User talk:EEng

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions:

1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users.

2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom.

3. Sign your comments to facilitate contact tracing.

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.


Sections were archived,
one by one, like tears falling,
but saved forever. Levivich [4]

(a/o February 2, 2016: 131 stalkers, 81/89 "active" [5])

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!


Please consider the environment before printing this page

Don't be a tease[edit]

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

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

Some falafel for you![edit]

Falafel award.png For striking a balance between humor and insight, and for having the only page on Wikipedia visible from space Face-wink.svg cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big Telecom conspiracy[edit]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Took a stab at it. EEng 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stab? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
That's OK. We all appreciate your cutting sense of humor. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prince of Comedy[edit]

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

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Scrolling through WP:DRAMABOARD, appreciated this. SITH (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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

Navigating the museum[edit]

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

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

DYK for Aaron Molyneaux Hewlett[edit]

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

Jessamyn: I have a soft spot for nonacademic Harvard staff (see Charles Apted andn [14]) because they're usually characters. I've tagged some of the sources for further improvement. Not for a while, but sometime in the future I'll pull up his material at Harvard Archives and see what we can do with that material. Ping me in a few months if I haven't done it yet. When we've done all we can we can get a WP:Good article review and thence to DYK, for which there are a number of good hooks -- and the photo with his equipment, cropped a bit, would be good on the main page. EEng 21:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to add a section header[edit]

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. Face-wink.svg nagualdesign 16:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm ashamed to say I missed this until now. Every (talk page stalker) is required to click. EEng 05:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's a couple of years between friends? It's understandably easy to miss a message or two when your letterbox encompasses the entire ground floor. Face-wink.svg nagualdesign 16:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thus proving the value of keeping some of these threads live well past their normal expiration date. I duly clicked on the link and was duly amused. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do worry that he might be having to climb in through his bedroom window, and he's preparing food in the bathroom on a camping stove, but it does provide some amusement on a rainy day. nagualdesign 21:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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)Reply[reply]
One time I accidentally clicked on EEng's talk page on my mobile. Luckily I was able to throw the phone a safe distance before it exploded. Levivich 02:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's only 1941 kB of pure fun. Atsme 📣 📧 03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, archive your talk page! It's reaching ridiculous DGG-lengths. Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

ANI notice[edit]

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

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

March 2019[edit]

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


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

Roger, Roger. EEng 10:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another notification[edit]

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

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

Buddhist notification[edit]

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

Please comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network[edit]

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

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

You may want to archive your talk page[edit]

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

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

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

A very, very clever gothca![edit]

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


Information icon Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 980.9 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. (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, 885 kilobytes? Jesus. (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Bible's like 4MB; this page ain't half as holy. Levivich 06:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Levivich: The Bible is only 4 million characters long?! That doesn't seem right for a 'book' consisting of 30 or so books. But hey, what do I know? (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Devin Nunes[edit]

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

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

April 2019[edit]

Information icon 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)Reply[reply]

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

Cards84664 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I presume this is a joke[edit]

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

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


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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Airport malaria and portraits of the Queen[edit]

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Notre-Dame de Paris fire: Difference between revisions[edit]

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

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

I think the IP is preoccupied with making images in a vertical stack all have the same width, which is a good thing in general, especially when they're vertically adjacent, but not so important if there's substantial distance between them. IAnyway, it's OK either way -- too early to spend much time on layout because the article will grow a lot over the next few weeks and then it will become clearer where to place the images. See my comment here [17]. EEng 18:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A fitting tribute on Good Friday, perchance.[edit]

Pareidolia stain on wall as map of France.jpg Protector from Heretical Pareidolia
You saved us from misinterpreting the fires of Notre Dame.

