User talk:EEng/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about User:EEng. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

I appreciate the intervention you made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity, but think it is rather unjust to single me out for the only real criticism. Over the past few days, I have tried to be kind to and work with that editor across various pages, but as you saw that went sideways under the weight of her threats of arbcom/sanctions, harassing levels of pinging, accusing me of being canvassed, accusing me and others of conspiring against old people articles, and demanding I do what she wants to prove I was not part of some scheme. She has variously written What are you up to? Is this some form of intentional disruption? Or has someone somewhere canvassed you to come to this discussion and vote for something who effects you don't care about? here only to go on and lie in an AfD @Newshunter12 no, I did not accuse you of being canvassed. here. In all my time in this topic area, the only people I have ever truly clashed with are TFBCT1 and Dorglorg near-always over specific editing disputes, but this other editor has torn into my Wikipedia life and is harassing me of a sudden like a hurricane. I do not appreciate being told I'm part of some conspiracy with editors like you (of course, if I was part of a Wikipedia conspiracy I would want you to be a member!).

Just while writing to you now she has raised the spector that I am after her off Wikipedia: no my account was not hacked. But it's a curious coincidence that you have suggested the possibility only 24 hours after the first ever logged attempt to hack it. here. I have never hacked or tried to hack any account or website before in my life. I did not sign up for this crap, which is why I gently came to say Please think very carefully about your continued presence editing in this topic to escape this sudden nightmare. That editor seems to have a very serious sudden problem with me. Two other accounts have recently vandalized my talk page; one was a longevity fanboy and one was an anonymous IP. The first vandalism I couldn't see as an admin had already blocked it, but The Blade of the Northern Lights said it was very nasty, and much worse then vandalism he had received 10 minutes later from an IP telling him to commit suicide. The IP editor that posted to my page made a crude sexual remark, and an admin removed it from the record at my request. I seem to have pissed off a hornets nest.

Ideally, I wish BHG would just stay away from me and I her, but that doesn't appear likely so I am afraid I think I will be leaving Wikipedia. I can take the harassment to my talk page just fine, I don't care about that, but I did not sign up to be wiki-tormented by some crazy woman who has taken an interest in me and telling the world I'm part of anti-old people conspiracies and very real criminal actions. This was just a hobby for me and BHG has swiftly raised the specter she will escalate her actions to the point of real world consequences if she discovered who I am. My family and I cannot afford to get tangled in God only knows what mess could come, so I think I will say goodbye to a few of my wiki-mates today or tomorrow, and then retire. Sorry to drop all this on you mate, but you did make the edit ending the discussion!!! As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. It's been nice editing with you and visiting The Museums. Farewell, mate :) Newshunter12 (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Newshunter12, you wouldn't have come here if you didn't already know that I would very much hate to see the project lose you, but before I say more, could you show me where BHG has swiftly raised the specter she will escalate her actions to the point of real world consequences if she discovered who I am? I can't help but think there must be some misunderstanding. EEng 14:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Gladly. BHG was clearly implying she believes I tried to hack her account: no my account was not hacked. But it's a curious coincidence that you have suggested the possibility only 24 hours after the first ever logged attempt to hack it. here. Computer hacking is a serious crime in my country and if I had done that and she reported me, I would be in a jail cell. I did not do it (if it even happened in the first place) so there is nothing to trace back to me, but it's a crazy world out there and I don't know what this person or her allies are capable of doing to me. It has already rapidly escalated from her accusing me of being canvassed, to being part of an anti-old people conspiracy, to engaging in criminal actions against her, to sparking a rumor that I did just that and am engaged in sockpuppetry as seen here: Newshunter12 probably tried hack her account recently. MarkAQuinn who just voted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima (2nd nomination) is a sockpuppet of Newshunter12 these guys probably already knew that but they don't ban there own. There are a lot of messed up people in this world and my family and I don't need our real lives screwed up because of Wikipedia's female Alex Jones. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Newshunter12: Invite BHG to a cup of tea, maybe? Just like you, she is a well-rounded Wikipedian, and I'm sure both of you can politely agree to disagree, without any further escalation. It's easy to get worked up behind one's screen. Tea works wonders. — JFG ^talk 17:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Or one of these (finally got around to uploading that). The vandalism was generic, if nasty, and BrownHairedGirl is eminently possible to work with. This is what's happened on and off in different ways throughout the history of this topic, and it is frustrating; finding some common ground and taking my time is the way I've managed in this subject for so long, anyway. My suicide was requested, as you know, that sort of thing is just part of the territory; I take more humor than anything out of it. With this latest round of discussions my strategy has been to dial it back, project some calm, and admit (as with the category situation) where I've misfired. It's hard to do when tensions run high, but it's worth it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG @The Blade of the Northern Lights I appreciate you both trying to help me work this out, but as I just replied above this is already rapidly escalating and I have to put my family first. It has been nice editing with you both. Farewell. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Newshunter, there has been some unpleasantness indeed, but you're reading way too much into certain things. BHG absolutely should not have implied you might have attempted to hack her account, but that's a long way from implying you're going to get into any real-world trouble. The small-time trolling on this page (which I've parked in a subsection below) is just that: small-time trolling. Put that kind of idea out of your mind, take a day or two off, and please reconsider quitting. EEng 03:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Not much to add to EEng's statement. I will also say I sincerely hope nothing so threatening has happened to you (much of the reason I sound so cavalier about such things (and how I conduct my personal life, I've done plenty of things that arguably should've done me in long ago) is the lack of family I have to worry about), and if it has I encourage you to report it to ArbCom. What's on-wiki is nothing that can't be worked out, and I anyway will certainly be around to help out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• I would recommend anyone interested in this comment thread to read my user page. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Newshunter12 probably tried hack her account recently. MarkAQuinn who just voted in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Tajima (2nd nomination) is a sockpuppet of Newshunter12 these guys probably already knew that but they don't ban there own. 172.56.37.136 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll alert the news media. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• In case no one realizes it, this is just trolling. EEng 23:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sorry too, that should have never gone to ANI, too much own'ing and bite'ing - that's why I generally say away from the mainstream wrestling articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

For those playing along at home, Mandruss is talking about this comment [2]. Mandruss, I have great respect for you as an editor, but on this point you're being ridiculous, particularly your idea that "arguing against consensus is disruption by definition". Consensus can change (though I don't hold out much hope in this case) and if it does, it's because someone spoke up and said something most everyone else disagreed with. EEng 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the respect is generally mutual (and I like your humor when good-natured and in a situation where it's not in the way of important discussion). Also this comment.[3]
Yes consensus can change, but there are better ways to seek it than to make off-topic comments and see who supports you there. Try to imagine a scenario where your comments sparked an outpouring of MOS:LQ opposition in that thread which resulted in the elimination of that guideline. I think that's a highly implausible scenario. That kind of thing needs the structure provided by the RfC format. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

<extends hand to shake> No hard feelings, pal. LQ is, unfortunately (not that it matters all that much) here to stay, so there's no point in an RfC or whathaveyou. However, I think there's benefit to the occasional subversive aside now and then, just to remind others who may think they're alone that in fact they're not the only ones who have avoided being absorbed into the Borg. EEng 09:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough compromise. Subversive aside noted and on the record. Thank you. Now I hope we can stick to the topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If 30 other editors each invoke their right to a subversive aside (why should you be special?), and that collectively makes it very difficult to make progress on the thread topic, I think that would reveal a flaw in your approach. Maybe that's premature. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll try and think of something suitably subversive. Hey you guys, try not to beat yoursleves up so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Subversion: Mandruss asked about EEng's ejaculations at WT:MOS, but maybe they were premature. But don't worry, EEng's hands are just fine, I guarantee you that! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a good reason why Wikipedians(,) at large(,) [see?] exhibit a strong bias in favour of LQ: As you, EEng, have apparently already intuited or even implied, Wikipedia attracts the sort of people who have internalised the fact that – at least in many contexts highly relevant to them – punctuation matters. And who are simply prone to arguing about (what some would call) "stupid, pointless crap". (Or, alternatively, "stupid, pointless crap.") That said, given that LQ has already commonly been called thus since at least the 1960s and had already been in use before that, your assertion that it "was devised by people who mistake English punctuation for a programming language" is almost certainly incorrect. (Interestingly, a reader's comment at the linked Slate article cites an unnamed source alleging that the American convention arose due to a practical consideration in the age of the metal movable-type printing press!) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

How could you not realise a discussion had been archived when it has a huge coloured box around it? You had to see the section had been archived to even edit it. It's not controlling what you say to tell you it's not right to reply in an archived discussion. It's against policy. Ss112 05:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

You're very sure in your pronouncements, yet your display at ANI shows that you don't listen -- a deadly combination. In the edit conflict page the rendered page is in the middle; if you jump to the bottom (as I did) to pick up the text of my post, then jump to the edit box at the top (as I did) to reinsert that text, you won't see it (as I didn't) isn't even shown, so there's no huge colored box for me to notice. Now for the nth time, as a pile of editors have now told you, stop ascribing dark motives to your fellow editors, stop trying to control what articles they edit, and stop trying to control where and how they post comments. Got it? EEng 06:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi EEng. Thanks for your reply to my query. You should be aware that I have already alerted the other editor to the existence of the MOS thread - in case you might prefer to moderate your comment. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but my comments were meant for public consumption, including by our esteemed colleague‍—‌in fact I pinged him. Someone who, after being directed to the MOS provision contradicting his view, insists that "I would also add that my opinion as an individual is at least as valid as yours and if I want to make these changes - which are not a waste of time - I will do so!" is unlikely to become a productive editor. It's also worth noting that (as seen in that quotation, which is copy-pasted straight from his post) he confuses a dash for a hyphen in a discussion in which he emphasizes his superior knowledge of how to use endashes and emdashes! Amazing. EEng 23:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure that consensus is a concept this editor will be able to embrace - we shall see. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Trust me, we've already seen. Forget consensus, he acknowledges what a house style is and then keeps on arguing. I got my fill of people who lecture others on how to write, without apparently being able to do it themselves, in college Expos. EEng 00:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Can't justify putting it on the TP, but similarly cannot resist contributing "Musty anal floe". Primergrey (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about anagrams of the phrase Manual of Style [4] Oh, but you can put it on my talk page??? I guess I can take comfort in knowing that I provide an outlet for the community's otherwise pent-up creativity.

