Skip to top
Skip to bottom

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

Satellite image of a section of the Great Wall of China, running diagonally from lower left to upper right and not to be confused with the more prominent talkpage running from upper left to lower right. The shadow at the upper left indicates "You are here." Talkpage archives are not visible.

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


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


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

a. Stalkers caught on camera; b. Why was the gardener unhappy?
Wikipedians with red lynx cats on their user page
And now, without further ado .. Ladies and gentlemen, we present to you ... EEng's talk page!

Don't be a teaseEdit

You recently teased some trivia questions about MIT in this thread at ANI. I tried using Google, but Mr. Google and I have a love/hate relationship and he offered no assistance (maybe he's tired of being used and tossed aside). Will we ever find out what the answers are now that the thread has been closed? Or will I have another sleepless night wondering why Mr. Google refuses to answer my questions?— Isaidnoway (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely you don't imagine I'd pose a shibboleth you can look up on Google. I'd like to give him a day or two to show off his knowledge [5] before I open the secret envelope. For some reason these poseurs often think they can get away with an MIT imposture (this one was a "professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing" who had "armies of grad students and PhD candidates who work in my labs" – "I'm a computer lawyer" seems to be a common fantasy) but rarely, for some reason, Harvard. You can always tell a Harvard man, I guess. EEng 05:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I am hoarding all of the juicy secret information that I hold close to the vest, known only to the select few who attended the City College of San Francisco, San Francisco State University and the glorious University of San Francisco. These Cambridge nerds like my brother-in-law must be put in their places. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You're going to think I'm making this up, but UCSF's Laurel Heights Campus is build over the cemetery where ol' Phineas Gage was originally buried. Cross my heart. EEng 06:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
As a very young man (after high school but before college), I worked at Kaiser Hospital on Geary Boulevard, where they were digging up Gold Rush era graves during relentless medical center expansions. Mind you, I was not there during the actual Gold Rush. But they needed to create a special city, Colma, California, to accommodate all of the exhumed graves. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Colma has 1800 living residents and 1.5 million dead; the town's (unofficial?) motto is "It's great to be alive in Colma!" For the full story see the source cited here [6], and there's a nice map of the four cemeteries that used to surround Lone Mountain here [7]; Gage was buried in "Laurel Hill Cemetery" (which was itself called simply "Lone Mountain Cemetery" until its name was changed in the mid-1860s). EEng 18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (Attention, Isaidnoway...) Our ex-lecturer–lawyer having demurred to respond, here are the answers to the four posers posed at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#Personal_attacks_by_User:BostonBowTie:
    • (1) Immediately as you leave MIT for Harvard there's a sign that famously provides an unintentional pun when seen from just the right vantage. What is it? Answer: The metropolitan storage warehouse — fire proof next to the railroad tracks, which if you stand in just the right place reads rage warehouse — ire proof. Photo at [8]. It's now student housing.
    • (2) According to tradition, one MIT president had some famous last words. What were they? Answer: "Bituminous coal", according to legend the last words of MIT founder William Barton Rogers before he dropped dead on the commencement dais. See [9].
    • (3) What MIT library makes you go around in circles? Answer: Barker Library, inside the Great Dome; see the map here [10].
    • (4) What was kept overnight in a car trunk during the Apollo 13 emergency? Answer: MIT's copy of the Apollo guidance system's gyros, to verify their performance at very low temperatures. Search "trunk" in [11]. (If you like that sort of thing at all then this book [12] is outstanding.)
EEng 20:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!Edit

  For striking a balance between humor and insight, and for having the only page on Wikipedia visible from space   cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Submission to the MuseumsEdit

Describing the planning of the Suez Canal as "he planned to penetrate the feminine Orient with the masculine Occident in a consumation of progression" is such a gem of machine translation I don't even have the heart to remove it. ‑ Iridescent 21:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The Curator has adjoined your contribution [13] to an existing item also relating to unusual foreign adventures. EEng 23:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I haven't the heart to remove this, either. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
[14] No matter what, they're preserved in perpetuity here in The Museums. EEng 15:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Big Telecom conspiracyEdit

I've just got new, faster, wizz-bang high speedier internet installed. Guess what I did to test the speed? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Like my new laptop? This baby can do 10.8 EEngtalks!" EEng 10:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
You made a cup of coffee but managed to drink only half of it before this page successfully loaded? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't as fast as I would have wished. Honestly, it really is the most practical speed test I've ever found! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
With my Ye Olde Worlde UK internet, I can usually manage a whole cafetiere. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, I did spend two full sessions with my psychiatrist dealing with the fear that you'd abandoned me. EEng 14:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    ... did they find that part of is the reluctance to have to wait for an edit here to be saved? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    That would be a lack of patients, which could be quite a problem for EEng's shrink. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    He's an imaginary shrink, so he's got all the time in the world. EEng 18:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    So if someone thinks that they see a psychiatrist who isn't really there, does that mean that they actually need a psychiatrist? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible?Edit

Hi EE. Do you think we could dub over Steve's voice here to say "another wrestling thread at ANI?" :-) In another bit of fun they have a festival where they reenact that scene every year. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow! It's even better in Spanish! EEng 02:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do I not see you at RfA?Edit

There's an RfA going on right now and I'm wondering. Why do you never !vote in RfAs? SemiHypercube 01:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • (a) The fawning nominating statements make me want to vomit.
  • (b) My only criterion for adminship is that the person not be an idiot or an asshole, and if you oppose you have to say why, but you're not allowed to say someone's an idiot or an asshole.
  • (c) They're like super-serious over there and don't allow jokes.
EEng 07:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to nominate EEng, so he can block himself. [FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
EEng becomes an admin – SemiHypercube
EEng wrote about a guy with a large iron rod through his head. It wasn't his autobiography. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I'm not sure if nominating EEng for adminship would be a good idea. I might support him if this page gets created, but I can hardly imagine what absolute chaos would ensue if he were nominated, let alone actually be promoted. SemiHypercube 02:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is very disappointing. The header turned up on my watchlist, and I took it to mean "Why do I not see you as a candidate at RFA?" So I came here fully expecting to see either a good excuse for not standing from EEng, or (better) an abject apology followed by a prompt self-nomination. (I agree about the fulsome nominations, and always give extra points to the few who self-nominate. Let's have some self-reliance and independence at RFA, people. What are the admins? A mutual admiration society? An exclusive country club?) Anyway. Please do nominate yourself! I'd certainly vote for you. (Yes, I'm too proud to use that "!vote" jargon.) Bishonen | talk 03:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC).
    If Donald Trump can become President of the United States I guess anything's possible. EEng 03:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I will vote for you if you make Wikipedia great again. PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Please use that as a slogan and campaign theme.  MWGA  Levivich? ! 05:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Of one thing, I have no doubt: It would be the best illustrated RfA ever. Imagine the images! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I know that Bishonen prefers self-nominations, but that doesn't mean that Bishzilla does too. If Bishzilla nominated EEng, I'd definitely support. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
All the bullhonky aside...HELL YEAH!!! EEng proudly wears the battlescars that were inflicted upon him by years of clueless [fill-in the blanks]. He knows what it means to be [fill-in the blanks]. He has years of experience, incredible knowledge and the wherewithal to [fill-in the blanks]. Any editor who ever doubted his ability to craft the almost perfect encyclopedic article...[fill-in the blanks]. He would be the WP symbol of the Phoenix rising...the mystical Unicorn...the ultimate [fill-in the blanks] that would attract hordes of news media. And I would damn sure vote for him because [fill-in the blanks]. 🦄 Atsme✍🏻📧 00:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate the compliments, I have not the slightest interest in becoming an admin – not that there's a snowball's chance in hell of that actually happening anyway. I feel I can do more good as a member of the loyal opposition. EEng 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

List of accordionistsEdit

I was just editing List of accordionists (as one does) and suddenly thought I about you, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That video is hilarious. EEng 13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest that list be compressed. EEng 23:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is when it is compressed, then expanded, then compressed again, and then expanded again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"Donald's got a squeeze box, Melania never sleeps at night": [15] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"And now a word from our sponsor, A Stable Genius." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

User conductEdit

This and this, although I'm sure you'd already figured that out. Even without those facts, it's still blatantly obvious isn't it? ;) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess the irony of my ANI comment didn't come across. EEng 23:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Consider that this is the internet and irony that relies on prior knowledge of a person or signals such as body language and tone of voice should not be assumed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, uh, duh, Mr. Pedantic Ass, thanks for filling me in! That's a great tip! EEng 19:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Questions asked around your "snore" edit summaryEdit

Please help to improve the article to make it more interesting as per WP:BLUE WP:NPOV etc and where your comment is simply snore, please look to expand so it is not just "snore". Particularly, articles and edits that are not just "snore" may actually address complex social issues in new and innovative ways. Can you help with this mission? Mrspaceowl (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Snore" refers to the soporific effects of dealing with someone who keeps reinserting the same silly stuff against consensus. For those playing along at home, this refers to Talk:Farmers_and_Fishermen:_Two_Centuries_of_Work_in_Essex_County,_Massachusetts,_1630-1850#Good_Will_Hunting_reference. EEng 15:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I can testify that EEng often drops off when conversing with me. Sometimes he seems to be asleep for weeks at a time. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

"Do this again and you'll be blocked"Edit

On Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850 you reverted to an edit with a sentence ending in a comma that removed notable information. The reason given was 'do this again and you'll be blocked'. However, you give no reason beyond this for reverting to a sentence fragment from one that makes sense, nor have you said what you consider 'silly' about information on an academic book referenced by a major motion picture which is factual beyond doubt and supported by the most credible source imaginable. You seem to be here for WP:NOTHERE in this case. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mrs. Pace Owl, your cluelessness act is nearing perfection. Feel free to correct the comma to a period. That way at least something you do will be productive. [16] EEng 18:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your tact, respect and commitment to improving Wikipedia in this case. However, I must demur, as the subclause removed seems likely the only interesting thing about the article at present, and should be restored. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this another example of confusion over "and/or"? Logically, "do this again and you'll be blocked" says both of two things should happen: you should do this again (phrased as a command), and you will be blocked (regardless of whether you do it again). "Do this again or you'll be blocked" would make more sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    OED: "Introducing the predicted consequence or fulfilment of a command, or of a hypothesis put imperatively, or elliptically", giving the example Spray with Sanfect and you're safe. EEng 20:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    How about "if you wanna be blocked, just do this again"? (I think "ya schmuck" is an optional modifier in this construction?). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Meanwhile, this schmuck has fixed the comma and some other things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for your tact, respect and commitment to improving Wikipedia in this case. :) Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, no problem (although some editors think that I should be committed). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Hey, wasn't one of your great Presidents called Tact? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    No. But one of our many mediocre ones was. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Rachael RunyanEdit

Hi, can you please have a look over Murder of Rachael Runyan? Thank you in advance. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Took a stab at it. EEng 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Stab? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
In all honestly the unfortunate background meaning did occur to me as I typed, but I was too lazy to backspace. EEng 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
That's OK. We all appreciate your cutting sense of humor. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Prince of ComedyEdit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this nugget of comedy gold. I laughed heartily. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

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

Miss Snodgrass is willing to chatEdit

Hello, dahling! How do yew dooo! Really, my deah, I am SO happy yew recognized me from across that crowded room. Happy to make your acquaintance. I have no hard feelings of cawse! (We are all in the madcap environment togethah, right?) Toodles! Your new friend, you know, the one who has BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, there's that call I've been expecting! Sorry, gotta take this. There are canapes in the fridge. EEng 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Once moreEdit

Editors are warned: communicating with EEng may lead to a gruesome accident. --Tryptofish

Requesting your expertise as it relates to engaging the reader...please see Dax Cowart. I tweaked it a bit and was hoping you could help add the finishing touches for Phase 1 of what appears to be a potential DYK/GA/FA article. Atsme✍🏻📧 02:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I know this case (looks like I did some editing myself a year ago) and am happy to help. I assume by now you realize that I'm likely to whittle down the detail a bit. EEng 03:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I would not expect anything less. The article needs to be encyclopedic but in a way that the prose is engaging. What good is an article that doesn't capture an audience? I know my flaws in relation to this particular article, and I'm quite confident knowing that your exceptional writing ability (example: Phineas Gage) is exactly what the Cowart article needs. Please...perform your magic. There are numerous RS that can be cited. I truly believe the subject of this article is worth the extra mile or two it will take to get it right. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As you know I specialize in gruesome accidents. EEng 04:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Didn't intend for my ulterior motives to be that obvious. Atsme✍🏻📧 00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Nice little Wikipedia article you have there. It would be a pity if anything happened to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You might want to have a little protection. Otherwise, something might just get broken. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Beginning with "a little protection", I've determined that it's much safer to not respond. I've been practicing safe hex. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Nowadays everyone wants to be non-binary. EEng 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC) must have forgotten. I'm tri-hexual. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Words matterEdit

I don’t mind corrections here and there in stable featured articles, but I’m troubled by your words towards other users, which are often contemptuous in tone and on the verge of xenophobic. You shouldn’t go around insulting their language skills, especially when you don’t know their background. You want to help? Help, but don’t overreact. --Lecen (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about a series of edits culminating in this one [17] and this one [18].

Well, let's see ... Here's the entirety of the section you think should carry the heading Decadence:

During the 1880s, Brazil continued to prosper and social diversity increased markedly, including the first organized push for women's rights. On the other hand, letters written by Pedro II reveal a man grown world-weary with age and having an increasingly alienated and pessimistic outlook. He remained respectful of his duty and was meticulous in performing the tasks demanded of the imperial office, albeit often without enthusiasm. Because of his increasing "indifference towards the fate of the regime" and his lack of action in support of the imperial system once it was challenged, historians have attributed the "prime, perhaps sole, responsibility" for the dissolution of the monarchy to the Emperor himself.
After their experience of the perils and obstacles of government, the political figures who had arisen during the 1830s saw the Emperor as providing a fundamental source of authority essential for governing and for national survival. These elder statesmen began to die off or retire from government until, by the 1880s, they had almost entirely been replaced by a newer generation of politicians who had no experience of the early years of Pedro II's reign. They had only known a stable administration and prosperity and saw no reason to uphold and defend the imperial office as a unifying force beneficial to the nation. To them Pedro II was merely an old and increasingly sick man who had steadily eroded his position by taking an active role in politics for decades. Before he had been above criticism, but now his every action and inaction prompted meticulous scrutiny and open criticism. Many young politicians had become apathetic toward the monarchic regime and, when the time came, they would do nothing to defend it. Pedro II's achievements went unremembered and unconsidered by the ruling elites. By his very success, the Emperor had made his position seem unnecessary.
The lack of an heir who could feasibly provide a new direction for the nation also diminished the long-term prospects of the Brazilian monarchy. The Emperor loved his daughter Isabel, but he considered the idea of a female successor as antithetical to the role required of Brazil's ruler. He viewed the death of his two sons as being a sign that the Empire was destined to be supplanted. Resistance to accepting a female ruler was also shared by the political establishment. Even though the Constitution allowed female succession to the throne, Brazil was still very traditional, and only a male successor was thought capable as head of state.

While in obsolete usage decadence means a decline of any kind, in modern usage it always connotes moral decay, usually including self-indulgence, and there's no suggestion of anything like that in the text. After three go-rounds on this I guessed that you're not a native speaker of English, and as it turns I was correct.

I have great admiration for Dom Pedro and am glad he's well covered in WP, but featured or not these articles are prolix and repetitive. It's big of you to allow for "corrections here and there", but phrases such as

even taking a train journey solely with his wife

and passages such as

Upon his sons' early deaths, the Emperor's faith in the monarchy's future had evaporated. His trips abroad now made him resentful of the burden destiny had placed upon his shoulders when only a child of five.

show there's more than a little room for improvement. (Among other things, it's hard to imagine destiny as a child of five.)

Oh, and as it happens my boyfriend of 13 years is Brazilian so you can take your xenophobia accusations and stick them up your bunda. EEng 07:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

it's hard to imagine destiny as a child of five. My 5 year old has a classmate named Destiny, therefore everything you said here is wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Next you're gonna tell me your daughter's friend has children of her own. EEng 14:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm now convinced...the burden solely rests on the shoulders of destiny. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
If anyone really wants to see decadence, then think of EEng getting a Brazilian. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My boss was standing behind me, looking at my monitors when I accidentally mouseovered that link.
On another note, I actually got a brazillian, once. Just to see what it was like (and to win a bet because, come on, of course there was a bet). I still have nightmares about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I got you into hot water with your boss into trouble at work. If that was how you won the bet, I hate to imagine what the loser had to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
But the edit summary of your most recent edit at your user talk page is now my favorite edit summary. ;) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My boss thought it was funny. I was looking at a different monitor, and when he started laughing was when I noticed it. I really should know better than to let this talk page sit in my browser while I'm not paying attention to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Manzilian wax Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
From that page: Hair may be removed from the penis too. I'm wondering whose hair. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I commend the brave souls willing to suffer that more than once. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

6:00 am inspirationEdit

I think it might be a good idea for those who watch the various MOS pages and are active on their talkpages to stop answering general style questions and instead refer them to the language refdesk. My reasoning is that a lot of the negativity directed towards the MOS and its "regulars" comes from seeing the talkpage of a style guideline being used for answering style questions that are not covered by said guideline. This gives the answers the appearance of consensus-based legitimacy and any critisism of that is, I think, totally valid. The talkpages should be for improvement-based suggestions and clarification of existing guidance. No? I'm sending this to several people so please respond on my talkpage. Thanks. Primergrey (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought you might appreciate...Edit

Standing on top of sitting. I think the guy (top right) with the tickle toes is a replica of EEng. Atsme✍🏻📧 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You can't beat been a bit of foot frot can you! (oh sorry, no, am I thinking of something else)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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

I had to thank that edit just for the sheer absurdity of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, if he did become chairman the caption could read "Guy Standing in the chair". EEng 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Or "Guy Standing in the "Stand Up..." chair. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
That's outrageous. I wouldn't take an edit like that sitting down, if I were you! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, but will he leave the post in good standing? Bellezzasolo Discuss 17:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
That's my understanding. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Custard's last stand (and see also: Freud's first slip). -EEng
For the sake of brevity...Standing, he rose to the occasion. (I shudder to think where this might lead us). Atsme✍🏻📧 18:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Custer's Last Stand (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you believe this?Edit

May I please know why think like this of User:EEng#EEng's half-serious list of topics on which WP should just drop all coverage as not worth the drama? Do you think these are against WP:GNG? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Because we get an inordinate amount of traffic at ANI on these topics. As an ideal, Wikipedia treats all knowledge as worthy, but after the 100th weekly ANI thread asking the community to referee some stupid argument emanating from the "pro" wrestling walled garden, I'm bound to ask whether the loss to humanity if we simply didn't cover all those idiotic "matches" isn't outweighed by the gain in freeing editor time for building content in other topic areas. EEng 20:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen. Don't you think you should try to look for patterns of where these conflicts come from? Maybe just alternatively over protect those pages to avoid disruption? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, it's not gonna happen – <rolls eyes> What part of "half-serious list" do you not understand? EEng 21:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Audio to go with your 🙄. Atsme✍🏻📧 02:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it too early to set up a sweepstake over how long it's going to be before somebody blocks ImmortalWizard? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Richie333: a block for this comment? No. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
No, not for this comment, but if you carry on inserting yourself into conversations and being a bit of a pest, chances are eventually some admin's patience will snap. I don't suspect you'd be blocked for very long, and it would probably be overturned quickly, but still .... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: that has nothing to do with this page or EEng. If you want, come to my talk page instead. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
But, ImmortalWizard, it does have to do with your bouncing around making odd comments in random places about things you don't know anything about, and often misunderstanding the thing you're reacting to (witness this thread). Multiple people (here and at ANI) have been gently suggesting that your time at ANI would be better spent elsewhere. You are a relatively new user, and ANI is not a healthy place for anyone, most especially those without a lot of experience on the project. EEng 17:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Me bouncing around does not have to do anything with ANI. I just wanted insight to your peculiar opinion. Am I the only one who stalks your userpage and make a comment about something? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I am a member of WP:PW which I know much about. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
That counts as knowing much about nothing. EEng 21:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Inspiration is not strikingEdit

Can anyone give me a good DYK hook for Nickey Barclay? There must be some way of linking Fanny and Barbra Streisand in a humorous way; I just can't see it yet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm drawing a blank as well. Sorry. EEng 18:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't come up with anything particularly good either. I don't think any puns on "fanny" would be a good idea, especially with BLP. Might be best to go with "...that musician Nickey Barclay collaborated with..." and list some of the famous names. By the way, there are a lot of duplicate links. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think any puns on "fanny" would be a good idea – Why, because Barbra Streisand might sue us to keep people from knowing about it? EEng 01:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
True, I've been proven wrong, or at least unfunny. I'm glad to see that I inspired some better ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 - I got it!! Barbra Streisand had Nickey Barclay’s Fanny on the album, Stoney End. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Good work! I must be off my game today. Let me sharpen it a bit:
... that one of Barbra Streisand's albums has Nickey Barclay’s Fanny on it?
EEng 01:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Brevity is the soul of wit. Atsme✍🏻📧 02:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
There are ENGVAR versions of "fanny" east of the Atlantic which make the hooks more risqué than in the Americas. Not necessarily a showstopper, but something to be aware of. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The more risque the better, I always say. Happy to give those uptight Brits a thrill. EEng 04:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I've gone with ... that two of Barbra Streisand's albums have some Fanny on them? Incidentally, a few years back there was an ANI thread where a bunch of IPs were edit-warring on Streisand's main article and calling anyone who disagreed with them a "Barbra hater" but I can't find it now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
If that's what you're happy with, then suggest moving the wlink as "... some Fanny ...". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • DYK although Nickey Barclay played with Fanny, Cocker and Ball she never performed for Barclays Bank. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'd leave the bank out of it but the cocker and balls have potential. EEng 14:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Navigating the museumEdit

I was hoping you might consider some form of organized classification system in the Museum - easy to remember key word searches at the top of the page, and possibly use anchors? Just a thought. I was wondering what section I might look to find a situation where someone is ridiculing another for making a mistake but then makes a bigger mistake when correcting it. Atsme✍🏻📧 00:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you're looking for WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. As for a classification system, you mean like the Library of Congress system, something like
    AA - Sarcasm, personal
    AB - Sarcasm, topical
    AT - Sarcasm, theory and techniques
    AZ - Sarcasm not otherwise classified
    BA - Beatdowns, ANI
    BB - Beatdowns, they were begging for it
    BE - Beatdowns, editsummary
    BT - Beatdowns, talkpage
--? Or were you thinking of something more like an index in a book? EEng 01:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Nothing complex. Just easy to remember keywords - example above would have keywords like errors, mistakes, blunders, humiliation, ridicule, etc. The keywords would fit in the 1st line under the section title. That would allow for a "find" operation. Atsme✍🏻📧 01:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't realize this page was such a resource for others. Well, let's think about it. BTW you'll see some anchors if you open in edit mode. EEng 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I confused what you guys talking about? Subliminal metaphor about a wikipedia topic. Atsme approached argument different than I did. More than one way to get the right answer. Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes one simply doesn't know what to sayEdit

...and so one posts a picture. I thought you might enjoy these. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Your contribution will be used to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. [19] EEng 06:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hurrah! I'm honoured. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Dumber than a rock in the toothpick factoryEdit

No rocks here!

This just blew in on the slush pile and I thought it would raise a smile if I reposted it here.

