensible [insert your favorite disambiguation here].

Now, to do something useful before I clutter up this talkpage any more... Eman235/talk 16:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I know someone who may be able to contribute usefully. Paging Hertz1888. EEng 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Disgusting words

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

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

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hi,

Great edits on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article!

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

CaroleHenson, I think I better restrict myself to strictly stylistic copyedits, staying away from anything substantive. If you check out my user page you'll see why. EEng 05:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I missed this, but we got there pretty quickly!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I just wanted to thank you for your hard work on the article, and encourage you to keep it up despite the obvious difficulties. It's important. EEng 03:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, That is so very nice of you! Your second comment is lovely and very much appreciated! I do get frustrated sometimes, but mostly I think it's a really good group working on the article, and the individual efforts come together in a lovely synergistic way. It's so nice to see how many editors, like you, make great edits and keep the article in great shape! (I hope that makes sense, I'm getting a little punchy!)--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

Please stop

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

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

Though I love the bit where he refers to Goebbels as "Skeletor", I actually think this [184] is better. Just to be clear (as you know, but for the benefit of eavesdroppers) I would never seriously compare anyone to Hitler -- that would be a BLP violation. EEng 01:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely! A purely jocular interjection on my part. I did like the references to Celebrity Apprentice and haircuts though. Robevans123 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I expect we'll get a bunch of people turning up saying RfA is rigged and all Republican editors get strong oppose !votes for no reason. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that people aren't saying that proves there's a conspiracy to suppress the truth. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

From now on, I'm going to keep everyone in suspense about whether or not I'll accept the results at AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Just in case you need a little light relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Marshall Newell

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

Dashes are difficult to distinguish from hyphens in the edit window, so using symbolics (–, {{ndash}}) makes it immediately obvious that the right character is present. (Had I noticed I would have changed the remaining –s to symbolics as well; I won't do that now since I don't want to appear WP:POINTY.) Your idea about "the preferred way of doing things" is an illusion. As my edit summary in moving the coaching record table indicated, I'm not sure of the right way to introduce the table, and you're welcome of course to improve that. EEng 04:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What's not an illusion is the several years I've spent collaborating with a number of editors to standardize both those endashes and those record tables across thousands of articles. You are welcome to acknowledge that reality whenever you care to. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Also not an illusion is the phenomenon of editors working in this or that narrow sector of the vast Wikipedia enterprise misinterpreting the happenstance of their personal experience for a universal status quo. If there's a guideline or policy backing up your claims about markup, you are welcome to point it out whenever you care to. As to the table, I am now for the third time inviting you to modify it, or its heading or lead-in text, however you think best; but it does not belong sitting alone in its own section. EEng 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Are the wikicoded endashes in Pearl Jam or Tyrannosaurus, two featured articles that fall outside my "narrow sector", an illusion? If you have a problem with that table heading, take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football or related project. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither two featured articles nor two thousand featured articles would establish that there's some universal rule -- a policy or guideline would (might) do that, and I note you've declined my invitation to point to one. I say now for the fourth time that I don't care about the table heading and you're free to make it whatever you want.

I have to go back to actually improving articles now, and you have to go back to adding wikiproject templates and fiddling with categories and changing markup in ways that don't affect what the reader sees and other busywork, so I'd like to draw this particular discussion over nothing to a close. Please be my guest and embarrass yourself one final time by having the last word now. EEng 14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You are indeed a smart ass and a disrespectful child as well. When you want to come back to the adult table, I'm here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night. For future reference, smartass is one word, or you could hyphenate it: smart-ass. Thanks for playing our game, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng 17:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

No barnstar is better than this barnstar, believe me!

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

Please comment on Talk:Klaatu

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

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

Disruption at WT:MOS

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

For those playing along at home, Mandruss is talking about this comment [185]. Mandruss, I have great respect for you as an editor, but on this point you're being ridiculous, particularly your idea that "arguing against consensus is disruption by definition". Consensus can change (though I don't hold out much hope in this case) and if it does, it's because someone spoke up and said something most everyone else disagreed with. EEng 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the respect is generally mutual (and I like your humor when good-natured and in a situation where it's not in the way of important discussion). Also this comment.[186]
Yes consensus can change, but there are better ways to seek it than to make off-topic comments and see who supports you there. Try to imagine a scenario where your comments sparked an outpouring of MOS:LQ opposition in that thread which resulted in the elimination of that guideline. I think that's a highly implausible scenario. That kind of thing needs the structure provided by the RfC format. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

<extends hand to shake> No hard feelings, pal. LQ is, unfortunately (not that it matters all that much) here to stay, so there's no point in an RfC or whathaveyou. However, I think there's benefit to the occasional subversive aside now and then, just to remind others who may think they're alone that in fact they're not the only ones who have avoided being absorbed into the Borg. EEng 09:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough compromise. Subversive aside noted and on the record. Thank you. Now I hope we can stick to the topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If 30 other editors each invoke their right to a subversive aside (why should you be special?), and that collectively makes it very difficult to make progress on the thread topic, I think that would reveal a flaw in your approach. Maybe that's premature. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll try and think of something suitably subversive. Hey you guys, try not to beat yoursleves up so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Subversion: Mandruss asked about EEng's ejaculations at WT:MOS, but maybe they were premature. But don't worry, EEng's hands are just fine, I guarantee you that! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a good reason why Wikipedians(,) at large(,) [see?] exhibit a strong bias in favour of LQ: As you, EEng, have apparently already intuited or even implied, Wikipedia attracts the sort of people who have internalised the fact that – at least in many contexts highly relevant to them – punctuation matters. And who are simply prone to arguing about (what some would call) "stupid, pointless crap". (Or, alternatively, "stupid, pointless crap.") That said, given that LQ has already commonly been called thus since at least the 1960s and had already been in use before that, your assertion that it "was devised by people who mistake English punctuation for a programming language" is almost certainly incorrect. (Interestingly, a reader's comment at the linked Slate article cites an unnamed source alleging that the American convention arose due to a practical consideration in the age of the metal movable-type printing press!) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Tucker (squirrel)

"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)

Nuts!

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 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)

• 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

	Quirky Hook of the Year
	A toast for the quirkiest hook of the year with Juanita Musson, currently appearing in Prep 5. Job well done. — Maile (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• For those playing along at home, Maile's talking about this DYK item:

... that Juanita's Galley was noted for a "fabulous" breakfast, potluck, the proprietor's "unpredictable disposition", and a 40-person brawl featuring car jacks, pipes, steel bars, a fishbowl and an ax?

Like screenwriters, we hookers labor largely in obscurity. By taking time out to visit, Maile66, you've brought a ray of sunshine into the life of an otherwise forgotten shut-in. EEng 00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I sort of doubt I'll be able to get through election night without drinking heavily. But I'll give it my best effort. GABgab 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To what do I owe this cordial visit? EEng 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, something is brewing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I just like visiting museums, such as the ones you curate. GAB^gab 18:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just making a joke on "brewing", not really implying that something odd is going on! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Decaf

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

Dark November Nights

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Dental caries

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

I need this like I need a hole in the head. EEng 13:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

So I guess you are not going to bite? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Good one. I'm obviously slipping. EEng 22:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Citing

California Penal Codes

Hi again EEng. I don't know if you know anything about the citation of penal codes, but I've asked at the Teahouse and before that at the Help desk without much avail. I'm trying to cite these two links: [187] and [188] at Ronald Reagan. I could just leave the links in-line, but I'm not sure whether or not that's MOS or not. Please help. Many thanks,--Nevé–selbert 20:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, Neve-selbert, legal citation has a lot of prissy detail used to frighten newcomers, but if I really needed to cite one in an article I'd just do the best I could, not worry about it, and let someone who knows that they're doing come along and fix it. Here's something which might help [189].

But I looked at the article and there's a deeper problem. First, I don't see the need to cite (much less link) the specific penal code section. It's already referred to as the Mulford Act, with a link to an article discussing that act, and that's really enough. Even if you wanted to name the specific penal code section, you'd need to get that from a reliable source, which would give you the citation format; to determine the code section yourself would be WP:OR. And there's another problem: codes get reorganized and amended, so there's a real problem of knowing that you're citing and linking the most up-to-date statute (and in fact one of your links doesn't even seem to work). So, again, I'd just link to the Mulford Act and and leave it at that. If there's some text from the statute which readers should know about, that should come from a RS too. EEng 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

So, I should I just remove those links from the article altogether then?--Nevé–selbert 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's my suggestion. If there's something we're missing then someone will revert and then you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Good luck! EEng 00:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Death certificate

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

Official records and so on take some creativity. I'd give it as

Death certificate for Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher, 8 April 2013, BAY 326211, Entry No. 194.

However, there's an issue here a bit similar to the one for the Cal. statute, which is that this is a WP:PRIMARY source, and would not typically be cited to support a fact given in an article e.g. for the cause of death. I know that sounds strange but there are good reasons for this e.g. sometimes such records get amended; thus we depend on secondary sources (e.g. a good biography, which would have researched the question) for such information. The only way I would foresee using such a document is as an image per se, placed in the article to illustrate something mentioned in the article e.g. if there was something interesting or memorable about the document itself. You'll find three examples of such primary images (two newspaper reports and the burial record), appropriately used, at Phineas_Gage#Death_and_exhumation – you'll notice no facts are cited to these images, rather the images illustrate facts cited to secondary sources. There's a long discussion, by yours truly, of these kinds of issues here [190]. EEng 22:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Most sources state that she died of a stroke. If I just added "Stroke" to the death_cause = parameter & added a footnote linking to the said death certificate suggesting that she specifically died of an ischaemic stroke, would that be OK?--Nevé–selbert 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your post until now, Neve-selbert. (It was election day.) That would still be going beyond what the secondary sources say. If it really was an i. stroke specifically, there should be some secondary source saying that, specifically. Try papers of record like The Times and The (New York) Times. EEng 06:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't think of doing that. Anyway, I've since added merely Stroke to said parameter; as it was this time last year.--Nevé–selbert 15:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks

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

I watched the clip, and was not impressed - don't care about the Trump part, just the bullhonkey about Brexit - so am unable to resist responding to it. We've had this little Brexit incident where we voted to leave the European Union. Ah, not that most of us wanted to of course, no no. It was just those people who bothered to vote. Poppycock, you regressives wanting to undermine the democratic process. You had your opportunity, and despite the largest voter turnout for anything in who knows how long (if ever), you lost. You self-righteous buggards. Democracy may be the worst system, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I get that this is meant to be a joke, so no hate directed towards anybody, except for "SavetheDay" as they seem to genuinely believe the hogwash they spread. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as it's clear most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so, it's apparent that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, either. Saying so isn't an attempt to undermine the democratic process, but rather a call to strengthen its foundation, which is an educated and informed electorate. I thought the video was brilliant (in the sense in which the English use the word). EEng 18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I hate to point out but your choices in the U.S. give you the option between a liar and an idiot. [I]t's apparently that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, I don't think you could be more wrong. The proof will be in the pudding - if it ever gets baked. The EU is looking more like a trojan horse to me everyday. [A]n educated and informed electorate - you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. There's plenty of informed voters who voted for and against Brexit and whether you like it or not, there's plenty of informed voters voting for Hillary and Trump. Same info, different outcome. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. I don't know whether that's the way you operate, but it's not the way I do. However, facts are facts, and since the overwhelming majority of self-described Trump supporters still think that Obama was born in Kenya, there would seem to be a severe informedness gap. As for Brexit, interviews post election show that many, if not most, Yes voters could not describe coherently what the EU is or does, or even pick it out on a multiple-choice list of descriptions of important international organizations.

However, as I have with other such threads on the page, I would like to declare this debate closed. This page is meant for discussions about improving the encyclopedia, or to provide pleasant relief for editors from the humdrum cares of editing – not political debate. EEng 19:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't engage further except for one minor detail; I don't know whether that's the way you operate - If it were I'd be utterly confounded as to your support of Clinton. As it so happens I am not. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Then I don't see why you ascribed that attitude to me. Anyway, thanks for understanding. EEng 19:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Refer my talk page - unintended consequence of the phrasing. I do not think you hold that attitude. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Gropenfuhrer

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

My, this is a close election. Not nearly as comically one-sided as projected, yes? Perhaps that can make its way into the "museum"? Doc talk 06:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

If we can think of something comic to say about it, yes. EEng 06:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, we've certainly trumped Brexit now, have we? Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 08:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I for one support Brexit. As for the Donald, well, we'll have to wait and see. I had a comic thought about a short trump speech; Trump on the Birther Movement; "She started it", Everybody else; Mr Trump... t-this is the third presidential debate. Not kindergarten. Trump: Wrong! Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• ".... most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so", dearest EEng you will next be telling us that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woods (as long as the woods aren't Canadian or Mexican, in which case they just "perform" on the wall instead). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Jeepers. And we all thought Dubya was an "odd choice". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Good to see Donald Tump is having trouble with his "R"s - lets hope nobody throws an elbow into the discussion... Robevans123 (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

When they go low, we go high.

• Dear EEng: Like many editors here, I am very saddened to learn of the executive order to have you deported to Mexico. Truly, I have enjoyed editing with you. As for me, when they go low, we go high, and several states approved legal cannabis, so I intend to spend the next four years getting high. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"The Cuervo Gold, The fine Colombian, Make tonight a wonderful thing". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. Guantanamo isn't in Mexico. EEng 18:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Enemy of the State: Do not question the KGB! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think Trump would send anybody to detention camps. He's got the mind of a businessman: while some people would turn to imprisonment, Trump (taking after his good friend, of course) sees a cheap labor source to build his wall. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

My colleagues started drinking around 10:00 PM. It's a shame I can't hold anything stronger than Virgil's. GAB^gab 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"Remember kids, a Donald Trump isn't just for Christmas". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Tucker

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

Well, imagine if we'd called him a cross-dresser! EEng 15:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Or even a Welsh dresser? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. "YGM", "'ere, EEngie mate, leave it aht,will ya?": [191]

Leave it to you to inject something dirty into wholesome kids' entertainment. BTW, did you know we're part of a gay-bashing lynch mob [192]? EEng 23:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Leave it arht, me ol' china!! Just keep your marf shut, okay?? .. or me and Billy will 'ave to send the boys rahnd. In all clubs you get the occasional drunk and they 'ave to be slung arht. I intend to get married as soon as possible and Billy just wants to be left alone." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

[193], of course. EEng 02:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A song for you

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

Challenge accepted, chump. I'll nominate in due course. How about:

... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT (Fuck Donald Trump)"?

EEng 11:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Could we not get "a ape in heels" in here somehow: [194]? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Well, Ritchie333, you certainly made this suggestion at just the right moment. But now that the excitement's over, let's go ahead. I supplied the hook, so you make the nomination; I don't want to tempt fate. EEng 03:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't long enough yet. Let me see if I can ferret out a review of the single - that should do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I decided to "play it safe" and throw up a conversation at WT:DYK#FDT first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, you guys. Poor Donald. You make me sick. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, Ritchie333, looks like I win again. EEng 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Wikipedia is not about winning. Now go back to Old Kent Road. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement notice

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

Required notice

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 [195] to see the original comment. EEng 17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Userpage

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

Hooker

Hooker

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".[196] 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)

• [197]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Brilliantly fashioned, if I may presume that my humble opinion is of any value. EEng 22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is (your opinion being of value, that is, although I also agree about the brilliant part), and thank you! The office pool is now open for estimates of the time that will elapse before some defender of the wiki will come along and want me blocked or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I should, on request, email people each one little little bit of The Old Museums for them to add to their user pages. Kind of spread it around. EEng 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, like fertilizer or influenza. (Just don't attempt to email your talk page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD favor?