Taking your lead, let's see, um, we've also got Lo! My anal fetus! (not very catchy, if you ask me) and My so-anal flute or My anal flute – so??? (hardly improvements). Oh, wait, how about Lofty anal muse? Possibly some member of my glittering array of talk page stalkers can can expand our

thinking along those lines.

Overall, I'd suggest A muse? Flatly, no! EEng 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

They all kind of sound like Frank Zappa records. Primergrey (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Or names for his children. EEng 05:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The best vandal edit in the world (take note of the one-time use red-link name) Randy Kryn 03:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How sweet! EEng 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

CluebotNG has just got no heart. Fuck him, let him bot alone on Valentine's! ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I mistakenly reverted that edit on WP:911; I reverted the message I left and let the user know; apparently I didn't revert my damn edit back.... thanks for catching that :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, have you seen WP:KABLAM? You inspired it. EEng 09:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

HAHA!!!! Dude, it's something that I still manage to do all the freaking time and I have no idea why. I almost always spell it as diffuse instead of defuse... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Young man (or woman), did you just dude me? EEng 09:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker) Sir, I will accept responsibility for Oshwah's use of the word "dude" which may have resulted from his diffusing an image caption I wrote during happy hour. Please, no more than 50 lashes, and diffuse them equally over both eyes using hypoallergenic glue. 👀 Atsme📞📧 19:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)}

[5]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit, your favorite referencing system works pretty well for making footnotes that link to the selected publications section. My previous method for doing that was <ref group=pubs> but then there's no way to list the pubs in a normal-sized font. On the other hand, the inconsistent indentation can be annoying; see Bruce Reed (mathematician) for an example I just tested out. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The real problem with < ref>< /ref> is you can't control the order of the refs e.g. alpha. One of the most glaring missing features is a way to do that e.g. to order them in the order they're given in {reflist |refs = }}. If that existed I would probably not have bothered with inventing ran/rma.

To keep the customer satisfied I've temporarily widened the "tag" column in {rma} to 50px; take a look at Reed now. Maybe tomorrow I'll either invent {rmaw} = rma wide, or add a column-width option to {rma}. EEng 05:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC) At first I thought you meant pubs. I thought: In what article is there a list of pubs, as footnotes?

I modified the rma template to take a tw=[tag width] parameter. Now Reed is all lined up again. I set the default back to 20px (but I think maybe it should have em rather than px for the units). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You certainly don't let the grass grow under your feet. Thanks again for your work on Lewis; way more than I could have expected! EEng 05:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I spent over 25 minutes writing and rewriting by big comment (half of which is his words) and then you come along and not only better capture everything I was trying to say, but you also get results from Robert. HOW!? d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 00:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

All in a day's work. EEng 00:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I just realized that I am now quoted in the museums. I suppose I should be flattered. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course you should. Maybe we should start Category:Users honored by something they wrote or did being selected for inclusion in User:EEng's Museums. EEng 01:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

^{Already added the red link on my TP. Do we have "User" Categories or is there concern that it would overwhelm En WP Categories? Atsme📞📧 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)}

I'd be happy to be in a category of users dishonored by that! Hey, did you just create another one of those red categories in user space? Somebody block this person! ^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I used the [[:Category:blah blah]] syntax, which merely links to a category without placing the present page in the category. I'm telling you this because I know you'd want to be enlightened. EEng 21:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that was the right thing to do! Alas, poor Atsme was led astray, and went ahead and put a variation of the category, in full, on her user talk page. So I went ahead and turned it blue, and put it in the quarantine parent category. Y'all can thank me later. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

PS, it's quite a losing battle to try to enlighten me, but thank you for trying anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I was indeed led astray Tryptofish but I maintain faith in the valiant Knights of the EEng Roundtable to honor their call to duty and correct any threatening edits that will cause irreparable damage to the kingdom...like the fire breathing red link categories that have caused good editors to be consumed by the hellpit kingdom of ANI. This damsel in distress thanks you! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this particular hellpit kingdom is Wikipedia talk:User categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I live at ANI, and can assure you there is no hellpit anywhere. Special:NewPagesFeed is. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 12:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite honorable...as long as we don't have to involuntarily attend another block party. If the latter turns out to be the case, my preferred music would be Staying Alive. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

When I was younger, my heavy metal band did a cover of that song. I sang it (badly) in C3, which you might recognize as being more in the range of these guys. It was a big hit. A fan gave me a pair of bell bottoms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The 🎶 at that link stirred memories of basement clubs with blue lights, huge speakers, yoga pads and rows of big pillows on the floor, sugar cubes and hand-rolled cigarettes. ✌🏻^{Atsme📞📧} 12:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• I noticed this as well. I gave serious thought to telling you that you are a true (Personal attack removed)-whisperer. Note: The {{rpa}} template was part of the original comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's hope. He could be a real asset on topic areas in which he has so much experience. EEng 22:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I did some digging and it looks unlikely that he's lying about his claims (I will not dismiss the possibility, however). But I stand by my assertion that people who feel the need to convince others of their abilities rarely demonstrate strong abilities. I suspect the reason he's so hot about all the "mistakes" in the articles might not be the objective accuracy of those articles. I'm not even being slightly facetious, by the way. A great deal of experience has taught me never to trust a braggart and I honestly can't recall a single exception. I still think this is a case in which editor retention should be a secondary concern. That being said, I understand your position and don't intend to argue the point past this explanation of my own view. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I've dug too, and unless the account is an impersonation there's no question he actually is all the things he says he is. I'm trying to cut him some slack for generational differences. An academic expert I have great, great respect for had an almost impossible time understanding our OR and SYNTH policies, and why experts have no special weight per se; a lot of it had to do with not understanding the fundamentally unprecedented nature of online social ecosystems. EEng 22:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

After you've had a chance to redirect this editor into something useful; if he proves incapable of contributing I'll tell you an interesting anecdote about my father. If he turns out to be quite helpful in other areas, though... Well, just rub it in my face at my talk page. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

^{It's Sheldon Cooper 50 yrs from now. Atsme📞📧 03:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)}

• Wow, you achieved some dialog, well done! Although, I'm sure you realize the enormity of the task ahead. Burninthruthesky (talk)

That's perfect. Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! As one of those trolls (most of whom couldn't write any decent prose if their lives depended on it - the second-rate drivel they spew out looks and feels like it's been done by a half-wit with a metal bar through their skulls), I don't get it right too often. EEng 05:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• This: [6]. You can't argue with a loon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.207.38.81 (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention! And it turns out, just a bit up in that thread, I've been nominated for the Ultra-Cool User Page award! (Admittedly, it's Wikipedia Review...) [7]. EEng 23:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that Wikipedia Review has arisen from the digital grave. The website had been down or something for years, which is what gave rise to Wikipediocracy. Are those two now in competition with one another? (Coming soon: Wikpediocracy Review and Wikipedia Review Review.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have very occasionally linked to the Wikipediocracy forums a few times on here, and left some comments on its blog, but don't tell anyone or I'll get in deep whale-do. Oh, wait..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

[8] -- CURSE YOU WIKIPEDIA! Keira1996 06:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So yeah, your mom would said "f*ck you wikipedia!!!!!" just for sure lmfao :D KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So there was a Honda for sale with advertised Curse Control, looks like Wikipedia needs a resident mage to practice as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Putting a curse on WP is coals to Newcastle. Plenty cursed already. EEng 22:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you politely declined a robot's invitation to comment on trains, and it got me thinking. Thinking about trains, mostly. Ctrl-Fed the page and noticed a single instance of "trains". Is that enough?