"Dumber than a rock in a toothpick Factory" ie; this is a phrase that was created by myself for saying that someone is unintelligent; not smart; uneducated. this phrase can be used as an insult or a derogatory remark. Use this saying with caution as it will offend and hurt feelings. In fact it could even cause lasting pain an turmoil if not used with extreme caution. But if used in good company this could cause laughter and hilarity and may even cause a peeing incident. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but peeing incidents are unacceptable, design. I have also concluded that EEng's TP may well be the only true "safe place" to say what one thinks, depending on one's perspective, of course. Atsme 👂🏻 📧 19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the rock-toothpick imagery. EEng 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also a bit confused by that imagery. In fact, isn't that draft a bit like the opposite of that old saying: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? SemiHypercube 15:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to say Denser than a rock in the toothpick factory. The idea being that the density of a rock would stand out against a group of toothpicks in uniform density. In which case it should be "relatively denser". Or perhaps it just sounds silly, and trying to get a discussion out of it here is dumber than a rock in the toothpick factory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hapless nominator: "Oh no!! What have you done to Grandma?!!"
Gleeful closer: "That's the last time she runs for RfA!!"
Personally I would have gone with "blunter than a rock in the toothpick factory". But then folks have often said that I'm "one slab short of a full patio." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how to get this video to open at 2:18.   Atsme 📣 📧 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Going to the other end of the spectrum, let's start a "vivid folksy imagery" contest. Here's my favorite:
    There hasn't been so much excitement around here since grandma got her tit caught in the wringer!
EEng 16:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought that was Auntie Mabel? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


And here I was expecting Dick Cheney or Andy Dick. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean here [20]? I prefer Dick Classic. EEng 21:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC) That Andy Dick guy looks like Anderson Cooper after a few years on meth.
I will never unsee that now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Dick picEdit

Better than your average bear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Aaron Molyneaux HewlettEdit

Hi there -- I'm afraid I don't totally understand the message you left on my talk page. If there are issues with the sourcing I'm more likely to leave this article as-is and just aim for some other DYK options in the future. It would be super helpful if someone could look at whatever is in the actual print archive at Harvard because I think there is some primary source stuff there that might allow me to cut out Family Search as a source entirely which would be great. Jessamyn (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Jessamyn: I have a soft spot for nonacademic Harvard staff (see Charles Apted andn [21]) because they're usually characters. I've tagged some of the sources for further improvement. Not for a while, but sometime in the future I'll pull up his material at Harvard Archives and see what we can do with that material. Ping me in a few months if I haven't done it yet. When we've done all we can we can get a WP:Good article review and thence to DYK, for which there are a number of good hooks -- and the photo with his equipment, cropped a bit, would be good on the main page. EEng 21:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add a section headerEdit

Saw this and it reminded me of you. Well, one bit did. I'll leave it to your readership to decide for themselves which bit.   nagualdesign 16:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


Scrolling through your talk page discussions, I was wondering why has everyone left only section headings on your talk page – and then I realised that was just the toc :D Has anyone asked you ever to consider archiving your table of contents because they took a long time scrolling to the bott? (No, I'm not asking you to do that) :D Lourdes 01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

First time anyone's mentioned it. ;P BTW, there's a "JUMP TO BOTTOM" button at the top of the page. EEng 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
One time I accidentally clicked on EEng's talk page on my mobile. Luckily I was able to throw the phone a safe distance before it exploded. Levivich 02:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It's only 1941 kB of pure fun. Atsme 📣 📧 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey, archive your talk page! It's reaching ridiculous DGG-lengths. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


No not Luke's dad. I wanted to make you aware of this thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility from EEng since the person who started it failed to do so. MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard regarding incivility at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:GENDERID_and_death. The thread is Incivility_from_EEng. .

I don't know what the history is there, but you're not being constructive in that discussion. Nblund talk 03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit

  Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This feuding between you and Fae has to stop tonight before it goes too far. Please refrain from responding to bait. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


I'm not sure if you are aware of this, because there are only three separate notification sections above and you might not have noticed them all, but it seems that some people want to notify you about something that I'm sure might have been important but the thread has already closed. Maybe it was on AN, or ANI, or one of those places. Anyway, consider yourself notified of the notifications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Roger, Roger. EEng 10:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Another notificationEdit

I don't know whether it's a policy change or new convention, but I'm just writing here to notify you I've posted on your talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Buddhist notificationEdit

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

Please comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings NetworkEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You have an unerring instinct for starting trouble, Legobot. EEng 09:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You may want to archive your talk pageEdit

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

Thanks. I'd never heard of this "archiving" concept before. EEng 21:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Theresa May may want to resign. Donald Trump may want to remove his hand from the "send tweet" button and engage brain before posting. However, we can't always get what we want. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Trump will declare my talk page a national emergency. EEng 21:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Does no one notice this irony: one of the things that makes your talk page so big, is all the notes from people complaining that your talk page is too big? (BTW the reason you were graced with a custom "archive this" notice instead of a template is because the user got a lot of grief for templating me to archive my talk page. Even though mine is a tiny seedling compared to your magnificent tree here.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
"Hey you Mexican kids, get off my 1,000 mile long lawn!!" --President James. K. Veto (too late for Talk) 23:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

What I want to know is why do your talk page archives cap out at under 100 threads but your main talk page is 300+? This is completely backwards and against all conventions of decency. It's like you're thumbing your nose at the universe. Levivich 16:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


I am very grateful for your explanation. Thank you :-) Vikom (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You caught me in a good mood. EEng 04:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Milman ParryEdit

The following continues a conversation begun at User talk:AndrewFeld:

If my grandfather had killed himself, that wouldn't bother me in the least. He died 25 years before I was born. I couldn't care less if he died by autoerotic asphyxiation, Russian roulette, eating Tide pods, falling off a cliff while taking a selfie, or by shooting himself in the heart. What bothers me is that after many years of speaking with people who knew Milman Parry, including Albert Lord, I have been told repeatedly that a) no one who knew him considered suicide a possibility b) there is no evidence that he killed himself (no note, etc.) and c) the basis for the theories about his suicide (that he had been denied promotion at Harvard) have been disproved. I assumed that in editing a Wikipedia page, it was important to remove unfounded speculation and errors. Perhaps I was wrong. Although I do wonder at your need to keep this rumor alive. Perhaps you're just generally pro-gossip?

Oh--and I'm sorry that your section leader in Albert's class was an idiot. You should have told Lord at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFeld (talkcontribs) 00:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right that Wikipedia strives to avoid unfounded speculation and errors, but what we count as founded is tied to what reliable sources tell us. As you implicitly acknowledge, the idea that Milman Parry may have killed himself is a common one, and since there are sources mentioning the possibility the article cannot simply ignore it.
Of course I would very much like to see the treatment of this point improved, but that can only happen if we have more sources, and I haven't been able to find any on my own. Your personal knowledge we can't use, unfortunately – I'm sure you understand. But I'll tell you what, I'll contact some classicists I know to see if they can point me to something. If you know of any sources, please do say. EEng 01:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. A biography of Milman Parry is currently in the works, by Robert Kanigel, and an article about his death, by Steven Reece, will be published in the journal, Oral Tradition, this Spring, so there will soon be a great deal of new information available about Milman Parry's life, and his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewFeld (talkcontribs) 01:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Well why didn't you say so? I'm sure those new sources will allow us to give this point the high-quality treatment it deserves. So I can attend to that as soon as possible, please drop me a message here the moment either source becomes available. EEng 02:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing ANI questionEdit

Why would removing a valid comment to any editor requesting edit summary comments need to be let go? I actually want an answer as to why deleting someone else's talk page request should be considered acceptable.

When did no discussing become an acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia: both from editors and admins? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

An IP with an extensive contribution history and long user talk page makes one edit without an edit summary, and you go leaving them a warning? WTF? When Serial Number removed your warning, that should have tipped you off to the fact that you were off base. EEng 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Devin NunesEdit

Hey EEng, per the policy on content requiring inline citations and per WP:BLP (etc.) you can't call Devin Nunes an idiot based on the source you provided (which seems to be broken, btw). Please change "idiot" to "dumb asshole" per this source. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector - the source you cited is also an excellent example for Streisand effect per: @DevinCow has jumped from having around 1,000 followers when the suit was filed to over 134,000 since the time of this writing. Atsme Talk 📧 14:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
DevinCow must be over the moon about that. EEng 18:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Phineas Gage, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Using the preview button can help avoid embarrassing mistakes (diff, diff). You may wish to try making practice edits to your sandbox first, only making the edit to an actual article once you feel sure you know what you are doing. The Wikipedia Adventure may help you learn these basic skills. As a reminder, please do not refer to edits as "dummy" per WP:CIVIL–such language should be reserved for editors only. I understand today is your favorite day; let's try not to ruin it with poor editing. Levivich 04:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one picosecond. Once the block has expired, your peers are welcome to make slightly more useful contributions.
In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been dunked on. If you think there are literally any reasons for being unblocked, nevermind.

Cards84664 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh,'s too difficult to separate the April fools day blocks from the real ones. They get lost in the latter. Atsme Talk 📧 00:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

When is it safe?Edit

Is it safe to presume the biological gender of a certain IP based on their edit summary? Atsme Talk 📧 03:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ask Fae. EEng 17:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it safe Bhagyesh Pethe (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Better use protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Especially when (as in this case) dealing with genitalia that have been rolling on the ground. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
What??? EEng 02:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
He said, Especially when (as in this case) dealing with genitalia that have been rolling on the ground. Levivich 02:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I hesitate to reproduce the revdelled text but it was related to this (do I need to say NSFW?) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Who's on first? EEng 03:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Block quotationsEdit

Re "if you'll tell me what to use instead of {quote box} I'll be happy to start using it": MOS:BQ covers this already; use {{Quote}}] unless there's some really, really compelling reason not to. If you're sure there is, then I suppose pick any template from Category:Quotation templates, other than {{Quote box}} with it's inconsistent attribution formatting, or the pull-quote ones that use decorative giant quotation marks. Several have placement and other layout options. Seriously, though, more than 99% (quite literally) of instances of {{Quote box}} and other "decorative" quotation framing templates in articles are misuses and should be converted to plain {{Quote}}. I did a cleanup spree a while back (about 150 articles, before I got worn out), and of those only one single case was using such a template in a manner appropriate for an encyclopedia (and it not for a quotation in the usual sense, but an image-like presentation of an entire short statement, kind of a "document in a box" (and the section was about the document, so the function served was that of an illustration). In every other case it was either pointless decoration of block quotations, abuse of magazine-style pull quotes, or WP:UNDUE-violating over-focus on some particular party's quoted statements. There are thousands of quote-template misuses like this in mainspace, and I expect the ratio to hold, since the ones I dealt with were completely random selections. I find that when I do cleanup of them, the reversion rate back to something decorative is also around 1%. Someone back in 2007 or when ever just felt like decorating, and no one else cares.

This is one of the reasons I want to get most of these templates re-coded to do nothing in mainspace but emit the same code as {{Quote}}. This would auto-fix most of our quotation problems (though not the UNDUE ones, nor our rare instances of real but inappropriate pull-quoting). But {{Quote box}} having inconsistent formatting would have to be fixed first.

I've said it before many times: If people are convinced that our normal and traditional block-quotation style is somehow sub-par for a 2019+ online publication, they're free to propose a replacement style. They're not free to go inject whatever weird quotation formatting "magic" they like at their own blog (WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and we do have a our own MoS for a reason). I've already successfully TfDed some experiments of that sort (e.g. ones that looked a lot like {{Talk quote block}}, with a dark vertical bar on the left, a style borrowed from threaded message boards and some e-mail programs like Eudora, but virtually never found in print or print-mimicking material).

I'm sure you understand all of this, but I'm laying it out in detail for your TP stalkers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Tell me what template to use on these: Phineas_Gage#Exaggeration_and_distortion_of_mental_changes; Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_1:_Presidential_succession; Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Conception_and_construction. And please don't tell me they should be regular block quotes (though secretly I'm hoping you will so I can argue with you about it). EEng 17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The Phineas Gage article (about which I care) is turning into a train wreck. Those definitely should be block quotations, integrated with context into the material. The current presentation is "magazine style, on crack", filtered through "my first blog" sensibilities of how to present information. Just awful. The urge to begin a section with a quotation is a magazine "feature writer" impulse that needs to be strongly resisted in encyclopedia writing. We have no need to "hook" readers. We don't care how long their eyeballs are on the page, and we aren't weaving a dancing narrative for them, just providing information that they can use how and in whatever portion they desire. The 25th Am. page looks fine. These are really being presented as document fragments for analysis, not quotations in the usual sense. Here, it actually makes sense to lead the sections with this material (for reasons completely unrelated to why people want to do so with "juicy" personal or organizational quotations, magazine-style – sometimes called "quotoids" when they're not technically pull quotes, i.e. not repeated in the main text). Here, the mis-coding of {{Quote box}} isn't really an issue, since its inconsistent attribution code is not being used. However, the "safe" replacement template is {{Quote frame}}. I may just propose merging the former to the latter, though it'll take a bot or something to fix all the attribution. It might not even be bottable. (Bot would have to look for every possible combination of dash and hyphen encoding, with and without spacing also encoded in various ways, and strip it from the attribution parameters before changing the template call to point to {{quote frame}}.) The Harvard case is also unencyclopedic, magazine-style use of "quotoids", which should be integrated into the prose, with context. The present display looks reasonable, but is poorly coded (it's using <br /> as a layout tool, etc.). If there were consensus to retain this as a sidebar, I suppose it's not fatally bad, but should probably be done in some custom <div>...</div>, because presently is's marking up the entire content, including attribution and citations, as quoted material, which is wrong. That template isn't a general layout tool, it's something that emits quotation markup around whatever content it is told is a quotation. PS: I just did another random cleanup run on the results returned by "What links here" for one of the decorative quote templates, and out of 20-ish cases that showed up in the first page of results in mainspace, 0% were appropriate. They were all either normal block quotes that should be in {{quote}}, or they were non-encyclopedic, magazine-style pull quotes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC); copyedited 04:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm interested in We don't care how long their eyeballs are on the page – Really? We don't care whether the reader thinks, "I don't know where this is going -- I guess I'll just quit" versus "Wow, I'm gonna learn something interesting from this article/section. Tell me!"? EEng 15:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you know what I mean. We wouldn't have an MoS, Writing Better Articles, WP:NOT, and all these policies on producing proper enc. content if we didn't care whether readers could understand the material (as to both wording and logical arrangement), or care whether they believed it was accurate and worth reading. But we don't use visual, emotive, lead-burying, teasing, ambiguous, and other psychological trickery to try to steer and latch onto reader attention (we do pretty much the opposite, using plain and detached English, and providing links that help get them to what they're most interested in, which may be nothing at the current page after all). There's a big difference between a sensible article flow (and ToC), versus trying to cajole, shock, amuse, mystify, or otherwise lead the reader around manipulatively (which is actually a subtle form of WP:SYNTH, weaving a "can you believe it?!" narrative from bare facts, the connections between which really have to come from sources, not from our own editorial perspective). Decorative quotations almost always serve such an unencyclopedic purpose (and are a technique borrowed ultimately from fiction, as foreshadowing or plot twist depending on the quote and its relation to the rest of the material).

The only exceptions I regularly see are document snippets for analysis, as in the 25th Am. case, and actually famous quotations, like the opening of MLK's "I have a dream" speech, that are part of the subject of our own article. The ultimate solution may be to fork specific templates for these with separate documentation (e.g. so it's clear that using {{Famous quote}} for a non-famous quote can be reverted), and have all other quote templates just emit blockquote markup if used in mainspace. I mean really, if the only difference between a section starting with an out-of-context quotation (a non sequitur, and most often some form of teaser) in case A and case B is that in case B it's got a box around it and is moved rightward, then the problem and solution are clear. Any random editor would fix the first case, without the box, by either providing context or moving it to where the already-provided context is (or removing it if inappropriate for reasons like UNDUE or because it's an actual, redundant pull quote). Our fix-it impulse often gets a bit short-circuited when people encounter box quotations, because we've become desensitized to them by magazines and tabloid journalism using pull quotes and other forms of teaser (which most of us probably actually ignore, having also self-trained to avoid big flashy noise on the page as usually advertising). But it's still the same non-encyclopedic article content flow. This will be especially apparent to users of screen readers, and anyone else not using our default CSS and JavaScript (which is where that boxing layout comes from); quotoids are also a WP:ACCESS and WP:REUSE problem. Basically, a WP article needs to make perfect sense if you copy-paste its text into a plain text editor without any formatting left other than line-breaks. With quotations in particular, this demonstrates why introductory contextual material identifying it as a quotation is important, because it'll lose its indentation when used as raw text.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion continued below

SMcCandlish – Followup: It doesn't look like {quote frame} can substitute, because there doesn't seem to be any way to control the width of the box. I'd still like to hear your response to my point just above here. EEng 03:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. All the parameters of {{Quote box}} should just be ported over to {{Quote frame}} for merger.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I hate to say it but it still looks awful, at least because (a) there's too little margin between the box and adjacent text and (b) the text looks like it's at 100%, where I'd expect 90% (and 90%, IMHO, looks way better). EEng 05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Easy CSS tweaks. As for font size, there are limits to how small to make it, and any reduction generates complaints from the MOS:ACCESS crowd. However, the hard limit is 85% last I looked, so your 90% would be permissible.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussion re quote boxesEdit

OK, let's take an isolated example, involving a subject with whom I suspect you're familiar. What do you think of the boxed quotation at Herb_Caen#Honors? Do you really think it would do its job better if run into the text as a block quote, introduced by something like At the ceremony, Caen said to the crowd: ? EEng 05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Say, ol' SMcCandlish, I'd really like to resume engagement on this topic. We can take it slowly. EEng 09:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it does an encyclopedic job at all. It's magazine-style fluff. If multiple sources indicate this quip was widely considered memorable, controversial, influential, etc. (i.e., had lasting significance), then it might be encyclopedically useful to include it in the main material with some context. Keep in mind that Caen was first and foremost a humorist (his lead is actually poor in this regard, suggesting with just "journalist" that he was mainly a straight news man – I just went and added "humorist"), so half of what he wrote or said in public was funny, clever, and remembered by someone somewhere. Given that the lead already establishes that his entire œuvre was "a continuous love letter to San Francisco", it's not encyclopedically useful to browbeat the reader with a quote showing his affection for the city, certainly not in a huge, attention-demanding box.

A completely different way to approach this question would be to ask another one: If a mainstream nonfiction book from, say, Chicago University Press, had used this quotation in a book or a chapter about Caen, and it was not a book given to cutesy decoration, just a regular ol' straightforward book like any other, would it have used a fancy offset box for this, or presented it as any other quotation? That's kind of a trick question, because probably either it wouldn't have been used, or it might have been used as a humorous tone-setting device in the form of a centered but visually offset quotation at the beginning of the piece. The latter is another non-encyclopedic use of quotations, what I call a "fake pull quote" in that it isn't repetition of material already in the main text, but looks exactly like such a pull quote and serves the same "try to cajole the reader into continuing, and having in mind what you want them to have in mind, feeling what you want them to feel" psychological manipulation. A regular book probably would not have used this otherwise, except as an inline or block quotation (depending on their house-style length limits) in a passage that dwelt in depth on Caen and his feelings about SF. In our piece, we have no such section, and the section into which this has been shoehorned as a fake pull quote isn't even relevant (being about honors received by the writer, not about his love of San Francisco). It's even crappy as a fake pull quote, since it comes too late to have any "hook" effect; the sole purpose of it being there is subjective layout gimcrackery. In short, just because it's reasonable to do what that article does in some contexts in some other publications doesn't means it's good to do it here. It's a kind of a usage-register matter. We have this huge-ass WP:NOT policy (growing all the time) because of so many things that "are", out there in the world, that WP isn't and should be made to masquerade as. I won't reiterate the WP:ACCESS and WP:REUSE matters from the earlier incarnation of this thread.

PS: If I were to salvage that quote in the article, what I would do is restructure the lead: take the "love letter" bit and the "voice and conscience" bit, along with this quote with some intro context (maybe not as a block quotation – it's ~30 words, and the lead already has one), and from these parts build a third paragraph on the Caen–SF connection, after "The secret of Caen's success" material. (Or as 2nd para., before the "secret" material.) This would also vastly improve the run-on lead sentence by shortening it and making it less repetitive (it includes the string "San Francisco" five times).
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  11:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to pull in Binksternet on this, for starters on the idea that Caen was a "humorist". While he had a great sense of humor it would never have occurred to me in a thousand years to call him a humorist. Nor does any source I can find use the word. EEng 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Ping response: I have seen Caen called a journalist, a diarist and of course a columnist, but Reason magazine called him a "humorist" (in quotes) in 1987 and Time magazine called him a columnist-humorist in 1996. More recently, a Solano County newspaper writer lumped Caen in with other humor columnists. So the label is not unsupported. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, and what about the original issue of the quotation? Don't make me regret pinging you. EEng 20:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Or, more importantly to me, this bit: "This would also vastly improve the run-on lead sentence by shortening it and making it less repetitive (it includes the string "San Francisco" five times)." It's just really poor writing to do that, even if it's a result of editorial palimpsest over a long period of time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I presume this is a jokeEdit

[22]. I did chuckle a little. --Jayron32 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No joke. Coy circumlocutions for boomerangs are verboten. You're right on the edge. EEng 13:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Dude, I crossed the edge years ago. If you're only getting to the edge now, you've got some catching up to do. --Jayron32 14:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I appreciate the nice humor on your pages. But I noticed the picture of Donald Trump, and the picture further down of a finger with text about Donald Trump, However I would like to point out that the pictures and the captions of Trump were offensive to me, and could be too with other users. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I take it you're talking about images such as the ones shown here.
Donald Trump with shithole in open position
The holidays are almost upon us... Treason's Greetings!
What Trump looks like when the virtual reality projector is turned off

I appreciate the friendliness of your message, but predict that in five years you will be wondering how you could have ever found such things even remarkable. EEng 03:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • This is uniformly excellent, clever, and dare I say genre-savvy. Post more of these, please. Thanks.--WaltCip (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The "virtual reality projector turned off" image is quite clearly a picture of Reggie Perrin's mother in law. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


Hope you don't mind, but I removed the porta potty image from the ANI thread with my name in it. I don't feel it's fair for the thread which is about me to have this image in it, and could have an effect of subtly serving to portray me in a negative manner. Hope you understand. North America1000 09:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oversensitive. EEng 10:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A quickieEdit

A peek at EEng's research. Atsme Talk 📧

FYI...if you had clicked on pointy in the caption of my Madonna picture at ANI you would have had a conical experience...or perhaps you did. I tried to find a similar image at Commons but never thought to keyword "cone". Good find.   Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Conical, comical -- I get it! My 9-y.o. nephew, who has been learning about polygons in school, told me a joke last week. "I was taking the bus to Harvard SQUARE but I got lost because I got on the RHOMBUS. Get it? WRONG BUS." My nephew's wicked smaht. EEng 03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
A funny bone tickler indeed, although not my intended joke. Atsme Talk 📧 22:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

MOSNUM date rangesEdit

Based on your edit comment when you reverted my edit, I did not realize that you made other changes. I apologize for reverting the rest of your edit. I don't understand what you mean by "please leave this near the bottom of the pile".—Finell 19:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I meant that the note about word-or-dash-but-not-both belongs near the end of the list of bulletpoints, not first. EEng 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


Your userpage. (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that a lot. EEng 00:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks for all you do here on Wikipedia! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Thegooduser, I appreciate it! EEng 14:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The other thing I LOVE about your page and talk page, is that it kills my 2.4G network, and I need to use 5G network in order to avoid kills to my wifi :-P --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
(  Buttinsky) I just read "kills my 2.4G" and it reminded me that I forgot to share this link with you, EEng - it's the companion to "clean underwear" in the Museum of I Shouldn't Laugh but I Did. Atsme Talk 📧 21:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't 2.4G some sort of bra size? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Airport malaria and portraits of the QueenEdit

When you (and your merry band of talk page stalkers) have a mo, could you nip over to User talk:Whispyhistory#Flies and mosquitoes and suggest some fun hooks for airport malaria and Queen Elizabeth II (painting). Please excuse me from not having a sense of humour today, I have chronic ANI fatigue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Refer to EEng's research in the image above. Atsme Talk 📧 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thank you for your ideas and attitude Whispyhistory (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I live to serve. EEng 22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de Paris fire: Difference between revisionsEdit

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

Vive la différence! EEng 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Revision as of 20:57, 20 April 2019 EEng
I was just seeing if you were paying attention I knew it wouldn't lasted long Mitchellhobbs (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the IP is preoccupied with making images in a vertical stack all have the same width, which is a good thing in general, especially when they're vertically adjacent, but not so important if there's substantial distance between them. IAnyway, it's OK either way -- too early to spend much time on layout because the article will grow a lot over the next few weeks and then it will become clearer where to place the images. See my comment here [23]. EEng 18:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A fitting tribute on Good Friday, perchance.Edit

  Protector from Heretical Pareidolia
You saved us from misinterpreting the fires of Notre Dame.