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

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Maile (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to lift a finger! – EEng

Your answer is on its way, Maile. EEng

I have the best (talk page stalker)s! EEng 02:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Er...is that your selfie? — Maile (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Stay right where you are, Maile. EEng 03:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Moratorium on circumlocutions for boomerangs

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

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 [198].) 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)

People afraid to call Nazis what they are

You're being mentioned, indirectly, here, where another editor is calling you "surreptitious" for calling Nazis Nazis. (Actual Nazis, not the modern ersatz ones.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you're unaware of the general circus Lava Baron is putting on at WT:DYK. EEng 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) I said "disingenuous" (not straightforward or candid). If it's in the hook, why can't it be in the article? (The article is what looks disingenuous to me.) Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary to explain that WW2 Germany was a (the) Nazi state any more than it's necessary to explain that the "American president" is the "President of the United States". EEng 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

FirstLast-ever close

If one editor is warned not to insult and the other trouted for reverting, how was that a content dispute? And I am being nice here to you... Debresser (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns my close at [199]. Don't do me any favors. ANI is for serious stuff, not someone calling you a bad name. You got your warning and your trout, so go back to improving articles. EEng 06:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not much fun improving articles, when other editors can obstruct you from doing that and can call you names for trying too. I have been along for over 8 years, and believe me that I have seen drama. This was not a content issue but a behavioral one, for which the other editor was rightfully warned, so you made the wrong call calling this a content issue. Now you can play the lofty admin who per definition is right, but just that you should know, you weren't, and it won't be the first or the last time. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Who made EEng an admin? I demand they return their tools - the ones they don't have - right now. In all seriousness, the warning and trout I handed out were most probably the best scenario outcome. I don't think a block or PBAN were on the cards. Hell, if I hadn't handed out the warning myself, they mightn't even received one. Furthermore, the editor - who's name is too convoluted for me to spell from memory (Nomoskedacity I think?) - remains in denial that their comment constitutes an NPA violation and at least a few of the editors were far less concerned with the incivility then they were with their interpretation of the equal representation issue on the article. Where's the equal representation of women at Nazism? there's women nazi's as well and right now that article is 100% dominated by men. The injustice of it all. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comes to mind. Besides, unless they cross the line further, a warning for a first offence is what is expected anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem necessarily with the closing of the ANI, but the warning, and possibly trout, should have been mentioned in the close. It was not JUST a content dispute, as you mentioned there was an NPA issue and that is what brought the case to ANI. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... fair enough actually. If EEng wants to they can put "content dispute if I ever saw one with PA's and EW - for which warnings have been administered - to boot". If that would more accuaretly summarize the thread. That's up to EEng though. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about righting great wrongs, but I think that should stay on the talk page, until it gets to be a big disruption. If I weren't involved, I would have closed it with the mention of a warning, so that it can be seen in the future should it be needed and that is why closing statements are important. I would also use the NAC template which is what is usually required for a non-admin closure. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Now I see why admins are all so cranky. [200] EEng 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL I have to admit, that you have a sense of humor. I say that regarding your section header. Okay, so you f-ed up your first close. No big deal. Go forth and be fruitful. :) Debresser (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, watch it with the gay jokes! EEng 12:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Go forth and sin no more than strictly necessary... Kleuske (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I hope you've learned a valuable lesson about closing discussions in good faith! AlexEng^(TALK) 06:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that lesson is: don't close discussions. Pardon me, but are we related? EEng 06:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've learned that lesson as well. We might be related. Does the "Eng" stand for "Engineering?" It does for me. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It does, but I wouldn't read too much into that. EEng 06:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Too late. I've told everyone I know. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Luckily that's you and your imaginary friend, you engineering nerd. EEng 06:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Excuse you. I remind you of Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. I can take it, but Baxter is sensitive. Stand by for ANI. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Alex's friend Baxter

Transmit to Baxter my apologies. EEng 07:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please sign

I totally agree with your ANI closure. But please sign it, as is the custom. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

That's it, no more closing. Too much pressure! EEng 00:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In other news...

EEng, may I briefly lift your spirits with news that Trump may be getting indeffed ... kind of Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't anyone think of this before? Now let's see if he sockpuppets. EEng 18:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Now we'll be sending ground troops into Twitter. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Laugh while you still can. EEng 04:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Any minute now, an admin is going to come along and delete me because I violated BLP or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Worry

Thank you in advance for the new Museum. I do worry and thank heavens am not alone. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely

Just wanted to clarify that, even within the collapsed echo-chamber, it was getting increasingly annoying for at least one of the participants as well as for anyone else who might have been trying to read it. I was honestly hoping someone would (again) come along and tell us to shut up so that I would have an excuse to stop replying and not have it look like I was deliberately ignoring him just to be antagonistic (believe it or not that actually happened before). I will try to take your advice, and I hope he does too.

Anyhow, my main reason for posting this here is just to clarify that the "thank you" I just gave you was not meant ironically. Believe it or, not, that is also something that has happened on at least two occasions (I was the one receiving the ironic thanks; I don't know if my thanks have been interpreted ironically).

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Glad to be of service. EEng 01:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your recent ANI comment

Don't you think that, in this context, you should have put quotation marks around the words "professional" and "wrestling", as I have done here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A great idea for a research project

Go through various noticeboards, and catalog the subject area that produced complaints for some thousands of random threads, which can be normalized by the number of articles/edits in mainspace articles of that subject. Should make for an interesting read - hopefully someone does it, and we can get support for your proposals. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been saying this for years. Instead of # of articles, I think the right metric would be page views. My prediction would be that the lowest signal-to-noise ration will be found in: footy, wrestling, porn stars, and music genres. Eliminate those and we can all live happily ever after. EEng 07:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very interesting (and for once at this talk page, I'm not joking). Dramas per page view. I think there might actually be a bimodal result. The greatest frequency of obvious idiotic conduct (in other words, where it is easy to see what the problem was and how to deal with it) would indeed be in those topics. But if instead one focused on the most intractable conflicts, a different population would emerge, with a lot of religion, politics, and pseudoscience showing up. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Some years back during the height of the MMA wars, I suggested wiping out the entire MMA wiki project. Best analogy would be the nuke from orbit option. Full saturation. Even had a few people agreeing. Blackmane (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want to avoid intractable conflict, specialize in writing and editing biographies of 19th century state legislators. They all meet WP:POLITICIAN so you need not fear AfD. Other than that, nobody cares, which gives an ambitious editor free reign. The downside, of course, is that nobody cares. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought that pages about species of aquarium fishes would be similarly drama-free. Alas, I've seen nasty arguments started by WP:ELNO and WP:NOTHOWTO advocates who care more about rules than about subject matter. Far from intractable, but enough to surprise me. By now, nothing surprises me anymore. After all, early in my editing career I got death threats because I had said that I thought that an image from a Japanese comic book did not need to be deleted from part of a page that was discussing that image. (It was when the geniuses at Something Awful were on a crusade to delete anything about Japanese pop culture from Wikipedia because... well, they just couldn't stand it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Not even close to the nadir; see the over a decade of ever-more-crazy-sounding arguments from the usual suspects at Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 1#name of this article, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 1#Title problem, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 1#Requested move, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 1#Requested move II, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 1#Requested move 2, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 3#Requested move (February 2011), Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 3#Revisit requested move (March 2011), Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 4#Silly Argument - versus –, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 4#Improperly moved contrary to WP:MOS, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 4#Requested move, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 5#Requested move, Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 5#En-dash in article title and Talk:List of battles of the Mexican–American War#Move? over the vexed question of whether "Mexican-American War" should use a hyphen or a dash in the title. ‑ Iridescent 23:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Funny, we seem to be on the same wavelength today [201]. EEng 00:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Monopowiki userbox template

Have you ever considered making a userbox template that would track how many dollars you have in the game? Some of them are obviously untrackable (like editor review, R.I.P), and others hard to track, like third opinion, but most of the user rights can be done, and also probably the FAC's and related. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the second brilliant idea here in the last 24 hours. I'll put this on my list of things to do between now and when I die. EEng 02:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness

Hello, EEng. This comment by you at Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness appears to be trolling, pure and simple. It has no place on the talk page, as it does not relate to improving the article, and I would suggest that you remove it (per WP:TALK, "The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject"). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

My comment, "Reading this entire page, I find no little irony in the fact that the subject relates to insanity", is an attempt to get the participants to draw a line under the 50 posts, over 15 months, on the meaning of the words enemy and or. I guess it isn't going to work. EEng 08:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You were free to make a constructive comment if you wished; even stating that the issues under discussion on the talk page were not important might have counted as a constructive comment. Insulting other users, whether directly or by implication, is unwelcome. I would again suggest that you remove or refactor your comment, which is certainly a candidate for removal under the talk page guidelines. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a perfectly serious point made in an attention-getting way. Groups of sane people can act in an insane way, so there's no reason for you to feel it reflects on you individually – unless you keep obsessing about it, in which case my comment will indeed take on a deeper, less impersonal meaning. EEng 08:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Errr... it's only EEng's sense of proportion that's a bit mythical there. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, in future, please don't make your points in "attention-getting", and by implication insulting, ways. Make them calmly and normally. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I decline your request. "Attention-getting" doesn't imply "insulting", and as you will surely see if you review this very page, plenty of very excellent editors prefer exercising their expressive faculties to selecting stock expressions from some menu of approved platitudes. I said the discussion was insane, which is was, and with any luck that would have caused you both to snap out of it, though unfortunately that did not happen in this case. As already mentioned, you should beware lest your insistence that there's been some negative reflection here on you personally take on the quality of a self-fulfilling prophecy. EEng 01:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If you call a discussion insane, by implication you are calling the editors involved insane. Stating that directly would be a personal attack. Do so, and I will invoke WP:NPA to get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• You're not going to get EEng blocked.
• Blocks aren't punitive.
• EEng's behavior wouldn't fall under WP:NPA by any WP:UNINVOLVED administrator's standards.
• Try not to WP:THREATEN people with "getting them blocked."

AlexEng^(TALK) 05:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) FreeKnowledgeCreator, what part of Groups of sane people can act in an insane way, so there's no reason for you to feel it reflects on you individually (which is what I said above) don't you understand? However your continued obsessing over this here does (as I also said above) reflect on you individually, and if you want to go see if you can find someone to block me for saying that, be my guest. But watch out for the WP:CLUELESSLYRETURNINGAGAINANDAGAINTOANOTHEREDITORSTALKPAGETOWHINEOVERIMAGINEDSLIGHTSTHEREBYJUSTBEGGINGTOBETREATEDLIKEAFOOL boomerang. EEng 05:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It is best to avoid making comments that other editors are likely to interpret as insults, whether or not they actually are. I have no wish for you to be blocked, per se; I was simply noting that if you want to go further and make direct personal attacks against me, that I would then feel obliged to try to get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I know, we should just allow some people to have the last word and let that speak for itself. But it impresses me the knots they sometimes tie themselves into to do so. "Obliged" to try to force someone to show you some respect, rather than doing something to actually earn it? Really? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No one has to earn the right not to be subjected to personal attacks on Wikipedia; WP:NPA guarantees that right - as you should know. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Christ, just how clueless are you? As three people now have tried to tell you, there was no attack. Not everything is about you, and as to It is best to avoid making comments that other editors are likely to interpret as insults, whether or not they actually are, I suggest you try: It is best to avoid interpreting other editors' comments as insults, when there's another reasonable way to interpret them. And finally: I would then feel obliged to try to get you blocked – obliged? Are you – I will now say it – insane after all? Now, per David Eppstein, go ahead and dig yourself down to bedrock by having the last word. EEng 06:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

When he originally made the comment,I did not have the slightest idea what would it snowball into.....Really! It's simply pathetic that some people are just so humorless.And above that so obliged !Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:--In spite of your magnificent name,I think it will be days err... years before you are in a position to teach EEng about what WP:NPA constitutes and what not!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Knots can be so useful, can't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In theory. EEng 10:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And I now see that the atrocious gun-slingin' rootin' shootin', pistol-packin', Sheriff Mike has been up to his old tricks again, with a breathtaking display of admin incompetence. He very generously allowed me a full month off, but he's only given poor old Rambler a measly 72 hours. Still, maybe enough time to "grow a pear", eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this... is this code? Are you making a drug deal? AlexEng^(TALK) 18:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's more likely the drug deal was made sometime before ME123 posted, if you get my meaning. EEng 18:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha!Ha!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 18:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)(talk page stalker)

Help yourselves to a beaker, folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is really unfortunate. FreeKnowledgeCreator, you really have not gotten to know EEng very well. If you had spent any time reading EEng's talk and user pages, and followed EEng's edits, you would have known that many of his/her comments are humorous, and that s/he values humor as a way to lighten a conversation or brighten his/her fellow editors' day. EEng and all the talk page stalkers here make many serious and valuable edits on Wikipedia, including comments in discussions, but occasionally – one might say often – they take time to have fun, mostly on their own talk pages. That many editors appreciate this is evidenced in the number of people who have this page on their watch list and participate in discussions here. In this light, I am absolutely certain that the comment to which you provided a link at the beginning of this section was not meant as a personal attack. I believe it was meant as a lighthearted comment on the content of the discussion, which s/he saw as endless arguing over unimportant things, and the humor in the comment lay in relating that endless arguing to the topic of the article itself. You took it as a personal comment about you, and I don't think EEng meant it that way. Yes, s/he could have said it more seriously, something like, "I think this endless arguing over something so unimportant is ridiculous," but that's not EEng's style. S/He really is a very nice person who will always give a thoughtful answer to a reasonable question or request. I think the best response to his/her comment on that talk page would have been either to ignore it entirely or to respond with humor. Of course you are not insane, or anything close to it. You're an intelligent and valued editor. If you don't enjoy the wit and banter that EEng and his/her talk page stalkers enjoy, just ignore it. I think it would be a complete waste of your time to try to change EEng. You will never succeed. EEng and others here, it is just simply a fact that some people don't relate to, or catch, or understand, or appreciate, some varieties of humor. I'm not advising you to stop posting humorous comments, but if you think about it, you will realize that that kind of comment could be misinterpreted by a serious kind of person as a criticism of the person engaged in a discussion instead of a criticism of the discussion as a whole. Imagine how the suggestion that a person is insane – if the person takes it as a serious comment upon himself – might make him feel. I would just like to suggest that you (and talk page stalkers) follow up a misunderstanding of a humorous comment (with the possible, and unspoken, hurt feelings that go along with it) with more kindness.  – Corinne (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What a thoughtful comment, thank you! I'd have more sympathy for F.K.C.'s misreading if he hadn't opened a bunch of ANI threads in the past year, claiming he's being insulted and harassed by various people. It's a pattern with him (or her). EEng 19:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have, at various stages, been harassed by other editors, and I've no apologies to make for responding to that vigorously. It has nothing to do with you, as I've never accused you of harassment. By the way, if you'd bothered to look at my user page, you'd know I'm a guy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator on the job