If not, maybe now's the time for everyone to let everyone else know how they really feel about those things. If so, delete away! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

This one amused me: [9] —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The museum of dueling congressmen should really have this lovely congressional specimen: click here and scroll to the bottom for Susan Collins insulting his pajamas amongst other thing in acceptance of his challenge. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I got locked out by the WaPo paywall, but here is a free version of the story. Includes a pajama pic that I wish I could un-see. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just do as my friends who work at the Post advise me: open it in incognito mode. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It could have been worse: at least he was wearing pajamas. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. The many horrible things the Trump era has brought us include disgusting ugly fat old lechers like him. Then of course we've also got The Fatslobp of the Month and The Groper-in-Chief. EEng 00:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs) 23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks – most people wouldn't have gone that extra mile. For those who are wondering, the specific thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#EEng.27s_editing_at_WT:TPG. EEng 04:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea on Earth, Mars, or 2nd star on the right, what this guy likes to do all day: Special:Diff/806597145. Perhaps he is an expert in the application of paint to Wikipedia? Should I revert it as OR? L3X1 (distænt write) 02:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Gives new meaning to the concept of VANDALISM, I guess. EEng 02:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

One of those rare instances of vandalism (or should I say VANDALISM) sufficiently well done to make you almost want to not revert it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Sort of like this (note which article is being vandalized). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I've always been tempted to blank the article on 4′33″ and edit war to keep it that way. Someone did something in the spirit but much less disruptive [10]. Volunteer Marek  06:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you'd only really be justified in blanking it for a short period of time... say, something like slightly over four and a half minutes, perhaps...?! — fortunavelut luna 14:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is my personal favorite piece of vandalism ‑ Iridescent 07:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent It's not clear to me which edit is the vandalism.  – Corinne (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Surprised that the Spray paint editor's IP doesn't geolocate to Bristol. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC) N.B. if viewed after dark. in a partially lit alleyway, it looks like David Bowie.

@Corinne the whole thing - read it top to bottom, it's a ridiculously elaborate false history. ‑ Iridescent 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's time to turn Floor Age blue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then we can get to work on Rug Age – see [11]. EEng 22:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, I have rug burns from ROTFLMAO!! The trigger: "and every type of sign as a unique contribution to civilization's wealth and security, just as each individual human is perfectly independent of others and is endowed with certain unalienable rights: rights held by the individual, not the collective." Piso mojado for sure!! 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

...on this spooky Halloween night: I can actually relate to how you've been castigated over what you perceived to be humorous. Sticks and stones may break my femur but your comments are not humerus. Where do we sign up for the It's not humerus museum? See my TP for your first entry, unless you prefer to choose among your many. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• ^{Pssst...sidebar note: AfC is the smoothest road to a happier WP life...cut-off the disruption at the pass...help the newbies get their articles properly prepared and ready for mainspace. It reduces the stress we encounter at AfD and helps improve the quality of articles that are published on WP. Atsme📞📧 02:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)}

EEng, I think you'll enjoy the spelling errors in the article on Frikandel, some added in this edit. Look particularly at the ingredients. Drmies will also appreciate the additions.  – Corinne (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Foil?? I can't even figure out what that should really be. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The shape of the frikadel could have been fallic on purpose. EEng 22:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's frikin' hilarious! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally, someone came along and fixed this. [12]  – Corinne (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

And I just learned that "foil" was actually a mis-rendering of the Dutch word for mace (the spice). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, Frikandles. At least they're easier than Firkandles. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC) [13]

In retrospect, this came across as unnecessarily personalized. I didn't really mean you in particular, but any editor arguing from a personal-habits perspective. Sorry for the implied tone.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's OK, SM, we love you warts and all. Every project needs its overinformed style maven. It does seem, though, that recently you posts have become much longer; I think they'd be a lot more effective if they didn't touch on every possible sub-sub-consideration. EEng 15:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted. That habit of mine comes in waves. The more busy I am with something else, the shorter and more interspersed the posts are; when I'm bored and keep coming back to WP all day long, like checking Facebook, I tend to post more and longer. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if that's better or worse than being a Happy Hour poster. 🛁🍸🍹🍺💃🕺^{Atsme📞📧} 18:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Did someone say mentalist??^[FBDB] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean to say ^[FBDB]? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok yes, I admit it, I did. But I thought someone might notice. Phew! I think I just about got away with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

...that FDR made Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. the first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, thus putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Kennedy did a good job, but unfortunately, there's no chance that Trump's ideological appointments will turn out to be the kind of ethical straight-shooters that old rum-runner turned out to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It often takes a thief, but it has to be a certain kind of thief. EEng 04:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Politically correct, well-mannered thieves definitely have an advantage. We call them "politicians". ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again EEng. Would you mind if I asked for your opinion on my attempt at overhauling the List of Presidents at my sandbox? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 18:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The blue links on a blue background are not very contrasty and may violate MOS:ACCESS. See https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html#fg=000000,bg=99C0F8 for a tool you can use to check whether a given color combination is good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Contrasty? EEng 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You're dubious of the validity of that word? It's in the OED, attested to 1891. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I would never dream of doubting you, just expressing astonishment. EEng 00:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: The blue background is actually a transclusion, i.e. {{Party shading/Democratic}}.--Nevé–selbert 15:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but wherever it comes from it needs enough contrast to the text to be legible. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm too swamped right now to do anything but drop in for my periodic watchlist perusal. Maybe over the weekend. It does look tighter and better! Perhaps you already know this, but judicious use of {{nobr}} and/or {{nbsp}} can do wonders in the way of keeping the linebreaking clean (and are better, in general, than < br>, because nobr/nbsp inserts a linebreak if needed, while < br> forces a linebreak always (and whether one is needed or not can depend on window size). Ping me next week (if that's not too late) if you still want me. In the meantime I suspect my glittering salon of talk page stalkers will pitch in (as DE has already done). EEng 19:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

On mobile devices in mobile view, because it has so many columns the software gives up even trying to fit it in, meaning that unless readers actually realize that it continues off the side of the page and can figure out how to scroll sideways, all they'll see is a list of names and dates with no context (see right). Even if they do figure out how to scroll sideways, because none of the columns are fixed it means by the time they get across to the vice-presidents etc they can no longer see which presidency they're attached to. This is an issue with both versions, not just yours, but it's worth bearing in mind; much as it annoys me as IMO the mobile interface is truly shitty, more than 50% of Wikipedia pageviews are now in Mobile view so any accessibility issues potentially affect significant numbers of readers. ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I personally loathe mobile view. I have an iPad and I always use Desktop view when browsing Wikipedia.--Nevé–selbert 15:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I hate it, but unfortunately 50% of readers use it, particularly since the WMF now forces it on everyone using mobile devices (even large ones like tablets) as the default, so we need to bear in mind how things are going to look in it. ‑ Iridescent 19:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iridescent: How does the Wikipedia list of Presidents appear in Mobile view? Better or worse?--Nevé–selbert 18:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello EEng. Your recent edit of Pete Seeger with the edit summary ”we don't credit photos like this” also changed the birth place to Patterson, New York, U.S. I changed the birth place to Manhattan, New York, U.S. on 8 August 2017 to agree with the first referenced line of section Family and personal life. Did you inadvertently make a cut & paste mistake or is Patterson correct? If so the text needs to be changed to concur. Cheers. Grahamboat (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No idea how that happened. Fixed. EEng 05:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"In 2011, a tagged Cuvier's beaked whale dove to 2,992 m, which is the deepest recorded dive by any mammal. The whales' rib cages can fold down so as to reduce air pockets and decrease buoyancy. But it has failed to ever get to the bottom of EEng's Talk page." [14]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

OMG - I spewed beer all over my monitor!! 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the classic blow hole reflex on surfacing from such depths: [15]. MartinMurray's123 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC) p.s. I'm surprised you didn't get de Benz an' ting: [16]

In diving into Martin's external link, do be sure to keep going til you come to Homer Simpson. Oh, and of course: ^{cetacean needed} --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My monitor is trying to short-circuit because of liquid on the contacts...it's also a waste of beer, but I can't help myself. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You look pretty good in that video! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Whale, here ya' go ...

--A Fellow Editor-- 21:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't fool me. I know a whale-bot when I see one! A scandal. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

p.s.—File:Whalestep.ogg, the song of his people ...

--A Fellow Editor-- 21:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: we don't even get killer whales down here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The whales do all eventually get to the bottom, though... —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hmains Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi EEng, I don't believe the previous wording did make it "dangerously close" to compulsory. I won't challenge the change, but I hope the typographical sections aren't going to be eroded bit by bit. Tony (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Cards84664 (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere in project space (possibly on the talk page for some part of MOS) there was recently a discussion about the phrases "of the same name" and "eponymously named", as in "The Bloggers is a 2010 film based on the novel of the same name". Anyone remember where that is? EEng 05:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You saw my comment on Talk:The Life and Deeds of the Immortal Leader Karađorđe/GA1 or this is just a coincidence? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw your comment and wanted to direct you to this vaguely recalled discussion. EEng 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks, then! I also vaguely thought there might have been an earlier discussion about this but had no idea where to even start looking. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's not a coincidence, it must be this! ^Atsme 📣 📧 19:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

•  SMcCandlish? EEng 14:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing memorable sticks out; I recall it being discussed here and there, and got the impression no one cared as long as the construction is actually clear (e.g., don't separate the original reference from the "of the same name" call-back with a whole bunch of blather between them), and when it is clear, it's better than doing something like "The 1961 film The Hustler, based on the 1959 novel The Hustler, ..."; that reads like some kind of copy-paste error. A not-quite-rare error I see is names that do not actually quite match (e.g. one has a subtitle, or one starts with "The" and other doesn't, or yadda yadda).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That last experiment you recently uploaded to the Museum was well,...shocking. I highly recommend it. If I may - and with no intention of making an Ash of myself - I'll just drop-off a link to another enlightening experiment here. I keep the link available as a reminder of societal influences. Independent thinking is essential to a free society but like common sense, it isn't so common anymore, especially as evidenced by some of the discussions at RfCs, AfDs, noticeboards, dramah boards and ArbCom. In closing, I'll quote Benedetto de Martino: “It is well known that human choices are affected by the way in which a question is phrased.” ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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