Herewith, you receive the Map of France.
Or you can see O'Keefe, Kevin (January 21, 2013). "Beeville Man Sees Jesus in Breakfast Taco". Texas Monthly. Retrieved April 19, 2019. Ernesto Garza said that the image of the Christian Messiah in his tortilla was "a miracle."
Remember: don't eat the Icon.

7&6=thirteen () 19:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Glad to see you again, and thank you. EEng 21:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I note you are still on patrol. 7&6=thirteen () 01:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, you know how I get once I taste blood. EEng 01:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"...merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." --Thomas JeffersonEdit

I could not help[Citation Needed] noticing that your so-called "User Page"[24] mentions a "Cabal".[25]

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will.

BTW, here is the source for the Jefferson quote above:[26] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


Re [27] - [28]. -- Netoholic @ 10:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Should all instances of 'tbd' in this article be changed to 'TBD'?Edit

Hi, in the article List of aircraft carriers in service, the abbreviation 'tbd' is always used with all lowercase letters, instead of 'TBD' in all caps. They can be seen in the Carriers ordered and Other planned carriers sections. I propose changing them all to 'TBD' as this form is much more commonly used and is widely considered the correct format. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 13:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

So, changing tbd to TBD is Tbd? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
That remains to be seen. In answer to the OP's query: personally I'd use all caps, but if there's resistance to change I don't expect this is a hill worth dying on. EEng 19:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Those are now much improved. To be honest, I'm slightly annoyed at how quickly you were able to improve them, and by how much, but I'll take solace in taking full credit. Re the lawyer one: I think it's a good punchline, but the set-up feels contrived. The idea is the lawyer keeps "appealing" until he gets to the constitution, which he edits. Maybe he should go to different courts? Maybe it should start with the jury being polled and "not a vote"? Maybe the whole joke should be much shorter? Levivich 03:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I wasn't planning to get into it, but since we're here I'll tell you what I think needs doing in that joke, though it's not a coherent plan. A successful joke must incorporate some kind of incongruity in the punchline, usually (though not universally) in the form of a reversal or change of point of view. This is partly why jokes so often have three parts: two set a pattern, direction, or point of view, and the third breaks the pattern or reverses the direction. (The desert island / raft joke breaks the "3" mold, but that's OK because part of the joke is the tedious multiple chances we give vandals.) Now I think the right thing to do in the lawyer joke might be to have the judge do all the citing of shortcuts (to set the pattern) and then at the end the lawyer rewrites the book or something and invokes ANYONECANEDIT, thus turning the tables. I don't have the details worked out, and honestly it's a tricky story to sustain unless the ripostes are truly bang-on to the various shortcuts that get cited, but I think that's the right framework. Having said that, the opening call by the lawyer to REVERT the verdict is the best line of the joke, and I don't see offhand how to put that into the mouth of the judge. EEng 03:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
What if they both cite shortcuts. What do you think of this, quick and dirty:
Jury: Guilty
Lawyer: WP:Revert
Judge: WP:0RR, the jury is sending your client to jail
Lawyer: WP:Move review
Judge: affirms WP:Consensus
Lawyer: (Notavote? IAR?)
Judge: WP:PAGs
Lawyer: {{citation needed}}
Judge: shows him the book
Alternate ending: the defendant edits the book and cites ANYONECANEDIT Levivich 20:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that has possibilities, because half of essays and PAGs have a corresponding essay or PAG that tends to say the opposite. They're not all coming to mind though. Here's something:

Jury: The result of the discussion was delete. (Jailify? Levivich)
Lawyer: Poll the jury?
Lawyer: Rv?
Judge: 0RR
Lawyer: DRV?
Lawyer: [...something...]
Judge: [...something...]
Lawyer: [...something about editing a PAG...] WP:ANYONECANEDIT
Defendant: <bolting for the door> WP:Wikipedia does not need me

EEng 22:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I like it! Some suggestions above and also: WP:TTR/WP:DTTR, WP:NORUSH/WP:NOW, WP:SPADE/WP:NOSPADE Levivich 00:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I like jailify. You take it from here. Let me know when you're ready for me to look again. EEng 00:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Has the jury reached a verdict?" the judge asks.
"Yes, your honor," the jury foremanperson replies. "The result of the discussion was jailify."
The wikilawyer jumped from his chair. "NOTAVOTE!" The judge shakes her head, "CONSENSUS has been reached."
"REVERT!" exclaims the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "0RR."
"DRV!" the wikilawyer demands. The judge shakes her head, "No FORUMSHOPPING."
"There is NORUSH!" argues the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "The deadline is NOW."
"DTTR!" the wikilawyer asserts. The judge shakes her head, "TTR."
"NOSPADE!" pleads the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head, "SPADE."
"IAR!" the wikilawyer shouts. The judge shakes her head, "DROPTHESTICK."
"NOTBUREAUCRACY!" retorts the wikilawyer. The judge shakes her head and points to a book on her desk, "PAGs."
The wikilawyer grabs the book and tears out all the pages. "ANYONECANEDIT!" he cackles.
"BLOCK!" orders the judge. The court officers to take the wikilawyer into custody.
Seeing the officers occupied, the defendant bolts for the door, yelling, "WP:Wikipedia does not need me!" Levivich 02:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty good, Levivich. I think you've pulled it off for this month. But in the future I think it's a bad idea to commit in advance to producing a humor column. I'd suggest making it an "occasional feature", so that when it's ready it's ready. I must say I admire your ability to produce stuff on deadline. I certainly can't do that. EEng 03:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"...if you display any knowledge of our products we'll fire you" made me LOL. Thanks! Do you think you could like, you know... check my contribs every day and just follow behind me and improve everything I do? Can I send you some work emails to look at before I send them out? Levivich 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Good sir, this has gone too farEdit

Talk about "distorted". Eman235/talk 11:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

TILT! EEng 15:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Some gravestones for you!Edit

Seeing as the world's most petulant grave sparked off an almighty thread about sewer lions, have a couple more oddities I found while transferring assorted clutter to Commons from the smouldering wreckage of Flickr. Zoom in to read the inscriptions. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Your contribution has been duly entered in the Great Register. EEng 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A complaint about that M2HSS section (well, aside from the one about your support for that crank who demanded it be retitled away from "list of…" because it needed a standalone article and then never bothered to actually write said article, so we're now left with an "article" that has no text whatsoever other than the existing brief summary of the parent article); the quaint identification of the actors' stations in life wasn't some kind of quaint Victorian snobbery, but was done very explicitly by Watts to make it clear that people from all walks of life were equally capable of doing good deeds—a very radical sentiment for the time, when the two main schools of thought were one-nation toryism ("well-educated people have a duty to do great deeds, because the great unwashed are too stupid to do them for themselves") or proto-socialism ("the rich are all crooked and in it for themselves or they wouldn't be rich, so only the poor are capable of decency"). I do keep meaning to get around to doing Watts's biography—he was a fascinating character who pretty much invented radical chic a century early, as well as the guy who Barack Obama cites as his reason for entering politics (all that "Hope" stuff was explicitly a reference to Hope (painting), even if hardly anyone got the reference)—but that's another of those articles that's in such a poor state it would need a complete nuke-and-rewrite and consequently treading on multiple toes. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've never been a fan of the article–list distinction anyway, but I will eagerly support you in whatever reform you propose on that score. If you need any help getting obscure sources on Watts (there certainly are a lot) let me know.
I did not know about Hope -- interesting. EEng 17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a lot more stacked up to do before I even consider Watts (although I may do some of the more interesting paintings; at the moment we have an odd situation where Hope, Mammon and After the Deluge are at FA quality and everything else is a redlink). If I go back to doing biographies (I don't really like writing them) Zachariah Pearson and Albert Joseph Moore, two Victorian chancers who deserve better coverage than their current atrocious articles, will probably be next.
It's not the article/list distinction that's the issue; it's the fact that the list was intentionally on a subpage so people wanting to read about it would be directed to the page that actually has the story of the monument on it (the histories of the park and the memorial are inseparable, as the former was created to accommodate the latter), but because the redirect has been deleted and the list moved over it, anyone searching for the memorial (thanks to Closer there's a slow but steady stream) now lands directly on the list subpage and assumes that Wikipedia doesn't have anything to say about the topic. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I'm always ready to help. I can get just about anything with no trouble. EEng 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll see your almost everything and raise you everything, with a backstop for those oddities that don't make it into copyright libraries. The South East may be filthy, overcrowded and eye-poppingly expensive, but it has certain advantages. ‑ Iridescent 17:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile I have to rely on Nationallizenzen and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library as I seldom get time to go in a library and the topics I write about are usually better covered in academic journals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, my offer extends to you too. EEng 23:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I'll ask for something in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Well please don't ask in the past. EEng 12:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Well I visualized this not as a competition, but rather a teaming of complementary collections (British and American). Since I'm at Harvard several times a week it's especially convenient for me, and their stacks are open so I can skim unlimited numbers books and journals for relevant material. Two other points: I wonder if your relationship with BL gives you online access to all their journals, as I have through Harvard (e.g. [29]); and (and it really pains me to say this) I spent a substantial amount of time at BL some time ago and was shocked -- SHOCKED! at the really low quality of the research staff there. I mean astounded. EEng 18:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI fluEdit

I think it's high time we had an essay on this. Feel free to add humour to taste. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Surely you mean "humor to tasteless"? EEng 16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 27#Uncontrollable_shitting - I think it should be redirected to potty mouth. Atsme Talk 📧 10:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Russians, I tell you!Edit

Your Highness may want to lend an amused eye to Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Disputed pre-2015 content, by theme, wherein your humble worshipper attempts to argue that the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not an obvious precursor to Donald Trump's election in 2016. Neither was Trump's heroic attempt to sell American vodka to Russians. Oh the humanity! — JFG talk 03:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I try to stay out of American politics articles because sooner or later someone will drag in my talk page and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair. But I think I saw my notes on useful idiot the other day. EEng 04:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your help neededEdit

This pioneering attempt at a wooden gravestone dating from the early 1970s reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on what it is. Are you able to help? ‑ Iridescent 15:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Penis or mushroom, IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I get asked that regularly. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
So does Trump. From what Arid Desiccant says, the last erection was in the 1970s so there's a parallel there as well. EEng 17:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
The Victorians didn't pull their punches
  • While we're on the subject, have the world's least sentimental gravestone. ‑ Iridescent 15:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
"In loving memory of GEORGE HARRISON who died in great agony ... aged 5 1/2 years ... Also SARAH HARRISON grandma of the above who died after long suffering ..." YIKES!
I saw a very touching marker the other day in St. Paul's Chapel, NYC:
Beneath the Altar of this Church are deposited the Remains of Mrs ELIZABETH FRANKLIN, Wife of His Excellency WILLIAM FRANKLIN Esq: late Governor under His Brittanick Majesty, of the Province of New Jersey.
Compelled, by the adverse circumstances of the Times, to depart from the Husband she loved, and at length deprived of the soothing hope of his speedy Return, she sunk under accumulated Distresses and departed this Life on the on 28th Day of July 1778, in the 49th Year of her Age.
Were, with SENSE refined and PERSON elegant, in her UNITED.
From a grateful Remembrance of her affectionate Tenderness and constant Performance of all the duties of a GOOD WIFE, this Monument is erected in the Year 1787, by Him who knew her Worth, and still laments her Loss.
EEng 04:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is why we have COI rules. I wonder what it would have said if she had written it. Levivich 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Grave of John Renie. If you're confused, start with the large H in the center and head out in any direction.

There's probably a decent book—or essay at least—to be written on why pre-industrial England (and the assorted other nations in its sphere), and the late-Victorian death cult, produced such peculiar graves among the middle and upper-middle classes to an extent that was never replicated anywhere else or in any other period. When it comes to truly weird gravestones, the undisputed champion is that of John Renie, in the otherwise totally godforsaken town of Monmouth. ‑ Iridescent 19:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


I just found out that Dax Cowart died a little over a week ago, April 28th. I updated his bio. Thank you for your help in improving the article. Atsme Talk 📧 22:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. EEng 04:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summaryEdit

MOSbloat = The grossest thing I've heard today. Primergrey (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well then my nascent essay WP:MOSBLOAT will most certainly make you lose your lunch. EEng 03:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I think it belongs in The Museum as "meritorious" and perhaps even a "behavioral trendsetter" but most certainly as a remedy. [FBDB] Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
And if that doesn't, this will! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
STFU?? Ah yes, we know a song about that, don't we, boys and girls... : [30]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Note: other, equally offensive YouTube STFU song memes are readily available.
Well, poopers. I added the right link but to the wrong discussion (although it could relate to bloat) so I just fixed it...even worse, I was thinking bloat referenced this discussion, so EEng's comment has widespread merit, broadly construed. Hmmm, me thinks I may be in WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER territory. Atsme Talk 📧 22:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hope RydenEdit

 On 27 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hope Ryden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before she became an expert on wild animals, Hope Ryden was an international flight attendant and used her long layovers to observe wildlife in Africa and Asia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hope Ryden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hope Ryden), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just wrote the hook. It's good to see hookers getting some respect. EEng 18:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Archiving mayhemEdit

I was wondering how this archiving happened, but Guy Macon beat me to fixing it. It turns out this was the culprit. Fixed now. Retro (talk | contribs) 00:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Guy Macon, editor Retro says you beat him. We try to avoid violence here at Wikipedia, so please refrain from beating other editors. EEng 00:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who beat other Wikipedians? —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I have been called a shill for pretty much every company, service and product mentioned at User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. (and a paid shill for the "Twisty Bulb Cartel" when I mentioned that compact fluorescent bulbs use less energy than incandescent bulbs, but LED bulbs use less than either), So a special "when did you stop beating your fellow Wikipedia editors?" award seems like it would fit right in on my shelf... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


  Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 1101.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. Interstellarity T 🌟 17:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to thank you on EEng's behalf for providing him with this helpful advice. Since he is a new editor at Wikipedia, I'm sure that he has never heard any of that before. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we can safely say that EEng's page has too much shit? Atsme Talk 📧 11:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
And now, there is Russian interference with EEng's talk page! [FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
OMG, how very dare you!! Trypto you're Finnished here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  Martin beat me to the punch or did he Finnish me with a punch? Atsme Talk 📧 20:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe EEng has made the following offer.
Mail, with a SASE, a 64 GByte thumb drive, to EEng, requesting the most up-to-date version of this talk page. Should 64 GBytes be insufficient, a 120 Gbyte solid-state drive will do. Before chosing your media, check the current page size.
Neonorange (Phil) 02:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Ridiculous! It's only...oh my...2MB! Eman235/talk 03:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Tussle over pronouns in a dark alley in East BerlinEdit

Ah-ha! Mister so-called EEngFram! I knew it was you all along. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am unmasked! EEng 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah shucks. Never mind. I knew the "Eric Honecker in drag" theme would never really catch on. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC) ... still it's comforting to know that we are a lofty encyclopedia and can rise above all this

You shot firstEdit

[31] Mostly, I'm annoyed by the reverts. Consensus position here is not yours, so if you really think it belongs, get some people together to agree with you instead. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In articles, where there's doubt about inclusion of material the consensus principle calls for exclusion by default in the absence of agreement. On talk pages the reverse is true: within very wide bounds the default is to retain things, and the only person who seems to actually object can't formulate what his objection is [32]. There Izno tedious pun on your username coming to mind just now so we'll have to leave that for another time. EEng 15:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose you should be thankful that I'm actually your father, otherwise you would have ended up at AE rather than EWN per the below notification. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh I wouldn't subject EEng to AE for trying to have some fun. I'm a monster, but not THAT kind of monster. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
So, not a rancor? Maybe the Sarlacc pit? --Izno (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm really more of a Trade Federation sort of monster. I'll subject you to endless bureaucracy! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

How do I know?
Quoting EEng, June 14, 2019

I actually know ... well, not everything, but I know what it is I know, and I know this.
And that quote inspired me to add a self-quote:
"I don’t know how much I don’t know because there’s no way to gage how much I don’t know when I don’t know what it is I don’t know, so stop telling me I should've known.

And then comes the day you finally realize you don't know shit." Atsme Talk 📧 12:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Some father you are. EEng 03:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please note that, technically, you are perpetually aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area because you've been previously sanctioned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It's clear some people are having trouble respecting others' talk page contributions, so this should help. EEng 02:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Contribute if you've a mind to. j/s Atsme Talk 📧 17:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I gave up on understanding or worrying about DS long ago. I'm just me and if I get in trouble, I guess I get in trouble. EEng 19:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de Paris fireEdit

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

Thank goodness someone still has a sense of humor. [33] EEng 04:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Ironic. Atsme Talk 📧 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again ~ mitch ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

An encouraging wordEdit

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

This undeserved praise regards this modest edit [34]. EEng 02:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A linkEdit

Morning - I was hoping you'd remember a link you posted a while back to a YouTube video showing a group of scholars talking about creating an encyclopedia. I started scrolling your UTP from the rock-toothback discussion back to discussions in Dec 2018 and didn't see it. Perhaps it was in the museum? Atsme Talk 📧 13:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

[35]. And to think they say I'm disorganized. EEng 14:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(And that's about the kindest thing they say... lol.) Harvard graduates... know your limits! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Call T&S! Martin is harassing EEng and me! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
For those who don't know, Harvard graduates are a protected group against discrimination. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clearEdit

Everyone is very busy discussing where to draw the line on being rude and unpleasant, but making lame jokes is completely unacceptable. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's the lameness that offends. These are highly cultured people, after all. EEng 03:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the meaning of it? KoopaLoopa (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Nvm I think I figured it out - San Fran's Jan Bans Fram. KoopaLoopa (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
All this time we never knew you were Pastis. Your secret's safe with me.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 16:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Watch your step lest T&S disappear you for outing me. EEng 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Gulag-apedia. I hear Siberia is lovely this time of year.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 18:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
One Year in the Life of Ifram Denisovich. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello everybody. I read that book about fifty years ago at my boarding school. It has come flooding back. particularly the bit about the bread and the ciggy for goodness sake. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Since this is clearly your first time editing and I am in no way templating a regular, we hope you will choose to stay here and contribute positively. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on the redirect discussion for Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM by assuming I am creating a hostile environment by mocking people with peanut allergies. Please remember that even peanuts have feelings, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you and have a nice day. [FBDB] --WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

EEng's talk page gets all the nuts. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
"My T&S BANFRAM brings all the nuts to the yard....": [36] etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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


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

^^^^ Definitely the best yet. EEng 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
FRAM FRAMED, JAN NAMED, ARBCOM AIMED. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
WHOA BLACK BETTY, BAN FRAM, JAN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"I have gotta Admin name of FRAMA-BANA-JANA-LAMA-DING-DONG": [37] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?Edit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Anne drew (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And speedily declined. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Speedy declined. Not the same as the version that was deleted previously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Brad, for speedily edit conflicting you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Anne drew (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • WTF? The moon must be in clueless. EEng 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
"CANJUNEMOONSHAKESPOONMOONEYSOON"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
How much rue do Anne drew Andrew and Drew rue if Anne drew Andrew and Drew do rue what they do? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I just didn't feel up to the challenge. Congrats. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
He's a foo. EEng 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial list of images needing deletion because they attack or disparage:
Delete: Implies Jimbo invades people's privacy and looks at their naughty bits
Delete: Presents Jimbo as an autocrat
Delete: Implies Jimbo engages in group sex
Delete: Presents Jimbo as a seagoing mammal
Delete: Implies Jimbo has no brains

EEng 02:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wham Fram Thank You Jan? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Note: no snowflakes were intentionally harmed in the construction of this piped link.
^^^^ This one is quite good too. EEng 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"Hey man, well she's a total blam-blam"!  Dlohcierekim (talk)

Greetings from Dr. SeussEdit

Improvements and extensions welcomed!