Well, at least you imagine you're being harassed, attacked, insulted. How long before you stop digging? This has ceased to be amusing, and is now just sad. Please, go do whatever it is you do when you're not playing the victim. But first, have the last word one more time, and I ask my glittering salon of talk page stalkers to not respond so that F.K.C. can experience that tiny feeling of triumph that will maybe raise his self-esteem a notch. God knows he can use it. EEng 21:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly able to recognize harassment when I encounter it, and nor do I have any problems at all with my self-esteem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your cute little graphic above probably counts as a personal attack. I cannot be bothered removing it, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Back again? Don't you ever give up? How appropriate that the quote at the top of your user page [202] speaks of a "circular system whose prime significance lies precisely in circling around forever within itself". Indeed a magnificent achievement of unintentional self-parody! I congratulate you! EEng 08:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to respond to me, that invites further comments. That's your choice - no one is forcing you to do it. The quote on my user page is, of course, a comment on Wikipedia as a project. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, A magnificent achievement of unintentional self-parody. Or perhaps I should have said "unconscious". EEng 09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Why would you say all this? To hurt my feelings? It isn't working. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Not to hurt your feelings, rather to test the limits of your commitment to your status as victim. What's your purpose in coming here over and over? Masochist? EEng 09:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, your continued posting on another user's talkpage when that user has made it clear they don't want you here is itself starting to slip over the line into harassment. You've been on Wikipedia long enough that I won't patronize you by putting a big red triangle on your talkpage, but I strongly suggest you both knock it off. ‑ Iridescent 09:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng is capable of speaking for himself. If he had even once suggested I should not comment here, I would have stopped. To insist on commenting on the talk page of an editor who has made it clear that he doesn't want you do to that is harassment, certainly. If EEng really wanted me to stop, why would he go on to replying to me? Replying over and over again to a user who comments on your talk page is hardly evidence that he doesn't want you to comment there. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

EEng, say the word and I'll put a stop to this; FKC is well aware that the final warning he received for disruption here still stands. ‑ Iridescent 10:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Goodness (now following Iridescent's link) I had no idea what I was getting involved with. FKC is right -- I never asked him to stop visiting (and it's a point of pride that I've never "banned" someone from here -- I fear no one's comment or scrutiny) and I cannot in any way say that I feel I'm being harrassed. But this is beginning to lose its charm, so please FKC, for your own sake, take on board what six editors (including, now, someone over at the article talk page) are telling you: you were not being insulted, and you need to take WP:AGF on board more thoroughly than you have. But when you then come to another editor's talk page over and over, acting the fool, you'll likely be treated like a fool. You may now have the last word, if you wish, and this time I really promise I won't respond. Notice I said if you wish – there's an opportunity in that. EEng 10:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Myth of Mental Illness. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This bot is out to get you. AlexEng^(TALK) 04:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

They've never forgiven me for exposing their seedy world of sin and debasement. EEng 07:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record...

I was pinging you in good humor. I'm pretty sure if you hadn't pointed out that it was your first close, everyone would have assumed it wasn't. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Worry not. I understood. EEng 00:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Stacking

Hello again EEng. I am currently having a problem with stacking a sidebar at Margaret Thatcher. An image that is supposed to be situated in the second section has been shoved down the page to a different section, and I don't know how to rectify this. I was going to ping you and Redrose64 where I did last time concerning Mr Reagan, but I forgot where that was. Anyway, I'm also considering whether to be bold in trimming the infobox at her article, given how long the sidebar is. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 13:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you're still contributing. I don't see the problem (though what you see and I see will differ, depending on screen size, zoom setting, and sometimes browser). Can you tell me more? EEng 15:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Er well, {{Multiple image}} is supposed to be situated in the #Early life and education section but instead it is at #Member of Parliament: 1959–1970. I'm pondering whether the infobox should be trimmed mainly because the image of children drinking milk should be situated in the Milk Snatcher section, but instead it's in the following section.--Nevé–selbert 15:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The trick is to recognize that the sidebar (on the right) will always appear further down than the two stacked images (on the left) anyway, so it makes sense to invoke the images first, then the sidebar. The way you had it before ran up against limitations on how much floating material can be deferred on one side or another, though I've never quite understood the details of this. In general things are most likely to go as expected if you alternate invocations left and right. EEng 16:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I made the {{Margaret Thatcher sidebar}} yesterday, what do you think of it? I'm unsure how big the signature and the CoA should be, as her "M" in the signature is quite large in and of itself.--Nevé–selbert 16:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but you'd do better to ask at the article talk page, where people more committed to the subject will likely be found. Happy editing! EEng 16:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

For an explanation, see my post of 10:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC) at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 151#Occasionally inflexible image placement. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to reveal your destination (at least the pilot knew where he was headed) ;)

"Flight 1549 hit birds on taking off from La Guardia, disabling both engines, but the pilot ditched the plane in the river and everyone survived; investigation confirmed he had made the right decision and he became a hero". ENDS.

...evidenced of course by an appropriate citation.

Although, maintaining an editor's healthy self-criticism, perhaps still the flight number is fancruft? If you had just got out of the sea after a crash landing, would you be bothered about the number? That's another few characters saved!

I wish you a merry Xmas; may you and your American friends find renewed greatness in 2017. IanB2 (talk) 06:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this is about US Airways Flight 1549. IanB2 Well, actually, now that you mention it I suppose we could reduce the entirety of the article to, "Accidents will happen. The End."

I hope your comment doesn't hint at concealed resentment. I do feel strongly that too much detail of interest only to the select few made the article a very hard slog for those who wanted a generalist's understanding of what happened, with only such technical information as impacted directly on the event. One technique would be to move such stuff to sections of their own after the main narrative, or to footnotes. See Phineas Gage to see how I've used both techniques to control an abundance of ramified detail on a single subject. EEng 02:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. I am enjoying the gusto with which you are trimming the article. And wanted to wish you a merry Christmas. If it enabled me also gently to make the point that you occasionally throw someone living overboard, that was a bonus ;) IanB2 (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• On the stuff you have deleted about the fire service respond, I would suggest restoring the citations and attaching them to the following sentence in the article - the citations provide links to extra stuff on the emergency response, for those that want to research this, and only show as a tiny number on the article so don't delay the casual reader. IanB2 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Be my guest. If you need help, let me know. EEng 02:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

IanB2, wondering if you saw the above. I'd do it myself but you know the sources so much better than I. EEng 04:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not really the same

Some of the comments Rjensen blanked would have been okay to blank if he had cited NPA rather than BLP (indeed, I group the incident that started that whole thread as one such comment), so my citing NPA makes it different on its face.

It's also not like I was edit-warring with other experienced users to keep the off-topic (and baseless) personal remark out and constantly refusing to listen; the user who reverted me (and I'm not talking about you) is brand new, half their edits are reverts, and based on my brief interaction with them on their talk page they clearly have a fair bit to learn about policy. I'm not trying to BITE them mind you -- it was apparently a good-faith mistake and while I think they need to show a bit more care it couldn't hurt to do so for them first.

Unlike Rjensen, though, I understand the Streisand effect and will not deliberately aggravate the situation by dragging it out any further. It's good that the thread finally got closed. I'm gonna stay offa ANI for a while and go back to editing articles on topics the user in question is never going to be able to follow me to (like they obviously followed me to that thread, if you look at all their edits in context, their not having anything specific to say about the topic under discussion, and especially their failure to even attempt to deny this).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Especially at ANI, leave it to others to decide what's personal attack on you. It's one of the few places we comment on editors, not on content. When you participate there as much as you have recently, you have to expect that others will form opinions on that participation -- possibly negative. EEng 15:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, with the exception of that one thread (which drained an awful lot of my energy) my ANI activity went down over the past month or so, and it's difficult to take that particular user's involvement in the thread in good faith because (a) he didn't seem to have read the discussion himself (if he had, he would have !voted in favour of Vanamonde's proposal like everyone else), (b) he kept aggressively campaigning for what he knew would be the worst possible result from my point of view (that would have drained even more of my time and likely caused Maunus to face sanctions for his already withdrawn and apologized uncivil comments, thus emboldening Rjensen), (c) his only substantial comment was to draw attention to my prior conflicts with him, and (d) he was directly accused of having followed me there and did not deny it, apparently because to do so would have been a lie and would have brought him under scrutiny. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I didn't untangle who was saying what to whom. All I know is that you got in way too deep in that thread. Your participation may have gone down a lot recently, but it's still very high. If you're going to swim with the sharks you're gonna get bitten now and then. A thick skin is the only answer. EEng 22:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Meh. I think I have thicker skin than you give me credit for in comparing me to the subject of the thread: I let similarly off-topic and aggressive comments consistently made by Rjensen stand, choosing instead to respond and discredit them rather than remove them (although I likely would have been forgiven for doing the latter), hence the getting way too deep you refer to. It's just that, per AGF, in the normal state of affairs in the sharks' den it is assumed that the normal targets for scrutiny on their behaviour are those involved in the initial dispute, and the only way uninvolved third party commenters can normally expect to get bitten is by misbehaving in that same thread. So in effect, being a third party who is right on the substance and successfully convinces a significant number of other contributors makes one immune. The wild card, though, is my having a wikistalker who has no qualms wih showing up, not actually readin he thread itself, and making oblique references to my dispute with them from almost two years ago. The simple fact is that 100% of the hatting and collapsing was either done by me or at my request and done for the explicit reason of readability/closability, so claiming that it was because I had been myself guilty of off-topic or inflammatory commentary is an extraordinary claim that should not have been made without extraordinary evidence. Such claims should not normally be allowed to stand just because the thread was closed before the target had a chance to respond. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I have no intention of reverting you, or bringing this up anywhere but here. I'm happy with the close and don't intend to open myself up to more criticism from that user again. So if you're not happy to keep discussing philosophy of editing with me you can blank this section or just tell me to buzz off and I will oblige. ;-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to blank this section (look at this page -- obviously I never do) nor will I tell you to buzz off. But your tendency to expound at length on fundamentally simple topics is part of why some of those ANI threads became so prolonged and involved. If you feel attacked, let others defend you, and if they don't, shame on them. EEng 23:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the idea that I'm "stalking" Hijiri88 is ludicrous. I haven't checked recently, but at one point I was the number 2 or 3 contributor to AN/I by number of edits. Right now I have 7935 edits to that page, about 4% of my total (my article edits tend to hover just below 75% - right now they're at 73.27% [203]), so the idea that I'm participating to AN/I to "stalk" Hijiri88 is hogwash, pure and simple -- as is his assumption that because I disagree with him I must not have read the thread. Lately he's a heavy participant there, and I've been one for many years, so our crossing paths isn't "stalking", it's to be expected. If H88 doesn't like the heat, then I suggest he get out of the AN/I kitchen, or else (as you say) grow a thicker skin and cut down his verbosity significantly. In the meantime, unless for some reason the community bans me from dong so, I'm going to continue to contribute to AN/I when and where I see fit, whether or not he is involved. If H88 thinks that's "Wikistalking" (which we now actually call WP:Harassment) I suggest he either file a formal complaint accusing me of something specific, with concrete evidence to back it up, or shut down his whining about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this happen before with new, enthusiastic ANI participants. Now both of you cool it. EEng 20:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Chill it is. Happy holidays to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

season's greetings

it's almost christmas...you didn't die this year...someone on the internet put two and two together and posted something about it...so...maybe things are finally starting to look up TimothyJosephWood 19:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

What??? EEng 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to make something cynical, after seeing a dozen or so people posting season's greetings on...two or three hundred talk pages each. Seems like it might fit in here. TimothyJosephWood 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Here at the Wikipedia Home for the Bewildered all are welcome. EEng 20:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ho, ho, ho!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not nice to frighten the children, dear. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be remiss...

... if I were to refrain from raising my beverage vessel to you in appreciation of your efforts at Fred West on the quest we would be forced to pursue of eliminating unnecessary usage (which would not be inaccurately described as "virtually all usage") of the "Forensic Files" past prospective tense. Children who grew up watching half-hour crime reconstructions on cable would grow up to become writers who apparently believe it would make them sound like hard-hitting professional journalists, and even reasonably reputable print organs would begin to use the pointless affectation as liberally as the peanuts a Dairy Queen employee would dollop generously onto a sundae he would have doused immediately prior with hot fudge. Reasonable minds would consider a public awareness campaign if there weren't arguably bigger fish that would require frying. Hoping you will go on to have a happy 2017! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to fully rise to this haughty and aloof ludicrosity (although I could should I wish to do so) beyond saying that not only do some of us prepare ourselves with exhaustive hours spent (beyond watching and reading crime fanzines which you seem to believe I solely do so to leave - in your mind - a charlatan legacy), to create and populate articles with reputable/verifiable references for the ULTIMATE benefit of the global community and NOT myself, but that we do NOT devote similar energy to dismiss others' effort. In the 8 years I've been doing this your comment takes the cake. User EEng please don't think I am even slightly lassoing yourself in here to this reply. User:Julietdeltalima, I'll take you WAY beyond Wikipedia crime-wise if you like to attest to what I can detach myself to (I was tempted to add an ultimate, non-Wikipedia link but won't do so but ask me on my talk page and I'll do so). Do what I do, to the extent to which I do, with the capabilities of retaining your emotions and sanity, then come back to me and ridicule me. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Peace, brothers and sisters! Remember, Kieronoldham, I wasn't able to resist making some fun of your style myself. You forgave me, so please forgive Julietdeltalima. J.d.l., be nice to Kieron from now on. EEng 03:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, EEng. (it Up! Break it Up!) I just checked your page to see if there were any observations of the article thus far and read that for the 1st time. I know it's retrospective to a degree. Just had to let my thoughts known. No disrespect intended to any individual. Sicko signs out. ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Regards.