De-cline. EEng 04:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not aiming to canvass, but compare this version to the current one of Dave Bautista. I would like your comments on this. There is an important discussion on hold at WT:PW regarding this. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is not a topic area I feel able to contribute to usefully, but I will say (not having looked at this specific issue) that almost everything in these article is a load of crap fancruft trivia, so if I had to guess I'd be on the side of removal. But that's a blind guess. EEng 18:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the integrity of the Candy Making article. I tried but couldn't fight Flyer22 & co. Are you a part of a team to fight for neutral POV? If so, I would like to join. Your grateful Admirer, MrKiffy MrKiffy (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not part of any team. Let me give you some advice on this one: the article's too trivial to worry about this. You saw my parting comments, I take it. Instead, spend some relaxing minutes in The Museums.. EEng 00:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think this was POV issue, just one of pointless overdetail, with a bit of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS thrown in. EEng 03:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

About: [17], I really must object^[FBDB] to this slur on my private life. I have much higher standards than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've just noticed there is a road in Scotland called the A719 road. At one end is Moscow, East Ayrshire. At the other, there is Trump Turnberry. I'm not making this up. This is a DYK waiting to happen.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

All those years cultivating talk page stalkers have really paid off, that's for sure. I've proposed an alt. If you agree you might consider striking the others to keep things focused. EEng 19:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm certain we will not be the only people wanting to give an opinion on this nomination; a rampaging mob are probably making their way over there as I speak. I'm sure one of them can pick which ALT to go for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For For excellence in DYK puns. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, nice pair o' buns, dude. <blush> Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, you're the shiznitch, you really are. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• I actually feel bad for the article's creator Northamerica1000, since this deprived his article of the full time in the oven it deserved. Anyone want to propose that the hook be re-run? EEng (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

(talk page stalker) I cannot remember how long I've been stalking, or exactly why, but Harvard springs to mind, and this, the rather bitter dispute over it some time ago, between who I cannot remember, and do not care. wow. Point is that I've read the Gage article many times since, and it is fascinating, and thought you should know. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

^[FBDB] Goodness me, I thought some fool had tried to make it a "Good Article". But I can clarify that EEng has not devoted his whole life to this article. He has also spent whole years on the Museums on his Talk Page, in constructing the world's longest Talk Page, and in making inappropriate puns and convoluted lame jokes on other editor's Talk Pages. He deserves a permanent topic ban from Gage for relentless WP:OWN issues. Isn't that right Trippy? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be Prof Trippy to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

^[FBDB] Personally I think maybe the topicban should be broader, as I sense that maybe EEng has a close personal connection to all articles about people whose brains have been damaged by metal bars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

^[FBDB] I'm still sulking because he anagrammed my username to Prof Shitty! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You have to admit, "Prof. Shitty" is startlingly funny. You do know, BTW, that I got that from an anagram generator [18]? EEng 08:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's disturbingly apt! But here I thought that you were clever enough (FBDB) to have come up with it yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Too bad you're not a head chef (Fry This Pot) or a waiter with limited English (Try Pot Fish!). EEng 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Try Pot Fish? Oh, no! I am a fish! Oh, but wait a minute... maybe that's the other kind of pot? Yes, then I'll try it! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I should have thought of that, an exhortation to lessened seriousness: Try pot, Fish!. EEng 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Or a nice fish pie, maybe? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The photo of that pie is the only explanation that anyone needs for why the American Revolution took place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No way. LA rules: [19]. Martinevans123 (talk)

I think the colonists could have tolerated the baked fish heads. I think they could even have put up with the fact that "oils released during cooking [flow] back into the pie". The point at which it was realized that "in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" must have come, I think, at the revelation that "The dish is traditionally held to have originated from the village of Mousehole". EEng

Haha. That is very funny. But it is true, in fact! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"You...GENE...you!" Eman235/talk 00:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"Eugene" -- it means "well born". EEng 08:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A misnomer, then? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm all nurture, no nature. EEng 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've added my new {{FBDB}} template to some of the posts above, so no one gets blocked.
• I appreciate the kind comments. My experience with GA has not been good, unfortunately, largely because (IMO) too many people do the one thing you're absolutely not supposed to do when reviewing, which is to impose their personal preferences (about what an article ought to look like) instead of sticking to the actual list of GA requirements. If people want to try again maybe the time is right, but here's what I'd ask to happen first: maybe everyone could take an informal look at the article versus the criteria (which are presented and discussed at WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not). Then problems can be fixed before nomination. Are there two or three of you who'd like to volunteer?

EEng 08:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering for that, and I have a hunch it's a recipe for a repeat of what has happened in the past. But – on the plus side, FBDB made me LOL! Well-played! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're right, but sooner or later someone's bound to nominate it, so better it be planned than a surprise. Anyone else? EEng 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid something like that is waaay above my pay-grade. I could use a "This isn't bullying, nor is it a personal attack" template though? -doxy the Rog™ woof 16:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thus we see the chilling effect of the roving enforcers, though in case it wasn't clear, what I'm asking for is an unofficial review against GA criteria, not an actual GA review. But anyway...

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

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

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

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

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is perhaps now visible from Mars. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become visible from space, and are in danger of being photographed by satellites and used as evidence in industrial espionage. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when atmospheric pressure drops below 3psi." - this talk page is 4.5 pounds per square inch [psi] (31 kPa), or slightly above Mount Everest. 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. Or we might just get the bot to do it anyway for a laugh. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I can see how you might think it is difficult to find things on such a long talk page, but for me it took only scrolling down one screen from the top to find links to seven pages of archives. I.e., yes, EEng knows how to archive stuff. He just doesn't choose to do it as quickly as you might like. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, Ritchie's just giving me a gentle reminder, and he's right its time for me to make another pass. It's just so hard to choose. EEng 19:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Psst, David: I think Ritchie was joking. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• But if the pressure is currently at 4.5 psi, and dropping below 3 psi is the danger zone, then we still have lots of free space, infact we are good for another 8000ft. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

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

A few weeks ago I made this edit purely for my own entertainment and it's still there! It's not big and it's not clever, and I'm a very, very naughty boy. But it's so deliciously amusing I can't bring myself to remove it. I just had to get that off my chest. Sssh.. Don't tell anyone! nagualdesign 07:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think you'll get anybody else to confess their easter eggs, well, I certainly wont. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your will be punished ridiculously hard! Naughty boy! J947 ^(c), at 05:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Bonus points will be awarded to anyone who can slip this image (right) into the Falcon Heavy article. nagualdesign 06:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't HaveFunPuttingCheekyImagesOnWikipediaArticlesWiki. J947 ^(c), at 04:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Spoilsport. nagualdesign 15:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi EEng. I note that your undid some of my work on Mark Twain. No worries, but I thought I'd explain what I was doing. The dates on the article were mixed up, and it is better to have a consistent style. I assume you thought that all access dates on the article were in yyyy-mm-dd format - however, if you check back in the history, you'll note that some were yyyy-mm-dd, and some were MDY. I have made some effort in making the dates more consistent per MOS guidelines - though there is still some work to be done on this. Looking back at the article history I note that you have previously reverted on this issue. Generally when two editors are making the same corrections to an article, then it is time to look more closely at what they have done. Anyway, no worries, no harm. These things happen. ;-) SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you but I am not sure it came through. I have added comments to the talk page of the article. I also show by references to the Ford's Theater restoration document from 1962 that the capacity was somewhere in the vicinity of 1,700. Donner60 (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And I agree with your last edit; I was trying to give the IP the benefit of the doubt and enter some sort of compromise language. I do think it was a misinterpretation, however, and my additional source clearly shows that the capacity in 1865 was about 1,700. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2018 (UTCg

Counting only paying customers or including the comps? Randy Kryn (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: [20] "What the fuck are you doing?" is a very broad question...as the edit summary says, I changed &divide to ÷ to make it easier for editors to read the wikitext. I also changed &plusmn to ± for similar reasons. This edit removes the last use of &divide in the encyclopedia in general, which was very rarely used to begin with and which seems to me much less editor friendly. Is there some reason you prefer it to ÷? If this edit has made you angry, feel free to explain why, but please avoid using profanity. Thanks. -- Beland (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers are cordially invited to participate in this discussion of burning importance to the future of Wikipedia. EEng 20:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• We're at a deadlock so more input would be appreciated. EEng 02:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That page is/was the biggest BLP nightmare I've seen in a while. Help would be appreciated reviewing the existing cns and trying to verify or restore the stuff I removed that can be sourced. My god, how did we have stuff about a criminal trial in a BLP unsourced for what looks like years. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Now that Tony has undeadlocked it contrary to what I wanted ^[FBDB], I want even more input there. Help make Wikipedia fun and trivial again! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Suicide. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What? Why has nobody added the obvious joke - "that lot on that discussion are depressing, still give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves." Laugh? I nearly died. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have time to do a bit of copyediting at the Feynman bio? For example, the following sentence: He noted that Feynman's eccentricities included a refusal to brush his teeth, which he advised others not to do on national television, despite dentists showing him scientific studies that supported the practice.. He didn’t advise others not to brush their teeth on national television. There may be other such instances that I’ve overlooked. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 11:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I can give it a look over the next few days, but in honesty it seems pretty good (the above notwithstanding). Is there anything in particular you think needs attention? EEng 13:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I corrected the one mentioned above, and the other I thought was a problem was not - it was correct for B.Eng - but may not be correct for the article if it's primarily written in A.Eng except for that one sentence ("He had got to know La Belle..."). It's a relatively long article but the prose is rather engaging so it's not all that hard to read. I'm just not as quick as you are with reference to the principle of least astonishment. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Between portals and wrestling articles should be just around the corner. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 09:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This GIF anim is failing to animate on my end. So very sad. Did you upload the right file? The MoS one that's been around a long time works just dandy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Works for me (Chrome on Windows 10). It does have a long delay. Stalkers, please check it out yourselves. EEng 04:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Deal Guiding Hi" (anag: I died laughing). Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (works for me too, same set-up, approx 10 second delay)