Hah!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The 401 is the busiest talk page in North Wikipedimerica, by Annualized Average Daily Talk page visits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Um... "Can not" is considered incorrect too.CuteDolphin712 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

CuteDolphin712: I realize that, but Wikipedia's Manual of Style doesn't attempt to teach general English. EEng 06:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it time to call the obstetrician? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
"Once more unto the grammar breach, dear Prince Hal, once more!" Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
EEng, I'd follow you anywhere, even not on Saint Crispin's DayDlohcierekim (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: pingEdit

I couldn't think of any betters lines myself, but hopefully something will come to me before NYB's limerick contest starts. I think there is a joke in here, though, about the WMF's "light touch" nearly bringing down the house. Something like The WMF released a new tool for laser-focused, surgical interventions. It's a less drastic version of the global indef ban. It can be limited in time, it can be limited to a specific project, and it only removes from that project the target user and three bureaucrats, two interface admins, two global renamers, a template editor, twenty-four administrators and a couple dozen veteran editors. Levivich 03:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


such a cockup.  Dlohcierekim (talk)
....coming soon to an airport hear you

but look at all those airports he helped liberate from the British during the Revolution. It was yuge.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just in case other TPSs are confused. I think Dlohciere kim Jong-un may be referring to this "embarrassing mess". How amazing. But let's be kind and just call it "a narcissistic travesty". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
You know I tried to get to the white house on a self guided tour months ago ~ all I got was a letter ~ REQUEST DENIED ~ it's true ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. of A. is "cocked and loaded" to be able to "ram the ramparts" (real quotes). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Better call Dr.Bracket and Dixie McCall ~mitch~ (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Holy American pop culture, Batman! EEng 21:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


Amazing looking user page! Thank you. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ Talk 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Tu sais ~ Je pense que je me souviens de toi quand le monde a été créé ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
WTF? (= "What the French?") EEng 02:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
LOL ~ you had me scared ~~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

do you give objectiveEdit

more glitter  Dlohcierekim (talk)

3rd opinions on user conduct?  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, um, well, I'll do my best to help. I suspect the glitterati assembled here will offer their wisdom as well. Or, if it's your idea to send me an email, I prefer not interact off-wiki unless there's a really good reason; you can do that but I'm likely to keep our interaction to the minimum necessary to help you decide what to do. EEng 04:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Glitteratic assessment could not hurt. I just don't want to cause needless drama if I'm wrong. I'll put it together and come back. {At least it's not about your favorite subject.)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I glitter at multiple user talk pages, but I'm guessing this is related to what is at User talk:Doc James. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish:Maaaaaaybe. Still awaiting feedback and busy getting my pipes worked on tomorrow. Yes, that is a metaphor.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, I was just trying to let readers here know. I wish you and your pipes all the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
| | | | | | <-- in case you need more pipes, Dlohcierekim. It's uppercase back slash (Mac keyboard), but you must've known back slash is what you'd get before you came here. Atsme Talk 📧 21:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Dlohcierekim: You must have stalked me for more than a week to catch me posting a comment in response to QuackGuru not realizing that I have a longer history on that page than the editor you're accusing me to stalk. I don't have much time and nerve for things like that so again I'm just kindly asking you to cut it out and let be. I don't appreciate your threats and the harm it is doing to my personal well being.--TMCk (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    Well so far this is going swimmingly. EEng 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
You know I went to a swimming hole ~ just the other day ~ hole ~ the water looks nice and refreshing ~ on a hot summer day ~ until you jump in ~ and find out it's spring fed' and 56° ~mitch~ (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Be careful where you swim. Calm waters aren't always as calm as they seem...especially AN/I during the weekend. Atsme Talk 📧 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected ~ ? ~ très froid ~mitch~ (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Never swim in Florida. If the gators don't get you, the flesh eating bacteria or the brain eating amoebas will.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This is all moot now. Let the swimming continue.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
You see now why I'm in such demand as a mediator. EEng 03:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
😂 Atsme Talk 📧 03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Mitchellhobbs - are you an enterprising WP editor? If yes, and you're swimming in Hamilton Pool, then you're close enough to recruit. I've been trying to round-up some WP editors to help me start a WP Group or Chapter (was advised to start with a group). Any interest or know others who might be? Atsme Talk 📧 03:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Eeng: Hah! I wish. To continue the "pool" motif, we've jumped in at the shallow end, struck our head on the bottom, and swum, dazed as it were, to the deep end. Now foundering but for the help of a whiz with an ice bucket.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Well D, that explains everything. 😂 Atsme Talk 📧 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
From the latest in glitterati, I see per User talk:Bishonen that this has now been resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Atsme Hmm ` I don't know if I am a enterprising WP editor ~ I do let my girls use my computer some times ` why what did you have in mind ~ I don't go to Hamilton pool very often it's kind of out of the way ~ I find myself closer to Mills pond ~ I have to give the water a chance to warm up a little ~ I guess by the time Saturday rolls around I will grab my bottle of Olay ~ sun screen ~ it seems to work pretty good ~ and the girls seem to laugh historically when I go in for my weekly dip ~ so hey I'm up ~ what do I have to do ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

High quality content alertEdit

You might enjoy the box at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Korea (oldid: [38]), which seems to be the relic of a long-running edit war with a bot —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

William Wallace LincolnEdit

You deleted "Abraham Lincoln cared for Tad, who was still very ill and was heartbroken over the loss of his brother." with the edit summary of "a personal nurse was a commonplace at that time, and while no doubt the president was very attentive to Tad, he didn't care for him alone". Nevertheless, no personal nurses are mentioned in the cited source ("Lincoln"/David Herbert Donald) which states on Page 336 "The President gained some respite from his suffering by caring for Tad, who was still very ill and heartbroken over the loss of his brother. Often Lincoln lay on the bed beside his sick son to soothe him and give him comfort." The source doesn't seem to state that Lincoln was the only caregiver/nursemaid for his son but it does state that he provided a large measure of care for Tad. Anyway, was wondering if you'd consider restoring that content or something close to it back into the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. Re the nurse, I was talking about Mary's nurse -- I removed mention that Mary had a nurse because had the bereaved bedridden wife of the president NOT had a nurse, that's what the article would mention; that she did have a nurse would be a commonplace. I added back that AL found solace in caring for Tad, but not the broken heart because, again, if Tad had not a care that his brother had just died, that's what we'd need to mention. EEng 07:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


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

Nice shirt, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I hereby dub thee Sir Less-filling-with-no-taste.18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talkcontribs)
No usurpers, please... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me there's a good pun on usurpers in there somewhere, but it's just not coming. Below is the best I could do. EEng 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, not just tasteless-filling-with-no-Sirloin, then. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
E-e-e-e-w-w-w-w!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Not a Brit, but that canned meat pie looks like low-grade dog food. Woof. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
"Women In Red, fill your boots": enjoy. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

24 hour blockEdit

Hi, EEng. I have blocked you for 24 hours as described Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:EEng. Would you kindly commit to not restoring the material and we can put this behind us immediately? Haukur (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for posting the ANI message first and this message second. It would have been better form to do it the other way around. Haukur (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have lifted the block as per the ANI thread. Looks like you were right that this would not fly and I apologize. Haukur (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
But don't forget to send a photo for the wall of my trophy room.-EEng
Apology accepted, and you are to be commended for not digging in your heels. I will be commenting gently (relatively gently, anyway) at ANI in a bit. EEng 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Block_of_User:EEng. EEng 13:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It would have been within policy to do it the other way round? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Damn, I thought we would have a little break :P - FlightTime (open channel) 19:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Damn from me too. I log out for a few hours to do some errands, and I miss all the fun! Go clean out your garage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
ugh ` hmm ~ ugh ~ ugh ~ never mind ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

For your collectionEdit

Stackable WTF blocks
You've been around the WTF block
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're a mature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable.
How many more to equal the height of the Empire State Bldg?   Atsme Talk 📧 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope...Edit

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2020 United States electionsEdit

Is it paranoia or just curiosity to wonder if visitors from the Internet Research Agency will show up there? XOR'easter (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of geography initiativesEdit

Is any sort of clean-up required here? (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's quite enough out of you, Mr. Smarty Pants. EEng 19:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Mm-hmm. (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Frivolous commentaryEdit

A possible example of a tragedy of the anticommons problem: Disused property overtaken by weeds.

Yes, we know you're clever, EE, but for you to take prime space at the top of a discussion to insert your witty cartoons is not OK; just annoying. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It's now in a less-prime point in the thread. Always good to hear from you. EEng 15:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
How does one distinguish prime Wiki-real estate from sub-prime Wiki-real estate?--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
One must consider the possibility that the presence of an eyesore may produce a significant negative impact on the value of any real estate and adversely deprecate its resale value, thus lowering "prime real estate" to "not-so-prime-as-it-once-was real estate".-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyone know where I can get the Wikipedia version of Monopoly? --A D Monroe III(talk) 17:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't you know it: User:EEng#Monopwiki. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Go Directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
In today's environment it's risky to forget the [FBDB]. EEng 02:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
You know ~~ ~ I met a frivolous python one time ~ she was very friendly ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Another visit from DicklyonEdit

A whole fucking month! Wow! You can imagine how I felt when my uncontroversial work of the last four years was used as reason to try to indef block me. And all you did was post your stupid little cartoons instead of looking at the evidence or shutting the fuck up. Practice what you preach, man. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It took me a bit to figure out what you're talking about. [39] I wasn't taking sides and neither did the joke. Try to look on the bright side.
If it means anything to you, I hope you don't get blocked, really I do. EEng 22:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I guess. They already let me off with "no collusion, no obstruction"; in other words, not exonerated and with the cloud of BMK still hanging over me. Per not taking sides, see my remarks there about neutrality cowardice. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Archive much?Edit

Archives!? We ain't got no stinkin' archives!-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

I don't mean to be a bit rude, but your talk page is a bit annoying to scan through, maybe you can fix it? Cheers! Govvy (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Research shows that 15% of it is people asking me to archive. Now and then I do make a pass. EEng 12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
HeisenbEEng's Principle: it is impossible to add a note to EEng's talk page commenting on its size without changing the size. Disclaimer: this phenomenon is actually closer related to the observer effect than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd guess it's more like 25-40% of editors who are annoyed. But, we are fond of you DESPITE your long talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of making a pass, Liz: Will you marry me? EEng 02:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As to me, I actually appreciate its length. It doesn't load instantaneously, which forces me to slow down when reading stuff on my watchlist. It's a reminder to savor every moment in life, and to appreciate the fact that I don't have to use a dial-up modem anymore. I praise the length of this page! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Surely a most thoughtful and philosophically sophisticated attitude. EEng 03:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh my God, Mendaliv, you'll even defend the length of EEng's talk page. Is nothing beneath you?[FBDB] Levivich 03:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"Zu groß, zu klein, [Sie] könnte etwas größer sein" --Rammstein-- Dlohcierekim 10:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


(cough)-- Dlohcierekim
Original heading: "Archive this page"

Please, EEng, archive this talk page. It's hilarious if you're on a fast connection; otherwise it won't load, and is quite aggravating. It also isn't particularly fair to people who may want to contact you. Make your userpage as long as you want, because nobody's required to look at that; but this page needs to be usable. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde, as you can see, I am either clairvoyant or able to read your mind [40]. EEng 15:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Correcing ping: Vanamonde93. EEng 16:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A commemorative poemEdit

  • Sections were archived,
    one by one, like tears falling,
    but saved forever. Levivich 07:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
That is truly beautiful. Will you agree to recite it at my funeral? It's tomorrow. EEng 13:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Simple solution...User talk:EEng1, User talk:EEng2 and so on...that way, it's non-stop entertainment with user determined breaks inbetween. Atsme Talk 📧 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Excellent workEdit

I don't think your unmitigated torrent of genius content gets enough credit around here. Keep up the good work. Cosmic Sans (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to believe you're talking about
but I fear you're actually talking about casting of aspersions. See below. EEng 02:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Today's puzzle: What could this mean???
Unhide for answer
Casting of ass

Moors murders talk pageEdit

It remains to be seen where the AE complaint re Eric will end up. But reviewing your contributions on the talk page, I'm just wondering, WTF? I always thought you were cleverer and betterer than what I see there. Can't you manage to disagree without insult and mockery? GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing: Thanks for the kind words, and I appreciate your taking the time. The phenomenon of "civil POV pushing" is often talked about, but less talked about is "civil article ownership". Swarm put it very well at AE:
Obstructing bold edits without citing a specific rationale is disruptive editing. "Specific" means "policy-based". Arguing that "this is X's article, and X needs to have a say" is a policy violation, not a reason to personally attack the editor making the edits. FA's require "stability". But "stability" does not mean "absence of editing". "I don't like your edits", or "this is X's article, don't change it" is not a legitimate content dispute. Illegitimate stonewalling is not what's intended by "FA stability".
At AE you posted only part of my "shut the fuck up" rant, which robs the short bit you posted of context. Here it is more fully: far the easiest thing to do would be to simply STEP THROUGH THE GODDAM EDITS SEQUENTIALLY. In the past 3 days there have been an incredible 110 posts to this thread, totaling 40K of text, all to discuss the abstract existence (but not the substance) of my 150 edits to an article which itself consists, in total, of a mere 65K. Most of these edits are no more complex than
[before-and-after of seven edits omitted]
There, that's seven of them – 5% of the total – right there. They can be reviewed in 15 seconds each, and if you think "officers were drafted to search" is better than just plain "officers searched", or that readers will benefit by knowing about the dog's teeth and kidney complaint, or about how many days past his birthday Keith Bennett was when he was killed, go right ahead and change those things; I'm not married to anything. But in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, at long last you bunch of old ladies stop pearl-clutching and hand-wringing (you gotta love the imagery there) and either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. I've spent far more time in therapy with you lot responding to your hypothetical anxieties than I did making the changes themselves. Really, it's unbelievable.
(I would appreciate it if, over at AE, you'd substitute the above excerpt for your short one, so that I don't have to clutter the page and confuse the discussion by posting it in my own section.) That was July 12.
For a month -- a MONTH -- my edits sat live in the article without a single modification of what I'd done, or comment on what I'd done, or indication of interest in what I'd done, by any of this bunch -- until EC's block expired. Then the gang assembled and moved in. Too many edits! Too fast! This is an FA! Your edits are shit! I didn't look at them but I know they're shit! You need consensus! What bullshit. And now in the last 24 hours both Cassianto and EC have lied -- blatantly lied -- on the talk page about who said and did what.
Even now, at AE, Cassianto's pretending that I simply told him to "shut the fuck up". That's a lie. As seen above what I said (after three days of begging that this bunch look at the edits and give any specific indication of what was wrong with them) was that he should either look at the edits or shut the fuck up now. That's completely different. I'm not going to engage him on that at AE because he lies so effortlessly and shamelessly that he'll just keep saying black is white, but if you're in a particularly energetic mood you might point it out yourself.
They're just trying to gaslight anyone, such as yourself, who tries to untangle what happened. Smokescreens are their friends. So yeah, I've been pissed off and have shown it. EEng 17:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Featured article complete fraud! Content creators exposed as poseurs have feet of clay just like other editors!Edit

Talk page stalkers who have been watching the fun at Talk:Moors murders may be interested to know that it turns out that is "Featured article" is apparently riddled with errors. I've found 22 21 [oops, looks like in one case I missed part of the newspaper story -- The Times has those giant pages in the old days – thanks to SchroCat for catching that] examples of statements in the article not supported by the sources cited – and that's just in the one section (seven paragraphs) I checked. See [41]. EEng 14:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This is some Stannis Baratheon level fact-checking you're doing there.

- "A harmless courtesy, Your Grace."

- "A lie. Take it out."[42]

You didn't show up for the duel. Also, if you challenge me I'm supposed to pick the weapon. I'll let you be Ryu if you like. Haukur (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

just in case ... CommentEdit

Things have gotten batshit crazy, and I know why!! There's a full moon rising, Thursday 08-15-2019. Atsme Talk 📧 01:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

... you weren't aware of it. Wikipedia:Gravedancing is frowned upon by most. — Ched :  ?  — 09:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You'rea talking about You're talking about the header of the subthread just above this one? What gravedancing? I look forward to a productive collaboration with SchroCat, Cassianto, Eric Corbett, and the rest, all working to together to get this article to at least the Good Article level at long last.
Anyway, I've changed the header to something more neutral. EEng 14:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AbortionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

After Talk:Moors murders I don't think abortion will be controversial enough to interest me. EEng 13:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
You can always get in on the fun at GMO pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Join WP:WikiProject Dogs - it puts the others to shame. Atsme Talk 📧 19:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
In what way? Do they WP:BITE the newcomers? EEng 19:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like Atmse is being catty. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Grab an umbrella ☔️🌂🐕🐈 - it's raining cats and dogs! Atsme Talk 📧 20:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AbortionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You never give up, do you Legobot? EEng 04:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


  what happened? ~
Did the world stop? ~ I better grab my children[1] ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


FYI ~ cygnis insignis' belittled underestimated me it was just an 'opinion' ~ Video on YouTube
Actually, in that video that's me on the left and a certain trio of editors on the right. EEng 02:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I can believe it...and I was one of the 2 females who got up and walked away. Atsme Talk 📧 03:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
EEng bears an uncanny resemblance to Jeff Goldblum. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That either a personal attack on me or a BLP violation with respect to Jeff Goldblum, though I'm not sure which. EEng 21:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Definitely the latter.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, as a fan of heartthrobs Jeff Goldblum, David Copperfield, Gary Cooper, Gregory Peck, Yule Brenner, Chuck Connors, Richard Boone, and Mr. Peepers, mention of the BLP vio unchained me. Atsme Talk 📧 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
You Know ~ my heartthrobs are The California Raisins their so cool and sexy ~mitch~ (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
What is the definition of (cygnis insignis) anyways ~ maybe I should go ask El_C ~ oops I just did ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is it's some kind of odd bird. EEng 18:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You know I had a pet once too ~ we called him Taz ~ he died ~ so we just watch cartoons all day ~ Grrrr on YouTube ~mitch~ (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
It is really really tempting to make an article cygnis insignis explaining that it is the motto of Western Australia, is intended to mean "noted for swans", and is in some sense a pun or at least a rhyme. I imagine that our local only-for-the-birds editor has some connection to WA. I suppose I can at least add a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you David Eppstein ~ it is very refreshing ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you ought to duck. Or you might get a goose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
~ Thanks you'all ~mitch~ (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


[continue discussion with you]

perhaps this is what you are looking for?-- Dlohcierekim
I tend to state what is invisible to others and not deliberately being obtuse, your "innocent" attempts at humour are not free of disruptive consequences and doubling down when a joke is not flying, I think, shows a lack of appreciation for what is and is not valued humour. How many users might attempt to remove you attempts at wit, tendentiously restored with a "i have no idea why you did that?" edit summary before you take stock of the value of inclusion. Do you want an example, your "trail of tears" quip a little while ago. ~ cygnis insignis 16:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this thread continues the inscrutable discussion at [43]
"Trail of tears"??? What in the fuck are you talking about? No, seriously, we really want to know. Every stalker here awaits breathlessly a diff. EEng 16:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm a talk page stalker and I approve this message. — JFG talk 18:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Huh? Trail of tears? I'm telling ya, EEng - it's gotta be the full moon. Atsme Talk 📧 19:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
We're still waiting for your diff so we can know what you're talking about when you speak of my "trail of tears" quip a little while ago, Cygnis insignis. EEng 02:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
No answer. Huh. EEng 11:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Eric Corbett and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, –MJLTalk 02:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh boy! My first Arbcom case! I haven't been so excited since I was subpoenaed to a federal grand jury!
Now seriously folks, everyone keep calm. I'll be happy to answer any factual questions here if it will help keep the case page uncluttered. Let's try to keep things serious. Mostly. (But – again seriously – all jokes or kidding are to be kept here; an Arbcom case is a huge timesink for the community, if even sometimes a necessary one, and we don't want to do anything to exacerbate that.) EEng 02:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm proud of you for getting this far and not a single dead baby or where-the-bodies-are-buried joke. Such restraint! Levivich 03:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, there's this. EEng 03:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a golden opportunity for our new skit. I'll start gathering the diffs demonstrating that you show insufficient respect to gravity. Haukur (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like they are going to either decline it or accept but suspend it, so I suspect you won't have to deal with much. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    They should decline it, but the only opinion so far is to accept. And being party to an accepted-but-suspended case is not a helpful state to be in. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    FWIW, I don't think they can reasonably suspend a case examining the conduct of active users. I read GW's accept to be specifically for a case focused on Eric (and I'm not getting into whether that's necessary or not at the moment). Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Though not an experienced Arbcom watcher I'm guessing it will be declined, but for the record while I wouldn't look forward to the huge waste of everyone's time, other than that instead of fraud I probably should have said careless negligence I stand by everything I've said and done and fear no scrutiny. You know David Eppstein, since unfortunately Ve has apparently bailed out on us, you would be doing humanity a great favor if you could kick off "the list" with any diffs from July you're concerned about. EEng 05:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There are already about six times the people making statements from the peanut gallery than there are actually trying to resolve the dispute that sparked this exciting episode. Wouldn't it be great if anyone everyone thinking about offering their two arbitrary subunits of currency went and verified one of the 50-something red span tags instead? Triptothecottage (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Triptothecottage: What we need more than that is agreement that, when protection comes off, the article will be returned to the upt-to-date version it was in before Cassianto reverted to the June 26 version (on the basis that that version's so excellent -- I guess we won't be hearing that any more). If we can agree to that then I can probably fix most of the verification errors myself, but in any event those who want to help fix things will be able to do so. EEng 05:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I note with approval the conciseness of your response but I still think NYB wins the thread. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    David Eppstein, let it never be said I begrudge credit where credit is due [44]. Now can you PLEASE see if you can list anything in the July edits (starting here [45]) that you think should be reverted out? Somebody. Anybody. Please. I beg you. EEng 20:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Gary NullEdit

Your carps of the day, monsieur-- Dlohcierekim

Once you've cleaned up the Moors, perhaps you could take a fine-toothed comb to this for sourcing/content mismatch.-- Dlohcierekim 08:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my friend, I overlooked this until now. Moors will take at least another six months of hard work -- and that's if other stuff doesn't come up, which it already has -- so I'm afraid I'll be unable to help with Mr. Null. EEng 22:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Taylor SwiftEdit

Either she's going for a kind of low-budget Madonna look, or someone locked the door to her dressing room while she was in the toilet.-EEng

You have opinions about writing, right? What do you think of the Taylor Swift lead? (Hey, at least I'm not asking you to comment on abortion.) Haukur (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

In copyediting I leave the lead to very last, after I've done (and therefore read) the rest of the article, so I can't say much at this point except that eponymous and buoyed and spawned and (beyond the lead, but an especial peeve of mine) accolades make me want to vomit, and factoids such as "youngest person to single-handedly write and perform a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" and "first act to have four albums sell one million copies within one week in the U.S." are ridiculous. But you gotta love that she spent her early years on a Christmas tree farm. EEng 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I present EEng with the first annual EEng Award for outstanding accomplishments in the field of eponymous accolades. Haukur (talk)
I'll get you for this, Haukurth -EEng
Childhood home
Taylor helps with the daily chores
'Eponymous' is for beginners - mononymously is what the cool kids are putting in their FAs. Haukur (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Monotonously is more like it. I love it that the first outbound link in the article on this Kylie Minogue creature takes you to a page whose lead image is Plato. Her own lead image shows "Minogue performing at The Queen's Birthday Party" – I can imagine Queen Liz thinking, "I'm just glad Winston isn't alive to see this." EEng 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
EEng, you are getting too snobby even for me here, and that's pretty hard to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It is recognised as her signature song and was named "the catchiest song ever" by Yahoo! Music. – Right. EEng 18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, now I'm curious. Where does (did) it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The lead (or lede, you snob). We're talking about the article linked behind the word mononymously above. EEng 18:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, Minogue! I thought you meant Swift. Yeah, that's BS. Everyone knows that the catchiest song ever is this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say exactly the same thing, so you see great minds do think alike after all (and please do not post the traditional followup to that). EEng 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The traditional followup to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Look What You Made Me Do --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
All together! EEng 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Beyond Belief bookEdit

I can't see if the edition is 1967 or 1992. Random House 1st published the book in 1967. has images of the 1967 edition, EEng. I'll be happy to work with you on this article going forward. I have several printed sources on this case (some not listed in the table on the article's talk page). Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

It's OK, I think it's only used once in the article presently, so it's not like we have to correlate page numbers in a lot of existing cites to page numbers in the editions we have in hand. I'm up in the air about the extent we can use it anyway; it tries to be a sort of In Cold Blood, and I thought I read a review saying that it clearly distinguishes fact from fancy. But so far (having only thumbed it) I'm not seeing that distinction being drawn, but I'll have to give it a closer look to decide.
This will be a lot of work, and it will take time. I'm glad you're on board. EEng 22:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. This book is was one of the first true crime books I ever read. I am unaware which review you are referring to, but in several areas of the book, the author clearly uses his imagination to portray events relating to the case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's the review I was thinking of [46]:
Williams explicitly distinguishes among fact, interpretation of fact, and surmise ... interwoven in the text. So that the reader may distinguish among them ...
... and at point there's a page break in the review, and I can't see the next page! I'll have to get that. Our own article (Beyond_Belief:_A_Chronicle_of_Murder_and_its_Detection) says that later reviews were quite harsh. EEng 23:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I will look into that. Reviews are rightly harsh (even though much info. is verified in other sources and the book should not be completely discounted). Williams did consult numerous individuals involved in the case (police, neighbours, acquaintances etc.) while writing his book. In Ann West's book, she states he went to their flat in 1966, demanding an interview, and callously (and falsely) stated she slept in the same bedroom as her brothers before saying: "There's not a lot of room in these council flats, is there?" When ejected from the house, he stated either the Wests grant him an interview or he'd just fabricate the content for his book. I am actually glad there are only a small number of references to this book in the article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll have no problem getting the review, but based on the severe later criticism I'm guessing we can only use it for a good turn of the phrase expressing something sourced as fact elsewhere. EEng 00:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've thrown my hat in the ring for a few of the minor sources that Supreme Leader here didn't manage to find on his first run. I shan't be following proceedings in great detail though so please ping me if you want something checked. Some of the more pulpy books mentioned here that are unsurprisingly absent from Antipodean institution catalogues are, weirdly, wildly popular in municipal library collections in New South Wales. This confirms everything we Melburnians believe about the psychopathy of our northern neighbours. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    This is great! But please, Triptothecottage, do not commit sudoku [47], or if you do at least do not drip on my couch [48]. EEng 01:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Dude, commit is not the preferred nomenclature. It's execute sudoku. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Reminds me of the username Osama /bin/login. EEng 01:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Double Space Barnstar
For discovering a use for the double space in the post-typewriter era. Levivich 20:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


You know ~ I went to a french museum of Côte-d'Or ~ I kinda fell down on my way out ~Don't worry though~ I have faith I can make it through ~ ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Among the stalkers here assembled, only you could find a way to work in a Journey (band) video. EEng 05:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Harvard's Pusey LibraryEdit