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

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

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

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

Archiving mayhem[edit]

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

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

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

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

An encouraging word[edit]

Zubron2.jpg Moo v along
Timely and pithy food for thought, Well done! 7&6=thirteen () 01:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

Just to be clear[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

WP:FRAMBANNED,SANFRANDAMNED,ARBCOMJAMMED —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 10:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^^^^ Definitely the best yet. EEng 17:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FRAM FRAMED, JAN NAMED, ARBCOM AIMED. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WHOA BLACK BETTY, BAN FRAM, JAN.--WaltCip (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I have gotta Admin name of FRAMA-BANA-JANA-LAMA-DING-DONG": [21] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


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

  • WTF? The moon must be in clueless. EEng 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"CANJUNEMOONSHAKESPOONMOONEYSOON"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How much rue do Anne drew Andrew and Drew rue if Anne drew Andrew and Drew do rue what they do? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I know. I just didn't feel up to the challenge. Congrats. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Reply[reply]
He's a foo. EEng 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Partial list of images needing deletion because they attack or disparage:
File:X ray specs on jimbo.jpg
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)Reply[reply]

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

Greetings from Dr. Seuss[edit]

Improvements and extensions welcomed!



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

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


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

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

24 hour block[edit]

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

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

For your collection[edit]

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? Face-grin.svg Atsme Talk 📧 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope...[edit]

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

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

Excellent work[edit]

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

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)Reply[reply]
Today's puzzle: What could this mean???
Unhide for answer
Casting of ass

Taylor Swift[edit]

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.

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

In copyediting I leave the lead to very last, after I've done (and therefore read) the rest of the article, so I can't say much at this point except that eponymous and buoyed and spawned and (beyond the lead, but an especial peeve of mine) accolades make me want to vomit, and factoids such as "youngest person to single-handedly write and perform a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" and "first act to have four albums sell one million copies within one week in the U.S." are ridiculous. But you gotta love that she spent her early years on a Christmas tree farm. EEng 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Monotonously is more like it. I love it that the first outbound link in the article on this Kylie Minogue creature takes you to a page whose lead image is Plato. Her own lead image shows "Minogue performing at The Queen's Birthday Party" – I can imagine Queen Liz thinking, "I'm just glad Winston isn't alive to see this." EEng 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EEng, you are getting too snobby even for me here, and that's pretty hard to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
OK, now I'm curious. Where does (did) it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Oh, Minogue! I thought you meant Swift. Yeah, that's BS. Everyone knows that the catchiest song ever is this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was going to say exactly the same thing, so you see great minds do think alike after all (and please do not post the traditional followup to that). EEng 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The traditional followup to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look What You Made Me Do --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All together! EEng 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beyond a reasonable trout[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png


You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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

I figured you would get a kick out of this[edit]

Cards84664 (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

"hoist" v "hoisted"[edit]

Do you think perhaps, if it should be left as "hoist" [22], it should be placed in quotation marks to indicate it's quoting Hamlet directly? Or maybe with a corresponding bluelink to the article on the phrase? I've got no problem with it being "hoist", but chancing across it, my first thought wasn't that it was deliberately using the archaic version of the past tense. Since the modern usage makes "hoisted" the past tense, and since the phrase "hoisted by his own petard" is generally used in modern English, quotation marks or a bluelink would indicate it's deliberate rather than a typo. Any objection to one or the other? Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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


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

You mean [23]? 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)Reply[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
El_C 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those playing along at home, this relates to [24] (and I certainly appreciate El C's faint praise). Here's what I would have posted (in response to our esteemed fellow editor Rhododendrites) had I not been delayed elsewhere:
As I said... 🚔 🚨 👮‍♀️👮‍♂️ 👀  Atsme Talk 📧 01:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well first of all, WP:TPO is clear that in project space, in opposition to article space, the thumb on the scale favors retaining someone's post after a tentative removal has been opposed by the post-er, and the xRR resides in the persistent attempts to remove despite that opposition, after which those with a concern should restrict themselves to commenting on a post they see as problematic.

Beyond that, while your suggested approach has a superficial appeal, I really don't think it's applicable and workable. First, it wasn't really removed by multiple people multiple times, rather by one person multiple times (on perceived lack of merit) one person once (on perceived lck of merit) and after that apparently under the misapprehension that it had been added after closure; and note I wasn't the only one restoring. But more generally, ANI has more than a thousand active watchers [25] and if anything not super-serious could be removed on the say-so of just few of those then ANI would be a dreary place indeed; on the other hand, your point about giving extra weight to the opinions of those participating in a particular thread is a good one, and I'll try to keep that in mind in future.