It works for me too, Firefox on Win 10. It does take a long time to switch from one to the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Everyone's so impatient these days. Anyway, unfortunately [21] (and see also [22]). EEng 20:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And going through my watchlist, I now see the misguided effort to put it on Arb-talk. That doesn't work for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Like it really matters one way or the other. EEng 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't blame them, poor loves. What can you expect when you try to dress up Lady Justice in bra and knickers?? I think we should all just celebrate those glorious 12 hours. Yes, ArbCom can be a trifle baffling at times. Les Misérablevans123 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For the curator's consideration: [23]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The Curator thanks your for your submission. I think we already have it: Wikipedia:Don't_delete_the_main_page (image in right margin); an related idea which I vaguely think might have some promise would be an essay on radioactive pages -- pages you should never get involved with because to touch them is to be forever poisoned. BTW, I don't think atomic was a typo. I suspect it was a loose use of Atomic (database systems) in the sense of indivisible, non-indecomposable. EEng 20:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

And the whatever-that-makes-me thanks you, in turn, for educating me about non-indecomposability. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Oops, just plain indecomposable. Since we're on the subject you might find it interesting to look over ACID_(computer_science) as well. EEng 23:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering about whether there might have been a double-negative. It's a topic that gives me ACID indigestion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to switch horses from nondecomposable to indecomposable midstream. EEng 00:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I see that the how-to-blow-up discussion continues just below! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

That's right, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive999 is already up, and at about 1/8th the typical size of an ANI archive page! What will you do when it happens? SemiHypercube 02:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you know I had the honor of making the 1,000,000th ANI edit not too long ago. I've been aware of this other impending milestone as well, but I thought I should let someone else have the honor. Secretly I'm hoping there will be a kind of Y2K explosion when it rolls over to 4 digits. EEng 03:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we should declare a holiday, close the encyclopedia and take the day off. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You joke, but I was a hair's breadth drunk late christmas eve from manually archiving AN & ANI in totality with the message 'Merry Christmas ya filthy animals'... Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Live Stats!

998	842,780
999	819,381
1000	Created

Unfortunately, it won't fall on new years. Each one lasts about two weeks: ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

We could start a series of edit wars to speed things up. EEng 00:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, something could go wrong when it rolls over to 4 digits. SemiHypercube 21:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Doomsday approaches! EEng 02:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It finally happened! At 12:01 14 January 2019, the 1000th ANI archive page was created by lowercase sigmabot III. Sorry EEng, if it weren't for the bot you could have made the 1000th ANI archive. But you did already make the 1 millionth edit to ANI, as mentioned earlier. SemiHypercube 20:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone should report that bot to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

You're talking about this [24]? OK, well, if you're not a schoolboy I can certainly substitute language applicable to a grownup fool who wastes others' time wanting help designing an idiot experiment [25]. You do know the difference between diffuse and defuse – I'll hand you that. EEng 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC) P.S. Re [26][27][28]: Have you heard of the Streisand effect?

Since you were one of the editors dealing with OfficeBoy back in Feb this year when I got involved, this is a heads up that I've created an ANI discussion about his sourcing problems, if you want to weigh in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Your answer reminds me of this:

A man is granted three questions to God;

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

God says `Can you wait a second?

^{Atsme📞📧} 21:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Shoot! I saw this just moments after restoring the comment again. I'm now very, very afraid you'll raise this at ANI. EEng 22:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait. You've opened an ANEW report [29] about how you editwarred to remove another editor's talk-page post? Now I'm really worried. EEng 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just curious...where in the museum will this one be going? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Rarely have I seen editors moving their vowels so openly. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Gross! EEng 00:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Maintaining Tryp's movement...online news is competing with EEng for witty hooks. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The story you link, "VENEZUELAN PROTESTORS PREPARE TO LAUNCH A SHIT BOMB PROTEST", reads in part, "Now protesters have decided to organize what they are deeming the 'shit march.' A flyer circulating on social media reads, 'They have gas; we have excrement'... Parts of the Venezuelan military have already begun to defect and join the protesters."

I thought it said defecate and join the protesters. EEng 01:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for my crappy sense of humor. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• 'Jean-Claude Juncker "volunteers" Boris Johnson to be the piñata at Theresa May's birthday party'? -- User:Robevans123
• Ok - here's another: When we allow standards to fall, it's like a leap of faith. You may never bounce back. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Wikipedia editor after encountering an administrator with no sense of humor." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• "In the new plan, the one who bounces highest qualifies for health insurance."  – Corinne (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• "Wikipedia editor dives into a RFC and is left dangling." --Blackmane (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps WP:BUNGEE could be created as an amalgamation of WP:ROPE and WP:BOOMERANG. Blackmane (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • +1, well played! — JFG ^talk 20:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • +2, sheer genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • +3, and let's throw WP:NCR in, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • +4, for a total of +10. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    • –2, for a total of +8 (just because I can, since I have low standards). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    • -2, for a total of +6. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Oh well done, sir, well done. Blackmane (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oops. He told me his weight in kilos and I think I used the Convert template the wrong way round to go from pounds to kilos. Happy landings... Robevans123 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Be Bold, they said. It'll be fun, they said. Eman235/talk 04:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Please take care of the bungee cord as it could come in useful for the next ArbCom candidate. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Sockpuppeteer attempting to escape ahead of investigators. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Dear God, please deliver me from all this. EEng 22:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Smell me, buy me, and deliver me. I won't change. What am I? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I had been afraid to ask, but I see the answer is at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

And that's just the pees. EEng 15:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how "prannock" can be a cross between an idiot and a stupid person. Maybe it's just inbreeding. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The etymology section of the OED entry for "Pillock" contains the single finest quotation in the entire dictionary, Why did the butterfly flutter by? Because she saw the caterpillar wave his pillock at her. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Is that the etymology section or the entomology section? See also [30]. EEng 21:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Butterfly?? I've always thought of something more creepy crawly? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC) ".... and you may find yourself, living in a Shotgun shack: [31]...."

Among similar "P"-Britishisms, I'm fond of "punter" in the sense of a paying customer at a show. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest a punter is just a gullible paying customer, no show required. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Prat": interesting, per wikt:pratfall. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of folks who were hoping he'd be ancient history by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there is a US President precedent: [32]. (Add "prescient", and try saying that three times fast.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I normally make it a rule to only visit this page once a day, as I've limited time on teh internetz. I thought that a youtube [BLOODY SPAM FILTER link] might explain the Trumpton thing. That one made me laugh. It's worth waiting for the fire brigade roll call... Hugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Funny how so many people mis-remember that. There was no Hugh in the Trumpton fire brigade, there were two Pugh's (twins). So it's, "Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grub." nagualdesign 05:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"I'm busy throwing hints that he keeps missing": [33] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about Take Your Child to Work Day at the White House? EEng 01:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

😂 No, an employee at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Brings a whole new meaning to "aloha", doesn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We'll meet again. EEng 20:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Back in the late 70s-early 80s, we installed a tornado shelter that also serves as a nuke fall-out shelter which I liken to "prolonging the effects of radioactivity" = WTH will be left to live for after such an attack? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

My one-time department chair, and the cockroaches. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The starry nights would be a thing to behold, assuming you weren't blinded by the thermal radiation. When you consider all the atmospheric tests carried out until 1980—over 500 in total—plus 3 times that number underground, underwater and even in space, a lot of us have already survived the kind of effects you might expect from all out nuclear war, assuming you don't live near an area that gets bombed. Anyone who lived east of the Rocky Mountains during that period would have been better off turning their home into a permanent fallout shelter rather than building one in the garden that they never used, since it was literally raining down on them on a regular basis. nagualdesign 03:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've enjoyed working with you, Nd, but the idea that the radiation effects on populations from testing is anything like the effect on populations during an actual nuclear war (even those far from targets – if indeed there will be any such populations) is nonsense. EEng 04:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It depends entirely on where you live and how many bombs would be detonated if there was a war. I expect that 500 or so, fired in anger, would be enough to level most major cities and military installations throughout the world and bring an abrupt halt to proceedings. Places like Yellowstone wouldn't be viable targets, yet it received quite a lot of the fallout from the Nevada tests. My point was, don't underestimate how bad things have already been. At one point they were detonating more than one a week, yet most people only ever consider the bombs they dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You don't have to prepend your opinions with "I've enjoyed working with you but...", by the way. I've got my big boy pants on, I can handle a bit of opposition without being offended. nagualdesign 05:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

EEng has, from time to time, described his talk page watchers as "glittering". Now I think I know where the glitter comes from. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be "glowing". EEng 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How dare you! I'll have you know that I'm from the north of England and have a beautiful, pasty white, malnourished complexion. nagualdesign 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

[34] EEng 01:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• A buddy of mine is still in the Army, and spent the last couple of days at the Naval base there waiting for a ride on a boat back stateside and spending time with a girl he knows there. He has his MP tab and after the false alarm, got put on active duty and volunteered to the longshoremen to help mop up some sailors that didn't respond to a duty call, just an hour or so after the alarm.