No personal offense intended to Julia; I suspect she didn't know it was largely a solo effort to the then-date of construction. Maybe this is a gripe to a degree, but generally on Wiki. I see no shortage of reference etc. tagging but not a degree of effort from those asking for citations etc. to populate the web themselves. Julia don't take it personally. With 4 or 5 exceptions I've encountered on Wiki. over the years, people can't detach themselves to do this type o' topic. That's actually one of the reasons I devote attention largely to this topic. Off-topic to a degree, but I work with data. All the best to yous both.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

One hopes you aren't too detached... --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, no ("Gaah!"). Now.... have a Rumbley's pie--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Fred West

I'm just trying my best to populate an article most could not surmount their nervous system to evolve to how it could be (and in my way is albeit with slightly meandering sentence structure). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Kieronoldham: And you've done a good job -- took a lot of research. I apologize again if I hurt your feelings, though sometimes I can't resist highlighting awkward turns of the phrase. I hope you feel the article is improved by the tightening, which is mostly done without loss of information, though there will be places where I'll eliminate what I see as overdetail. Feel free to push back. EEng 03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sorry if I sounded slightly abrasive. You didn't hurt any feelings; I just sensed - probably wrongly - you were being dismissive. I just find these challenges rewarding and do them ultimately for the benefit of others' reading. I am aware I can add a little too much (superfluous?) detail from time to time. You've tightened and trimmed it quite well. Have a good Christmas.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no, your reaction was an understandable one when someone arrives out of nowhere not only taking a hatchet to your hard work, but with some, er, unkind things to say along the way. I hadn't realized the article was mostly one person's work -- usually masses like that are the work of many over a long period. I'm not sure I have the energy to continue, though, at least right now. Maybe I'll drop in from time to time. EEng 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Okays. I'll be trimming the article a little myself over the coming days. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		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)

The critics are talking again

Or maybe ranting, I haven't really made much sense of it... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ivanvector#Oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC) (apparently a member of your "lot")

Trypto, that comment was meant to be a joke, not an attack or criticism. FBDB. Besides, EEng and Martinevans are two people who have linked to sexual content in discussion to each other. His lot was an offhand comment about this talk page and those who frequent it - hello to a lesser extent I gues. That's what I was pointing to. I hope that didn't come out too wrong. Happy to retract or rephrase if EEng likes. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

My reference to "critics" was meant as a reference to EEng's userpage, where there is a section called "What the critics are saying", and it means "critic" in the sense of someone who appraises or reviews, as opposed to criticism as in finding fault. And I posted here because you didn't ping or whatever, so I figured that EEng and the rest of us in the "lot" would want to know. I don't think that what you said there was particularly offensive, although I guess some humorless types will construe it as EEng and the rest of us having a misogynistic sense of humor or something like that. Personally, I found your post at the RfA kind of tl;dr, and kind of not really helpful for an RfA, but your mileage may differ. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Mhmm. Fair enough. I probably should have pinged EEng as I did name them. I didn't mostly because as you call it, it is a "tl;dr" that would leave EEng wondering what I'm on about for about half the wall. I did say somewhere towards the end that this was far more a personal comment than a adminship capabilities related one, so it's value as an RfA comment might be more limited. Thanks Tryptofish for leaving the note to EEng and for the reply. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh, for those reading if anyone at all. I've significantly cut my post at Ivan's RfA. It no longer mentions anyone by name and I hope it's less tl;dr'y. This is what Tryptofish was referring to. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Am I really some kind of apex predator in the Wikipedia ecosystem? And here I thought I was just making the occasional joke here and there to lighten the mood. I've been thinking of nominating myself at RfA just to find out what people really think of me. EEng 02:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, last I checked the definition of apex predator is grabbing them by the pussy without asking permission, so I figure talking about the pussy without asking for permission is quite a way up there. Maybe not apex but definitely in the top 10. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, talking about the pussy of someone in particular, yes, but surely not pussy in the abstract. Anyway, this is all very fine talk comeing from Mr. Nude Dude. EEng 03:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI

How could you not realise a discussion had been archived when it has a huge coloured box around it? You had to see the section had been archived to even edit it. It's not controlling what you say to tell you it's not right to reply in an archived discussion. It's against policy. Ss112 05:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You're very sure in your pronouncements, yet your display at ANI shows that you don't listen -- a deadly combination. In the edit conflict page the rendered page is in the middle; if you jump to the bottom (as I did) to pick up the text of my post, then jump to the edit box at the top (as I did) to reinsert that text, you won't see it (as I didn't) isn't even shown, so there's no huge colored box for me to notice. Now for the nth time, as a pile of editors have now told you, stop ascribing dark motives to your fellow editors, stop trying to control what articles they edit, and stop trying to control where and how they post comments. Got it? EEng 06:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

"No peace"

With your permission, I'd like to explain "no peace": I used to help out at union protests and "no peace" was a frequently-chanted slogan. Though, using "no peace" does not advocate in any way for any actions that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. I hope I've cleared the confusion that I've unknowingly caused. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 23:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm from a working-class background so I don't need any pointers on picket-line slogans, thanks. If you think your explanations at ANI are helping your case, you're very much mistaken. I suggest you withdraw your demands for an apology, and try to demonstrate to the community that you understand why everyone is so pissed off at you. If you fail to do this you're very likely to get blocked, possibly indefinitely. EEng 02:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Navy Seals

Ahem, you do know about this, right? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not! You may collect your gratuity at the usual time and place, using the usual callsign. EEng 18:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS reply

Hi EEng. Thanks for your reply to my query. You should be aware that I have already alerted the other editor to the existence of the MOS thread - in case you might prefer to moderate your comment. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but my comments were meant for public consumption, including by our esteemed colleague‍—‌in fact I pinged him. Someone who, after being directed to the MOS provision contradicting his view, insists that "I would also add that my opinion as an individual is at least as valid as yours and if I want to make these changes - which are not a waste of time - I will do so!" is unlikely to become a productive editor. It's also worth noting that (as seen in that quotation, which is copy-pasted straight from his post) he confuses a dash for a hyphen in a discussion in which he emphasizes his superior knowledge of how to use endashes and emdashes! Amazing. EEng 23:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure that consensus is a concept this editor will be able to embrace - we shall see. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, we've already seen. Forget consensus, he acknowledges what a house style is and then keeps on arguing. I got my fill of people who lecture others on how to write, without apparently being able to do it themselves, in college Expos. EEng 00:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS your way

EEng, you've been given tons of slack to rewrite the MOS your way, though it's not clear what your point is. So when someone (like me) pushes back on one or more of your edits, don't you think it's incumbent on you to discuss before pushing your way in an edit war? Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about this [204]. I don't need any slack, thanks. You may not see the point (reduce distracting overdetail on technical points and general flab and bloat, improve layout, bring related points together...) but from the Thank-Yous I've received apparently others do; there are many eyes on the page and no doubt any changes not perceived as improvements would be rapidly reverted.

As to the matter at hand... You removed an example I had added, stating a concern. I reinserted the example, with an edit summary explaining why I thought your concern was misplaced. You removed again, and I reinserted again, this time in a modified form I thought would address your concern, overfussy though I think it is. That's not an "edit war". EEng 03:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the changed version didn't help, so I took it out again; I'm hoping that's the end of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Big surprise, Dicky. We're all happy to see you get the thrill of "winning" once in a while. EEng 05:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What's that point of that uncivil rejoinder? Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What uncivil? What rejoinder? All I said is everyone should feel like they're a winner once in a while, so we're all happy for you! But while we're on the subject, I might ask what the point is of your uncivil section header (though please understand that I am not, in fact, asking). EEng 06:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the personality issue, this wave of mass edits to MoS has to stop. I'm liable to revert the entire mess back to the last stable version. Please do not do this sort of thing, EEng. I'm pretty sure that you know that "MoS is unstable, so it's not really a guideline and thus we should ignore it" is among the top 2 or 3 anti-MoS (usually false) rationales of people who would delete or gut the guideline. Stop making it true for them, I beg you. I'm pretty sure you also know that minor clarifying changes often turn out to be controversial, because they subtly shift meaning (or can be misinterpreted as doing so) in ways that affect large numbers of articles. I think you should self-revert that mess, then make a couple of copyediting changes, and let that sit for a week. Give people time to assess whether they actually change anything. Then make a few more.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I don't think "mess" is an appropriate term. You know how careful I am, and it doesn't sound like you've actually looked yet. Please do. In particular I'd like you, with your mercilessly critical eye, to review these: [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213].

I did look, and saw reasons to object immediately, though only here and there. I am not doing a mass-revert (I oppose those generally, and was hyperbolically indicating frustration). I'm poring over it all now. I agree many of the changes are positive, but some are not. I'm trying to massage back in what needs to be restored without doing violence to your cleanup intent. That said, please don't use guideline pages as sandboxes to experiment with templates and wikimarkup. If you are not "markup master", just ask on the talk page for someone to deal with the matter, like closing up example spacing in a way that doesn't just introduce new problems. I'm about 1/5 done going through it all (including intervening edits by others). I've taken a very hands-off approach to MoS for months and stopped watchlisting it, but I don't think that was a good idea. Now that I'm looking again, many (especially drive-by) edits to the page do not appear to be helpful. (Again, I think many of yours were, it was just the shotgun approach I mostly had an issue with, and I think it's what has alarmed Dicklyon, and I think Tony1 raised a concern, too).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't expect to do so much at once, but you know how one gets into a groove. But don't worry, I've certainly scratched my itch for now. EEng 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. It's just that getting in that fugue state on a guideline can lead to a lot of disputes. Anyway, I just spent several hours poring over all that (and I didn't mean "mess" in a pointed way; where I'm from, "all that mess" is an colloquialism that's equivalent to "all that stuff, which I don't want to think about / deal with / explain right now"), with an eye not just to what I care about but what anyone else is likely to object to. Hopefully we can let it lie for now. PS: I don't care about the exact wording here, just a) there's more than one way (MoS's own lead makes the point "rewrite around dispute when you can", and I like to reinforce this throughout MoS), b) "stilted" is just an opinion, not an MoS "finding of fact". Honestly, I think everyone on earth will just DGaF about making that sentence a tiny bit shorter, so unless you really object to it in some way .... I was tempted to put back a handful of other things but I recognized that they were not really necessary, and had been added as "what if someone stupid thinks it means ..." WP:CREEP and/or that I'd added it myself and was feeling defensive about my word-sprouts; you were right to delete them. Anyway, I would expect some later editors to tweak what you did and what I did after some more, including some possible reversions to the older text. I would suggest we take them to the talk page as line-items to discuss and not edit the page directly. The fact that it's been so stable for most of this year is a major selling point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing like creating an important category every once in awhile...

...to uplift humanity and celebrate the season. Randy Kryn 5:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoever missed the deadline for nominating that for DYK deserves an indefinite block. EEng 05:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

ffs... Archy and Mehitabel are not "individuals" they are best friends!! And one of them was a cat! But Randy... um, everyone's noticed a subtle change in you lately.... just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank goodness that Category:Roach motels is still red. As is Category:Smoked roaches. I guess it's nice to recognize them as individuals. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make a personal plea for Australian hurdlers and Law professors. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC) p.s. some handy tips for Trypto

Thanks for the, um, tips, Martin. (And what a cheerful narrator!) Very useful here in the US, where we are well on into the process of legalizing recreational use. In contrast (jingoism alert!), our page on The Roaches is the very essence of UK twee. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Awww... "The legend says that she fell in the pool on a foggy day whilst walking along the top of the Roaches. Ever since that day she has been enticing unsuspecting victims down to the pool and to their watery grave." How lovely! It's because it's only just down the road from Coronation Street. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, we know what she was smoking when she fell in! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously, some favorites of mine: The_Roches. EEng 03:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also a big fan. BTW, did anyone bother to notify you that Category:Wikipedians who have been nominated for deletion has been... nominated for deletion? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 26#Category:Wikipedians who have been nominated for deletion. (Before it's gone, I've been meaning to ask: Does it count if you've been nominated in article space, or only user space?) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I also like The Roches. As for the CfD, they should have nominated that stupid roach category instead. But I've gone to that CfD and made a suitably dyspeptic !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"If you go down to AfD, you'll never come back." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And today we're greeted with the news that 2017 is headed down the same sucky track as 2016: [214]. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

:( EEng 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is this an opportune moment to point out that four apparently sane people felt that Category:Simon & Garfunkel members was a useful addition to Wikipedia? ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"We don't give out our ages, and we don't give out our phone numbers (Give out our phone numbers!) / Sometimes our voices give out, but not our ages and our phone numburrrrs!" EEng 21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Apparently sane"? If you go down to AfD or CfD or any fD, you'll never come back sane. Let's see: Category:The Roches members, good, that's red too. EEng: if you archive 80% of your current talk page, I'll change my !vote to "keep" at the CfD. Hell, I'll probably even wash your windows. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically "two apparently sane people, one person I've never heard of so have no opinion of, and one serial fuckwit who's so consistently stupid that closing all discussions the opposite way to whatever he's supporting is actually a workable admin technique, but always just about manages to weasel his way out of any action being taken against him", but that would be a little long-winded. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Steady on now, Trypto!! But will you "get down on your knees and scrub, behind the steam table"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Alas, Wikipedia has brought me to my knees! (Now that's a new name for RfA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Aye, the Roaches. After meeting them at a venue back in the olden days they drove by and stopped me on the street to put my name on that evening's show guest list. One of my faves. And yes, the two cartoon characters added to the category should be removed (cartoons, and one is a cat, what's the world....), the main member of the category is the space-mother cockroach and never Mark Twain shall meet. Randy Kryn 17:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Damnit, just read The Roaches page and it looks like Maggie died yesterday, cancer. Not fun to be a Roche fan today. tears. Randy Kryn 17:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Request

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)

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 [215] 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: [216]. --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)

Be Polite

Please dont do this and stop making a fool of yourself its not clever, it would be better to educate us as you appear to know the small print of the MoS and explain why we cant add United States to places in the United States in aircraft accident infoboxes. Do you have any suggestions as to where the best place is to mention the United States, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no best place. Articles don't refer to New York City as New York City, United States, and this has nothing to do with this being what you sardonically call "Usapedia", because we also don't tell our readers that London is in England, Moscow in Russia, or Tokyo in Japan. I explained this twice [217][218], the second time linking the two controlling guidelines –

• Articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled [[Placename, State]]... Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named [[City]]
• Places should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of their article

– which you apparently didn't read, because you once again changed the article to read Washington State, United States and New York City, United States.

You're an admin so I shouldn't have to tell you all this. If you're responsible for the opening of various articles explaining (for example) that Heathrow Airport is in "Hillingdon, London, England, United Kingdom", then you've got a lot of cleanup to do. I might be gentler if you'd omitted the Usapedia crack, which you should probably reserve for when you know what you're talking about. EEng 16:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just wondering -- why would we need to know that the US Airways flight was coming from the United States? :/

Also, MilborneOne, I hate to say this sort of thing, but as an administrator you should at least get your punctuation straight! Eman235/talk 21:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way we could stop the United States being mentioned anywhere? It would be much simpler all round. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wait until the new President is sworn in. (POV-pushing and spam alert: I'm proudly wearing my "Don't blame me. I voted for Hillary." button, that can be obtained from Amazon. Really, I'm actually wearing that button!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• MilborneOne, to my astonishment I just stumbled [219] on the fact that you and I already interacted on this issue once, so I really don't understand why we're going over it again. EEng 01:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Anagrams

Can't justify putting it on the TP, but similarly cannot resist contributing "Musty anal floe". Primergrey (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about anagrams of the phrase Manual of Style [220] Oh, but you can put it on my talk page??? I guess I can take comfort in knowing that I provide an outlet for the community's otherwise pent-up creativity.

Taking your lead, let's see, um, we've also got Lo! My anal fetus! (not very catchy, if you ask me) and My so-anal flute or My anal flute – so??? (hardly improvements). Oh, wait, how about Lofty anal muse? Possibly some member of my glittering array of talk page stalkers can can expand our

thinking along those lines.

Overall, I'd suggest A muse? Flatly, no! EEng 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

They all kind of sound like Frank Zappa records. Primergrey (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Or names for his children. EEng 05:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record:

...as 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

"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?[221] 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)

• So is it in-policy to offer a cool-down bock? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course. EEng 20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The GA aspiration

We'll get there in our collective efforts in this article, EEng. Regards and kudos. Kieron S.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I never aspirate GA, as doing so can "irritate the nose and throat causing coughing and wheezing". EEng 02:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Stephen West kept getting sent home from school by his math teacher for incorrectly stating in his class that there were 6 feet in a yard.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice he misspelled "patois." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"An elderly man taking his songbird out for a walk ..."