It has come to my attention that in the depths of the Widener Library, there is a tunnel containing a book collection known as the Pusey Library or Pusey Stacks, referred to by scholars as "Widener Pusey" (as seen here), named after former president Nathan Pusey (of "Latin Si, Pusey No" fame, not to be confused with Phil Pusey or his younger brother, Professor Pusey, who, naturally, was an Oxford man, which, naturally, is near a whole town of Puseys (not to be confused with the town of Pewseys in neighboring Wiltshire)), and that the lads at The Crimson (who are paying nearly $100,000 a year to browse Harvard's Pusey Library, among other enriching activities) have already picked up on this, with varying degrees of subtlety. [49] [50] Levivich 05:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Harvard's Pussy library – Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!
There are still a few cheap jokes you missed: "I've got a date with a library tonight, and boy is it stacked. With luck I'll get my Wigglesworth." Stories of sex in the stacks, like those about peeing on John Harvard and the Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Swim Test, are campus legend only.
For the record, very few Harvard College students pay full price; for example, families with incomes below $65,000 pay zero. One consequence of the school's wealth means that it can guarantee that no one it wants is unable to attend for financial reasons. EEng 06:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
From the Department of NOR Violations, I remember very clearly that at the beginning of my freshman year (which would be Fall 1974), there was a (sort of) required swim test for all incoming undergrads. I got excused from it for (exaggerated) medical reasons, but I am very sure that the test did happen (and not just in my feeble mind). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
From the Department of Jesus, Try Following the Link Supplied To See What The Article Says,
Though Harvard has had swimming requirements at various times (e.g. for rowers on the Charles River, or as part of a now-defunct freshman training regimen) Bentinck-Smith writes that "There is absolutely no evidence in the President's papers, or the faculty's, to indicate that [Eleanor Widener] was, as a result of the Titanic disaster, in any way responsible for [any] compulsory swimming test."
One of the article's sources adds that
A Harvard College swimming requirement was instituted in the early 1880s for crew team members wishing to use boats on the Charles River. In 1919, Harvard instituted compulsory physical training, including swimming instruction, for all freshmen; however, the President's report of 1919-1920 describing the new regulations does not mention a graduation swim requirement. A swimming requirement is described in the 1969-1970 Harvard University Catalogue (p. 63), but is no longer mentioned by the publication of the 1974-1975 Catalogue. Currently, there is no swimming requirement at Harvard.
Really, Tfish, I would have thought that by now you'd know I'm not going to get caught with my pants down on a topic like this. I will add that I have it on unimpeachable authority that there was also a swim requirement for graduation from Radcliffe during some period in, roughly, the 1920s to 1950s. But none of this contradicts the article's very careful statement that while there have been swim requirements, they've no link to poor Harry Widener or rich Mrs. Widener. As a note in the article explains (quoting
Harry Elkins Widener didn't die because he couldn't swim: he, like many other Titanic passengers who couldn't be accommodated by one of the too-few lifeboats, died from immersion in freezing water. The ability to swim wouldn't have helped him, because there was nowhere for him to swim to.
EEng 21:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Jesus, EEng, I would have thought that by now you would know that I find the idea of you with your pants off exceedingly distasteful. You sound so defensive, I almost would have thought that you were a Yalie.[FBDB] I wonder, had they done away with Expository Writing by the time that you got there? So I actually did read what the page said before I made my previous post to you, and I even read the source that you cite. "Training regimen"? Isn't that something for puppies? I've now made this edit: [51]. You're welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Regimen is singularly apt, in point of fact. EEng 20:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Which is apparently why you changed "regimen" to "program", I guess, and otherwise you entirely reverted me, which was so sweet. You really need to show more respect for your betters.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I changed to program because you made fun of regimen a few posts above, and I didn't feel strongly about it. EEng 23:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll follow up on this at the article talk page in another day or so, but just letting you know that I found reliable sources that do back up the wording that I put there. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fantabulous. I issue was never the truth of the matter, just the verifiabilitilibility. No hurry. EEng 22:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Next, you’ll be telling us that they don’t actually park cars in the yard! Levivich 01:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Freshman move-in day only, 20 minutes max, enforced from Harvard's smallest building ("The building, approximately the size of a portable toilet, cost the University $57,000 to construct..."). EEng 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
What's crazy about the gate house isn't the cost, it's that they had Graham Gund design it. Who would hire an architect to design an outhouse?! Harvard, that's who. This one is only $600 and it's bigger. Levivich 05:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, actually; all joking aside, it was an almost impossible design challenge. Personally I don't find the result particularly pleasing, but neither can I suggest a better approach. Someone remind me to do a DYK. EEng 05:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
True, all joking aside, Harvard didn't really choose to do all that. Who would make you hire an architect and spend $800 a foot on a 5x5 gate house? The Historical Commission, that's who. Levivich 05:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
While the Historical Commission's involvement no doubt affected the outcome, I believe Harvard would have spent a similar amount in any event. The Johnston Gate the Yard's traditional ceremonial entrance (see History and traditions of Harvard commencements#Academic_Parade) and an important symbol when selling the product. EEng
You said to remind you to do a DYK on this. (Did you know ... that Harvard architecture has nothing to do with buildings?) If someone/you finds/makes a PD pic, I'd be happy to put a little stub together in draftspace. It's got to be one of the smallest buildings ever designed by an architect–merely by virtue of being just about the smallest possible building still capable of occupation. Levivich 04:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Princeton had a swim test requirement from 1911 to 1990 and a similar apocryphal story about a deceased alumnus was told there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    Who or what is this “Princeton” of which you speak? EEng 12:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    EEng displays the narrowness of his education. By the way, I was born in and grew up in Princeton, NJ. Graduated from Princeton High School. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond a reasonable troutEdit


You've been whacked with a wet trout.

I certainly appreciate your brand of humor (puns and all), but Special:Diff/913428905 was a bit much (especially putting it in the closure box) creffett (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Beyond a reasonable trout" -- that's brilliant. EEng 01:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Templating a regularEdit


Hizzles EEng, n welcome ta wikipedia! thizzanx fo` yo contribizzles . Slap ya self. i hizzy you like tha place n decide ta stay fo' sho'. Here is a few good links fo` newcoma:

I hope you enjoy perpetratin' here n being a Wikipizzedian! Pleaze sign yo name on rap pages using four tildes (~~~~), o' just three (~~~); this will automatically produce yo name n tha date fo' sheezy. If you need help, chizzay out Qizzles ask me on mah rap page, or place {{helpme}} on yo rap pizzle n someone wizzle show up shortly ta brotha yo questions. Again, welcome ta this plizace!

May I introduce {{User:Myrtone86/template:welcome-snoop}}. Can't believe it never caught on. Levivich 02:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Can't imagine.-- Deepfriedokra 03:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome use Bishzilla's template, all! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 04:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
  • Why do I get all the nuts? EEng 04:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    You really don't know? Levivich 04:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm trying to put up a brave front. EEng 04:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DuodecimalEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duodecimal. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

What did Dewey do now? Levivich 05:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Believe it or not: Melvil_Dewey#Controversies.. EEng 05:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Who could have guessed that the guy who wrote Classification and subject index for cataloguing and arranging the books and pamphlets of a library, and followed it up with Decimal classification and relative index for arranging, cataloguing, and indexing public and private libraries and for pamphlets, clippings, notes, scrap books, index rerums, etc., would turn out to be an asshole. Levivich 05:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
"Index rerum" – obviously a pervert. EEng 06:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Elegant variationEdit

MJL's nativity seen here Levivich

Apologies, had thought you had followed me there (I have similar interests to Popcornduff, so do watch) but now see you were already active on the talk page "discussion", which can be best surmised with the three letters...FFS. ps, hope all is well with Martin who has not edited in a while, and is missed. Ceoil (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to clear that up, but it's really MJL you should be apologizing to. Which Martin do you mean? EEng 19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Unaccepted apology noted. MJL has a lot more to answer for than this, and I'm surprised you are using his nativity to advance other grudges. I meant mr Evans. Ceoil (talk)
For those playing along at home, this concerns the bizarre interactions here [52].
Um, look Ceoil, it seems that every interaction we have immediately goes awry because (a) your English isn't that great (sorry, but you force me to say it – case in point: by nativity do you mean naivete?) and (b) when you misunderstand, you start seeing dark motives in everything.
  • I said above I appreciated your taking the time to admit your prior misunderstanding; that means your apology was accepted.
  • You accused MJL of conspiring with me by email, so yes, you should apologize to him regardless of what you dislike about him (not that I'm saying I agree with you on any of that, other than that he should be more discerning in where he pokes his nose).
  • I have no "grudges", and you're getting me close to doing what I almost never do, which is to have an admin speak to you about your repeated accusations, without evidence, of misbehavior by your fellow editors.
EEng 20:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Your not as clever as you think, and poor spelling is a weak defense, given all that has happened in the last two weeks. 'Almost never do'; please - most of your edits over the last decade and a bt are to AN/I. But if you cant defend yourself on your own, thats fine man. Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
[Thank you for the ping] @EEng: pronouns.Just another example of how improbable it'd be for us to coordinate Either way, It's fine really. I don't feel owed an apology. The accusation was very hurtful, but I don't hold it against Ceoil. He has the right to feel whatever feelings he feels. (edit conflict)MJLTalk 20:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's an uncharitable view, and I'm obviously not going to convert anybody here. But I will say that those that defend Eric dont do so because of his charming personality, it goes deeper than that - he and Tony1 were always to go to guys on how to write correct, and a generation learned from them. The people Eric (supposedly) chased off were not future content people, he always tended to them with kindness and encouragement (I was one), more he was targeted by up and coming admin types. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
You're saying that his personality was charming, that he taught you to modify verbs by adjectives, and that EEng has never created any content and is or was an up and coming admin? Interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
No David, I was being ironic, which fair enough doesnt translate in text only discourse. I said Eric is not especially charming, and never was inclined towards [unspecified, as we are talking about a 12 year span] wannabe admins. But he has my respect. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
No, David, I think Ceoil is saying it's OK that EC called EEng a "guttersnipe", etc., because EC was nice to Ceoil back in the day. Levivich 21:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes exactly Levivich, EC mentored quite a few new editors, including me. I'm not sure how you connected that with the attempt to associate me with "guttersnipe", which for sure sounds regrettable. But to say again, I dont defend Eric for his fatalistically bitter, and unfortunately hurtful, way with words. Yet, when I was learning how to operate on this place, I improved through a school of hard knocks, rather than cuddly safe spaces.Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
People were mean to you once and therefore it's good for people to be mean? I think you took the wrong lesson there. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In twelve years I've probably opened two or three threads total at ANI; half or more of my edits there are archiving of resolved threads and so on. Get your facts straight before mouthing off further.
  • Please don't insult Tony1 by mentioning him in the same breath as Eric Corbett. Tony helps other editors without bursting into schoolyard taunts at the first sign of friction.
  • Eric Corbett was nice to someone exactly so long as they stroked his fragile ego and scrupulously avoided contradicting or correcting him in even the most minor ways. He richly deserved what he got, and obviously wanted it. This was no Greek tragedy of a magnificent talent brought down by a tiny seed of destruction hidden deep within, but (as I take delight in repeating, now that I've hit on the metaphor) a one-eyed man who managed to surround himself with blind editors over whom he thought to reign as king, and whose blindness allowed them to believe, for a time at least, that he was a deity. His writing was perfectly competent, but by no means brilliant, and like everyone else’s not so good that it couldn't be improved by fresh eyes; and his research and sourcing, in the one example I've probed in depth, was sloppy.
    That last point is worth explaining a bit. At some point it suddenly became clear that much of Moors Murders was unsourced, and that that had long been hidden by the fact that E.C. and others inserted new material, with inline cites, into an existing article that largely lacked inline cites; the added inline cites were mistaken for covering the old, uncited material, and no one noticed that until now. Eric Corbett's response was, "Yeah, I was a relatively new editor then, and not really tuned in to the problems of WP:Citing_sources#Text–source_integrity. I'm glad someone's noticed the problem and it's being addressed." Ha, ha, just kidding. He immediately put into action his usual strategy of diversion leavened by insults, painting himself as a victim, and so on [53], the diversion in this case being the claim that citation requirements have changed since he worked on Moors Murders [54], which is false [55]. I conclude, therefore, that he's not interested in learning, that there's no reason to believe he's any more careful now than he was then, and that his research is probably about as good as his writing: OK, but far from great. Combining that with his nasty attitude, I say good riddance.
EEng 14:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Some low bluffs. —David Eppstein
Well MJL, there were coincidences here, for sure...there is no doubt that ye were coordinating. My long term opinion of you EEng is that you are a low value bluffer. Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Doubt is the beginning of wisdom, as the wise man said; try it sometime. EEng 14:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • To stick my schnozzola in here: I can't work out what the theme is. Tony (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Tony, it’s themeless in need of a themestress. Atsme Talk 📧 04:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Stress has been the theme all summer; now, it seems less. Levivich 04:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I figured you would get a kick out of thisEdit

Cards84664 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial StadiumEdit

Hi EEng ~ can I get maybe a day or two page protection here ~ Thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: The best place to ask for protection is WP:RPP. I have made a request there on your behalf. Unless EEng has some mystical power I'm unaware of, he cannot actually protect pages. Though he may act with the impish impunity of an admin, he is in fact just a regular 'ol editor. I think if he ever did run for RfA, the community would devour itself like Ouroboros. Not necessarily saying that's a bad thing... Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 17:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder why God chose me to be the vessel burdened with such awesome power. But I have sworn to use it only for good, never for evil! EEng 21:03, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CaptiainEek ~mitch~ (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And speaking of Michael Palin...Edit


And speaking of a basement... EEng 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


Heya, someone joined IRC today under your username, wanted to verify whether it was you or not. Praxidicae (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's me. Who on earth would want to pretend they're me? Horrible thought.
For talk-page stalkers, here's what I'm asking:
After several bad experiences with numbskull admins at Commons, I decided never to upload files to Commons again, except for PD material. I now want to upload a file and have the person I got it from follow up by emailing an appropriate license. On Commons there's a page I can get the license from, fill in the blanks, and forward to the file donor; then there was a permissions@ address to which the donor could forward the license. I can't find the equivalent stuff here on Wikipedia i.e. the license boilerplate, and the address to which the donor should forward the license after I upload the file. (I don't want to put the donor through creating an account and uploading himself.). Clue me in, please.
Can anyone point me to some page explaining this? EEng 13:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to Praxidicae and Steven Crossin, I think I have my answer: and . Thanks! EEng 13:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I certainly have not always supported EC - he's a good writer but, like most of us, sometimes his own worst enemy. My ironic aside to your comment about using real names in the recent AN thread was because it is documented on-wiki that he has been harrassed off it. One example was the Rod Hull and Emu account, although I can't remember the exact spelling. I'm just correcting the record - no need or desire for a contretemps. - Sitush (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns what I said here [56].
Sitush, I appreciate your taking the time to drop by. Since I am, on reflection, not conversant with all the crazy stuff that's swirled around this Eric Corbett character on wiki, off wiki, in the corridors of power and at all levels of government, I should have simply said, "No, people shouldn't be harassed IRL even if their name is Eric Corbett. I imagine he's got enough trouble in his personal life as it is." EEng 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I doubt his personal life at present is any more troubled than yours, perhaps less, but in reality neither you nor I can compare them and you're just poking again. Please stop gravedancing here, there and everywhere. You don't like him, we get it, but you are indeed far from conversant with what has gone on. It becomes tiresome having to correct pure speculation on the part of the self-admittedly ignorant and is an example of the "polite" incivility that we really should not be tolerating if we're to have a level playing field. I am sure you will want to reply - you seem to want to interject your off-beat thoughts and so-called humour everywhere - but please don't ping me in it. - Sitush (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
You don't have to correct my self-admittedly ignorant pure speculation – I labeled it self-admittedly ignorant pure speculation. EEng 03:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

nudge, nudgeEdit

I don't know if/how you missed this

  • The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

but you'rerf really not supposed to edit inside a closed thread. — Ched (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

When an RfC has run its course and had a formal close, modifying the discussion encapsulated by the close can confuse things. On the other hand, when some lone editor takes it upon himself to decide that everyone else has had enough to say, then no, that's not binding on the rest of us. EEng 02:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not helpingEdit

AGGRESSIVE??? I'll show you aggressive!EEng

This edit does not help the discussion one iota, and is extremely aggressive. I suggest you remove it. -DePiep (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

DePiep, remember all those times you misunderstood what someone was saying and got all upset? This is one of those times. My point is that having redirects WP:FOO and MOS:FOO is a very bad idea. (And no, I’m not advocating that anyone actually be shot. Not yet, anyway.) EEng 16:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No I do not remember, nor do I care nr did "I" misunderstood. You actually wrote to shoot an editor, so I suggest you undo that one. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to start interpreting common hyperboles such as "... should be shot" literally, I'm going to jump off a bridge. Levivich 22:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Mountains out of molehills, here. Don't blow your top and throw the baby out with the bath. --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
He might shoot himself in the foot if he's not careful. EEng 00:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Just EEng being hyperbolic, joke telling square that he now there's ANI, and here is the scenario when an admin shows up at his page....
EEng: "Ahhh...a loyal (talk page stalker) has arrived. Is there a problem?"
Admin: "Your hyperboles over at Redirects are unacceptable - you threatened to shoot an editor over MOS:FOO. Will you please strike those comments or I'll have to block you?"
EEng: "Uhm, why don't you spare me the trouble of going back? I shouldn't have been over there in the first place as it was right after I insulted a few other editors for trying to do the right thing and fix a mess I made over at AE - I was overindulging in levity and ended up getting some poor editor site-banned even though he was innocent, but I couldn't help myself. I slapped another editor with a trout and told him to STFU. Knocked him on his ass, too! Now he's stalking my page but I've got plans for him, too. I showed him an image of my gun - the same one I used on another dude for screwing with MOS. I told him he needed to be shot.
Admin: "Holy shit!"
The admin immediately jumps on IRC and calls for back-up. In minutes, EEng's UTP is swarming with rouge admins, one of whom is an Arb.
Arb: "EEng, please show me the diffs of your discussion at Redirects."
EEng: "Sure"
EEng shows him several innocuous diffs.
Arb: "Where are the diffs from AE? Do you have those?"
EEng: "Sure"
EEng provides those diffs, again innocuous hyperbole.
Arb: "Who was the editor you were debating over MOS, and where are those diffs?"
EEng: "Oh, that was Mr. Peepers - he decided to start editing GMOs."
Arb: "Where is the picture of your gun?"
EEng: "I don't have a gun."
Arb: "Sorry to put you through this, but the admin who called us over here said you insulted editors at AE, were overindulging in levity, got an innocent editor site-banned, slapped another user with a trout and knocked him on his ass, and used profanity for screwing with MOS."
EEng: "Yeah, I bet that lying son of a bitch also told you I threatened to shoot the guy."
Atsme Talk 📧 01:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
👏👏👏 Levivich 01:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If you get any funnier, you're gonna put EEng out of a job...I'm cackling at my desk. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not just a job, it's an adventure. EEng 02:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
For you, it’s an adventure....for us, it’s a job keeping you out of WP jail. Atsme Talk 📧 13:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
We're supposed to be keeping him out? Levivich 16:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI noticeEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng agression. DePiep (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Shame! Shame!Edit

You aggressive, violent beast, you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You love it. EEng 23:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
BMK, you added an extra "g" to agressive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Apparently EEng has friends now, who'd have guessed? creffett (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Careful, your comment could be seen as casting aspersions against an entire group of editors. Levivich 00:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Man, I missed this whole thing. Why wasn't there an edit-war involved, and then a full page protection? Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not too late for that, actually [57] [58]. EEng 02:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Great illustrations, so unappreciated. --GRuban (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

So I went to look at the incidents noticeboard discussion from last year where a consensus was reached for an editing restriction, and saw EEng saying whoever appropriated {{M}} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil and DePiep responding EEng: Language?. <humour>It's deja vu all over again!</humour> isaacl (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

Your edit here was not helpful nor constructive. While other editors might have helped you out, you yourself are invited to reconsider your behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • [59] [60] -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    DePiep, please drop the stick. You've made your point here and at ANI already, repeatedly bringing it up isn't going to change anything and might get you in trouble for harassment. creffett (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yuo are kidding, right? These agressive posts were made by EEng after the ANI closed. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@DePiep:Hardly aggressive. The "punch in the schnozzla" was clearly a joke, and the shoot in the foot was likely a reference to WP:PETARD, which is a serious caution to editors to not shoot themselves in the foot, or hoist themselves by their own petard, something which you are in danger of. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • [61] linking to [62] -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • DePiep, it has been pointed out already to you that (as everyone else who read it already understood) the edit was merely a bit of colorful language written in good faith and not intended to be taken literally. Continuing to harp on this issue strikes me as the kind of assumption of bad faith concerning which you are under an editing restriction. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Here EEng actually writes (bolding added): (And no, I’m not advocating that anyone actually be shot. Not yet, anyway.) -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • From history: [63] -DePiep (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • DePiep, I mean this in all sincerity... You do good work for the project, and I hope that will continue. But you have to accept that there are things you don’t understand, and let them go. Please. EEng 06:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup, November 2020Edit , and for the record . EEng 13:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, that was pretty aggggrrrrrrreeeesssivvvvve! Ain't DePiep got enough trouble? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
    Apparently he doesn't think so, since he's going out of his way to bring more of it onto himself. EEng 14:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"hoist" v "hoisted"Edit

Do you think perhaps, if it should be left as "hoist" [64], it should be placed in quotation marks to indicate it's quoting Hamlet directly? Or maybe with a corresponding bluelink to the article on the phrase? I've got no problem with it being "hoist", but chancing across it, my first thought wasn't that it was deliberately using the archaic version of the past tense. Since the modern usage makes "hoisted" the past tense, and since the phrase "hoisted by his own petard" is generally used in modern English, quotation marks or a bluelink would indicate it's deliberate rather than a typo. Any objection to one or the other? Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. :) Grandpallama (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Glad I could help. But for the record: if this was article space we’d worry about such things, but in project space we play fast and loose. EEng 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly, about five minutes after I typed out my original thoughts. Grandpallama (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


It's not a new concept and is very easy to grasp. If you happen to be a troll or stupid, or both, then I guess it won't be referred to and warring will be the easiest thing to do. What do you know about WP:BRD? CassiantoTalk 17:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Our benighted visitor refers to [65].[66] and [67]
Ah, the schoolyard insults and shifting rationales of he who flails desperately. So now it’s just plain ol’ BRD, huh? Of course, as BRD itself says, “BRD is never a reason for reverting”, so apparently it’s not sufficiently easy to grasp that you have been able to grasp it. What about your old standby “Featured Article! Featured Article! Featured Article!”? You could try milking that for for a few rounds.
BTW, how’s that SPI report coming? EEng 18:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin, and not write. BTW, how is that failure, Phineas Gage these days? Three attempts - at GA only? Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it, like you do to others? But I would guess any amount of molesting would result in a vast improvement being made on the current version. CassiantoTalk 18:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A Featured Article is something that you only know how to ruin – Asserted, as you have so many times before, without evidence.
  • not write – What you still don't understand is no one but the FA crew cares about FAs. You're a self-selected group of mutual congratulators who meet periodically to reinforce the shared fantasy that you're all incomparable masters of prose. You're not, not by a long shot – not individually and not working together. FAs are typically (though with many, many exceptions) 100% grammatically correct, rigidly formatted, and flabby, bloated, and discursive. Here's an example that I've been getting a lot of laugh-mileage out of at parties recently: who on earth would write had been responsible for the murders of when he could just write "had killed"? I'll give you one guess [68], and yes, that flash of brilliance made it all the way through the vaunted FA process [69] It's unfathomable.
  • Phineas Gage ... Three attempts at GA – Gage has been nominated for GA once since I've been editing Wikipedia – and not by me. The review was aborted when your friend and mentor, the now-banned sockpuppeteer Eric Corbett, threatened to (in the reviewer's words) take it to GAR if he doesn't get it his way. No point in continuing [70], apparently because of a disputed image caption and a tussle over whether et al. goes in italics [71]. Way to go, Eric! So maybe this wasn't a great point for you to bring up.
  • Perhaps I should visit that and start molesting with it – Molesting with it ? You mean, like you and the article will get together and do some molesting? Anyway, I thought you Brits used the more euphemistic interfered with, as in "The victim was stabbed several times and strangled, but not interfered with." Maybe that's what you meant: you're proposing to interfere with the article. Anyway... If you can improve an article, you should of course do so.
EEng 23:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC) P.S. You forgot to tell me – any progress on that SPI report? EEng 23:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Aw, shoot! EEng, this is probably the first time that I've ever seen you oppose including some non-displaying wiki-markup. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, you mean the nbsp? I hadn't noticed it, but if I had I'd not have minded seeing it go. In a parenthetical birth or death date in the article's opening, there's no chance of a linebreak anyway so an nbsp is a waste of time. EEng 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    You know what? When I clicked on the diff, I saw the nbsp at the top and I was too careless to scroll down, so it had been all I saw. I was wondering why there would be so much fuss over an nbsp. So you did a lot better at not missing stuff than I did! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Be careful EEng or they may take you to AN and get themselves banned this time. PackMecEng (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I recently stumbled across this 10-year-old essay and read it for the first time: User:Physchim62/Situation Normal: All FACked up. Levivich 23:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
    That is just brilliant. Everyone should click the link ^^^^^^^ and read. EEng 00:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a trap!!!Edit

This is just for your amusement, no action required.