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

As a final note for SchroCat, you've got to stop personalizing everything. As already explained I didn't even realize it was you [26], anyone can make a typo, and if you can't be good-humored about it, tough. I wouldn't put it that bluntly were you not so dyspeptic about everything, but your behavior is such that I'm not inclined to put much store in your continual cries of outrage and victimization.

As for getting blocked, well, if I don't get blocked at least once in a while then I'm probably not doing my job. EEng 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Followup followup:
And now ol' SchroCat decides he's going to end the discussion [27]. Gotta love the control-freakism. Or am I not supposed to say that because being a control freak is a disability? EEng 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know I was disabled once ~ Oh I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that ~mitch~ (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some requests[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

Cullen328, if you're suggesting that my advice is good, I feel personally attacked and I might just have to take this to AN/I. I have a reputation to maintain, you know. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LMAO Atsme Talk 📧 22:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jumping Humpback whale.jpg

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

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

John C Yoo[edit]

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

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

And now, for something completely different[edit]

Monty python foot.png Python Procurer Level 3
For your continued and apt use of Monty Python sketches in a wide array of discussions, wherein such sketches diffuse the general tension, and provide to the assembled members of the Wiki-pedia a quaint and pleasant respite from their toils, you are hereby recognized as, if nay promoted to, a third level Python Procurer. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procurer? [32] --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When an old hooker like myself reaches a certain age, procurement is an attractive career transition. EEng 20:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to worry, you don't look a day above sixty. But when you find the Pythons getting less attractive, you can always switch to being a Boa Conscriptor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Pearls before swine[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

If you find time[edit]

Caveman with tool
Early tools
High voltage transmission (HVDC)
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)Reply[reply]

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

It's not my area but I can fake it well enough. However, I'm a little backed up right now. Ping me in two weeks if you don't see any movement on the article by then. EEng 15:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Atsme, I'm sorry to note that I never got to this. I'm afraid now isn't the time either, but I don't want you to think I plan to let you down. Ping me sometime when you think of it again, at least 6 months from now. This is probably something best done when the libraries are open. EEng 03:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Atsme, I've looked at this again, and it's just too far from my areas of competence for me to add anything useful. Sorry. EEng 16:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your memory is damn impressive, and so is your probity in light of your decision to respond at all. I say to hell with competence. Nothing wrong with the article as it sits now. B) Atsme 💬 📧 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your interference over at DGG's talk page[edit]

Thank you for your opinion.

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

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you have found your way to the proper place to discuss this. See you there :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those playing along at home, this concerns [33].
Now you're talking about "interference" and "the law". You need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'm serious. This nannying of others' user pages will not end well for you. EEng 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please remain civil. CapnZapp (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep it up and I'll show you some real civility. EEng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your presence at Talk page guidelines[edit]

It if was a canary it would probably be dead by now.
For those intrepid enough to still be playing along at home, this has now metastasized to [34] (that section and the one immediate following it)

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

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

February 2020[edit]

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

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and for thanking me for my 70,000 contributions, including specifically 22,000 policy and other project-space posts. In return, your 8,000 edits, including almost 500 to project space, are appreciated as well. Your relentless rambling about whether we should have a rule specifying that 50K, versus 75K, is a good time to start archiving talk pages, and now a discussion about the meaning of something you could look up in wiktionary, is not appreciated nearly as much. EEng 16:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
No, but even on a bad day you're pretty good. I changed PERSONAL TO THOUGHTFUL. EEng 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice! Sounds and scans better. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
"Your own" scanned better, though. Repetition isn't always bad (see repetition (rhetorical device)) and avoiding it can be worse (see elegant variation). Also the question of whether repetition or its avoidance is better can get you into lame fun wiki-arguments (see Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Langville). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand corrected, Herr Doktor Professor. EEng 14:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As compared to analog[edit]