Sorry if this puzzled you; in retrospect I can see that to a reader not familiar with China it might need some explanation.

It's not unheard of, even today, for older men in China to keep caged songbirds as pets. In mornings they actually take them out, usually in the cages but sometimes (less so now) letting them fly around the city (they eventually return). That's what was happening there.

I'd love to be able to link that to the right article, or section, as a way of explaining it better. If I could but find it ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest just saying the man was out for a walk, period. The songbird can only confuse. EEng 07:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Modest

Great to see your Talk page now trimmed to a modest 287 288 threads. I guess you're constantly busy over at MoS these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Enabler! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A real honor to be such a part of history. It's such a privilege. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The page is bigger than WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War combined. And has more combatants involved  :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's not half of it. Although a shame it's less fun. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Neil

I've given him a Big Scary Warning. I have better things to do than monitor him for compliance, but if he starts this Dash Warrior shit again let me know and I'll send him on his way. (For someone to reach the point where Dicklyon is complaining that they're too obsessed with imposing their personal stylistic preferences deserves some kind of award in its own right.) ‑ Iridescent 19:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was saying as much just the other day. [222] I'll keep an eye. EEng 21:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

да товарищ

Your edits [223] [224] had a great response in Russia [225]. Nice work! --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I fear I lack the grey matter to fully appreciate what's on offer here. (talk page stalker)s? EEng 05:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Transliterated: "Da Tsvarisch" or "Yes, Comrade". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my high school Russian got me that far. It's the video I'm unclear on. EEng 06:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Anyway, didn't the Tsarevich come to an unhappy end?

I have no answers for that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

When I clicked the link, I got taken to a disgusting compilation of Russians puking after drinking too much booze. As I understand it, there is a tremendous amount of vodka consumption there, so vodka drinking is something of a cliché. EEng Vodka, anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Then again, it could be Americans puking after the election. So that was Putin's plan! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thought you and the group would like this

The best vandal edit in the world (take note of the one-time use red-link name) Randy Kryn 03:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How sweet! EEng 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

CluebotNG has just got no heart. Fuck him, let him bot alone on Valentine's! ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Something Nazi Germany would have done."

President Trump in later life? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff? EEng 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Hidden-Russian-Showers-R-Us", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I heard about it on NPR. He says it couldn't have happened because he is a germ-phobe. (Really, I heard that.) No wonder he has so many divorces. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not more Germs?? Just wait until UK's top agents get to work... How Clean is Your Pres?

.... our best spies have got better things to do than go around massaging Russian World Cup football bids, you know!! #dun-a-peepee-on-a-potus (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I love The Twilight Zone, don't you? [226] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Roger Kibbe

Friendly Caution: You look like you are on the edge of an edit war. Please take any content disputes to the talk page. I've gotten, and declined for now, a request to protect the page. I'm also leaving this message on the other party's talk page. Drop me a line if you have questions or concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, thanks, Ad Orientem, but I guess you're still getting your sea-legs as a new admin -- you forgot to check the article's talk page.[227]. The idea of page protection here is ludicrous. EEng 19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WINING listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WINING. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:WINING redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Pppery 02:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

BLATANT TALK PAGE STALKER CANVASSING:
Please lend a hand at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Wikipedia:WINING. EEng 02:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

But we can't have WP:WINING without WP:DINING, which is a redlink. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:DINE: Please do not dine on the newbies

See right. EEng 21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Whining and dining. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Poe's law

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 [228] and this talk page thread [229]] 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)

:)

	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)

"Good luck"

... and talking of "arcane and subservient rule", I thought I'd get in quick with my cheery li'l "Good Luck, America" wish. Us folks over here are all busy comparing The Ronald with The Donald right now. Seems you folks over there decided to go from a B-Movie to something even more... definitive ..... "Well the first thing I wanna say is "madate by ass!" Martin Royle 123 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017

EEng and I are both enjoying the lovely weather here at Guantanamo Bay. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We figured if we checked in voluntarily we'd get better rooms. EEng 03:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A shiny whistle for you

	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)

For collectors of creative vandalism

[230]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And truth is stranger than fiction

"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I build them very inexpensively .... because I have a B&Q card." (aka "Block & Quayle" card)

Further information: User talk:Tryptofish § Biology is glorious

This. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh great, just great. Wait until Trump gets wind that "Also, it is noted that N. donaldtrumpi male genitalia are smaller..." The entire NSF is going to lose its funding. EEng 20:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

ALERT! There's still time to nominate for DYK!!! Stand by! EEng 20:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe it. It's already been a DYK, and the hook was about the stupid hair. No one even suggested the small genitals -- see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Neopalpa_donaldtrumpi. Honestly, DYK is completely hopeless. Imagine, it could have said

Did you know ... that donaldtrumpi has a scaly yellowish head and small genitalia?

500,000 views GUARANTEED. I weep. EEng 20:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. But cheer up! The article talk page is almost entirely taken up with a content dispute about exactly those parts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I have an idea. (talk page stalker)s, if we all troll that discussion relentlessly, then with luck in 3 to 6 months there can be a Signpost item announcing that "Arbcom has made its decision in the donaldtrumpi small-genitals case." We'll need to pick sides. EEng 21:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

OK everybody, we each have to pick sides about what size genitals we prefer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

What if we don't discriminate by genital size? Do we get a prize?

In all seriousness though, I laughed at the idea of this ending up at ArbCom for a second; then the most timid, "Please don't . . ." thought is now stuck in my head. The GMO holy wars were enough excitement for one lifetime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 on the GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I still can't believe no one at DYK pinged me when this article appeared in the pipeline. Obviously my days as the project's premier hooker are behind me. EEng 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Premier hooker?? You're way outside the fence, mate. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

For a good time, get your wallet, go outside the fence, and look for EEng. Premier service, even if past his best days. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Clueless editors on parade (part II)

Original section heading: "January 2017"

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 [231][232], 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 [233] [234] 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 [235]. 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 [236].)

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 [237][238], 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 [239], 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)

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days

Page views for this talk page over the last 90 days
Detailed traffic statistics

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Makes you despair for humanity‍—‌all those souls wandering in this vast wasteland. Actually, as the cognoscenti already cognoscend, the above is just one of the many fascinating visuals one may find at User:EEng#Sudden-unexplained-viewspike_detectors. EEng 04:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Caption competition

When Tezza met Trump. Sadly, the file isn't CC-BY-SA and "copying to EEng's talk" probably isn't good enough fair use. I'm sure you can come up with something. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Hey, I asked for someone hot!" --Tryptofish (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch out, Tfish, or some idiot will haul you to ANI for a wanton BLP violation. EEng 04:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• For this slightly different image [240]: "I'd grab her pussy but she's probably wearing iron bloomers." EEng 04:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch out, EEng, or some idiot will haul you to ANI for a wanton BLP violation. EEng 04:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"See her? I got her to pee for me!" Note to self: watch out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• For this image [241] of Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos: "Prepare yourself, girls. Mr. Trump's about to join you on stage."

• Great to see The Donald "stepping out" with our Tezza: [242] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• She: "They forget so soon". He: "Capitol Hill is aliiiive, with the sound of mules think..." Randy Kryn 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And here I thought that bathmophobia meant fear of showers! Note to self: watch out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha no, lol. You're thinking of an irrational fear of Brazilian electronic music: [243] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• He: When I come to the UK I'm going to wear a very pale suit to match your fake non-tan. Robevans123 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Modern politics

I know that Mr Obama isn't so hot with plumbing, but now it seems he couldn't even manage to fit a tap for that funny orange guy in the sky-scraper condo on Fifth Avenue? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Better watch out or Coffee might threaten to block you. EEng 23:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, unhelpful banter. Trump in drag is not something I would personally relish. But in the age of the executive order, you can expect to get a good roasting for even thinking about it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I clicked that link, and I think I saw the end of the world as we know it. Now we actually have red state and blue state coffees. Unbelievable. Or at least, not my cup of tea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

PapiDimmi editing the MOS again

Just letting you know, the user PapiDimmi is editing the MOS again even after being reverted and warned by you on their talk page. I went up to three reverts with them earlier, but they didn't listen and have gone on changing a bunch of other things. Thought you might want to take a look; they have altered text to use a hyphen where it explicitly says to "use an en dash". Ss112 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Message for you

Hey, EEng. Please read my response on my talk page, and please respond to it.

I would expect that an experienced editor like you doesn’t revert willy-nilly without reasons, which is why I’d really like a reply from you.

You’re allowed to admit that you were wrong. I don’t care. All I want to do is improve the MOS page, fixing all the grammar- and punctuation-related mistakes, but you’re keeping me from it.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 15:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the leeway to admit I'm wrong. I'm not wrong. We've been through this before with you. You're taking stuff Miss Snodgrass told you when you were 11 as gospel. EEng 17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

God, you’re so full of yourself. Instead of explaining why my revision is wrong, you are being childish instead. Did you just revert my edits for fun, not knowing what you were doing?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 23:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this is about this nonsense

I explained it, Dicklyon explained it, Ss112 explained it, plus Ealdgyth reverted you. What you read about dashes in some idiosyncratic style guide is just that style guide's idea, and your assertion that it's some universal rule is just flat-out wrong. What you're saying about however at the beginning of sentences is just flat-out wrong. As you'll see if you review this page I don't suffer fools gladly, and I'm just about out of suffer with you. You're out of your depth. Find something else to do. EEng 00:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No, they didn’t explain it. Sure, they said that I was wrong, but they didn’t explain it.

I’ve given you sources for my claims, but your sources are you. Google “en dash” and read about them. I’m not following one style guide or my personal, made-up rules.

Also, one should not start a sentence with “However.” However, you think that I’m wrong. Why? Any reason? Any sources?―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I already linked to the WP article on dashes, which YOU cited – except it disagrees with you.

• "The modern style guides don’t call starting a sentence with however an error."
• However, the overall lesson here is that, as useful as Strunk and White is (or are), it’s important to recognize that language changes, and has changed a lot even since White joined Strunk.
• It is perfectly fine to start a sentence with However
• An old-fashioned rule was that you shouldn’t start a sentence with however, but today however is often used at the beginning of a sentence to mean ‘but’, ‘nevertheless’ or ‘regardless of the fact’.

Don't respond, just go do something useful. EEng 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Would any of my glittering array of talk page stalkers like to give our friend a talking-to about changing his posts after they've been responded to? [244] EEng 02:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD for issuing such a warning [245]. EEng 02:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• And he's at it again [246]. EEng 07:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I sure am, mister. Good thing you’re keeping track.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 08:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

PapiDimmi You really should read WP:Talk page guidelines, particularly this section: WP:REDACT. It specifically addresses the issue of changing one's own comments. You need to stop and think, PapiDimmi, whether you would enjoy editing (or even possibly writing) articles on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. If you think you would, you need to avoid getting into heated arguments over minor issues like punctuation, "go with the flow" and follow the WP:Manual of style (even if some things irk you) – and really, PapiDimmi, is punctuation that important an issue? Wouldn't you agree that there are other more important things to think about and accomplish? – and find articles and tasks that are pleasing to you. If you continually get into arguments with other editors, make unpleasant comments like your last one just above, which is precariously close to a personal attack on EEng, and make what will be considered disruptive edits by changing things that have already been explained to you are not in accordance with the MOS, you may find yourself one day blocked, either for several weeks or months, or indefinitely. If that happens, there goes one of your hobbies. Is that what you want to happen? It is really up to you now.  – Corinne (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand, and I apologize. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 19:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that we've heard the "I'm sorry" spiel from you before [247]. I wasn't convinced then and I'm even less convinced now. But I guess we'll see. EEng 21:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I’m learning things as I go. For instance, I’ve learned that Wikipedia has its own strange rules, such as using en dashes inappropriately and bypassing English grammar rules when it comes to the use of quotation marks. I didn’t know these things before, but now I do. There’s no way of knowing all these obscure rules until someone tells me about them. Now that I’ve learned these things, I will not repeat my mistakes. It’s a lot easier when I learn what I’m doing wrong, rather than everybody turning against me for no apparent reason.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've drawn the wrong lesson here. There's nothing strange about MOS' rules. They may be different from the ones WP:MISSSNODGRASS taught you, but with minor and obscure exceptions they're all things you'll find in one or another of the major style books. I'll say it for the Nth time: certain things someone taught you are "universal rules of English" just aren't. You need to internalize this, and remember it next time you see something you're sure is wrong. EEng 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses spaced en dashes like em dashes, which I have never seen before. It also violates English grammar rules when it comes to quotation marks. That’s what I mean by obscure rules. I did not know these things, but now I know. Rather than constantly reverting my revisions and making offensive remarks, you could have told me what I did wrong.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 14:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Christ Almighty, I guess you didn't read what I just wrote. None of these things is obscure or wrong – just things you have never seen in Antarctica or on Jupiter or wherever it is you're from. You've been told this over and over. Please go away now. You've wasted more than enough of people's time displaying your parochialism. EEng 16:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

And what the heck is "the Nth time"? Is it on that fancy wrist watch of the Nth Man?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bullets and thumbnails

Hi EEng. Just wondered whether you could lend me a hand in trying to fix a layout error, on a particular article. You see, I'm having trouble formatting the layout at Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, with respect to the positing of a bulleted list adjacent to a thumbnail. The section concerned is here. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 20:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:IMGLOC -- this is a known problem. Great work on these articles, BTW. EEng 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:WHINE

Just read it. Very amusing. Kudos!