Your suspicions weren't entirely paranoid. As collateral damage, I appear to have initiated a minor dispute at talk:Radian! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

So your efforts weren't entirely for naught, then. As Tom Lehrer said, "If, after hearing my songs, just one human being is inspired to say something nasty to a friend, or perhaps to strike a loved one, it will all have been worth the while." EEng 14:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Power toolsEdit

Don't let Fram loose with this!

Regarding this, I would love to inject a bit of levity into what will be the contentious RfA to end all contentious RfAs... but I'm too chicken. Only you could do it. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Whoever said, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" had me in mind, but RfA is one place even this fool rushes in not. Sorry. At least something is sacred. EEng 22:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, thinking about it, it wouldn't have gone down at all well from anyone. That RfA was even nastier than I expected. I do understand why you generally keep away from them.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Too bad, because there is such a great typo at the current RfA right now. Levivich 04:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


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

You mean [72]? You need to read the history and THINK. There's even a link in the image captions to help you. EEng 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
El_C 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this relates to [73] (and I certainly appreciate El C's faint praise). Here's what I would have posted (in response to our esteemed fellow editor Rhododendrites) had I not been delayed elsewhere:
As I said... 🚔 🚨 👮‍♀️👮‍♂️ 👀  Atsme Talk 📧 01:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Well first of all, WP:TPO is clear that in project space, in opposition to article space, the thumb on the scale favors retaining someone's post after a tentative removal has been opposed by the post-er, and the xRR resides in the persistent attempts to remove despite that opposition, after which those with a concern should restrict themselves to commenting on a post they see as problematic.

Beyond that, while your suggested approach has a superficial appeal, I really don't think it's applicable and workable. First, it wasn't really removed by multiple people multiple times, rather by one person multiple times (on perceived lack of merit) one person once (on perceived lck of merit) and after that apparently under the misapprehension that it had been added after closure; and note I wasn't the only one restoring. But more generally, ANI has more than a thousand active watchers [74] and if anything not super-serious could be removed on the say-so of just few of those then ANI would be a dreary place indeed; on the other hand, your point about giving extra weight to the opinions of those participating in a particular thread is a good one, and I'll try to keep that in mind in future.

I realize my humor isn't everyone's cuppa tea, but it's clear it is a whole lotta people's cuppa tea, and the former group can just ignore what they don't "get" (or they can make the effort to get the point – they might even learn something that way).

As a final note for SchroCat, you've got to stop personalizing everything. As already explained I didn't even realize it was you [75], anyone can make a typo, and if you can't be good-humored about it, tough. I wouldn't put it that bluntly were you not so dyspeptic about everything, but your behavior is such that I'm not inclined to put much store in your continual cries of outrage and victimization.

As for getting blocked, well, if I don't get blocked at least once in a while then I'm probably not doing my job. EEng 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Um, borderline personal attack – what???? So let me get this straight: so now it's a personal attack if I make fun of my own typo? But (and super-serious here now): I have never made fun of anyone's dyslexia; saying that I did without evidence is a personal attack; and if such accusations keep up there's gonna be an ANI thread on that. So have a fucking care. EEng 21:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Followup followup:
And now ol' SchroCat decides he's going to end the discussion [76]. Gotta love the control-freakism. Or am I not supposed to say that because being a control freak is a disability? EEng 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You know I was disabled once ~ Oh I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that ~mitch~ (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Some requestsEdit

Thomas the Tank Engine after a bruising discussion at an "administrative noticeboard"
EEng says: Looks like the discussion got derailed?
"Tanks." "You're welcome."
Archives for let it pass.
No, I said "pictures at will," not "pictures of Will"...
In de fence, a bull
EEng says: I really should be doing something else, but for those budding visual punsters out there wanting to improve their skills, I'd suggest "A lot of bull offered in de fence"

Hello EEng,

Sorry that you got blocked the other day. I have a few requests to make. I have been approached by SchroCat with a request that I ask you to avoid interacting with that editor unless necessary. In exchange, that editor will avoid interacting with you. This would be an informal arrangement for the purpose of avoiding conflict, not a formal logged interaction ban. I would also like to request that you avoid any comments that can be construed as mocking or ridiculing established editors for making routine typographical or spelling errors. Some people are much better at spotting such errors than others, and copy editing is always welcome in article space. Pointing out such minor errors on talk pages can be perceived as cruel or gauche, unless the meaning is unclear to most readers. In that case, a neutrally worded request for clarification is appropriate. My final request has to do with your fondness for placing humorous or ironic or punning images into the type of discussions that almost always lack images unless you get involved. I am not asking you to stop that practice, since I am sure that you have inspired countless chuckles and often help people stop and think. But like most comedians, sometimes your jokes fall flat, at least among some of the participants in these discussions. So please consider letting it pass if somebody objects to and reverts one of your image jokes. If your joke is essential to understanding the matter, I am sure that another editor will restore it.

I respect you as a "really useful editor" here on Wikipedia, to use a phrase derived from Thomas the Tank Engine. I like you a lot. Please consider my requests. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

"Tanks" for the compliment, and you already know I respect you as a "really useful administrator". And thanks for the sympathy, but to paraphrase something I told ol' Ritchie recently, after you get blocked enough times you really don't care.
The situation is a bit complicated, your proposal is a bit complicated, and a proper response will take more effort than I can muster tonight (but you needn't fear that means I'm looking for a complicated way to say No). Probably tomorrow. EEng 06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Cullen's advice about mockery and about ANI images is very good, I want to encourage you to accept it. As for your usefulness...[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to live in a world where you can't make fun of a typo. Levivich 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
And I don't want to live in a world where you say the kinds of incivil things about me that you have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
As someone who has gotten into plenty of real-life trouble for jokes at the wrong time, it's definitely a "know your audience" problem. I think most people won't care or will get a laugh out of EEng posting a humorous picture for a typo (and let the record show that I'm one of those people, EEng is free to post pictures at will on my comments, especially when I make bad typos), but if someone objects to you posting on, just apologize, make it clear that you were just making a joke about the spelling or whatever and weren't trying to insult them, and maybe make a list of people who have asked you to not do that (and then, you know, leave them alone). I think everyone wins that way. creffett (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't argue with that at all. And I argue about everything. Levivich 01:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Levivich, no you don't. creffett (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes I do. Levivich 02:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry -- is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour? EEng 05:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Now be sensible. From what I hear, you've made yourself indispensable! creffett (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
You must have misheard; they said "indefensible". Levivich 03:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you making fun of his typo??? EEng 04:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Don't worry, Cullen, I am going to respond to your thoughtful post, but it's been a busy week.

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

Cullen328, if you're suggesting that my advice is good, I feel personally attacked and I might just have to take this to AN/I. I have a reputation to maintain, you know. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
LMAO Atsme Talk 📧 22:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Cullen, I remember back when they were a dime a dozen. Atsme Talk 📧 13:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This block business has led to Jimbo Whales coming by your talk page. Bellezzasolo Discuss 14:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)



You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

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

Tryp - won't that work as a template? *lol* {{cnn}}?? Bellezzasolo, aren't you a template expert? Atsme Talk 📧 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, User:Scheinwerfermann/Cetacean needed I believe! There's a significant deletion log at Template:Cetacean needed. Bellezzasolo Discuss 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess it didn't have enough of a porpoise around here. creffett (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
😂 Porpoisely mammalian, I'd say, creffett. Bellezzasolo, I would never be able to remember the spellings. Can we not add a simple shortcut, like {{cnn}}?
Or how about {msnbc}? {whalewanted}? {ww}? EEng 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, whale...whalecome to EEng's TP. It's a real killer. Atsme Talk 📧 20:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP issuesEdit

Hey EEng, I've noticed some issues with your user page and talk page I wanted to mention. I would have guessed that you were familiar with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies, but perhaps not. It is a pretty important page worth looking over. Some of the items I noticed (outside the page size issues) are your talk page section Upage, and your user page at the Titular characters and directly below that. I'd imagine there are other areas, but I'll mention those specifically. Now I'm hardly a Trump fan, and I'm sure some folks find humor in some of those things - Still, our BLP policy is pretty well defined. Along with that I'll mention a couple WP:Arbcom motions: housekeeping provisions and the American politics (post 1932). If you're unsure then you may want to read up on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'm hopeful that you'll want to fix the issues I've mentioned. — Ched (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched, I'd like to step in here in the hopes of preventing escalation. I do realize that the BLP DS apply "in any namespace", but I also do not think that there are really any policy violations here. I hope that you will not pursue this issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I kind of like the hippo, though it is indeed a naughty policy-violating creature. Haukur (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm ignorant and thickEdit

To paraphrase Jackie Wilson, I don't know much about American politics, but I do know Wikipedia. This page (to a small extent) and your user page (to a large) has material on it that isn't BLP-friendly. Now, while I'm EEng-friendly, I'm definitely not BLP-unfriendly-friendly.

That was me trying to persuade you I have a sense of humour, but I reckon I'm going to fail.

Please can you remove the offending jibes about people, [most of whom, I'll remind you, I don't know much about]? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


Speaking of the Museum, here's a recent observation about growing old: Remember when your mother said to wear clean underwater underwear in case you get in an accident?
Now you bring clean underwear in case you have an accident. Atsme Talk 📧
Note: EEng pictured right, with his distinctive "Threadgold's Thoroughgrip Garterettes" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that DYK is as unwelcoming of attempts to improve the Main Page as TFA can be. Keep trying: the good efforts of MP contributors does not place them above well meaning proposals to improve accuracy and clear English. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encouragement, Kevin McE. Maile66 and I are old pals, and while in this instance he didn’t see my point (which I probably could have expressed less enigmatically) I interpret his comment as being the opposite of unwelcoming. Please be sure to drop by The Museums while you’re here. EEng 14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
"(which I probably could have expressed less enigmatically)" thats like asking penguins to stop stealing stones ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Atsme: Speaking of WP:ERRORS, did you really mean "clean underwater", or am I missing the joke? Of course, it's always good to have a change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
A bit of an aside to WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER? I think EEng willed it to keep this thread going. Atsme Talk 📧 20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much ~mitch~. If I could just paraphrase Saint David of Boatface for a moment: "Over the coming months, the few parts of Antarctica that are ice free, will be the stage on which five million Adélies will build their nests." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC) [77] p.s. "No budgies were inadvertently smuggled in the construction of this thread."
User:Mitchellhobbs's runway debut – the aftermathEEng

Atsme Talk 📧 04:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all the leads ~ Martinevans123 ~ speaking of budgets ~ my first gig when I was 24 years old ~ was modeling swimsuits (on the runway) ~ the best part of that job, was not the modeling part but back stage ~ all the models (including the females) changed together in one room ~ talk about a wandering eye ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oooh.... aprons to die for I bet, dearie! But one has to be careful with all those paired sachet strolls . Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng ~ I just saw where you got that picture from ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

And, in just case you're visiting UK this Christmas, and you find you're in need of some ... inclusive festive hardware. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
You Brits are truly weird. EEng 21:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes sorry, although it's all relative. In Wales it's even weirder. You Yanks are so smooth, of course: so congrats to your lovely Michelle who strictly blew UK away tonight with her Housewife Etta. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Let's be kind to Martin. After all, he seems to have gone out of his mind. No point in picking on British intelligence (even if that is an oxymoron). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
How very phone-in dare you!! Let's just have a proper vote on that moron result, shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
But the Russians will interfere. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately only in the constituency of Tory Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not my orbit. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Now let's just keep our feet on the ground, shall we. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
EEng, so relieved to report that, just like you at Wiki, the "Queen of Detail" won through in the dance-off!! *dabs eye with hanky, but then suddenly thrusts forward into a Livin' on a Prayer-type air-grab* Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Duh. Duh, duh, duh.Edit

You are clearly a bad influence.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I read the title to the tune of the The Imperial March...I assumed you were gonna compare EEng to Darth Vader or maybe Palpatine. And I was ready to accept that too. I was like "Yeah EEng could be a Sith Lord". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi thereEdit

You should enjoy this one: Category:Automobiles_facing_left. The Commons is a favorite playground of people doing very unnecessary work. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say this member of the category somewhat stretches the limit of the definition:
Also, to be honest, it doesn't make me really look forward to the driving experience. EEng 02:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Have a quiet word with Musky Muskrat and he'll get you a ride in a Tesla Roadster facing left of Mars. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The curator gets a well-deserved comeuppanceEdit

OK, not Harvard-Yale, but a comeuppance nonetheless --Tryptofish
A Dalek at the Doctor Who Experience, Cardiff

[78]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That's your idea of a comeuppance? EEng 22:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Would you have preferred a steel rod through the head? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Iron, not steel, shit-for-brains.[FBDB]. EEng 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
That was then. This is now. (Oh, that's a great redirect for fbdb!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Come to think of it, if you were an engineering major, maybe you didn't learn spelling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
When I have trouble with comeuppants, I find it's usually I forgot to undo the fly button and zipper. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, come up ants can be very troublesome. I usually reach for my faithful insecticidal anti-Stalin spray of Polish Cum Jam. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Come, come, they don't really make jam out of that, do they? I'd hate to think they spread it on Polish toast. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • All right, now LOOK, all of you. There ARE LIMITS. EEng 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No there aren't.--Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, first fine American cuisine and now shit-forebrains. You just reminded me why, in Cardiff, Brains SA is known as "skull attack". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Martin, you just gave me my new favorite image! File:Cardiff PenarthRd bridge.jpg. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Glad to be of service! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't realized how much the people in Cardiff are alienated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

John C YooEdit

Turns out those torture memos were first seeded not just in the college, but in the vaults of Winthrop House [79]. Is anyone surprised? -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, so he is a Harvard College graduate. That saddens me. EEng 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
He's also a University of California professor. That saddens me even more. Harvard at least has the excuse that his misdeeds were in the unknowable future. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
He went to Yale Law School -- figures. EEng 19:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Grover Norquist was in Winthrop, too. Must have been something in the water. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
But then so were the Kennedys, so go figure. EEng 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And now, for something completely differentEdit

  Python Procurer Level 3
For your continued and apt use of Monty Python sketches in a wide array of discussions, wherein such sketches diffuse the general tension, and provide to the assembled members of the Wiki-pedia a quaint and pleasant respite from their toils, you are hereby recognized as, if nay promoted to, a third level Python Procurer. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For those playing along at home, our honored guest refers to [80], [81], and [82]. EEng 00:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Procurer? [83] --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
When an old hooker like myself reaches a certain age, procurement is an attractive career transition. EEng 20:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Not to worry, you don't look a day above sixty. But when you find the Pythons getting less attractive, you can always switch to being a Boa Conscriptor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you know .... that the programming language Python frequently makes use of example variable names "spam" and "eggs"; indeed our article on Python syntax and semantics refers to "For example, in the sample below, viking_chorus might cause menu_item to be run 8 times for each time it is called:" I wonder if you encounter a run-time error, are you cast into the gorge of eternal peril? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A humorous pauseEdit

Perhaps this can be used by the museum curator: [84]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a shame the "right to pause" didn't become a thing, because it's a great pic. EEng 19:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


Pin oak leaf from the steps of Widener Library

Atsme Talk 📧 21:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The Leaf
On the steps of the Widener in Harvard Yard,
Was a pin oak leaf, somewhat crinkly, not hard;
With delicate care it had to be handled,
When lifted from the step without being mangled.
Straight into a book, the leaf it did go,
Quite safe from harm, for the wind it did blow.
Down the steps of the library, I carefully retraced,
With the book and the leaf quite closely embraced.
I smiled a big smile for I knew what I’d do,
When I reached the last step with my present for you.
A picture I took of the leaf with great care,
As students passed by, each holding a stare,
Wondering what in the hell is that woman doing,
All the while thinking there may be trouble brewing;
What they did not know is that I was just being me,
Taking a picture for E-E-n-g.

Gosh, that's really sweet. I hope you always use your substantial talents only for good, never for evil. EEng 22:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. You do know I'm gay, right? I don't want you getting your hopes up. P.P.S. You might enjoy [85].

  Atsme Talk 📧 22:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Levivich,  . EEng - agree. I have been reprimanded on WP for time spent on UTPs vs time spent creating/editing articles in mainspace. I've noticed that on WP larger hour glasses are used for topics my critics like, whereas everything else is timed with a 2 min hour glass. ⌛️🥚 Hands on experience has taught me there are many things one cannot possibly learn by simply reading about it (the experiences of others) or listening to a lecture in a controlled environment (absent the environmental challenges) or collaborating with limited talent. The more diversity there is in our interactions with others, the greater the likelihood it will spawn higher levels of creativity, inspiration and motivation - even if the motivation is to get the hell outta there! 😂 Atsme Talk 📧 04:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Obsolete theories of the Hungarian language relationsEdit

The feedback request service is not asking for participation in this discussion on Talk:Obsolete theories of the Hungarian language relations. But I am. And this is not the feedback request service. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually an article. I had no idea that was a thing. Today, I learned what's at the intersection of Category:Hungarian language and Category:Fringe theories. This is why I Wikipedia. Levivich 06:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but all competition for the most obscure and bizarre RfC became moot with "Please comment on Talk:Florida State Road 997" and "Please comment on Talk:List of forestry journals". EEng 08:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Most obscure and and bizarre RfCs at Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Shucks, Trypto, I actually tried to click. Darn it! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, ok...we were just kiddin'.
Atsme Talk 📧
Next time, I'll rickroll you! I think there's a party trick where a person is given a card that says "See other side" – on both sides! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Deep lolness. I just love Wikipedia, don't you? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Crumbs! Whatever would Homer have said? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN! EEng 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


To what page should WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK link?

  1. Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument aka WP:BASH (also candidate for WP:TITLETOOLONG)
  2. Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! aka WP:OMG aka WP:WTF aka WP:WOTTA aka WP:3LA (also candidate for WP:TOOMANYSHORTCUTS)
  3. Somewhere else
  4. Fuckin' nowhere

Usage example: Don't WP:ALLCAPSBLUELINK me, I've been editing since you were in diapers! Levivich 06:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure, but if you want a dramatic presentation of what a fucking mess shortcut naming is on this project, see Wikipedia:Shortcut_directory. EEng 06:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow if you scroll through that quickly and skim it, it's like a Rorschach test. I saw WP:BEER, WP:FAMILYGUY, WP:BEATLES. Levivich 06:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Consider, first without looking where it leads, what WP:X would be a shortcut to. (Porno WikiProject? Something deletionist?) Then look. Surprise! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
No need to get personal dear! WP HOMER is quite a good one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Christianity? EEng 03:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
St Andrewology. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ha! I was right! You are not dealing with just anybody's fool, Tfish. EEng 04:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely! You are a very special fool.[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I really, truly wish there was a WP:PISSOFF.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of StyleEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

  • In all seriousness, all in my glittering salon of talk-page stalkers are invited to participate, the discussion being whether ships should continue to be referred to as she (instead of it) in articles. EEng 04:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    So far no one has proposed using both as a compromise: sheit. Usage example: Look at my boat, ain't sheit a beauty? Levivich 05:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Go ahead, propose it. I'm serious. Reminds me of an arbitrator whom I used to address as "Your Arbship"; when there was talk of him becoming a bureaucrat I mused that then I could address him as "Your Crapshit". EEng 06:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    No way. If I propose it, I'll be asked follow up questions. Maybe you can settle this by asking Mr. Crapshit Cratchit Cratship which pronouns sheit prefers. Levivich 07:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Uhm, in Texas, that would be the phonetic spelling of 💩. Atsme Talk 📧 11:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think that each ship should be asked for their preferred pronoun. Some of them might be trans. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    You're a month too late [87]. EEng 07:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    Well, either you show excellent judgment, or I'm pregnant. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
    Tryp, in your case, it would be called "consequential hermaphroditism". 😉 Atsme Talk 📧 00:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    You are making assumptions that might not be true. After all, it could even be hismaphroditism. Or divine intervention. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    In the name of all the is decent, please stop. EEng 05:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


A response to my recently announced contest to define the word "vashing [88]:

Hi E. I thought that surely that Alex used that word at some point in the story but, alas, the closest I could get is fashed. Oh well maybe I can win the next contest :-) Enjoy your week! MarnetteD|Talk 08:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh - It is possible that the Vashta Nerada are vashing when they eat :-D MarnetteD|Talk 08:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
There are so many possibilities. It sounds like vamping, which I think is a marvelous word. EEng 09:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


  Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well EEng. MarnetteD|Talk 21:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

News just in...Edit

Only 327 years ago? I guess the big difference is that they were innocent. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

A Fairy Merry ChristmasEdit

🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻Atsme Talk 📧 17:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Be well at ChristmasEdit

  Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


C'mon, stop attacking Bus stop. That's not gonna get us anywhere, especially not where we want it to go, which is changing the style guide to 'it' only for ships. Otherwise, you're just giving them arguments against you. El Millo (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You call this [89] an attack? Trust me, if I was attacking him you'd know it. BTW, I highly doubt we're gonna be gettin where we wanna go. Not on this round. EEng 06:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
O snail / Climb Mount Fuji / But slowly, slowly!
In other words, perhaps not now, but someday surely, the "it" camp will win out.--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Right now, numerically 58% in favor of "it" (66-48). Levivich 05:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
But counting posts for and against instead of editors, with Bus Stop around its 0.0000000036% for "it", 99.0000000064% against. EEng 06:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
66-48 is firmly in "wishy-washy-admin-concerned-about-their-credentials-closes-as-no-consensus" territory.--WaltCip (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the only organization I've ever seen where 60% can agree on something and it won't happen because there's "no consensus". And it's because people think "consensus" means "unanimity". Levivich 19:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
As much as (as you well know) I think she for ships is pretentious and stupid, there’s also something to be said for the idea that for a rule to be promulgated that presumes to short-circuit the choices of editors on individual articles, the level of consensus should be very high. Our day will come. EEng 20:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that principle, but I think the way we go about it violates the principle rather than follows it. Right now, there is an exception in GNL (allowing "she" for ships), and that exception is opposed by 58% of editors. That's not "very high" consensus, or even majority support. The way it works, we need very high consensus to remove a rule (or part of a rule, or an exception to a rule), even when retaining it doesn't have consensus. Generally the way decisionmaking works on Wikipedia is that we want consensus for adding, and then consensus for removing, but instead we should be demanding consensus for adding, and consensus for retaining. When we require clear consensus to remove rather than clear consensus to retain, we get stuck in this netherworld where, even though it's clear there isn't consensus to retain (and there wouldn't be consensus to add), we nevertheless retain language because there isn't clear-enough consensus to remove. Status quo thrives in the netherworld of no consensus. That means there's an "addition advantage" like a first-moved advantage: language that is added to pages (any pages) is sticky and difficult to remove, unless you revert it right away and claim BRD. Unless promptly reverted, it becomes "longstanding consensus language", and you need a supermajority to remove it. And the end result of that is that you get confusing policies and other pages, where people's sort of slap-dash additions stick, and it's very difficult to do something like, revise an entire policy page so that it's internally consistent and makes sense. Hence, Wikipedia's byzantine system of PAGs is born. (Same goes for requiring consensus to delete pages, as opposed to requiring consensus to retain them.) Levivich 20:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
All true. EEng 09:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


Dear EEng, many thanks for your entertaining post at the MoS style discussion re "she" and "it". It brought back some very old memories; are you familiar with Unlikely Stories, Mostly by Alasdair Gray? If not, I think you would appreciate the tenth story in the collection. Best regards, --The Huhsz (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh! How did that not come up in my research??? Thank you! I'm traveling now but will have a sit and read next time I'm at the library. EEng 17:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Nadolig LlawenEdit

Q: What do you call Santa's little helpers?
A: Subordinate clauses!