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

For those playing along at home, this concerns the repeated removal of the lower image-and-caption seen here [35]:
The flaw in your analogy, Chris troutman, is this particular nest doesn't belong to the wasps – it belongs to the community. The Signpost's editor-in-chief most of all shouldn't be tampering with commentary on the items it publishes, and if Megalibrarygirl wants to selectively remove comments on her essays then she needs to publish them on her own user page. Of course, given the subject of the essay there's some irony to all this [36]. EEng 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of irony, actually: [37]. EEng 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem, EEng, is that the joke is not neutral. You have your own intentions. However, I and Smallbones both pointed out to you that there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult to a group of people, in this case, non-binary people. You may not agree with us, but it is a valid interpretation of what you wrote and it is always best to err on the side of civility. Wikipedia isn't stand up comedy: it's a place full of people with very different ideas who need to work together and making some people a joke is antithetical to that. Since the image is now back up, please remove it. The second image which you posted with diffs, is also not civil in my opinion where you categorize people who are concerned about the joke as "people intolerant of criticism of themselves." I am not intolerant of criticism: I am intolerant of making marginalized groups the butt of any kind of joke. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being born and bred in Berkeley I knew what a woke-scold was decades before the term was coined, and you are a woke-scold. By folding everything that anyone even conceivably could choose to take offense at (there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult – gotta love it) into one giant ball of weepy hysteria [38] you give a bad name to people (such as myself) who care about actual things that actually harm people. You prattle about civility but give a free pass to those who blatantly accuse other editors of conspiring to suppress coverage of women and so on. Turn that high-powered perception on yourself, busybody. EEng 02:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi EEng. I've been polite and only pointed out that you are being offensive. And you continue to do so. "Woke scold" is a new one! What you're doing is edit warring and escalating the situation and doesn't need to happen. If you don't like the truth, that's fine. But what you're doing is wrong and I'll say so. Notice I've not called you names or made any aspersions on your character. I said you did one thing wrong. You should admit your mistake and move on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Behold the sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse, clothed magnificently in dudgeon! So supremely arrogant is she in the certainty of her moral superiority! Christ, you lack even the modesty to qualify your opinions – phrases such as I think and it seems to me are traditional ways of reminding yourself that maybe, just maybe, you're just one editor among many, though of course they're unnecessary if you know you're always right. Maybe that's it.
A polite woke-scold (e.g. If you don't like the truth, that's fine) is still a woke-scold. If by "edit warring" you mean I restored a comment – a comment you removed ... from a discussion of something you wrote ... because you disliked it or couldn't understand it – then you better give WP:TPO another read, Madame Administrator.
Every liberation movement goes through its That's not funny! stage, and the sooner that's over the better. No doubt you mean well, but you need an emergency injection of perspective, proportion, history, and humility. I'm a gay man who was fighting the good fight – and not by sitting behind a library desk in a pussy hat, I assure you – when you were in diapers, so I require no enlightenment about oppression and injustice. The next time you remove another editor's comment because it doesn't conform to your self-righteous standards I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your head spin. Signal your trendy virtues some other way. Got it?
EEng 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Here, put this [39] in your pipe and smoke it.Reply[reply]
"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)Reply[reply]