That said, any admin who encourages consumption of strong German beer to cool down after excessive whine should probably have their mop revoked. That's a frickin' terrible idea. In fact in a manner of speaking, I have it to blame for this edit summary. :P

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Charles Whitman

Hi, EEng. In reference to one of your edit summaries on the Charles Whitman page. The articles were diverged into two separate ones around December or January. If you look at this version of the Whitman article dating from when the entirety was on one page, there is a casualty table. I removed this article from my watchlist and have only recently re-added it. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Kieronoldham, good to run into you again. The current textual presentation of "hits" is numbing, and very hard to absorb. The table in the version you linked is better, but what would really do it right would be a conventional sortable table, with columns something like: Order#, Name, M/F, Age, killed-vs-injured, occupation/role (maybe), Notes/comments/narrative. Where two victims have a common story they could share a spanned cell in the last column. I actually began to do this yesterday but realized it's just too much work given my low interest level in the subject. However, if you're interested I could set up the technical stuff for the table and you can do the grunt work, with me dropping in now and then to criticize what you're doing and run roughshod over it. Deal? ;)

I should also mention that I'm not sure the articles should have been split. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just not sure. Maybe. Maybe not. Yes. No. Um... EEng 22:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on validity of splitting the article which you can find on the talk page of either the Whitman article or the user (whose name I forget) who started the splitting work on the spree page itself. To my mind the rationale is justified even though personally I think they should remain as one article. This article dropped off my radar and I just chose to re-add it a few weeks ago. As for sortable tables, I'll be happy to do it if I get consensus (I know how to create them). I only get a limited amount of talk page engagement myself - which I can understand - even though I just stab at articles until I get the temperature right i.e. - to my mind - eminent.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Start the discussion and I'll participate. EEng 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

EEng, okays.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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. 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)

What it means

I'm familiar with this, having read some of the studies. For example, let's say the population of the US is 320 million. One percent of that is 3.2 million. And the square root of that is 1,788. Hope that helps. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this is about [248]

TimidGuy, you're interpreting it as (The sqrt of (1% of 320 million)). But what if it's ((the square root of 1%) of 320 million)? Then sqrt(1%) is 10%, and 10% of 320 million is 32 million. No wonder there's still war and unhappiness and Donald Trump. Also, how come it's quantized by national boundaries? I mean, let's say the population of Boston is 1 million. 1% of that is 10,000; sqrt of that is 100. Now, I could probably get 100 friends and neighbors together for a little TM. Would that work, at least for Boston? And if so, but I work in Cambridge, do I lose my happiness for the duration of the workday? And if that's true, what happens if I go to Allston, which is a neigborhood that wasn't incorporated into Boston until the late 19th century. Does the cosmic consciousness operate according to current, up-to-date political boundaries, or some traditional boundaries from the past? EEng 20:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The example given in the actual article clearly intends ${\sqrt {.01p}}$: For example, a group of 200 practicing the TM-Sidhi program together in a city of four million (100 x 200 x 200) would be sufficient to produce a measurable influence on the whole city. The evidence is overwhelming: The p values (the probabilities of the observed changes happening by chance) of these three effects were 0.01, 0.005, and 0.001. The groups in question are clearly defined as "whichever we happen to be interested in, during a conveniently chosen interval". FourViolas (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What a bunch of idiots. EEng 23:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No, no, ITYM a bunch of clowns -- and they certainly made me laugh! "The square root of one percent of the population" is the funniest thing I've heard all week. (Granted, it's been a bad week...) —Steve Summit (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I bought you something!

I actually appreciate the cheer leading at the joke cat RfC, but there was no way I wasn't going to tease you about it.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Harvard University

Your recent editing history at Harvard University 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. X4n6 (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You're always good for a laugh. Like I keep saying, if you want this material removed [249], take it to talk. EEng 23:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I'm shocked to learn from the header of this talk section that students are edit warring at Harvard University. They need to stop it, and go back to studying. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd get Colonel Apted on it. EEng 03:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Weird to be templating you for this four days after the edit war seems to have ended. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This guy never learns (see multiple sections here [250]). He came back from a hiatus a year ago and since then 10% of his edits have been related to this preoccupation with Harvard. EEng 03:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm deeply sorry that I didn't immediately realize that Your Preciousness was above the rules of this project. I must have missed the section of 3RR which clearly stated that you were exempted. All I know is that two separate editors have disputed your edit - and you've reverted them more than 3 times - with zero discussion at talk. But instead of you initiating that discussion, it's their job, right? You revert, but they must initiate talk? Because it's... you - or by your comments above, because we dared infringe on your illusory fiefdom at the Harvard article? Well, although other editors are clearly amused by you - your sense of special privilege and entitlement bores me. If you could simply condescend to follow the same rules which the rest of us unwashed and unworthy lower castes do, then further unwanted interaction with Your Preciousness would be unnecessary. X4n6 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It was up to you to start a discussion after your change had been reverted. I see you've done that now (if incoherently) so good luck. EEng 07:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you suffer from amnesia, incompetence or just an aversion to the truth? It wasn't my change that you originally reverted. Also curious, is your invocation of BRD - not only because you obviously haven't read its first paragraph - esp. the sentence in bold - but because you have still failed to perform the "D" in "BRD" at the article's talk. So your bleating here means nothing. X4n6 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand who does what in BRD. Someone else removed this longstanding bit of content; I reverted, and they apparently were happy to leave it at that. You stepped in a day later to re-remove the content, and I again reverted. At that point you're the B and I'm the R, and it was up to you to initiate the D, if you cared enough. Instead you simply tried to edit-war in your preferred version of the article with the content removed. EEng 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

While clearly needed, I realize a disquisition on policies and correct practices would fall on deaf ears. Although your concession, that you have reverted two editors w/o talk page discussion, is useful. Beyond that, I'll simply point out that the rest of your response is moot - as I did start the conversation - and you have still failed to respond. So your choices are to either respond and discuss there - or refusing that - I'll do a little BRD of my own. X4n6 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's your job to open a thread, make your case for change, and get consensus. What you posted is so vague that apparently no one even knows what you want to do, much less why, which explains why no one's responded including me. In the meantime for some reason you're spending your time here entertaining my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng 22:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

My precious!

With his Gollum impressions, if nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

So... You're trying to get the D from another editor? Dude, maybe you should try Adult FriendFinder. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

..... X4n6 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

<buries head in hands, weeps quietly> EEng 20:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't care what you two reprobates think: it made me laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comedy table: party of one? Right this way... X4n6 (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

User:X4n6, if there's any more trolling, personal attacks, and would-be witty sarcasm from you on this page, there will be a block coming your way. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

And you're asked to restrain your puerile humour too, MjolnirPants. There are ladies present. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC).

No promises. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm left wondering if that means, "No promises of restraint," or, "No promises of ladies present." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Apparently disquisition is a word.
2. Tonight im going to put The D in my girls vagina. - Anyone who says that sentence...isn't. Anyone who types that sentence like that, probably shouldn't.
3. You can thank me later for File:Tree cricket chirping.ogv
4. My wife is a champion of puerile humor, and I resent the implication that she isn't therefore a lady. TimothyJosephWood 22:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

1. You've been on WP how long and you haven't looked up words for "ponderous walls of text"?
2. No arguments here. Do not mistake my recognition of slang which I'm probably too old to use in real life for an endorsement of the way it's used by those who often do.
3. <scribbles in his calendar>
4. Our wives would probably get along famously.

@Eggishorn: More the former. It's short for "Heard and acknowledged but I can make no promises as to the results." That being said, I suppose the latter is technically true, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No joking though, you should address the crap on the article's talk page, since "take it to talk" generally implies "I'll meet you there." Although I know well and good that you probably don't need told that. TimothyJosephWood 23:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. But this guy has a history of trolling on this article, and I'm not inclined to put myself out helping him get his act together. When he explains what he wants and why he wants it, then I'll respond. EEng 23:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but engaging in discussion is kindof an implicit obligation in reverting, and they did post a response on the talk in accordance with instructions give in your last edit summary. TimothyJosephWood 23:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes he did... eventually. But he phrased it as a requirement for others to explain why his change shouldn't be made, instead of him saying why it should be made, and like I said I'm not in the mood to do him any favors. Anyway, the estimable David Eppstein has cut the Gordian knot, and discussion is underway. I have no doubt it will be a complete waste of time like every other discussion this guy has opened on this article. EEng 23:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) I think the batteries are about to run out.

Also when did <html formatting> become standard to imply action, and at some point does <small> actually break or does it just continue rendering text smaller until it's less than a px? TimothyJosephWood 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect it bottoms out at some point. EEng 01:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, yeah. TimothyJosephWood 01:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Uh-oh, something seems to have happened to the D. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Rules of the talk page Cards84664 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A brave admin drops in to lecture and threaten

Original section heading: "WP:BLP violations at Wikipedia talk:Did you know"

I've had to redact and delete from the history the edits that you made to Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Due to the seriousness of your actions, if you repeat them (or make similar actions) I will be forced to block you without further warning. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns the following exchange (which I've had to partly reconstruct, since our brave admin has redacted the "BLP violation"):

There is a good argument that a historic picture of a pro-wrestler wrestling an animal is encyclopedic in 'Animals in professional wrestling'. There are unlikely to be commercial uses as the animal rights activists would crucify them. As it stands there is now one image which is Teddy Hart holding a pussy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 6:56 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Do we have to drag Donald Trump into everything? EEng

To which I say: That's a BLP violation? Are you nuts??? Meanwhile, our brave admin has removed this completely serious comment on the inadequacy of a one-week block for a death threat: [251]. Another member of the "Admin 3%", it seems. EEng 10:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

More threats from our brave admin

We're gonna get to Wall real soon now - way ahead of schedule (provided we don't get caught by the speed cameras on the A5 at Hinckley....)

Followup: Now we have this [252]. There's something delicious about an admin, in the context of a matter tangentially related to Donald Trump, obsessing over trying to control criticism of himself/herself. EEng 18:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, there are brave admins? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There are, actually, but in this case it's irony. EEng 18:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Are we talking about Trump? Making fun of him is so easy, and because he appears to lack a sense of humour (eg: Alec Baldwin skits) he's the gift that keeps on giving. I seem to remember a conversation about ten years ago where Jimbo Wales said that George W Bush was a typical example of somebody who BLP wasn't designed for, because "he's seen it all". (Do I have to get the diff?) So as your neighbourhood friendly admin, I say - fling those mud pies at the orange one! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Wait, Ritchie333 -- you're not shocked by my BLP violation? EEng 19:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Better watch it with the ape images, Ritchie [253]. If you're not careful Coffee might come along and threaten to block you. EEng 20:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point, though also the joke has been done to death. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

An article about Donald Trump is nothing to be proud of....

... and with this stuff around, how the hell can you violate BLP?

• Haven't read anything here in awhile, had thought that "stalkers" were welcome as non-stalkers, just hanging around every once in awhile, but came back for this one because it sounded like you were under threat. I read the above section, then looked at and read the linked discussions, and had several of my biggest laughs while on site. Still laughing as I edit this. Randy Kryn 22:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Then this section is doing its job. Bullying, narrow-minded, autocratic admins are best dealt with in the same way as bullying, narrow-minded, autocratic presidents: by letting their own absurd words and actions indict themselves via laughter among the afflicted. Don't forget to stop by The Museums, and of course you are always welcome. EEng 22:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. On a Wikipedia lawyer-level, the second comment probably was a blp violation, unless we formerly exclude Trump from the BLP rules and regs. Anyone who reads it and keeps up with both news and non-news would get the reference. Does Trump rate high-enough on a ridicule scale to separate the topic from BLP can be argued both ways, and the admin was erring on the side of caution, as you point out. On a non-wiki lawyer level, I've gotten pulled into and then involved in too many wiki-political discussions not to be able to bs like one from time to time, it is hilarious. And the admin can probably see that point-of-view as well. Randy Kryn 23:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

In all seriousness, how would this be a BLP violation, given that Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording explicitly carries the quote, "And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything ... grab them by the pussy"? Are jokes about the admitted behavior of public figures now forbidden? EEng 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the BLP example excluding George W. Bush sets a precedent, and the BLP question concerns if Trump is now included in that precedent, which can certainly be argued, and easily argued, both ways. The surreal-Trump image created by both conceptions and misconceptions probably comes close to that point. It's close enough that it's probably protected your great user-page, one of the treasures of Wikipedia. Maybe the question is about drawing a line on unrelated talk-pages or some such. There is no way that comment should draw a ban, or even further comments, because the defining reasoning behind such a ban threat is under question. Randy Kryn 23:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

In case an admin is following this section, I've come to confess. I've called Donald Trump's hair a work of art in a discussion. Mention of this work of art, unburdened by known recent proximity to pussy, stands as a testament to hairstyling expertise but may also be insulting to the man upon who's head rests both the crown and the hair. Randy Kryn 14:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I thought you knew by now that editors with a sense of humor are one of the gravest threats to WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Assigned reading: User:Tryptofish, lower half of the page. Oh yeah, and I dare anyone to say that I'm violating BLP. What utter bollocks! --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging our brave admin Coffee for response, since so far he/she is pretending not to notice the comments here. EEng 02:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I see you switched to a permalink of my user page, implying that you expect a revision! --Tryptofish (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, who knows, we may get to ANI or Arbcom on the subject of high-handed administrator overreach, so I thought it best to keep the record as intact as possible. I'm looking forward to comment from our brave admin, aren't you? I'm always trying to better understand project policies and guidelines, so it will be a real education to learn at last how any of this violates BLP. EEng 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope I don't get blocked for this but Coffee is one of the few admins I don't mess with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not messing with anyone. I just expect admins to exhibit basic good judgment, and explain their actions. Refusal to do so is corrosive to the community. EEng 03:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, I've also found that at least for me, commenting about admins gets me blocked. Look at my block log for why I don't mess with Coffee. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure your the backgrounds to your situation and to mine are comparable. But regardless, snap judgments by those in authority are (again) corrosive. Anyway, we're all still waiting to hear what our brave admin has to say. EEng

Yet even more absurdity from our brave admin

• Remembering that this thread is especially intended for connoisseurs of high-handed administrator overreach, I really cannot recommend this highly enough [254]. EEng 23:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You triggered some not-so-fond memories of my own: [255]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe we should point our brave admin at this unexpectedly-contentious GA review, where removal of some personal attacks could actually be helpful. On the other hand, if he gets overenthusiastic and blocks everyone in sight, I won't be able to get the participants to make the edits needed to complete the review process... I'd warn them to shut it down myself, only (as the reviewer) I'm too involved — I don't want to take a confrontational position as I think it would work against getting the GA to go through.—David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're pinging. Coffee never responds. EEng 23:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC) How exactly did a GA review on ballpoint pens veer into a discussion of pedophilia?

My expectation is that he notices, though. I have no idea! I thought it was just an innocent GA nomination about writing devices! —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been refraining from linking to this, but I just cannot hold back any more: User:Indubitably/Bathrobe Cabal/Gallery. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I really wish you hadn't done that. But it does explain a lot: Coffee's a child. EEng 23:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. Myself, I am of course a fish. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

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 [256]. 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)

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: [257]. 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)

Praying mantis

It's happy hour, and I was refreshing my memory for intelligent jokes on your user page. Why? I dunno because most of them travel way beyond the thought processes of my happy hour companions (I drink alone)...BUT I came across the image of the green praying mantis WP:NPP, and paused for a moment of introspective...several seconds, in fact...and here I am. I cannot personally relate to the role of the green praying mantis....BUT...my concern is that I may inadvertently be one. My OCD would never allow forgiveness...so I'm here to consult (what I perceive to be) an expert in math and possibly even economics (which may be a stretch) - all the while not knowing how on earth I came to such a conclusion. I would normally indulge in a little hero worship by consulting Tryptofish, who may not know everything, but does an excellent job making me believe he does. However, your brilliant wit and user name won out in this instance (and probably invoked a sigh of relief from Tryp). Regardless, whatever you share with me - positive or negative - it is understood that your input is limited to that of an observer which affords me the opportunity to contemplate and hopefully make a proper decision so that I don't ever become a green praying mantis. A-CEEI_mechanism. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not a delete -- I think the only question is whether it should be merged to the CE article. Paging my go-to guy on applied math, David Eppstein. (BTW, D.E., I suppose you've run into Harry Lewis at some point. He's just decided to retire. <sniff>) EEng 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish does not know everything – just more than EEng does. Harry Lewis? He goes back to when I was a student (circa ancient history). I'm amazed he hadn't retired earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you know? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)^{I see it was Tryp who responded. 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)}

I know everything. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you're both WP:EWI. EEng 23:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Aw, I dunno. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I know who Lewis is, of course (I seem to have first edited his article in 2009), but I can't recall whether we've ever actually met. My strongest connection on the Harvard faculty is to Michael Mitzenmacher (three-time co-author). A larger number of my co-authors are at that other school in Cambridge... —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What other school is there in Cambridge? EEng 04:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, one possibility would be Lesley, except that I don't think they have a computer science program... —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• So, this violist is coming home from a gig (that's not the joke). He stops to get some groceries, and as he's standing in the checkout line he realizes, to his horror, that he parked under a streetlight and left his viola on the back seat in plain view! He drops his bags and sprints outside, but it's too late: somebody has already smashed the back window and thrown in three more violas. FourViolas (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That joke works surprisingly well. EEng 03:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Offtopic Barnstar
		For your contribution in merrily derailing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar Keepers Friend (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Bar Keepers Friend? We could have used that in the talk section directly above! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar. But hell, that's kids' stuff. Check out WP:Articles_for_deletion/Aaron_Ozee. EEng 23:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) I appreciate the effort that went into the little Brillo-pad star you've got there.