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You really need that keyboard looked at. Love the joke. EEng 17:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

... and more crackers - "taking the peace", as we say in Ethiopia: [90]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A Joyous Yuletide to you!Edit

Christmas card by Louis Prang, showing a group of anthropomorphized frogs parading with banner and band.
Carole of the Bells by Pentatonix

Hello EE, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
7&6=thirteen () 20:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Same song - second verseEdit

Yep, just smaller. Atsme Talk 📧 00:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't that simpleEdit

Nothing is. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I had mine "altered" -- changed from AC to DC. EEng 21:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ooooh! You're such a Recto Queen! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

{{Ran}} and {{Rma}}Edit

I think these two templates are broken. They don't seem to be work correctly at Malwina Luczak. Is there something I am not understanding? The anchor function does not appear to work like {{cite web}} and others. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

They work fine for me. Clicking on one of the footnote marks scrolls to and highlights the relevant reference. I suspect, from your recent edits to the article, that you are running a user script that breaks things and then displays an error message for what it has broken. That would be the place to look for bugs, rather than in these templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hold on while I investigate. Mr. Coffee may be on to something. EEng 05:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, David Eppstein and Coffeeandcrumbs ... the templates work right, and yes, there's a user script throwing a spurious error. See Template:Ran/doc#Error_messages, and if anyone wants to fill in the [further explanation needed], knock yourself out. EEng 07:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I just tried it while incognito and it does work just fine. Although my edits on the article were to get rid of the error messages, my actual concern was why the highlighting and scrolling was not working. It turns out the issue is a conflict with WP:POPUPS which I also have enabled. I tried it with POPUPS off and it works just fine. Sorry for the bother. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I meant to mention that you do have a shitload of js installed and it's inevitable that something conflicts with something. This modern software environment is like the wild west. EEng 07:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please critiqueEdit

"She also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht."-EEng

See what you think. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"She also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht"? If you saw that sentence in isolation, not in an article about a ship, what impression would you make of the subject? It seems similar in spirit to EEng's example of HM the Q smashing a bottle on herself and then falling majestically into the water. If you're going to leave feminine pronouns in place they should not be written in a way that could allow confusion with actual female persons. (I realize that this sentence was present before your update, but it really should have been changed along with the rest.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Good spot. Sounds quite sleazy if you read it a certain way. I changed it again. See what you think. --The Huhsz (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It still says that Emden was aboard a yacht as an escort. Is that really an accurate description of the location of the evening's entertainments? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, Professor Eppstein refers to After Queen Elizabeth broke a bottle of champagne against her gigantic bow she slipped majestically into the water. (And -- shamelessly re-plugging two of my favorites -- see also "EXPLORER WEDS TITANIC WIDOW" and "Queen Elizabeth has 10 times the lifespan of workers and lays up to 2,000 eggs a day".) EEng 01:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The Huhsz, I'm always honored to be called upon, but I thought I did this already, halfway down this section [91]. I'm afraid I won't be able to help out on any ship articles which retain the she nonsense because my laptop's warranty is voided if I vomit on the keyboard. EEng 01:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The two banes of EEng: She-ships and pro wrestling.--WaltCip (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you are willing to risk your warranty with a quick look here, you'll see just how easy it is to remove 29 pronouns from a Featured Article without (I hope) damaging readability or meaning. Happy New Year when it comes. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Yup, good work, but of course there's plenty of she-stuff left. If you can get consensus to switch from she to it in that article, I'll be happy to give it one of my patented goings-over. Do contribute to WP:Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water if you can. EEng 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbersEdit

Hi EEng. Could you explain this reversion? [92] --Bsherr (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A lot of what AutoEd does is problematic even when applied to everyday articles; but a blind mass change to a highly complex page like WP:MOS is completely inappropriate. For example, replacing code such as 3&ndash;1 with 3–1 makes it difficult or impossible to verify by sight, in the edit window, that the right kind of dash (hyphen?) is present, which is essential since MOS's purpose is to show how to do things character by character. Let me turn it around, Bsherr: can you explain your edit? EEng 02:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure! See Help:Entering special characters. That page explains that entering special characters using an HTML character reference or entity name is not recommended. I assume that's why the special character link (see Help:Entering special characters#Special character link) interface feature inserts the Unicode character, and not an HTML character reference. That's also why AutoEd automatically corrects them. I'd be pleased to discuss it further, but would you mind if we did so on a relevant Wikipedia talk page? (Even if I agree with you in the end, that would only result in my now having a view inconsistent with Help:Entering special characters and AutoEd's functions. And if I don't, now you're just chasing me around every time I use AutoEd, right?  ) But I am curious if your preference is only concerning dashes/hyphens. Why, for example, would you prefer &#186; to °? --Bsherr (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I can give a hypothetical reason: because I can't keep ° and º straight (at least in fonts that don't underscore the º) and they're right next to each other on my Mac keyboard (option-shift-8 vs option-0), so if I remembered that the one I want is &#186; I could just type that and not worry that I was typing the wrong one. And if that was my reason for doing so, I'd want it to stay that way so that the next time I edited the article I could see that it was still the correct one. For a less-hypothetical example, I also can't easily tell − and – apart, and prefer to see &minus; in the source code (when that is the appropriate character) so that I can tell that the correct one is in use. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) with D.E. above (and noting that great minds think alike) ...
Bsherr, I'm a bit distracted tonight so I'll be blunt: Help pages are not policies or guidelines and (as they themselves say) have not been thoroughly vetted by the community. In fact they're a weird, neglected backwater; most were started years ago, never attracted much scrutiny, and have languished since unmaintained, often falling completely out of sync with actual practice (and often never were in sync to begin with). And yeah, while That page explains that entering special characters using an HTML character reference or entity name is not recommended, it doesn't give a very convincing explanation of why it makes this anti-recommendation:
  • [symbolic references to characters] are distracting for many editors – Stuff under the hood is often less attractive; we editors make that sacrifice in order to be sure that what the reader sees is correct;
  • they may cause difficulties with searches in Wikipedia – source code is searched as source code; searches "in Wikipedia" (whatever that means – presumably searches by the reader – are, in fact, completely unaffected by the source coding under the hood, since the rendered page is identical either way).
As to That's also why AutoEd automatically corrects them, it's not a correction but imposition of a preference. There was a time when there was a small group of editors who had started out fixing real errors like typos and broken syntax, and scope-creeped their activities into very unpleasant strongarming of their personal ideas of how things should be onto other editors. Those editors are no longer doing that, thankfully, though unthankfully this came at the cost of our losing those editors completely, because apparently they couldn't see themselves in any other role. Please don't follow that path.
Why, for example, would you prefer &#186; to °? – Because as &#186 I can tell (relatively) easily that it's the right character. But as literals: is this -->°<-- right? Or is it this -->º<--? They're certainly different, and one is right and one is wrong, but I can't tell offhand which is which. Can you?
You are responsible for your edits using automated tools. Just because someone wrote the tool doesn't make it right. If you want to press the point I suggest you open a discussion at WT:MOSNUM. Even if these changes are in principle appropriate, you're making hundreds of changes, of many kinds, in a single edit and they're impossible for you or anyone else to review properly. I know you mean well but this is not a good use of your time, or the time of others, and since as noted it makes maintaining and verifying these pages harder, it's in fact counterproductive. EEng 05:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I know that tone can often be misconstrued here, but I read your comment above (particularly your choosing to pedantically remind me of my responsibility to use automated tools responsibly, your venturing to tell me what is and isn't worth my time, and your implication that you are too busy to discuss your reversion, but not too busy to revert it) as quite rude and obnoxious. It's particularly hurtful because I have tried to be friendly in my approach here. I'm very much hoping you didn't mean it that way. Let me know what your intentions were. But I'll say again, if you have an issue with the content of Help:Entering special characters or with the functioning of AutoEd, wouldn't you be better served addressing it on those pages? Your tactic of confronting individual editors is, frankly, bizarre. --Bsherr (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You're lucky you caught me in a good mood, actually. I didn't confront you: I reverted your edit with an indicative edit summary, you came to me looking for a further explanation, and I gave you a detailed one, which BTW was presciently anticipated by David Eppstein. Help:Entering special characters already says, itself, that it's not a policy or guideline and not vetted by the community, but you don't seem to be taking on board what that means; at the same time, as already mentioned, AutoEd is just a piece of software some editor wrote and I have no control over what's in it, but you have control over whether and how you use it. If someone told you to enable all its "features" and push GO they did you a disservice. I'm sorry if I came on strong but those of us who work hard on articles and project pages and sweat the details thought that the age of the hit-and-run "fixer" was in the past; see the first box at [93]. EEng 08:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Pearls before swineEdit

You should be carpeted for this!

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

You kind words fill me with joy. To openly plagiarize Tom Lehrer, while at the same time partially changing his words without making clear where or how:
EEng 11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Improving the "Kaprun disaster" articleEdit

Dear @EEng:

thank you for your statement on the Kaprun disaster talk page: "The article has significant tone and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS problems". I want to help improve the page allthough I am not a native speaker. I would be thankful if you could list the things you think that should be improved in detail and I will see what I can do. If the tone is not correct I want to improve it and will take your suggestions seriously as well as the topic "rightgreatwrongs". Sadly it seems that native speakers are not much interested in editing this specific article so I am looking forward to do my best. Thank you very much and BR --Salzburger Nockerl (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

In case you missed itEdit

Jean Berko has a new short video in the PBS News Hour: Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Great video! A real legend.... maybe we should get that user over to see it. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
She really is (as someone put it once) a "hotrod granny". EEng 14:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

US Airways Flight 1549 editEdit

Hi, this edit you made to US Airways Flight 1549 introduced a citation error, as there are still two usages of the named referenced "NTSB", which you deleted. You will probably want to fix that. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Howcheng, I'm not seeing any citations deleted in that diff. I am seeing that the NTSB citation error has been in that article for months. I think you may be mistaken. Levivich 18:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: In that first change (line 14), there was a <ref name=NTSB> reference replaced by {{r|NTSBMay2010}}. If you scroll to the reference list, you'll see that ref #22 is now an error. This error did not exist in the previous revision. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Don’t panic, everyone. I’ll look at it. EEng 18:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops, you're right, I was looking at the wrong diff. Levivich 18:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I take back what I said [94]. You’re an idiot. EEng 18:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, at least I'm not the one leaving citation errors all over the place. Levivich 18:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


What is the point of that image, joke, whatever it is? I for one do not think that Monty Python wannabe moments are welcomed on such a discussion. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, you urged someone to stop with the constant aspirations; you don't expect me to let an opportunity like that go to waste, do you? I went with Jesus because I couldn't find any sufficiently evocative pictures of aspirators. See also WP:ASSPERSIANS. EEng 18:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I would have gone with a shot of Darth Vader with the Rogue One line about "be careful not to choke on your aspirations, Director," but that would need a good (free) Vader picture. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I always wondered whether DV might not have been talking to the director of the movie. EEng 21:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Dear Saddo, you probably need to be aware that EEng may be, in fact, perpetually "on the cusp between childhood and adulthood". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. and this was one of the very few times that EEng admits he "went with Jesus"
Good job; aspire away. cheers :) Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

EEng, although I think it is amusing, I also think this image and caption is unhelpful (so apparently does Sadko). Moreover I think it might be found legitimately offensive by some, so I removed it. But you reverted me. Dicklyon agreed with me, and also removed it, but you've reverted again. How is it that you think this image is so useful in that discussion that you feel compelled to keep it there even though three of your colleagues disagree? Maybe you should reconsider? Also, you seemingly called me "the least perceptive participant in the discussion". While I don't mind PA's against myself, sticks and stones and all that, let me take this opportunity to politely ask you to at least try to be more collegial with other editors. Regards, Paul August 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I could only aspire to being the least perceptive participant in that discussion, Paul. But you have a fair point. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
;-) I make no claims to being particularly "perceptive", all too often in fact I'm as dumb as a doorpost, so the sobriquet might be quite apt. Paul August 14:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to hereby make a claim to being as thick as two short planks. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  Right! Stop that!
It's far too silly!
Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.
  • Now and then I insert one of my irreverent images or awful puns somewhere. Hardly a day goes by that I don't get one or two thanks for them, and now and then someone takes the trouble to thank me more extensively on this very page. But once every few months someone shows up to declare that a post is un-useful, or worse, and must be removed – even days after it was posted, during which hundreds of editors would have seen it. So who am I supposed to believe – the one, or the hundreds?
    And yeah, Paul August, if you feel the impulse to remove something which hundreds of others found unexceptionable, maybe you ought to consider how well calibrated are your own perceptions. If you don't get the joke you could ask. EEng 08:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)



No no. I got the joke, but jokes, even funny ones, can be offensive, don’t you think? (In this case, don't you think some Christians, who might have found the joke funny in a snarky sort of way, might also have found this image and caption offensive?) I don’t think you can legitimately conclude that “hundreds of others” found your joke unexceptionable. Silence does not mean agreement. And several editors, who have not remained silent, see problems here. And that you are right about the appropriateness many of your jokes, does not mean you are always right, right? Look I’m not trying to pick a fight with you. I’m trying to give you some friendly constructive feedback. Paul August 12:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Bbbbbuttt... Lord EEng is always right. — JFG talk 17:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, as are we all ;-) Paul August 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That's a common misconception. I'm only infallible when I say I'm being infallible. EEng 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Offensive jokes are the funniest ones, as everyone knows. Silence doesn't necessarily mean endorsement, but it does mean no one cared enough to bother; maybe we should have a Tsk-tsk button to balance the Thanks button. Look, if you want to remove something with an edit summary like "Maybe this is a bit overboard", I probably won't mind. But "This doesn't help" gets my dander up, because humor definitely helps (all else being equal), and the many shouldn't be denied their chuckle just because of a few lugubrious characters in the crowd. EEng 17:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
... Except perhaps to the offended ;-) But seriously, I'm sorry that you took offense at my edit summary: "Don't think this helps". It wasn't my intention to offend. (My intention was to express that, in my opinion, the image in question was on balance unhelpful, that, while it was funny, I though some people might be offended and that, weighing that possible offense against the possible feel good chuckles of others was, again in my opinion, likely to be a net negative–perhaps I should have made that more clear ;-) However, that you took offense, at what I though was a harmless edit summary, should help you see that, other people might also find things you consider harmless offensive as well. (By the way you seems to be ignoring the whole Christian angle.) And of course humor helps sometimes, but you shouldn't always assume that you know when. (And "lugubrious"? Again with the insults?) So sorry about the dander thing, in the future I will try harder to keep your dander down. Paul August 18:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Look, let's keep it simple; WP:TPO is clear: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection and as many here will attest, there's often more to these posts that meets the eye. I'm happy to discuss, but dislike unilateral action. Be assured there are no hard feelings, and I hope you will take a moment to visit The Museums.
I'll just take a moment at this point to remind readers that nothing in this post should be interpreted as implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
(See section below.) EEng 06:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I only removed the image once, so I didn't violate WP:TPO, do you think otherwise? And the content of the image seems self evident to me, a funny jape (or jibe?) at the expense of Sadkσ, what am I missing? I did choose to unilaterally remove the image (just as you chose to unilaterally add it), so? I could have tried to discuss it with you first, but I thought it was more important to remove a possible source of offense first. Again I apologize for offending you, that was not my intent. Finally I will note that you've decided (again) not to address the fact that your image might have been offensive to Christians, do you not care? Paul August 16:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh my god, are we still on this? It wasn't at anyone's expense; we all fall victim to the curse of the spellchecker or the autocomplete now and then, and there's no shame in it. Sure I care about giving offense, but to that I must add the words "within bounds", because there's always someone ready to take offense, no matter what. Here's a favorite joke of mine:
Jesus is turning the stoning of an adulterous woman into a teachable moment. He says to the assembled mob: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone." Immediately he is struck in the head by a rock. Jesus cranes his head to see where it came from, then yells, "Goddamit mom, will you please go home?"
I'm sure someone, somewhere is offended by that. I'm sorry, but that's just tough. EEng 21:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Eeeeewwww! Dan Druff 123 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
;-) Funny guy that 123. Paul August 19:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Je suis EEngEdit

So y'know the user box you have that's all like



Well apparently, I'm your sock, so Je suis EEng. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 01:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record it was Ritchie (IIRC) who added that box to my userpage, I think back when I got blocked for satirizing poor, helpless Donald Trump.
Legal note: As everyone here must know by now, to the extent I've ever said anything which could be interpreted as implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron
that was just satire. I would never want people to think I was actually implying anything like that, to wit, that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
To repeat, I am not saying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
Anyway... Yeah, it's completely weird. According to the link you posted above, you and I are sockpuppets because we share one peculiar interest – hunting down a long term abuse case, "BMX On Wheels". The only problem with that fine piece of reasoning is that I have no idea who or what this BMX On Wheels is. Do you? EEng 01:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A gang of ant-vandals on their way to commit some ant-vandalism.
An LTA I fought in my early anti-vandal days. I'm not sure if they even edit anymore.... but you aren't really an ant-vandal, so ????? 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 01:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I even knew what LTA stands for until a few months ago. EEng 01:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
ant I still doan't understant why LTAnts do whant they do. 💴Money💶💵emoji💷Talk💸Help out at CCI! 01:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused. Could you clarify whether or not you are suggesting that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron?
Thanks. Levivich 19:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Gracious! Perish the thought that anyone would think I'm implying that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
EEng 20:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Now look here, old chap. Calling people "LTAs"?! That's just not cricket. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
That's pretty good. EEng 20:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Not that anyone asked me, but I'd never compare DT to anything remotely insinuated above nor to a fascist nor a Putinpuppe-- Deepfriedokra 11:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, I need to work harder.-- Deepfriedokra 11:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Well... at least he got some applause from all the Swiss trees in the audience. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
"I talk to the trees//But they don't listen to me."-- Deepfriedokra 21:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
"I aim at the stars//But sometimes I hit London."--WaltCip (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
"Some have harsh words / for this man of renown / but some say our attitude / should be one of gratitude / like the widows and cripples / in old London Town / who owe their large pension / to Wernher von Braun." EEng 15:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"I love to steal awhile away ..... (or else $2.8 million from veterans charities)" Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
it's a slam-dunk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I definitely don't believe that
Donald Trump is a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron.
either. But I'm pretty sure we're not all me. There's got to be at least two of us, right? epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow. We could be twins. EEng 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait--that Graaf Statler idiot is User:Guido den Broeder? With his little articles on a knock-off version of Wikipedia called "Wikisage"? Funny--despite all their freedom from the Wikipedia yoke, their article on stoofkarbonade really doesn't offer much more than ours, though the entire Wikisage project smells like the world of before 1950, when father still cut the meat at the Sunday dinner table. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ha, his blog is on our blacklist: groetenuiteerbeek. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the revertEdit

"Apologies for the revert"

Navigating Wikipedia on mobile is pretty damn difficult especially if you've got butter fingers like I do. Sorry for the revert! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already eaten my live toad this morning, so don't worry about it. EEng 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I seeEdit

you have regrown you long and luxuriant talk page. May it's curls and swirls continue to astound the world.-- Deepfriedokra 11:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be responding to youEdit

FYI my comment wasn't meant to be in response to you, which is why I didn't indent it. I see you have now though, so I figured I'd clarify that. And "panic" may be a bit dramatic, but I do think a redirect should be appropriately implemented and that it wasn't was worthy of at least addressing sooner rather than later. Cheers. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic behavioral problems. The title of a school bus article isn't that. EEng 07:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't take it there and I wasn't responding to you. That's all. --Pinchme123 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say you did. EEng 08:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Did I say you did? --Pinchme123 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Who's on third? EEng 08:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Who's on first.-- Deepfriedokra
Women and children first. First things first. First do no harm. First the memory goes. Firth of Forth. Four Weddings and a Funeral. Colin Firth. EEng 14:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Firth and vermouth. At least no one said, "Gimme the water!"-- Deepfriedokra 15:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Fifth of bourbon. EEng 01:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That was my fear too when I saw EEng comment on that section. creffett (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


The Burma-Shave poems are my new favourite enwiki meme. 10/10, had me giggling at my desk. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 01:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank YouEdit

Hi EEng, Just a quick note to say thanks for cleaning up Galaxy Airlines Flight 203. I was going to do the same but you beat me to it! Cheers, - Samf4u (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll second that thanks. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware...Edit

but I thought you'd get a kick out of m:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations. m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations and its related pages are pretty funny (in a tragic way), if I dare say so myself. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've done my best to help out. [95] EEng 03:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Perfect :). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
It exerts a strange fascination. I can't unwatch it, can't decide whether it is, or is not, parody. EEng 15:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
It's like watching a car crash in slow motion. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The community needs to elect trustees that will clean house at the WMF. Levivich 05:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
WMF org chart, 2020
Same, 2030

Gurbaksh Chahal#Personal_lifeEdit

Wanna jump into a hornet's nest? Some COI/PAID editors have been trying to whitewash this. A bunch of regulars have been pretty outspoken about stopping it. I removed some tabloid, but the negative BLP looks adequately sourced. I'd appreciate if you take a look and see if anything can be done. I think that whole section should go, but I doubt that will happen. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra 09:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. First you say it's well sourced (sources look fine to me on quick check) then you say the section should go (meaning be removed)? The English is a little off, though. EEng 14:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. I just need an unbiased opinion from a neutral editor who deals well with contentious articles. May be moot.-- Deepfriedokra 01:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I thinkEdit

you will see the same beauty in this thread that I do. – Levivich 05:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

They with the fancy user signatures
  Atsme Talk 📧 00:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Look at the catgories it is in then back at the imageEdit LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 19:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess Commons:Category:Automobiles with open hoods is the car-porn equivalent of Commons:Category:Category:Bottomlessness (described as the state of partial nudity in which a person has his/her genitalia and/or buttocks uncovered but has torso/breasts covered). EEng 21:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Best laugh I've had the whole day!Edit

You have my vote to cast dispersions and to diffuse humour! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Our visitor's kind words refer to WP:Diffusing conflict. EEng 04:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Goat towerEdit

All along the Goat Tower, princess keeps the view.-- Deepfriedokra

This new GA is begging for an April 1 DYK, but I'm not getting there. Do you see one? --valereee (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm drawing a blank. But to complement Did you know, maybe we need a new feature called Are you kidding? EEng 14:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Hahaha!! That's so funny I nearly fainted! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. excuse me while I kiss this guy
Damnit, you'd think this would be a gold mine, but I'm also coming up with nothing. You got Rapunzel jokes, Leaning Tower of Pisa jokes, Tower of London jokes – I mean just think of the British political jokes you could make about a bunch of goats locked up in a tower. Something something royal family, there's a Me-e-e-e-xit joke in there, I just can't get it out. And that's not to mention the girl with the goat tower tattoo. I can't believe I'm not coming up with anything, this is really getting my goat. Maybe just: "Did you know ... that there are goat towers?" Levivich 16:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
"My uncle kept mountain goats. But they kept giving him the horn." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
"Marvin Gaye kept a goat in my vineyard. He'd herd it through the grapevine." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
When I get to Brazil that’s going straight to the top of my user page. EEng 19:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Am assuming not the Terry Gilliam version?? And thanks for the star billing.... if only I could claim the credit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
There's got to be a baaaaaa-d pun here somewhere...--valereee (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020Edit

Hello EEng,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.