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


  1. ^ I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect [1]. -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)Reply[reply]
I'd be interested in hearing the answer to Kees08 question too. SQLQuery me! 22:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'd be interested too. You're missing a diagnosis. It's not as if it's clearly been used in an ironic way, is it. There aren't even any irony marks. Disgusted of Wuhan Wells (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Big mistake / many make / rely on horn / instead of / brake / Burma-shave
Applicable to more than just driving. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 21:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
    Note, I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record I appreciate your intelligent intervention. EEng 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What you think does matter to me, actually. I'm always open to reasoned discussion on something like this because I recognize that my humor is sometimes a bit, um, shall we say... edgy (plus I'm always interested in learning more about why people find things funny or not funny, in any context). But because of Megalibrarygirl's precipitate action, that's not what this is about; it's about one editor setting up her personal judgment as overriding and unerring, and being unable to recognize that that was a mistake (and contrary to WP behavioral guidelines as well). EEng 18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I vote for trouts all around - I don't think MLG should have unilaterally removed your comment given her position (would have been more appropriate to either ask you to remove it or start a discussion), and I don't think you should have continued adding it after it was removed. This isn't a hill worth dying on for either of you, and I suggest both of you just take a deep breath and let it go. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have no plans on dying, but self-appointed scolds are a particular sore point with me. Had MLG simply offered her opinion, a quite possible outcome would have been that I would have found something even funnier to post in a different vein – strange how constraint can liberating in that way. But instead she took the in-your-face approach, and I just don't take that lying down especially from mop-holders.
    I let it go with my post 3 days ago timestamped 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC), but MLG just keeps coming back for more. I have little doubt, however, that she's learned her lesson and won't do this again – to anyone. EEng 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One question seems to me to be how to determine whether something (say a joke) is offensive. Surely you agree that just because a joke was not intended to be offensive does't mean that it isn't offensive? Correct? So how do you determine whether something is offensive? Do a certain number of people need to be offended before something can said to be offensive? Maybe is not zero or one, maybe something is more or less offensive depending on the number of people who find it offensive? So even if only one person finds something offensive, then it *is* offensive, just not very? So what should one do if someone tells you they think one of your jokes is offensive? I guess it depends on how generous you want to be. For me, if some thinks one of my jokes is offensive—even if I think they are the only one who thinks so—I think my response would be to apologize, and retract it. It seems to me to just a matter of simple politeness. Paul August 11:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Better questions might be: why does it matter if a joke is considered by some to be offensive or not? Is there such a thing as an inoffensive joke? Should an offensive joke be treated differently than an offensive non-joke statement? Is making an offensive statement (joke or non-joke) a problem that requires correction? Only then can you get to: how many people have to think it’s offensive before it’s considered offensive? The base assumption i chafe at is the notion that a joke is some kind of frivolity, whereas being offended is an actual injury of some sort. I disagree with both characterizations. Just as I disagree with the characterization in this section heading. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Levivich: Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Or something else altogether? Note as I've written above: I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've clarified that I inserted the heading of this subsection. EEng 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Paul August:, I'm disagreeing fundamentally that a joke should be retracted because it offends one or even more than one person. (Also, I didn't mean the header comment as a criticism of you or as implying that this conversation wasn't intelligent; rather, I think the conversation above the header was also intelligent.) The joke, as all good jokes, brought an important truth to light. In the context of an article about "invisible women" – about how women are overlooked by the history books – EEng made a joke about non-binary gender. This has many layers of meaning. First, it reminds the reader that non-binary people are, today, right now, the "invisible people", just as women once were (and, in many ways, still are). A second layer is that by looking at a picture of people who appear to be women and calling them "women", we are assuming their gender identity–something that modern society is trying to get away from. Calling them the first "non-binary" programmers (because they were programming analog computers) is a clever way of linking the struggles of women in the past to the struggles of non-binary people today, while simultaneously noting how language (here, the meaning of "non-binary") can change over time, just as social attitudes and oppressed group's rights and privileges can change over time. All in all, it's a clever way to say, "don't forget there are still invisible people today, and they're not just women". And this message was better delivered as a picture with a funny caption than as a long paragraph of text as I have provided here.
    So, should we then erase this message because – OMG! It has the word non-binary! It's a joke about non-binary! That means it's offensive! Kill it kill it kill it!! No, to me, that's just a really shallow understanding of a really deep and brilliant joke.
    Humor is a very powerful tool when it comes to changing minds, and, by extension, changing societies. It should not be discounted or eliminated based on one person's, or a small group of people's, sensibilities. At bottom, there is no such thing as an inoffensive joke. If it's not offensive, at least a little bit, it won't be funny. And if it's not funny, it won't be heard. So I think in these situations, we should leave the picture, not complain about being offended by a "non-binary joke", and instead be offended by the fact that non-binary people are even more invisible than women. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just said said that, had MLG simply offered her opinion, I'd likely have recast the joke some other way. Perhaps an intelligent conversation such as this one [41] could have ensued. But unilateral removal (which, I tire of repeating, TPO forbids)? Repeated unilateral removal? I've made my attitude on that abundantly clear above. EEng 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Regardless of whether or not the removal was right, I'm trying to say that your response could have been more polite. Just saying ... Paul August 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started out perfectly polite [42] [43], inviting MLG to comment on what she was concerned about. EEng 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I tread carefully in these things, having been accused myself of being too silly on wiki-pages sometimes (although the more common accusation is that I'm too ponderously serious on wiki-pages, such as I'm being now—of course it's quite possible that both these things are true). Still, in this instance I happen to agree with those who have opined that these images and their captions are, at best, an unnecessary distraction from a significant discussion. If I'd been the first one to see them, I would probably have removed them myself, and I'm thinking through whether I still ought to do so. Also, while I'm absolutely certain this is not how the word was intended to be used here, I am also surprised that no one has observed yet that "scold," used as a noun, is perceived as having sexist connotations and, especially in reference to a specific female editor, should generally not be used. Addendum: I should add that I have a very high level of respect for your (EEng's) talents and abilities, and a disagreement on this specific item doesn't detract from that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Newyorkbrad, for the record I have a high level of respect for your talents and abilities, and I'm not just saying that because you're an arb and, ya know, you never know what turn things might take. I want to be sure you read Levivich's post above at #Levivichx because, while he's read in a bit more than I had in mind, by doing so he demonstrates vividly why humor is powerfully useful in getting people to think in fresh ways about important and difficult issues. EEng 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I reject your scold scold; in modern usage the word's been fully liberated [44].Reply[reply]
    Followup: I said earlier that discussion, instead of knee-jerk censorship, had a good chance of stimulating me to find a better way to make my point. Thanks primarily to ol' Levivich, here we go:
There may be some non-binary people among those operating this differential analyser, but from the historical record there's probably no way to know it.
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)Reply[reply]
OK let's get married because you just quoted my favorite philosopher, and it was my favorite chapter of my favorite book of his, and you quoted it at length. (You had me at "it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied".) Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I knew you'd come around, Mr. Nohomo. I usually introduce On Liberty as "the greatest piece of political philosophy ever written" but for some reason this time I hesitated for fear the discussion would get sidetracked by a debate about that. EEng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