All this reminds me of what Phineas Gage said to Dorothy Parker. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I shudder to ask. EEng 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

EEng defends the accuracy of Phineas Gage.

GAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOBOTOMY, GODDAM IT! EEng 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's why he said he did not want to have one. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I shutter to ask...unhinged...in a storm...in Key West...after visiting the 100 bars...one of which Jimmy Buffet frequented...or was it Hemingway? I'm THERE! What was my question? No, wait, no question - just a comment - enjoying the break afforded me by the famous "bar keepers friend"...although I think maybe that refers to a different bark eeper...ohhhh, did Tryp get a lobobotomy...my head hurts, said Phineas. And now I shall mount my trusty motorcycle, wait - thought I rode up here on a horse - anyway my iPhone has GPS which I'll set to HOME as soon as I can find where I put it...not my horse, my iPhone - hope I trained that sucker to read GPS - not my iPhone, my horse. I'm pretty sure it's here somewhere, and will let you know when/if I arrive home...or if I don't. (I hear spanking next door...but wait, there are two adults - do we have an article on that?) ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope that by this time next year I'm not reenacting this for Rescue 911. EEng 00:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope that Atsme gets home by this time next year. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thx for all the well wishes. I actually fell off my bike laughing after reading the following very real AfD for which Jytdog awarded EEng a well-deserved barnstar: I find no road trip is complete without a stop at one of the better retail establishments for some steel wool. I find the No. 000 especially... soothing. Great for exfoliating. Now it all makes sense why I received a phone call from Cargill here on island. They are justifiably concerned about EEng's promotional statement considering exfoliation is a big part of their business (aside from road salt). Cargill's sea salt scrub for women who believe the R-complex may dominant their triune brain as they age is a major income producer, and warrants serious concern over the competition they'll now be facing from Brillo as a result of EEng's statement. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

^{I'm offended...nobody got a rise out of responded to my humor. Guess it's back to hero worshipping for me.23:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Atsme📞📧 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)}

And here it is! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, nice - now you've resorted to torture. I'll be dreaming about a hero (or is it spelled gyro?) for the next 2 months! It's like one of those songs you hear that refuses to vacate your thoughts...perhaps a dose of Pepto Bismol would help clear the mind. You may be thinking, well, Atsme, such torture is not unlike a relentless (talk page stalker) who fills one's TP full of rhetorical bull💩 during Happy Hour...although ...💡💡💡💡... FOUR VOILAS!! (not intending to throw FourViolas off-base because of the close spelling). We don't have heros/gyros on this island, so it may be a worthy business endeavor I am now inspired to pursue. Ok, I will depart quietly and leave this page to the whims of....whatever. I hear an active crowd cheering a guy who is playing a guitar & singing the Bee Gees song, "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart". ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one very important mention...

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? Gotta love it!! Cheers ^{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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Important lessons

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)

In the tank

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 [258], I will thank you to attend to your own regardles and leave mine unmolested. EEng 00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Drop some Rosemary into the tank.

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)

Thanks!

I mistakenly reverted that edit on WP:911; I reverted the message I left and let the user know; apparently I didn't revert my damn edit back.... thanks for catching that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, have you seen WP:KABLAM? You inspired it. EEng 09:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

HAHA!!!! Dude, it's something that I still manage to do all the freaking time and I have no idea why. I almost always spell it as diffuse instead of defuse... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Young man (or woman), did you just dude me? EEng 09:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker) Sir, I will accept responsibility for Oshwah's use of the word "dude" which may have resulted from his diffusing an image caption I wrote during happy hour. Please, no more than 50 lashes, and diffuse them equally over both eyes using hypoallergenic glue. 👀 Atsme📞📧 19:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)}

[259]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

armands strazds

User:EEng @D.Lazard: @Suranadira: As of sometime in the last 3 days, the "armands strazds" Wikipedia entry has disappeared from the (top of) the a.s google search. The Facebook entry has much less gravitas/substance.

Also, kudos for the Rational numbers redirect. Great idea. The "delta numerals" entry has also mysteriously disappeared from the Delta disambiguation page. Tapered (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't hurry. Don't worry...

	You're only here for a short visit...
	So don't forget to stop and smell the flowers. ~Walter Hagen Click here to smell a flower. Atsme📞📧 23:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Ranma ½

I have to admit, your favorite referencing system works pretty well for making footnotes that link to the selected publications section. My previous method for doing that was <ref group=pubs> but then there's no way to list the pubs in a normal-sized font. On the other hand, the inconsistent indentation can be annoying; see Bruce Reed (mathematician) for an example I just tested out. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The real problem with < ref>< /ref> is you can't control the order of the refs e.g. alpha. One of the most glaring missing features is a way to do that e.g. to order them in the order they're given in {reflist |refs = }}. If that existed I would probably not have bothered with inventing ran/rma.

To keep the customer satisfied I've temporarily widened the "tag" column in {rma} to 50px; take a look at Reed now. Maybe tomorrow I'll either invent {rmaw} = rma wide, or add a column-width option to {rma}. EEng 05:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC) At first I thought you meant pubs. I thought: In what article is there a list of pubs, as footnotes?

I modified the rma template to take a tw=[tag width] parameter. Now Reed is all lined up again. I set the default back to 20px (but I think maybe it should have em rather than px for the units). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You certainly don't let the grass grow under your feet. Thanks again for your work on Lewis; way more than I could have expected! EEng 05:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Too much coverage? Or not enough?

The Ritchie333 request service is asking for witty banter, japes and tomfoolery on User talk:Ritchie333#Micaela Schäfer Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a tough time with this one -- all the vaginal steaming may have sapped my creative energies. If you can get it DYK-eligible let me know and maybe an idea will germinate within. EEng 02:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Thought you might be interested in this development. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I was about to send you the same message. Don't know what to think, really. I honestly feel bad for the guy, but as recently as this year he's been denigrating other editors (including me) off-wiki, and attacking notability policies. I just don't see how he can be trusted not to repeat the immensely destructive behavior we've seen before. I'm traveling with limited bandwidth so ping me on any further developments. EEng 16:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be an idea to at least report the vandalism to the Wikipedia community? No matter how much you dislike someone else, personally I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to have to experience this. Fiskje88 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's already noted on his talk page and as the vandal is blocked I don't see what more can be done. FTR I don't dislike RY; if anything I feel sorry for him. EEng 16:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Definite article

Do you really think the definite article improves the hook? To me, it just makes it obvious that "the horney dicks" is a nickname given to some group of people. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I didn't already know, I wouldn't have any idea that the phrase actually refers to a group of people, but since it strikes you that way feel free to change it back. Or maybe "some horney dicks"? I leave the choice in your capable hands. EEng 13:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think the proper honorific should be applied: "Her Majesty's Horney Dicks". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Since both of you are conveniently gathered here in this thread, I have a favor to ask. I need a GA review + DYK review of Harry R. Lewis ASAP. Could you each volunteer for one of those? It means a lot to me. EEng 16:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Harry R. Lewis/GA1 I'll go over it over the course of the day. This is my first review, so I don't know any of the 'traditions' of GA reviews, but I've read the guide pages previously, and will keep one open while I do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I really appreciate it! A GA review is much more lightweight than one might think. In addition to WP:Good_article_criteria (of course) be sure to take a look at WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not. EEng 17:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Good looking out with that second link; I'd never seen it before. I'll probably post something soon, I've been crawling through it and taking notes and I don't really have much to say (but I'll say it at the review page in a bit). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Limited time offer – one day only!

WT:BLP#Requested move. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

...And so it begins... <evil laughter> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK favor

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!

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

So proud of you!!

"I started out at the top of EEng's Talk Page as a happy young man ... and just look at me now."

Have you always had "one click archiver"? 🤠 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Start over?

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

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)

Question on DYK

Thank you for your help. 72.74.202.199 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! EEng 02:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Cake for you!!

A Mary Berry Raspberry Putin Devil's Food cake for you!!!
N.B. Top tip - Mary says: "Be careful to bake on Gas Mark 4 or below, or the cyanide may all evaporate into the icy Neva River." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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!

	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...

Angry Mob Court presided over by Judge Roy Bean

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)

Possibly one for your collections (or at least for your amusement)

Where, exactly, is Falls Creek? Is it near Davis or not? --bonadea contributions talk 10:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if it's anywhere near Lakeville Lake? EEng 02:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

And what exactly is an "all-sports lake"? Is it somehow related to liquorice allsorts? Never mind, I googled it, but next question: why do we not explain what it is to non-Michiganders? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Cite errors at Lindbergh

Hola, I have fixed[260][261] two cite errors you introduced[262][263] 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)

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!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

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 [264]. Presumably 100 of them died off after following the advice in my medical contributions. EEng 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

misplaced comment?

I'm pretty sure this was a mistake: [265] So I fixed it here: [266] I don't normally alter other people's talk page comments but this seemed pretty clear-cut. Sorry if I've misinterpreted. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks! EEng 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"Astoundingly atrociously poor block"

May 2017

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 ~~~~}}.

Template:Z8 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,

                                        

EEng (despite his block log, which is not as bad as it looks at first glance if you understand it) ...

—Doug Weller‍^[267]

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

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. 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...

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 . ^{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

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

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)

Answers:

• do you stand by your comment I highlighted: If you're talking about [268], 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 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. 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 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)

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? Patient Zero^talk 13:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Guerre des roues

Admins wheeling

An admin is threatening another admin with a block! [269]

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

	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. 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. [270] ^{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!

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)

Manual of Style

Please link to instructions that say "you MUST break them into smaller diffs that can be considered and discussed as needed". No evidence has been provided that any user other than you has difficulty processing several small changes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it's the one huge change that's hard to review. Several small changes are what I was asking for. Thanks for cooperating. EEng 23:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A rogue-like mod on a roguelike MMORPG

Just came from some admin's TP with some (pithy) support for you and the general situation at a certain MOSsy talk page. I have loved CS Lewis's children's books all my life. But, even as a kid, I thought Aslan (that's you) came off as a bit of a self-righteous prick a lot of the time, despite (or maybe because of) his unassailably pure intentions. But what they fucking did to him, no joy in that. Chin up, buddy. Primergrey (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Aslan is... a wise, compassionate, magical authority (both temporal and spiritual); mysterious and benevolent guide... guardian and saviour... an alternative version of Christ... despite his gentle and loving nature, he is powerful and can be dangerous.

How kind of you, Primergrey! I must say, however, you're a brave one to use the word "prick" on this page, given recent history [271]. EEng 12:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. I noticed that after I posted. Your talkpage, like a sexy librarian, reads easier from the bottom up. Primergrey (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Er, um, yes of course. Anyway, you are now a valued patron of the Museums. Oh, and connoisseurs of administrative highhandedness will take delight in [272]. EEng 12:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Good God! I guess I didn't read up far enough. I stopped after the funny bits and missed all the drama. (I recall once telling you it wasn't your strong suit.) I wish I'd seen it in real time. I would've advised you to claim some sort of strong, recent, interest in all things Canadian. We throw pricks around left and right and no one feels too hard done by. Primergrey (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RHB 100 ANI comment

I spent over 25 minutes writing and rewriting by big comment (half of which is his words) and then you come along and not only better capture everything I was trying to say, but you also get results from Robert. HOW!? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

All in a day's work. EEng 00:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that I am now quoted in the museums. I suppose I should be flattered. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course you should. Maybe we should start Category:Users honored by something they wrote or did being selected for inclusion in User:EEng's Museums. EEng 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

^{Already added the red link on my TP. Do we have "User" Categories or is there concern that it would overwhelm En WP Categories? Atsme📞📧 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)}

I'd be happy to be in a category of users dishonored by that! Hey, did you just create another one of those red categories in user space? Somebody block this person! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I used the [[:Category:blah blah]] syntax, which merely links to a category without placing the present page in the category. I'm telling you this because I know you'd want to be enlightened. EEng 21:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that was the right thing to do! Alas, poor Atsme was led astray, and went ahead and put a variation of the category, in full, on her user talk page. So I went ahead and turned it blue, and put it in the quarantine parent category. Y'all can thank me later. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

PS, it's quite a losing battle to try to enlighten me, but thank you for trying anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

When a whip isn't enough, the valiant knights of the EEng Roundtable will come to the rescue.

I was indeed led astray Tryptofish but I maintain faith in the valiant Knights of the EEng Roundtable to honor their call to duty and correct any threatening edits that will cause irreparable damage to the kingdom...like the fire breathing red link categories that have caused good editors to be consumed by the hellpit kingdom of ANI. This damsel in distress thanks you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this particular hellpit kingdom is Wikipedia talk:User categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I live at ANI, and can assure you there is no hellpit anywhere. Special:NewPagesFeed is. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite honorable...as long as we don't have to involuntarily attend another block party. If the latter turns out to be the case, my preferred music would be Staying Alive. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

When I was younger, my heavy metal band did a cover of that song. I sang it (badly) in C3, which you might recognize as being more in the range of these guys. It was a big hit. A fan gave me a pair of bell bottoms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The 🎶 at that link stirred memories of basement clubs with blue lights, huge speakers, yoga pads and rows of big pillows on the floor, sugar cubes and hand-rolled cigarettes. ✌🏻^{Atsme📞📧} 12:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• I noticed this as well. I gave serious thought to telling you that you are a true (Personal attack removed)-whisperer. Note: The {{rpa}} template was part of the original comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope. He could be a real asset on topic areas in which he has so much experience. EEng 22:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I did some digging and it looks unlikely that he's lying about his claims (I will not dismiss the possibility, however). But I stand by my assertion that people who feel the need to convince others of their abilities rarely demonstrate strong abilities. I suspect the reason he's so hot about all the "mistakes" in the articles might not be the objective accuracy of those articles. I'm not even being slightly facetious, by the way. A great deal of experience has taught me never to trust a braggart and I honestly can't recall a single exception. I still think this is a case in which editor retention should be a secondary concern. That being said, I understand your position and don't intend to argue the point past this explanation of my own view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've dug too, and unless the account is an impersonation there's no question he actually is all the things he says he is. I'm trying to cut him some slack for generational differences. An academic expert I have great, great respect for had an almost impossible time understanding our OR and SYNTH policies, and why experts have no special weight per se; a lot of it had to do with not understanding the fundamentally unprecedented nature of online social ecosystems. EEng 22:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

After you've had a chance to redirect this editor into something useful; if he proves incapable of contributing I'll tell you an interesting anecdote about my father. If he turns out to be quite helpful in other areas, though... Well, just rub it in my face at my talk page. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

^{It's Sheldon Cooper 50 yrs from now. Atsme📞📧 03:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)}

• Wow, you achieved some dialog, well done! Although, I'm sure you realize the enormity of the task ahead. Burninthruthesky (talk)

AfD

There is no case to be made for John Cochran to be the only Survivor winner without a Wikipedia page.