New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

go figureEdit

-- Deepfriedokra 10:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A question for the Museum of Damn StatisticsEdit

Specifically the example cited at User:EEng#Museum_of_Damn_Statistics. Is that an example of the base rate fallacy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, it’s nothing nearly so lofty. It’s simply another dreary example of blindly multiplying unconditional probabilities as if they were conditional. Most of the fun statistical “paradoxes” are in one way or another traceable to this blunder, deep down under a few extra layers, but here the blunder is on display naked and bare. In fact, in the userbox example there’s something even more fundamentally wrong: people don’t pick their userboxen at random as if from a hat, so the “unconditional probabilities” are wrong to begin with, before we even get to the blunder of blindly multiplying them. (This probably isn’t the clearest response I could give but I’m on my phone with a sunburn so it’s the best I’ve got the strength for right now.) EEng 17:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If you find timeEdit

Early tools
Three-phase rectifier for high voltage transmission (HVDC)
Inventions that transferred the power from man to electricity
Found some! creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

William McMurray (engineer) - could probably be expanded but the technical aspects are over my head. If/when you have the time, perhaps you could add some information about McMurray's contribution - maybe create a history section, and another about his inventions/patents, or whatever? Atsme Talk 📧 13:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not my area but I can fake it well enough. However, I'm a little backed up right now. Ping me in two weeks if you don't see any movement on the article by then. EEng 15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Just checkingEdit

So, JIP, I guess this [96] means I won't be getting the $10,000,000? EEng 01:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Your interference over at DGG's talk pageEdit

Thank you for your opinion.

His talk page is extremely clumsy to use, he will obviously not fix it himself, and I trust you're not saying some editors stand above the law?

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I see you have found your way to the proper place to discuss this. See you there :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
For those playing along at home, this concerns [97].
Now you're talking about "interference" and "the law". You need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'm serious. This nannying of others' user pages will not end well for you. EEng 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Please remain civil. CapnZapp (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep it up and I'll show you some real civility. EEng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Your presence at Talk page guidelinesEdit

It if was a canary it would probably be dead by now.-Martinevans123
For those intrepid enough to still be playing along at home, this has now metastasized to [98] (that section and the one immediate following it)

Hello, EENG. It's one thing to actively argue "let's remove any numeric goal; here are my reasons..." It's another to passive-aggressively snipe at editors, which you just did more than once over at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#guidance on talk page size. I am writing this polite and personalized message to ask you to please stay out of the discussion if you have nothing constructive to add. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As seen right now in the thread at issue, you have a peculiar idea of what constitutes constructive discussion. I'm doing my best to help you see you're wasting your own and everyone else's time, but it's not working. EEng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
If your idea of having a constructive discussion is "let's not discuss it, everything is fine as is" then you need to actively put forward arguments for that, arguments that then can be evaluated, rather than merely trying to shut down discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Meh. 'fraid I don't have a large interest in making so large an issue of large user talk pages. And if you over archive, you're being secretive or something. Now, ima go protect or delete something.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020Edit

  Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as WT:Talk page guidelines are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for thanking me for my 70,000 contributions, including specifically 22,000 policy and other project-space posts. In return, your 8,000 edits, including almost 500 to project space, are appreciated as well. Your relentless rambling about whether we should have a rule specifying that 50K, versus 75K, is a good time to start archiving talk pages, and now a discussion about the meaning of something you could look up in wiktionary, is not appreciated nearly as much. EEng 16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
CapnZapp, okay, templating EEng (after the normal, non-templated discussion above) is just condescending. Don't do that. Or, if you prefer:


(not my best work, but it'll do) creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
No, but even on a bad day you're pretty good. I changed PERSONAL TO THOUGHTFUL. EEng 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Nice! Sounds and scans better. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Now changed YOUR OWN to A PERSONAL (avoiding repeat of YOUR OWN). Let's remember to get this one into the template. EEng 05:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
"Your own" scanned better, though. Repetition isn't always bad (see repetition (rhetorical device)) and avoiding it can be worse (see elegant variation). Also the question of whether repetition or its avoidance is better can get you into lame fun wiki-arguments (see Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Langville). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I stand corrected, Herr Doktor Professor. EEng 14:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


See first sentence of my home page. (Milton Keynes is my stamping ground). I know zilch about economics. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I knew all that, actually, but couldn't pass up the opportunity. EEng 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

As compared to analogEdit

So you made a joke and some censorious editor didn't like it. I don't like woke-scolds but I would defer to the editor-in-chief about comments on Signpost articles if it were me. Sometimes poking the hornets' nest, even on principle, doesn't turn out well. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns the repeated removal of the lower image-and-caption seen here [99]:
The flaw in your analogy, Chris troutman, is this particular nest doesn't belong to the wasps – it belongs to the community. The Signpost's editor-in-chief most of all shouldn't be tampering with commentary on the items it publishes, and if Megalibrarygirl wants to selectively remove comments on her essays then she needs to publish them on her own user page. Of course, given the subject of the essay there's some irony to all this [100]. EEng 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
A lot of irony, actually: [101]. EEng 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem, EEng, is that the joke is not neutral. You have your own intentions. However, I and Smallbones both pointed out to you that there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult to a group of people, in this case, non-binary people. You may not agree with us, but it is a valid interpretation of what you wrote and it is always best to err on the side of civility. Wikipedia isn't stand up comedy: it's a place full of people with very different ideas who need to work together and making some people a joke is antithetical to that. Since the image is now back up, please remove it. The second image which you posted with diffs, is also not civil in my opinion where you categorize people who are concerned about the joke as "people intolerant of criticism of themselves." I am not intolerant of criticism: I am intolerant of making marginalized groups the butt of any kind of joke. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Being born and bred in Berkeley I knew what a woke-scold was decades before the term was coined, and you are a woke-scold. By folding everything that anyone even conceivably could choose to take offense at (there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult – gotta love it) into one giant ball of weepy hysteria [102] you give a bad name to people (such as myself) who care about actual things that actually harm people. You prattle about civility but give a free pass to those who blatantly accuse other editors of conspiring to suppress coverage of women and so on. Turn that high-powered perception on yourself, busybody. EEng 02:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi EEng. I've been polite and only pointed out that you are being offensive. And you continue to do so. "Woke scold" is a new one! What you're doing is edit warring and escalating the situation and doesn't need to happen. If you don't like the truth, that's fine. But what you're doing is wrong and I'll say so. Notice I've not called you names or made any aspersions on your character. I said you did one thing wrong. You should admit your mistake and move on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Behold the sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse, clothed magnificently in dudgeon! So supremely arrogant is she in the certainty of her moral superiority! Christ, you lack even the modesty to qualify your opinions – phrases such as I think and it seems to me are traditional ways of reminding yourself that maybe, just maybe, you're just one editor among many, though of course they're unnecessary if you know you're always right. Maybe that's it.
A polite woke-scold (e.g. If you don't like the truth, that's fine) is still a woke-scold. If by "edit warring" you mean I restored a comment – a comment you removed ... from a discussion of something you wrote ... because you disliked it or couldn't understand it – then you better give WP:TPO another read, Madame Administrator.
Every liberation movement goes through its That's not funny! stage, and the sooner that's over the better. No doubt you mean well, but you need an emergency injection of perspective, proportion, history, and humility. I'm a gay man who was fighting the good fight – and not by sitting behind a library desk in a pussy hat, I assure you – when you were in diapers, so I require no enlightenment about oppression and injustice. The next time you remove another editor's comment because it doesn't conform to your self-righteous standards I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your head spin. Signal your trendy virtues some other way. Got it?
EEng 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Here, put this [103] in your pipe and smoke it.
"You appear to be reading the situation upside down"

EEng, I think I know Megalibrarygirl pretty well. It's not my business to repeat what I've been told in confidence, but I will say she thinks Trump is a raving lunatic too and Boris Johnson is just missing the clown car. You are picking on the wrong target, If you think she is a "sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse", you are so far out of whack on this one, you're in a different area code. She is not a shrinking violet at all. I mean, she's a flippin' atheist in Texas - what more evidence do you need? Now, in the words of Dr Evil, zip it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A car? Who needs it !! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC) p.s. I'd just like to point out that EEng is never wrong, and even when he is he's totally woke.
[104] EEng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Well hello there, Ritchie. How good it is to see you around again; for a while we feared we might have lost you. You seem to be reading the situaton upside down:
  • I'm not picking the wrong target, nor indeed any target. She picked me.
  • I never doubted that she and I probably agree on most social and political issues, and I don't know where you'd get the idea I might think otherwise.
  • Nor would I imagine she's a shrinking violet. Her problem's the opposite: she confuses her personal opinions – even on something as subjective as a joke – with what she calls "the truth", to the extent that she thinks it's OK remove others' discussion posts in violation of TPO because, well, she knows the truth. That's the behavior of armchair social justice warriors of the woke-scold variety, and as you know I have little patience for such hubris, especially from those on the thinking end of the political spectrum, who should know better.
She had plenty of chances to back off and agree to disagree, but no. Perhaps she'll think twice should a similar situation arise in future.
EEng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
EEng, I think you're confused. I'm not picking on you. In fact, I've barely interacted with you. I only pointed out that one joke in the comments on the Signpost article was offensive and removed it to promote civility on Wikipedia. It would have been easier to just leave it off, but you don't want to do that. The joke is most likely going to stay up on Signpost, a place that should be neutral, since no one wants to start an edit war over a joke. Fine. I don't want to edit war either, but I also don't appreciate your personal attacks. It's really petty of you and shows you can't take criticism. Your joke is both regressive and offensive. If something is offensive to a group of people even if you don't think it is it's still offensive. Not sure why you don't understand that. I've said my piece, I spoke the truth and that's that. If you want to talk more, ping me. But leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately, I don't like to see two of my favourite editors slugging it out with each other. You both make enormous contributions to the encyclopedia and Wikipedia is a better place for having you both around. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
None of us can really say whether or not a joke is offensive to a group of people; we can only say it's offensive to us, individually. I've seen people say or do things on Wikipedia that I think are obviously and egregiously antisemitic. But I can't speak on behalf of all Jews, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to assert that something was antisemitic or offensive to Jews–I can only speak for myself. And speaking for myself, I can say that I strongly agree with Ritchie about not liking to see two good editors going at it. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 21:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, just a regular day down at Sootypedia. Sweepevans123 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Completely agree with all three of you. Now stand aside while I finish this off... EEng 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Jesus, will you get clue? In ==>YOUR OPINION<=== it's offensive. Can you really not see that it's just ==>YOUR OPINION<===, that everyone else need not kowtow[1][2] to ==>YOUR OPINION<=== and that it's not OK for you to remove another editor's post based on ==>YOUR OPINION<===? Apparently you still haven't reviewed WP:TPO as previously recommended, and maybe try taking a hint from the ever-wise Levivich and let someone actually offended (if there be any) speak for themselves; this isn't a schoolyard and you're not the teacher.
As for leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act – I can only interpret that as unconscious self-parody. I'm sure you're a nice person, and as said before I know you mean well, but these tautologies that begin by assuming that ==>YOUR OPINION<=== is obviously the truth are beyond tiresome. Give the broken record a rest now. Really. Tomorrow morning I have to play the authority figure and will be expected to say wise things, so I just haven't got time.
EEng 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Levivich, this might be a good time for you to break the tension with a Burma-Shave. Or not.


  1. ^ I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect [1]. -EEng
  2. ^ Darned Chinks. I'm so offended, I've resigned twice. I'm in self-isolation for 14 days. -Martinevans123 (talk)
Hoping that I am missing something here, but can anyone explain to me why using Chink in the above context is okay? Perhaps helpful if I copy the Wikipedia page introduction is an English-language ethnic slur usually referring to a person of Chinese descent.[2] The word is also sometimes indiscriminately used against people who look and have an East Asian appearance. The use of the term is considered offensive. Kees08 (Talk) 22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing the answer to Kees08 question too. SQLQuery me! 22:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be interested too. You're missing a diagnosis. It's not as if it's clearly been used in an ironic way, is it. There aren't even any irony marks. Disgusted of Wuhan Wells (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Applicable to more than just driving. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 21:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Scolding that that last batch of jokes are regressive/offensive/exclusionary goes here:

"Intelligent" discussion begins (heading by EEng, scarequotes by User:PackMecEng)Edit

  • Just in case it will matter to you, I think you happen to be in the wrong here. We all make mistakes, and we should all try to listen with an open mind to other people when they tell us we've made one. Paul August 16:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    Note, I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    For the record I appreciate your intelligent intervention. EEng 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    What you think does matter to me, actually. I'm always open to reasoned discussion on something like this because I recognize that my humor is sometimes a bit, um, shall we say... edgy (plus I'm always interested in learning more about why people find things funny or not funny, in any context). But because of Megalibrarygirl's precipitate action, that's not what this is about; it's about one editor setting up her personal judgment as overriding and unerring, and being unable to recognize that that was a mistake (and contrary to WP behavioral guidelines as well). EEng 18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    I vote for trouts all around - I don't think MLG should have unilaterally removed your comment given her position (would have been more appropriate to either ask you to remove it or start a discussion), and I don't think you should have continued adding it after it was removed. This isn't a hill worth dying on for either of you, and I suggest both of you just take a deep breath and let it go. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    I have no plans on dying, but self-appointed scolds are a particular sore point with me. Had MLG simply offered her opinion, a quite possible outcome would have been that I would have found something even funnier to post in a different vein – strange how constraint can liberating in that way. But instead she took the in-your-face approach, and I just don't take that lying down especially from mop-holders.
    I let it go with my post 3 days ago timestamped 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC), but MLG just keeps coming back for more. I have little doubt, however, that she's learned her lesson and won't do this again – to anyone. EEng 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
    One question seems to me to be how to determine whether something (say a joke) is offensive. Surely you agree that just because a joke was not intended to be offensive does't mean that it isn't offensive? Correct? So how do you determine whether something is offensive? Do a certain number of people need to be offended before something can said to be offensive? Maybe is not zero or one, maybe something is more or less offensive depending on the number of people who find it offensive? So even if only one person finds something offensive, then it *is* offensive, just not very? So what should one do if someone tells you they think one of your jokes is offensive? I guess it depends on how generous you want to be. For me, if some thinks one of my jokes is offensive—even if I think they are the only one who thinks so—I think my response would be to apologize, and retract it. It seems to me to just a matter of simple politeness. Paul August 11:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Better questions might be: why does it matter if a joke is considered by some to be offensive or not? Is there such a thing as an inoffensive joke? Should an offensive joke be treated differently than an offensive non-joke statement? Is making an offensive statement (joke or non-joke) a problem that requires correction? Only then can you get to: how many people have to think it’s offensive before it’s considered offensive? The base assumption i chafe at is the notion that a joke is some kind of frivolity, whereas being offended is an actual injury of some sort. I disagree with both characterizations. Just as I disagree with the characterization in this section heading. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Levivich: Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Or something else altogether? Note as I've written above: I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    I've clarified that I inserted the heading of this subsection. EEng 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Paul August:, I'm disagreeing fundamentally that a joke should be retracted because it offends one or even more than one person. (Also, I didn't mean the header comment as a criticism of you or as implying that this conversation wasn't intelligent; rather, I think the conversation above the header was also intelligent.) The joke, as all good jokes, brought an important truth to light. In the context of an article about "invisible women" – about how women are overlooked by the history books – EEng made a joke about non-binary gender. This has many layers of meaning. First, it reminds the reader that non-binary people are, today, right now, the "invisible people", just as women once were (and, in many ways, still are). A second layer is that by looking at a picture of people who appear to be women and calling them "women", we are assuming their gender identity–something that modern society is trying to get away from. Calling them the first "non-binary" programmers (because they were programming analog computers) is a clever way of linking the struggles of women in the past to the struggles of non-binary people today, while simultaneously noting how language (here, the meaning of "non-binary") can change over time, just as social attitudes and oppressed group's rights and privileges can change over time. All in all, it's a clever way to say, "don't forget there are still invisible people today, and they're not just women". And this message was better delivered as a picture with a funny caption than as a long paragraph of text as I have provided here.
    So, should we then erase this message because – OMG! It has the word non-binary! It's a joke about non-binary! That means it's offensive! Kill it kill it kill it!! No, to me, that's just a really shallow understanding of a really deep and brilliant joke.
    Humor is a very powerful tool when it comes to changing minds, and, by extension, changing societies. It should not be discounted or eliminated based on one person's, or a small group of people's, sensibilities. At bottom, there is no such thing as an inoffensive joke. If it's not offensive, at least a little bit, it won't be funny. And if it's not funny, it won't be heard. So I think in these situations, we should leave the picture, not complain about being offended by a "non-binary joke", and instead be offended by the fact that non-binary people are even more invisible than women. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    I just said said that, had MLG simply offered her opinion, I'd likely have recast the joke some other way. Perhaps an intelligent conversation such as this one [105] could have ensued. But unilateral removal (which, I tire of repeating, TPO forbids)? Repeated unilateral removal? I've made my attitude on that abundantly clear above. EEng 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Regardless of whether or not the removal was right, I'm trying to say that your response could have been more polite. Just saying ... Paul August 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I started out perfectly polite [106] [107], inviting MLG to comment on what she was concerned about. EEng 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I tread carefully in these things, having been accused myself of being too silly on wiki-pages sometimes (although the more common accusation is that I'm too ponderously serious on wiki-pages, such as I'm being now—of course it's quite possible that both these things are true). Still, in this instance I happen to agree with those who have opined that these images and their captions are, at best, an unnecessary distraction from a significant discussion. If I'd been the first one to see them, I would probably have removed them myself, and I'm thinking through whether I still ought to do so. Also, while I'm absolutely certain this is not how the word was intended to be used here, I am also surprised that no one has observed yet that "scold," used as a noun, is perceived as having sexist connotations and, especially in reference to a specific female editor, should generally not be used. Addendum: I should add that I have a very high level of respect for your (EEng's) talents and abilities, and a disagreement on this specific item doesn't detract from that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Newyorkbrad, for the record I have a high level of respect for your talents and abilities, and I'm not just saying that because you're an arb and, ya know, you never know what turn things might take. I want to be sure you read Levivich's post above at #Levivichx because, while he's read in a bit more than I had in mind, by doing so he demonstrates vividly why humor is powerfully useful in getting people to think in fresh ways about important and difficult issues. EEng 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I reject your scold scold; in modern usage the word's been fully liberated [108].
    Followup: I said earlier that discussion, instead of knee-jerk censorship, had a good chance of stimulating me to find a better way to make my point. Thanks primarily to ol' Levivich, here we go:
There may be some non-binary people among those operating this differential analyser, but from the historical record there's probably no way to know it.-EEng
I dare anyone to find offense in that.
We turn now to the great John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, "Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"):
We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
TLDR? Thinking people don't suppress; they discuss. EEng 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
OK let's get married because you just quoted my favorite philosopher, and it was my favorite chapter of my favorite book of his, and you quoted it at length. (You had me at "it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied".) Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I knew you'd come around, Mr. Nohomo. I usually introduce On Liberty as "the greatest piece of political philosophy ever written" but for some reason this time I hesitated for fear the discussion would get sidetracked by a debate about that. EEng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

As I was reading through all this, on my watchlist I saw the edit summary for your most recent edit: excellent in other contexts, but beside the point here. In a nutshell, that's how I, and I think many others, too often feel when we see your humorous images and captions in places like the noticeboards. Please bear in mind the old aphorism that "a nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place—like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." And after all, no one can quarrel with that, as it's a well-known proposition of Euclid. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm the first to admit that some of my posts aim merely to break the tension or buoy spirits. But are you claiming that the image+caption above doesn't make a memorably useful point in the context of the original discussion? EEng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I claim that it very foreseeably became a distraction that substantially outweighed the value of any point you intended to make in the thread. Next, diverting the thread still further to an argument about whether the image and caption should remain, with a re-posted image with a new and nasty caption of its own, was a double digression or meta-digression. Removing the images from the thread was, at a minimum, a very defensible thing to do, and your harsh and unnecessary personal comments about the editor who took the lead on trying to remove them were yet a further distraction from the original discussion. In addition, your position that you might have been willing to see the image removed after all, if you had been asked more nicely, is in tension with your position that the seeming joke actually carried substantial informational value. As for the word "scold," we'll have to agree to disagree; if you continue using it in the context of specific female editors, I predict that sooner or later a serious complaint about the connotations underlying the word will be raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
"The majority of individuals punished for scolding were women, though men could also be labelled scolds." Yes, a bit like the common cold, but might be more serious and lead to 14 days "self-isolation". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • You're off on the sequence of events (for which you can be excused given what a mess it was) but I'll just say that once it was explicitly asserted that it "could very easily be taken that you are making fun of non-binary people. We don't do that" – naming me specifically as committing this alleged transgression – there's no way I was going to leave the record uncorrected. Smallbones chose the venue by posting that where he posted it.
  • I didn't say I'd be willing to see the image removed (though it's the caption we're really talking about), rather I said that non-kneejerk discussion had a good chance of leading to a better caption. And it finally did.
EEng 02:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I see nothing in your responses above that indicate to me that you are listening to or taking on board any of the constructive criticisms your fellow editors are trying to give you. It would be good if you could try harder to do that. Paul August 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    No, I'm listening; I just don't agree that my original posting was inappropriate. And it seems to me that you're not listening to or taking on board what I've said: Discussion, not suppression. I will now say for the final time that intelligent, non-kneejerk, non-strongarming discussion not only could have, but finally did, lead to something better. The mess in between is entirely down to one editor's ham-handed arrogation to herself of the role of censor. EEng 15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
That you seem to believe that everything you've done here was perfectly appropriate—that you seem to believe all your critics are wrong—that you take no responsibility at all for any part of this problem—is disheartening. If you continue in the same vein I don't think this will end well. Paul August 17:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
"Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor."-EEng
All of which still leaves the question whether I should remove the whole set of images and captions from that talkpage as being a disruptive distraction from the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Why would that be a call for a single editor to make? Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
If at the same time you remove Smallbone's public implication that I'd "attack[ed] or mock[ed] [a] group whose members include those who do not have a choice about their membership in the group", and leave (floated to the right, of course) the image with the revised caption (the one seen above in this thread – which surely comports well with both the original essay and the discussion) I'd be perfectly happy with that. EEng 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
What point exactly are you trying to make with the gorilla image on the right? Are you saying NYB's trying to intimidate you? If so it would be better to say so directly. That's another problem with some of your images, their use as innuendo. Paul August 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
That's the image - and caption - that got EEng blocked in what was possibly the most incompetently vindictive block in Wikipedia's history. I assure you NYB will be well aware of exactly what it's meant to mean. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad NYB will know what it means, however (clueless me) I still don't ;-) Paul August 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to my glittering array of (talk page stalker)s for saving me the trouble of explaining. I will just add that this little subplot illustrates a principle which, had it been applied to the main issue of this whole thread, would have saved a great deal of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair: instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. And for the record, if I thought that NYB was trying to intimidate me, yes, I'd just say so. Now stand by while I find a tasteless joke on innuendo (assuming Levivich or some other clown[FBDB] doesn't beat me to it). EEng 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
With the help of some stalkers, I found what I was looking for: this brilliant chain of puns by Guy Macon. (Key words and phrases: pun account in arrears • semicolonoscopy • innuendos.) Please note: Guy's just coming back after a serious illness so please visit his page to wish him well. EEng 02:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) I remain convinced that those images and captions are a disruptive distraction and don't belong on that talkpage. However, given everything else that's going on right now, on Wikipedia and in the world, we don't have the luxury of enough energy and bandwidth for the drama that would probably ensue if I removed them again. Therefore, I will reluctantly drop the issue at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

But there's always a silver lining. With everyone sequestered at home with little to do, I expect that the NPP backlog and any open arbitration cases will be resolved with remarkable speed. E