But there's always a silver lining. With everyone sequestered at home with little to do, I expect that the NPP backlog and any open arbitration cases will be resolved with remarkable speed. EEng 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2021 referendum on EEng's joke
Votes %
Yes, the joke was transphobic or could be construed that way 0 0.00%
No, the joke was harmless 4 100.00%
Valid votes 4 50.00%
Invalid or blank votes 4[1] 0.00%
Total votes 8 100.00%

theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 16:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • am i reading this correctly? i don't mean to beat the dead horse here, but... oh, who am i kidding, i'll get the glue and the club. As a non-binary person who loves computers and puns, that shit's funny as fuck—i legitimately doubled over laughing and I can't think of a single one of my many, many non-binary friends and peers who wouldn't agree, if not without a groan. With all due respect to the people who are trying to stand up for my community, talking over us is not the solution. Anyone who thinks that that joke was out of line should try growing up non-binary in a religious family—it should put things right into perspective for them. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 01:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Like I said earlier in this thread, instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. No doubt someone will now explain that you're so oppressed that you identify with the oppressor. EEng 20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since you pinged me in your edit summary, I guess you want a response. There is no "the someone" here. Rather there are many someones. Sure it was funny, if understood, and sure some will have understood, and not be offended. But not all (perhaps not even most?) Do we not care about them? Paul August 21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I didn't particularly want a response, though I'm happy to have it; I mostly just wanted you to see what an expert witness had to say. In answer to your question: yes I care about them, so much so that I'm trying to help them see that even the weightiest subject admits (and benefits from) a bit of levity. EEng 21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That humor can be beneficial is not in dispute. And having good intentions is not an adequate defense. Results are what matter. Something is offensive if it offends, not if it was meant to offend. Paul August 11:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, but that that's an oversimplification; under your formulation there would no degrees of homicide -- off with their heads! Not only does a speaker's intent matter in and of itself, but knowledge of the speaker's intent inevitably affects the hearer's perceptions. Plus, here at WP we're supposed to assume good faith in interpreting what someone says and does, not search for offensive interpretations. When (if) someone actually offended appears on the scene we can discuss that, but for now all we've got is (a) the woke-scold fretting that someone could be offended against (b) someone actually in a position to opine affirming that they are not, in fact, offended. Perhaps Theleekycauldron could ask among any friends similarly situation and let us know the results. EEng 13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After a rigorous referendum held by the Secret Society of Non-Binary People With Secret Handshakes™, theleekycauldron news network is ready to show some preliminary results and call the race. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you may need to check Florida. (And tell all those non-binary woke scolds to "grow a pear", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martinevans123: The "yes" votes, of course, won the "referendum college". Also, what do you mean by "non-binary woke scolds"? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll just have to take the fifth on that one. Maybe I should add scare-quotes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did get that there was sarcasm there, but i think you might've meant, like, "non-binary transphobes" or something, since they all thought the joke was fine. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 16:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sought a "soupsong" of sarcasm, but sent a surfeit, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The binary woke scolds are worse: they categorize everything as either "good" or "bad". Levivich 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And their dads are so opaque and shadowy; nowhere near trans parent. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Cisgender people don't get a vote.