If you want to be constructive, please discuss my proposal to remove some of the 20-odd Survivor contestants who are obviously not notable, rather than making the same (flawed) argument multiple times. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you've seen fit to disturb me here in the sanctity of my talk page, and have been posting here and there complaining that I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to notability, I'll just gentry point out that you have only 400 edits against my 40,000, so maybe you should rethink that. See WP:WAX. I made this nom because I stumbled on an article about someone who seemed nonnotable (and whose nonnotability is confirmed by the fact that I'm hearing all the usual WP:ATAs, but complete silence in response to my request for a list of just three independent reliable sources). I don't know anything about some larger plan for the series as a whole. EEng 19:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you? I've mentioned my proposal for a larger plan several times in the AfD, I was suggesting that you read it. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, adjusting the notability criteria for contestants in beauty pageants and reality shows is so far from anything I want to spend time on that it's not even funny. There's something you really need to understand: the topic-area notability "criteria" don't trump GNG. They're just a handy way to get quick provisional decisions. If, when push comes to shove, there are no independent reliable sources, there can't be an article. EEng 20:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

They don't trump GNG? Look at all these people who disagree! Black Kite (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Including one member of Arbcom, apparently. Maybe it's the moon or something. For those who are wondering, we're talking about WP:Articles_for_deletion/John_Cochran_(Survivor_contestant). EEng 23:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that he is on the keep side. He used to be a very staunch inclusionist but lately has become much more likely to side with the deletes. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that anyone is on the keep side. Have you seen the sources in the article? EEng 00:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Draconian copyright violations

This edit, containing a YouTube link, is apparently out of line and banhammerable. Just ask Martinevans123. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Take a number, busybody. EEng 14:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 FYI - the next number is 150, and I'm holding 85. I believe 22 goes next. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If I "accidentally" swapped numbers, would you promise not to shrink my head? (for those playing at home, the context is this) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

^{Based on subsequent comments, a shrunken head is the least of your concerns. Heads-up - #23 is next. Actually, if you'll start at the top of this page and scroll down one sentence at a time, you won't even notice how long it takes b4 your # is called. Atsme📞📧 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)}

You linked to copyright violations! I'll have you desysopped! EEng 15:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh do keep up EEng, that was a link to a link of a copyright violations. Big difference. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Speaking of scrolling...EEng, is it possible for you to include a "page up" button at the bottom of your TP that works like the page down button at the top of your page? And if you could add an up and down button mid-page, it would be helpful, too. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Atsme importScript('User:Numbermaniac/goToTop.js'); // [[User:Numbermaniac/goToTop.js]] I have this in my common.js. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 21:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, but feel free. EEng 16:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You all don't have keyboard shortcuts to jump to the top or bottom of a web page? On my computers it is command-uparrow or command-downarrow respectively. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to do that on my iPhone or iPad. I'm certainly open to suggestions, Mr. David Eppstein. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Tap the status bar (the bit at the very top where the battery level etc is.) ‑ Iridescent 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It works, Iridescent...it works!! You win a prize named after you - the Iridescent Ribbit Award: Hope EEng doesn't mind me giving prizes on his TP and will consider the gesture a worthy cause since he removed the jump to the top code. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

[Poem and ribbet moved to The Museums ]

You're welcome to hand out prizes. FTR I removed the jump to top code because the one data point we had confirmed my fear, which is that it would end up buried mid-page as visitors added new threads at the bottom. I'm sure there's some way to special-code some kind of "footer" or something, but that's out of my pay grade. EEng 20:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

OMG!! L3X1, you earned being knighted or damed, and added to the 1st position on the honorary roundtable - (as soon as EEng figures out where to mark the 1st position on the table since he isn't quite sure how to add an up command for his TP - and no, EEng, "up yours" is not the same as an "up command"). Anyway, I'm sending you a gigantic THANK YOU!! All I need from the EEng (talk page stalker) is a smiley for the idea whereas L3X1 deserves an overwhelming show of appreciation!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

^{It's Happy Hour on my little island so here's my disclaimer for anything I may type that may be construed as offensive....Pffft!!...did I spell that correctly? Atsme📞📧 22:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)}

I've been playing jump up and down with the new buttons. Jumpin' Jack Flash ❤️❤️❤️ ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

What my computer looks like after I try to access this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• Here's a fun fact: On many or most iPhone applications (browsers and more) if you touch the clock at the top of the screen, it jumps to the top of whatever page you're looking at. I don't know if there's something analogous for jumping to the bottom or whathaveyou. EEng 22:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  It's prolly analagous to having a fat finger, so while you think you're touching the clock, you're actually touching the url bar which reloads the page. Trump might get away with it, but not you Harvard boys...or so I'm told. I think the concept you enlightened us to is an excellent one. In fact, I would truly appreciate a clock in the top menu bar that would take us back in time to whatever date we prefer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The thought of trying to access this talk page from a handheld device horrifies me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

^{Tryp - Lysol and rubber gloves. Atsme📞📧 00:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)}

Blanked off Black

EEng, please do not take even the slightest offense at my temporarily removing the Robert Black article from my watchlist. It is nothing to do with yours, John's or any other editors' edits or adjustments: with these seizures I have had and which have increased dramatically since Feb. the increased medication is debilitating me and I find it difficult to maintain interest or focus (even in conversation) for extended lengths of time - THAT is why I have temporarily removed it from my talk page. I should have explained that in the edit. You, DendroNaja, MartinEvans123, John, and a few others have always been polite (and humorous while maintaining professionalism) with me. I loathe having this neurological condition - it is ever present in my life and the medication levels I am on are the maximum. I was actually nearly in tears when the paramedics injected me with an anticonvulsant when I stated having a second seizure while in triage on 25 April. I thought I had it under control to roughly one seizure every two years and was saving for a car. See the talk on the temporal lobe epilepsy page and my most recenly archived talk page. In fact I will re-add the Black article now; I can do little bits here and there.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Kieran, I am so sorry to hear this! I wish I knew some way to help. If there's ever anything I can do to make Wikipedia an easier place for you to operate in and enjoy, let me know. Good luck, and let us hear from you now and then. EEng 20:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing aside from hospitalization (again) will keep me away from Wiki.,EEng. Thanks for the kind words though. :) --talk

That's a shame. Seems like Wikipedia would be the perfect way to while away the hours while in the hospital. Other than the rise in blood pressure, of course. EEng 21:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I edit from my padded cell in the psych ward. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Some would argue that's where I actually belong,Tryptofish. What will this community think of next? Proceed.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your expert work with me over the last year, and your patient explanations whenever I become taciturn or defensive. Appreciated--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't recall any such lapses on your part. Stay in touch. EEng 20:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Museums

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

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–Gerasimenko… Rhâââ, 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:

• Comey memos – Knee-jerk fork from Dismissal of James Comey about one or several memos that nobody has seen. It was almost created before newspaper editors had a time to collect their thoughts (see Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation: Good grief. This will be in all the relevant RS by tomorrow.). Wild speculation on their serious consequences ensues. Impeach him! Prose could have remained in the dismissal article; instead it gets repeated in the Trump and Comey bios, in the presidency article, in the dismissal article and in the dedicated memo(s) article.
• 2017 Mexico–United States diplomatic crisis – Hastily created in the heat of testy exchanges between two North American presidents at the end of January, one of them performing a rage quit (oh joy, a red link!). Nothing happened since. Article is dangling, with a feeble attempt to shoehorn some minor thing in February, that not even the Lügenpresse calls a "crisis".
• Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) – Dude was arrested for child trafficking and assorted sex crimes, obviously doesn't meet WP:PERPETRATOR notability standards for criminals, but lo and behold, he once supported Trump so he gets his 15 minutes of fame and the AfD mob is tending towards a strong keep, because reasons. With a three-day cool-down period, I bet this scumb** would have remained in well-deserved obscurity.
• …and my favourite one today: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll (a mouthful) plus its edit war discussion at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Why the removal of "McCarthy–Ryan conversation about Trump being on Putin's payroll"?, complete with bad-faith reverts, personal attacks and ad hoc survey.

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 (talk • contribs) 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 [273]. 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)

• My no-traction contribution to this area, not complete overlap: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20#Delay on coverage of major events. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:18, 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

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:

• JFG ^talk
• TheGracefulSlick (talk)
• MASEM (t) 02:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni (talk)
• El_C 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• ^{Atsme📞📧}
• ~ Rob₁₃^Talk
• ―Mandruss ☎
• K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• (Next pygmee)

Choice of venue?

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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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

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 weeks, 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)

• BREAKING: Look, another "breaking news" turned into a stub within minutes: Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn. Sorry, I pushed that to AfD. Why can't people just edit existing articles such as Michael T. Flynn or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? The thing was spammed into the main Trump sidebar for good measure…[274] Facepalm

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 (talk • contribs) 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. [275] 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)

Well...

Without wishing to sound like a patronising prick (and/or any other epithet you wish to deploy against me), respect. A version of the classic cliche works for me too, I "know gay people, they're like me only they have better dress sense, better skin, can dance, have more empathy, are less patronising, have a great sense of humour, and far too many girl friends". Of course, this will doubtless lead to my indef ban on Wikipedia (thanks to the stalkers!), but hey ho, it was good to go out with a beautiful rainbow chasing my sorry ass.

EEng, you're alright; I wish we could ever meet in reality, I think you might even realise I'm not a 100% prick, just 97%. Keep on keeping on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've always felt that (perhaps like me) you're only 80% a patronising prick, the other 80% being not a prick. EEng 23:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is some good news to brighten your day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I climbed into my car after work last night only to hear exactly that on NPR as soon as the radio cut on. Link unrelated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I find it very disturbing

... that I thought about you off-Wiki. I saw a TV show in which a character erroneously used the word "mute" instead of "moot". Naturally, this reminded me of you gently teasing someone for doing the same thing, and getting a warning for making a personal attack. I think the person who used the wrong word probably didn't get what you were doing, but I dunno if the admin who issued the warning did or not. In any case, please just get out of my head. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked! EEng was actually gentle when he teased someone? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Most impressive

The article for the Boston massacre was altered today due to the cavs whooping the celtics. I automatically assumed one of these talk page stalkers was responsible, but I guess I'm just biased. Cards84664 (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Pardon me for being dense, but... what????? EEng 03:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Good one, Cards84664!

Do you mind letting me in on the joke? I have not the foggiest idea what you're talking about. EEng 17:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Start here... and sync to this. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You really should archive this page

Hey, sorry about that stuff on WP:MOS yesterday. I was going to post an off-topic (for MOS) response here, but decided against. (In short, I was going to remark that 270 words is a pretty short "essay".)

But I was initially very tempted to post it on the MOS talk page because of how long it was taking to load your talk page. When other users start to seriously wonder how long they can get away with carrying on off-topic conversations with you on other fora because your talk page is so inconvenient, I think it's really time to start archiving. I got a message similar to this from In ictu oculi a few years back, but I have to imagine my page was only about half the size yours is now...

Just to be clear, this is friendly advice that you can choose to ignore. I'm not "angry" at you or anything. :P

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll add your note to the archive of people urging me to trim. I do once in a while. Maybe I'll try harder. But I really wonder what people are fussing about. I'm on an ISDN connection with a laptop I bought in 2009, and I have no trouble. The young people today want everything instantly. EEng 23:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm an old fish, and you should try harder. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a suggestion - copy the top 1/2 of your TP posts, and past them in a collapsible section on your user page - title it TP discussions from [date] to [date]. Next time you archive, create a second collapsible under the first, and so on. At the top of your TP, link to those sections. They are clearly museum pieces. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't change the load times in the slightest, but it might be interesting artistically. I'll think about it. EEng 00:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I assume User:Atsme meant to add "...and then delete them from your talk page". If you did that, then it wouldn't change the load times for those who click on the "E" in your signature to get to your user page and then click through to get to talk, but for those careful enough to click straight to talk, it would make this page load faster. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Hijiri88, you are correct. Thank you for clarifying. Move and delete was actually at the heart of my suggestion as a shorter TP would speed up "save changes" when commenting from a slow IP. I've also learned to use EEng's TOC which saves time scrolling. Iridescent posted above how to quickly go from bottom to top on an iPhone by tapping the top status bar where the battery indicator is located. 🤓^{Atsme📞📧} 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was half asleep. You're right. Well, I'll speak to my technical team about it. EEng 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I opened this page on mobile once, it cost me several hundred dollars in overages. TimothyJosephWood 01:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm being dead serious here: This page crashed my wife's (shockingly underpowered) netbook. No joke, thought it is hilarious. I tried it three times, with cleared caches and everything just to be sure it was the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Not so active right now

Thanks for the ping above and the tremendous compliment you paid by pinging me.

As my talk page explains I'm not so active just at the minute, so I'll pass for now on the discussion (couldn't load it on my phone properly. Any chance you can do some archiving? This page took forever to even partially load.) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Et tu, Dweller? EEng 15:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to join in the pile-on over something so trivial, but as I've said before I agree that the "Wikipedia's longest talkpage" schtick has long since crossed the line into disruption. The issue isn't so much crashing browsers or download speed (although you'd be surprised how many of Wikipedia's readers and editors are still on 28kbps–56kbps dial-up connections—as of 2015 when the normally confidential figures had to be disclosed as part of the Verizon merger, AOL alone had 2.3 million paying dial-up subscribers in the US), but access costs for people in the parts of the world where data usage is metered. For readers in countries like Canada and Germany, your talkpage costs the equivalent of 10-15 cents a time to access; yes, these sums are relatively trivial but they do add up, and readers who aren't familiar with you have no way of knowing until after they navigate to it that this isn't a typical talkpage. (And yes, I'm aware that at the moment my own talkpage generates an even greater bandwidth load, but that's owing to a single long very image-intensive thread which the bot will soon archive, not the standard state of affairs.) ‑ Iridescent 16:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Plus, you never know when the 3% will block you for not archiving your page. I am trying to find the user I am referring to, but I can't seem to recall his name, but he's banned from Wikipedia for not archiving his page. But I do agree that the page is way too long to load, especially on a mobile phone, which Wikipedia is horrible enough as it is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming it's User:Varlaam you're talking about, he wasn't actually blocked for refusing to archive his talk (his explanation was I have never deleted anything from my talk page or archived it, because that is dishonest), but for general disruption of which the refusal to archive his talk was just a symptom. ‑ Iridescent 16:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it was a different user. If I remember correctly, an admin archived his page and he undid it, and there was a whole back and forth and an ANI as well. When I'm more bored, I'll see if I can look it up. It's good dramaz.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• You all do realize, don't you, that "length of page" is largely a red herring? Much or most of the bandwidth is in the images. EEng 16:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)