He told me last night that almost all the sailors he found were having sex in their own digs (mostly off-base); with enlisted sailors under their command, with hookers, with their exes, and one even with his sister. Apparently, sailors have some pretty firm ideas about how they want to go out, and much less firm ideas about whom they want to go out with. Just thought I'd share. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yuk and yuck. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much my reaction, right there (there might have been a "HA!" in there, as well). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer a strawberry.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't bother reading that book-length post at ANI. Are we talking about this IPA, or this IPA? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this IPA^{Promo alert!}, or this IPA? or The IPA you don't want to meet the big pile of IPA's or the IPA in blue? -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it's this IPA. (They say it's mind-altering.) EEng 14:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Ha! I'll bet you didn't think I could drag Gage into it, did you!

Oooooo nice. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a pity that Phineas Gage didn't have one of those fists inside his head. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually he did. See bottom of page here. EEng 18:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

True, that. But too little, too late. Maybe an early incidence of small hands? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

A complete miracle he didn't die, I suppose people are credited with having more brains than they use... or not? Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I find it productive to use 10% of other people's minds. (Crowdsourcing, or zombieism?) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I like spending an hour scrolling down to converse with you. Helps me keep the fat off my arm. (but seriously, your effort to post pics at ANI is the best thing that has happened since....since... umm.. Ok. It's the best thing that has happened there) :D Lourdes 03:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're not the first to note the health effects of hanging out here. EEng 17:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a novel request. (I was going to add that your talk page is itself the length of a novel, but actually it's not quite at that point yet.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictures make everything better... also did you hear? somebody got elected! To be fair you can press the handy button at the top to avoid scrolling if in a hurry. So the length of the page doesn't matter much. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, given that this is EEng's page, to be fair, I can also switch on and switch off my treadmill without standing on it if I'm in a hurry. So the time I've stood on it doesn't matter much. Prince, you seem to be intelligent. Not many like you around. Please go read quantum physics and tell me the square root of a tomato whenever you can. Lourdes 10:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The square root of a tomato is very difficult, because a tomato is squishy. It may be possible to calculate it using Hawkins quantum kinematic theories to describe the Godel relativity in macroscopic Schrödinger equations in context to electrodynamic perturbative regimes of 11-dimensional spacetime. Perhaps:

${\displaystyle Tomato{ds}^{2}=-{\frac {\rho ^{2}}{16M^{2}}}\,{dt}^{2}+d\rho ^{2}+dX_{\perp }^{2}=-\rho ^{2}\,d\tau ^{2}+d\rho ^{2}+dX_{\perp }^{2}\,,r=2M+{\frac {\rho ^{2}}{8M}}\,.}$

${\displaystyle T={\frac {\hbar c^{3}}{8\pi GMk_{\text{B}}}}\;\quad \left(\approx {\frac {1.227\times 10^{23}\;{\text{kg}}}{M}}\;{\text{K}}=6.169\times 10^{-8}\;{\text{K}}\times {\frac {M_{\odot }}{M}}\right)\,.}$

Ergo, the square root of a tomato is a variable equal to the Intelligence quotient of a rabbit. Which according to reliable sources is 42. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Pst. I have no idea what any of that means, I just copied random stuff from articles about Hawkins radiation.

• The likes of you are the reason why 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ = 1/12 :D Lourdes 13:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to talk maths, you need to get in Hannah Fry, who is probably the only person on this planet that can make Markov chains sound sexy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

She just knows how to cut cake so she gets the most and everyone is happy with it. #ChooseTheCakeLife L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Did somebody just call Hannah Fry a "tomato"? Anyway, Lourdes, please don't encourage EEng. He really needs an intervention. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh oh, did we forget to specify the colour of the tomato... Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You say "colour", and I say "color".... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I use both interchangeably, nt being either it depends on what little box I ticked last on the spellcheck. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Your apology accepted in advance [35]. EEng 00:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything contentious in Adam's edit, whereas you removed this, for example, which is widely relied upon, implying in your edit summary that you thought it belonged in the MoS instead. If you want to downgrade something from policy to guideline, it's better to check on the talk page first. People need the policies to be pretty stable. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your link shows me removing something which wasn't there until Adam added it today, and the first part of my edit summary explained why I didn't think it should be added. So your idea that I was "downgrading something from policy to guideline" is completely wrong.

My edit summary's tail, anyway, this entire section really should be eliminated after merging to MOS/Images--doesn't belong here, was simply a suggestion for what we should do in the future to consolidate formatting advice, with the implication that in the meantime, we at least shouldn't be adding mere formatting stuff to Image Use Policy, thus exacerbating the already serious problem of fragmentation of that advice all over the place. EEng 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Now that I've got that off my chest, let me say that I wouldn't be so pissy had this not been the second time in recent days you've got the wrong end of the stick. If you think any of my changes to WP:Manual of Style/Images were anything more than changes to organization and presentation -- that is, if you think any of my changes actually changed the actual advice being given in the guideline -- then please point out an example -- either something that got dropped, something that got added, or something that was substantively changed. Please note that what may at first appear to be new material e.g. the preference for upright and deprecation of px -- is in fact imported from longstanding provisions of WP:Image use policy, and obviously no discussion is needed before bringing that stuff over.

Certainly it's possible I might have inadvertently changed something substantive, but that's easily fixed and not an excuse for reverting the whole suite of changes which, I will modestly say, are a vast improvement over the prior vague, repetitive, randomly ordered presentation. Minor errors can just be fixed. EEng 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've lost track of what you're doing there and at the guideline, but you now seem to have restored something you earlier argued was new and should go. I wish you would leave things as they are. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks to all the confusion you've sown, I mistakenly reverted just the second of a pair of edits. Now fixed by BushelCandle [36].

"I wish you would leave things as they are." I wish you would take the time to figure out what's going on before butting in and getting everything mixed up -- removing nonsubstantive changes with a call to "get consensus", then reverting the removal of undiscussed substantive changes, again with a call to "get consensus". You've made an already confusing situation worse, as not just I have tried to explain to you a couple of times now. [37] EEng 10:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

please read this; and please don't restate other people's personal attacks.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You probably mean reinstate, Einstein. You're a forum-shopping crank who's been harassing an established and respected user. Go soak your head. EEng 14:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

meant restate, which you did on his talk page and again here...but reinstate too as far as the revert...your behavior is against policy and inappropriate. how long you've been "established" on here is no defense..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked. Thanks for playing our game, though. EEng 22:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Life's too short. EEng 06:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

But your talk page isn't. Now, I can't get this image out of my head: tiny Australian people herding tiny sheep. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

All called Bruce, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

		By Order of the Illuminators Puirsuivant in Waiting
		You are hereby informed that your page has been selected for complete enshrinement and grilling while wearing silly hats and maintaining a safe distance from User:Ritchie333 unless suitably attired. Please be aware that this process can take up to ten years and you should avoid making any changes to the page during this period. The serf is currently preparing the vellum (he's chasing a calf, but that's a typical Saturday night on the Levels), while the chief scribe is preparing his quills, the milliner-in-chief is measuring everyone's head, and the proof-reader in waiting is searching for his rubbers erasers. Everyone is keeping a safe distance from the tanner-in-residence. The enshrined page will include an illustration of HRH EEng, wearing a silly hat, pleasantly plucking away while Rome burns, with the fool worrying about the next BLP violation. Robevans123 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Note: "just one swallow does not a sommers make". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC) ... a typical night on the Gwent Levels

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

Your enshrinement page has been nominated for unenshrinement. The reason given is: what the fuck? You may share your opinion at the shrines for unenshrinement page, but nobody will listen. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Great. Now I'm in the middle of an enshrinement war. Anyway, I think the word is unshrinement. EEng 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean disenshrinification. HTH, HAND. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Trypto needs to be careful - he might bring down the wrath of the cabal of antidisenshrinificationists. Robevans123 (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Who, me? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Forget it. Next you'll want 2, then 3... Where will it end? EEng 04:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at that talkpage, I'm afraid the discussion will turn out less like

"Okay, we've settled on a solution for 1. Now how about 2?"

...but instead more like:

"I say it should be 1 AD."

"1 CE is more neutral."

"You atheist! Clearly, it should 1 AD, to reflect common usage!"

"I think, if we use AD, we should prefix it, while CE should always be suffixed. With a grave accent over the E.""

"How about we use (year) to end the religious issues?""

"That's not common usage!! But it's common style on Wikipedia! But it's not—it's—uh—" Editor's head explodes from the contradiction, causing mild confusion as to whether (Gregorian year) or (Julian year) would be more appropriate.

"That previous RfC simply does not show enough consensus. I will take legal action against the Year Name Cabal!!"

...until the discussion sinks to the bottom of Graham's hierarchy of disagreement and everyone agrees on the eminently sensible [insert your favorite disambiguation here].