John Harvard[edit]

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

I'd prefer you raise such things on the article's talk page. But whether a bio's opening parenthetical give full birth/death dates, or just years, is not a WP:DATERET issue, and "standard" (your word for usual) does not mean universal or required. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Birth_date_and_place. EEng 21:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'd prefer you to raise such things on the article talk page rather than continue to revert. No, "standard" means "encouraged" ie every FA I can recall features full dates. Stop twisting Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Birth_date_and_place (which I referred you to in the full place) which states "These dates (specific day–month–year) are important information about the subject" (my emphasis) and "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context" (my emphasis). You've also conventiently ignored the first full version from 16 years aho which used full dates. Care to comment? GiantSnowman 21:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The MOS that you so adamantly point to says "if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context". So in your insistence that year ranges are insufficient, you are pushing a position that is actually in contradiction to the MOS, rather than being supported by it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except of course Harvard's birth date is not mentioned in the article... GiantSnowman 08:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article, infobox, whatever. The distinction matters only to checklist-obsessed scriptkiddies lacking judgment of their own. EEng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To what D.E. has said I'll just add that you keep talking about how some version from two decades ago had it, as if this is a WP:DATERET issue, which it's not. Good articles are made by applying sound editorial judgment, not filling in blanks on a form. EEng 04:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh look at today's FA Muhammad III of Granada which has...full dates! GiantSnowman 08:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only those inhabiting the incestuous FA bubble hold up FAs as paragons. The idea that the very first thing on which we should squander one of our most precious resources – the reader's attention and desire to keep reading – is the specific date of the year on which someone was born and died, as if our target demographic was astrologers, is Exhibit A for the stupidity of the FA process. EEng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something you're both forgetting - "may be sufficient". My point is that is not sufficient. GiantSnowman 08:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A point you assert with nothing to back it up. If you want to further pursue this preoccupation with form over substance open a thread on the article's talk page. EEng 17:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[edit conflict] What is your explanation for why it is critical to bring the readers' attention to the date of his birth, and not just the year, as the first thing they see about him? Among the other facts that could be stated about him at equal length in the lead sentence, why is this one the most important? You are asserting this with no justification, making your argument highly unconvincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS GiantSnowman if you want an opportunity for a bigger crusade about dates and date formats, take a look at the recent contributions of Citation bot (the ones where the edit summary includes "Add: date" or some other combination of additions including dates). All the added dates are in YYYY-MM-DD format. (I happen to like this format for accessdates but I don't think it's acceptable for publication dates, and they're being added as publication dates.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jesus, you're more pissed off about this than I am. That's a lot of pissedoffedness. EEng 22:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at GS today, though. Instead I am pissed off about having to spend all my editing time running around after Citation bot and cleaning up its many messes, and at its owner's intransigent attitude when anyone points out that it is not housebroken. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do not disturb. I'm in the middle of important research. Atsme Talk 📧 01:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Which one? I've been unkind to so many people lately. However, if you mean this [45] it sounds like you've already figured out [46] that I was parodying the unkindness of someone else. EEng 13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
EEng, lol...actually, you seem in general like a very kind person. :) Yes, I know you were reflecting back what someone else was putting out there, only with humor, and I certainly understood the impulse. I just this morning rewrote or deleted multiple responses to the thread. :)