Now, to do something useful before I clutter up this talkpage any more... Eman235/talk 16:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I know someone who may be able to contribute usefully. Paging Hertz1888. EEng 19:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that I have set up the perfect opportunity for you to respond to your curtain call to contribute humorous content to a [Signpost article]. See the draft then insert your comments after the essays that I have highlighted. Also, you have some humourouse essays that you can add to my list. Have a go and invite your talk page stalkers to join in. I consider you and your stalkers to be the connoisseurs of one-line remarks so I hope you all can help. I'll be darned if I am going to hit the preview button on your talk page and wait ten minutes to see it. See what you see in this post is what you get, mistakes and all. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 13:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I'm suddenly frantically busy for the next day or two, maybe even through the end of Thursday. Can it wait that long? Can you ping me lateThursday if you haven't heard back from me by then? EEng 20:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

ummm, you have about three weeks. I'm pretty sure I can wait. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK that it is faster to exit out of this browser window and reload a new Wikipedia browser window than to scroll up to the top? Barbara ✐  ✉ 00:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind. Go here, invite your friends and let your creative juices flow in what I have imagined might be a more comfortable eenvironment for promoting your talents. Barbara ✐  ✉ 00:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you just say EEnviroment? EEng 19:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Looking now at the questions, apparently you did.

Yes, of course I did. The title of the piece will be Eenterview. I am hoping that I can get away with this as editor interview rather than the regular humor piece that I have drafted. Barbara ✐  ✉

• Talk page stalkers! This honor belongs as much to you as it does to me. Give me a few days to take a stab at it (I'm pretty busy this week) and then I'll invite you guys and gals to jump in with comments droll or biting. EEng 19:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your donkey's years"? .... or failing that, a few dollars until the weekend....?? . Robbin' Goodfellow 123 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC) ....although, obviously, you will have to do those four GA reviews you promised me, or you'll get diddly outta me buddy....

All your talk page stalkers are welcome and will add to the piece. Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Country Fish is at your service. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Anything (except a lot of things) to save the Signpost. If I forget this please give me an informative edit summary as a drum call. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably you may want to stay away from phallic topics and potty talk. But hey, Wikipedia is not censored, after all.

• No line in the sand? ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well...I've gotten emails about how such shenanigans are beneath me, but hey, it's your reputation after all. Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think Barbara (WVS) wouldn't mind if hangers-on added to questions of their own to the "interview". Follow the link she gave. But keep it clean, boys. EEng 02:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Most definitely add the questions you would like to be asked. Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I've wprked on it a bit more Gohere. Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to the humour article are very good. Keep it going. Collaboration is a wonderful thing. Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) - please provide a link to the page where you want tps to add comments...I've seen 3 so far but don't know which one to use. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link. Sir EEng has to answer some of the questions also. The deadline is not too close and there is plenty of time to join the party. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 06:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Date request? Oh, Gerda! I thought you'd never ask!"

I wish you both the upmost happiness. As for suggestions where you both might want to go, how about a guided tour of the Widener Library, especially the section on obscure reptiles. That should pique anyone's interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie, sorry I missed it, - my (lack of) English is still in the way of upmost happiness. If you want to meet me come when I sing, - my infobox has the venues ;) - The date is with my childhood, DYK? I sang many hymns there for the first time. - Alleluia, the sad one in D major. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Worry not about your English. We will speak the universal language -- the language of LOVE! EEng 13:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

*blush* oooh, you two, you're just incorrigible, just get a room why don'cha?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Should I ask what this talk thread is about? Or maybe not? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The original context is here. Now that Cilla has gone I don't know who will review their date, though. Maybe Martin can do scores out of 10? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Just curious...should I be jealous or relieved? Only Gerda will know the true answer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Date is the 12th. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

tomorrow ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

TODAY! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

blushing: 17k+ watched ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

So this is about hookers... do you people think this is the White House or something? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Image of Stormy...talk of hookers...EEng speaking to Gerda in -- the language of LOVE! ... My oh my! Spring is in the air, so don't be surprised by the viewer spike on this TP. It has all the fixings for a box office hit. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"I believe in merkels. Where you from, you sexy thing?". Did someone mention nobbin?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

😂 So....imagine Stormy Daniels at the center of a Constitutional crisis...only in America. Most will just blow it off. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Q: What did Monica Lewinsky and Bob Dole have in common? A: They were both upset when Bill finished first. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) ... (you did mean centre, didn't you?)

The US having become revolting from the UK, no, that was "center". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, ok. Revolting it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

(Undid revision 893680232 by 75.111.203.5 (talk) you're improper grammar is not an improvement.) 😂 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Link, please? EEng 23:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Found it - WP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER (that's all I'm saying) ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I get it now. EEng 02:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am making the valiant but probably futile request that you consider archiving some of your talk page discussions from years long, long ago now that you've reached #400 (I hereby challenge TPS to find a longer user talk page!). Some of us value our digits and don't want to tire them out scrolling to the bottom of your very long talk page. At least I can say I tried. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

+1! (although, to be fair, there is a "jump to the bottom" link at the top. Still, the page takes approximately forever to load...) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Home/end keys, "jump to bottom of page" like at the top, this script and this script all fix the navigation problem for me. A bigger concern is the page load time. Eman235/talk 23:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine someone actually bothering to count them. Any chance it's actually 401? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Check the ToC up at the ToP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Touché! I don't have time to scroll all the way up there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

300 Club, 400 Club, 500 Club. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The arrow keys work for jumping to the bottom of the page for me when reading. What kills my browser is when I get an edit conflict and it tries to load two copies of the entire source code for the page into two different edit windows. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Like climbing Everest,isn;t it????  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 01:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You know I had a freind who tried to climb Mt Everest ~ I think she found a Budda monk and I haven't seen her since ~mitch~ (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Handy household top tip: opening EEng's Talk page can be used as a handy timer for a soft-boiled egg. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. alas that little candle won't last long this far down...

You know ~ after further investigation ~ and after many Nepal citizens ~ speaking in Parbatiya to me ~ I think she was carried off by a Yeti ~mitch~ (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait! Not Yeti!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Well she did leave me a cooler for my birthday ~ Austin,Tejas ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Geburtstag? Hoch soll er leben, hoch soll er leben, drei mal hoch!  Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC) ~ ~ ~ Bon ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Germany ~ but ~ you know ~~ when I was surfing north of Santa Monica Pier ~ we had an earthquake in 1987 ~ I laugh at the 6.4 ~mitch~ (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The non-local media are going nuts about this, as if it were a major disaster, but really it was out in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by hundreds of miles of desert. Maybe some rocks fell over onto other rocks. If you're going to have a big earthquake, it's a great choice of location. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Right ~ our's was just close to downtown LA ~ bridges collapsed ~ walls fell ~ I was asleep in my room {off Hollywood Blvd} ~ and thought my daughters were shaking the bed ~ much to my surprise My daughters were in Texas ~ and I noticed a crack in the roof that went all the way from the floor across the ceiling and down to floor on the other side ~ no big deal except that my apartment was right above the garage for the complex ~ the apartment managers let me move into another apartment the same day ~ great service ~ ~ ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry old friend, but I disagree with your last two posts there. He had a right to remove the second-to-last one (it being the bottom of a thread, so to speak, so that no one can misconstrue any subsequent posts--that seems like common sense to me: that was no falsification), and the charge that that's a habit, well, that's kind of rough and so categorical that it needs proof. But that proof should probably not come in a thread on a user talk page. Later, Drmies (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If you'll pardon me for weighing in here, I think the problem is that Coffee posted some dubious evidence, EEng responded to the evidence (in my view, fairly convincingly), and Coffee removed EEng's defense of himself while allowing the dubious accusation against EEng to remain. I get that Coffee is frustrated right now, but he kinda created that problem for himself by issuing a hasty block and then changing the explanation for the block after the fact. That's a little too shady. Lepricavark (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That is what happens in a back and forth and back and forth and etc. I'm sure Coffee could/would/might argue the same thing (and would not subscribe to your account of his supposed guilt). I'm not judging this way or that, just that it's Coffee's talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you. The whole situation has not been handled ideally, but the 'pedia will survive. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No, Drmies, that's not just "what happens". Lepriwhatshisname had it exactly right. Here's Coffee's evidence that I show up to every ANI/AN/talkpage you can to criticize what I'm doing (and borders on wiki-stalking), and my rebuttal dismantling that accusation: [38]. His response was to remove my rebuttal – but leave his phony accusation [39], as if I hadn't responded. We've all run into people who insist on having the last word, but at least they usually do that by adding a "last word" of their own, not by removing the last thing you said because – and there is no other conclusion to be drawn – they are at a loss to answer it. When what you just said is a defense against the last-worder's phony behavioral accusation, this is a shameful thing to do.

And it is indeed characteristic of Coffee to selectively remove posts critical of him or which he otherwise simply doesn't like: [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] and of course (as linked above) [48]. EEng 04:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll let you hash this out with Drmies while I enjoy my new nickname. Lepriwhatshisname (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Never say hash to a computer scientist. EEng 05:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll get with the programming. Lepriwhatshisname (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, that was pretty good! EEng 05:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Never say hash to a computer scientist. It's like saying "regex" to a programmer. [49] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

And talking of coffee ads.... c'mon, EEng, don't be such an old grumpy puss. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late - no hash for me, but I'll take a cup of coffee... ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, I know I've kind of made a scene about your talk page in the past (I hope this edit saves!) but today I have a bug on your user page. For me, on Win10 Chrome with vector skin, it's loading your "welcome to the museums" text box at the far left edge of the page, along with the Widener Library image and all the other Harvard-related images, and they're completely blocking off the left-side menu links. Did you mean to do that? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It's intentional, my own little sidebar. If someone desperately wants What links here or Permanent link or whatever there's a little gap in the images which allows you to get at those if you scroll a bit one way or the other. EEng 15:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

EEng Hi, can you please archive some of the old stuff here? I am having a hard time loading this page on my computer. Thanks! Mgasparin (talk) 06:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

How old should the old stuff be? I hope it's not less than 40 years. We might wind up losing some editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv I don't know, how about 1 year? Mgasparin (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Mgasparin, that's like asking for Davy Jones' Locker to suddenly float up to the surface. (... and he was in The Monkees). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if EEng could be convinced to archive everything newer than one year instead. Just for fun. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is not the first time someone has asked EEng to decrease the size of this page. @EEng: Take a hint. Mgasparin (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I have to agree. My browser often reloads this page because of a problem, usually memory consumption. Not to mention JS takes forever to execute thus locking this page down for a bit. Please move some of your old stuff.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Also agree, this is by far the longest time consuming user page on the project (that I watch, that is) please archive about 80%. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

TBH, he just did.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It really is shorter. #401 is no 384. That's progress.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It'll be more progress still after I archive all the sections asking me to archive. EEng 04:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's what I encounter a lot when going to your talk page.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This is like my boyfriend bugging me to clean out the garage. He labors under the delusion that garages are for parking cars. EEng 13:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Haha! A lurking Admin's gonna make like he sure done gotcha! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your archives are getting too long. And I figure that the more that we keep you busy archiving and unarchiving, the less trouble you'll create elsewhere on the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)^[FBDB]

As we now know - that plan didn't work. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi EEng. Before stating my question, I will quickly note that I have recently become somewhat if not totally sympathetic to your pessimistic attitude in regard to WP style matters and to effectuating any change in this regard for rational reasons. That said, I'll jump to the chuckle I just now enjoyed when I found myself desiring a "talk-page talk page", i.e. one about the MoS talk page, where I couldn't see an appropriate place to place my question that I'm therefore sending to you, in preference to sending it to an administrator who would probably either ignore me or threaten me with sanctions for having purportedly violated some nonexistent rule. But let's get to the question already. I searched for "news" (style guides) on the MoS talk page this morning, was surprised that there were no finds on the word, and finally found that the "Commas" section had been archived along with five preceding ones, but not including the first two at the top of the page, "An amusement park with a Noah's Ark theme is..." and "Numbering officeholders in infoboxes". If this was done automatically by a bot, I wondered, then why didn't it archive these two along with the others? Having presented this question, I'm now thinking that maybe it was because there were later contributions in the first two sections but not in the others, and if this is the reason then I would appreciate your confirming it. In any event don't get me wrong – I'm happy to see "Commas" go and I proposed a new thread accordingly, though admittedly with quite poor timing on that. But when will the post-intro comma be permitted to reappear? In six weeks? Six months? Six years? Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The thread was archived by the bot yesterday [50]. The general idea is that threads untouched for 14 days get archived, except that the bot won't reduce the number of threads below four. (Note that different talk pages have different criteria.)

I am not pessimistic about style matters; I simply believe the bar for adding a rule to MOS should be high. Unless you can provide diffs of numerous discussions, on numerous articles, showing editors wasting their time arguing about this point, I strongly urge you not to reopen this issue. EEng 18:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation on the automatic archiving, which confirms what I thought while providing further welcome detail.

I would think you were pessimistic about style matters because you've given the impression of having to a large extent given up on them, preferring simply to make related jokes. I don't think rules should be capriciously added to the MoS either – in particular any obligating and justifying dubious and annoying commas – and in fact what I would like at this point, as you would know if you were following the present discussion, would be the elimination of one, namely that on the geocomma/datecomma. Knowing from several things you've written that you appear to share my feelings on this, I think it might be more appropriate for you to act in concert on this rather than to present yourself as being at odds with me and to tell me to get lost. But you don't have to tell me not to start in on the post-intro comma again – I'm not suicidal.[51] Nor am I particularly interested in doing the research necessary to prove the existence of a significant number of disputes / amount of time lost on any of these disputes, though I suppose a simple search on a particular name or two at ANI might yield a sufficient quantity. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

You argue at length about very minor things. I'm not telling you to get lost, just to give MOS a rest. EEng 09:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood "take MOS off your watchlist", but in any event I'm surprised and somewhat offended by your assertion that I "argue at length about very minor things". I obviously don't consider them minor; so you, with no apparent hesitation, announce your judgment superior to mine, even when commas and such are the very stuff of the MoS, and when my comments – overlong or not (I'm not arguing about that, and I have been holding back if you haven't noticed, which you haven't) – could thus hardly be more germane. Thanks, however, for your implicit explanation for the lack of your own engagement. If you don't care about punctuation and consider it insignificant, one might wonder what you are doing at MOS.

Begoon has reverted my unintentional deletion of this comment of yours. Oddly, the same thing happened also on his talk page at about the same time last night. In both cases I'd had your talk pages on my watchlist because my preferences were set for automatic addition on edits. I've now turned this back off, but was turning "Watch this page" off for both your pages when these overrides occurred. In Begoon's case I didn't understand how it had happened and had to think about it. In your case I didn't have to think about it because I'd already figured it out for Begoon's case, but I also remembered that in fact it took so long for the change to register at your page that I actually thought – I remember now – that you might have made a change in the meantime. Which, it turns out, you did. It looks like this is a problem occasioned by your gigantic page... and you talk to me about excessive length! Another problem with this, which I suppose others may suffer as well (not having lightning-fast Harvard Internet), is that I can't jump to the top and bottom of your page with a keycode as I can with every other WP page I've encountered. But excuse me for mentioning this very minor thing. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I've been slow to realize it, but I think I've finally now gotten that I can simply click on the star at the top of a page to watch/unwatch it, rather than going through the whole editing rigamarole (unusually long in your case) for this simple change. –Roy McCoy (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't announce my judgment superior to yours, I simply offered my judgment of the situation.
• I do not have lightning-fast Harvard Internet (except when I happen to be at Harvard). The <home> key takes you to the top of any page, and there's a Jump to bottom of page link at the top of this page.
• I do care about punctuation and do not consider it insignificant. But I think MOS should take a conservative approach to how much it tries to prescribe -- see User:EEng#Museum_of_Seeing_the_Forest_Instead_of_the_Trees.

EEng 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(1) I was actually going to write "implicitly announce", but you guys keep criticizing me for wordiness and so I was trying to trim it down. My own judgment should have been assumed in any event. (2) I don't think Mac laptops have a home key, but my Opera browser has keycodes (cmd-up arrow and cmd-down arrow, and I'll type these with hyphens, thank you) for jumping to the top and bottom of pages. Sometimes these work on your page, but other times they haven't. (3) I understand your previously stated MoS attitude, but you apparently still haven't understood that I agree with you. If there's any evidence that I don't, please send me the diffs, thanks. Again, I presently want to get rid of the geo/datecomma rule, not add a different one. And if I think a rule would be in order for the post-intro comma (and don't suppose you know what this rule would be), it would be in preference to one making that comma obligatory in all cases as has been proposed. (4) I was going to invite you to visit the US-Canada Esperanto congress at Emerson College this weekend, but I see on-site registrations aren't being accepted (https://landakongreso.org/en/home/). Too bad – you would probably have gotten some laughs out of it. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussions were so convoluted that I didn't realize one were about removing vs. keeping an existing rule(s). My apologies. I'd be all for leaving the date and "geo" commas to editor discretion, but I don't think it's a hill worth dying on. EEng 04:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(1) Pat Moynihan once defended Ronald Reagan at the Kennedy School, saying something to the effect that one could always excuse a good-natured person. This seemed inappropriate at the time, when particularly nasty Reagan-administration shit was going on in Central America (and there were grimaces in the crowd), but it comes back as appropriate for you. (2) I'll dodge bullets to a certain extent, but I'm not going to completely dedicate myself to cowering either. Common usage should be defended (at least when it's not really wrong). Somebody just now wrote to me: "The key thing that's important about the MoS is don't take YOUR pet peeves and beliefs about what's right and what's wrong and make rules for OTHER people. My reply to this was: "Right on!" –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Re your last point, as it happens I have an essay on the subject (brought to perfection with the capable help of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers, of course): WP:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you. EEng 05:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanna stalk too, and I'd be delighted if you threw in something along the order of:

• "State names in city/state combinations and years in dates must have a comma at the end unless followed by other punctuation."

  (Authorities in fact disagree on this.)

–Roy McCoy (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I had been aware of this Barney Smith for years, as I monitor List of museums in Central Texas. Until today, the museum has remained a red link. The concept of it has made me laugh ever since I first became aware or it years ago. And there's been an audience for his collection. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Would this perhaps be Museum-worthy: [52]? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record: [53]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It's 5am so maybe I'm not hitting on all six cylinders, but I'm missing the joke. EEng 09:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on subsequent comments by other editors in that thread, I'm beginning to think it might be my cylinders and yours are ok. Please correct me if I'm being ignorant here, but I understand "disarmingly" to mean pretty much the same thing as "charmingly", which is quite the opposite of "alarmingly". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Now I see what you're getting at. Yes, disarming means something like charming or winning, with the connotation that you are induced to let down your guard. It's hard to know if your interlocutor was using the word in knowledge of its meaning or not. Maybe he meant that the irrelevance was charming? EEng 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The context was a very strong this page must be deleted because it's full of unacceptable BLP violations, pretty much. I can see how that could be considered an alarming situation, but for the life of me, I can't see how it could simultaneously be charming. But I guess if one has to explain a joke, then it's probably not museum-worthy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I got it and thought it was funny. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad, and a bit relieved. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)