User talk:EEng/Archive 12

Lee Harvey Oswald
I'm in awe of your copy editing, it's a real object lesson in how to take sentences that seem ok, but then transform them into something much more fluid and logical. Even though you make it seem easy, I'm sure it takes a lot of time. I think it's an amazing skill and I'm studying your changes closely to try and learn as much from them as I can. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw, shucks! (blush)  The article was (fairly) well organized, and competent at the sentence level, but too much fat -- unimportant details like Ruth Paine drove Marnina from city X to Y, then later drove her from A to B -- OK, we know Ruth was a family friend and friends do such things -- the interested reader could find out details from the refs.  Amazing how much tighter things get when you cut even small amounts of stuff like that, which then allows even whole paragraphs to collapse into a single (albeit somewhat more complex) sentence.  Again, just for the record for anyone else listening, I have no interest in getting involved in controversy over LHO and JFK -- my intent is strictly to copyedit the article as it stands, neither adding nor omitting anything substantive.  Having received no accusatory condemnations from impassioned assassination theorists of whatever stripe, I guess I've succeeded in doing that so far.  Thanks for taking the time to compliment. EEng (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reply here reminds me of one of Mark Twain's quotes: "Anybody can have ideas—the difficulty is to express them without squandering a quire of paper on an idea that ought to be reduced to one glittering paragraph." — President Lethe (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And your post reminds me of the old joke about the ambiguous letter of recommendation: "You will be lucky if you can get this man to work for you." EEng 21:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

From a new friend



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


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


 * Yeah, I get that hate-turns-to-love thing a lot, though usually it takes years. I'm assuming you've alredy seen . Shall we now, together, tell PBS to go soak his or her head? What a schoolmarm! It's like Atilla the Hun has appeared to dispense justice on my behalf. Saints preserve us! EEng (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Be more careful who you hang out with -- that Binky guy's up to no good.
 * P.P.S. Pull any more of that Yale shit and I'll have you boiled in oil.
 * okay, got it, no more Yalie stuff. --Lockley (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


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

Precious
  guarded logic

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 463rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Two years ago ..., - and did you know that several editors I know enjoy your user page inspiration, unable to decide which pair of image and caption is most to the point? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  My only aim is to serve my fellow editors and the project. I am unworthy of your praise. EEng (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Please visit User talk:Martinevans123 and help talk him down off the ledge.
 * bzzt, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Receiving your greeting is a pleasant spring ritual (and it sure beats getting nailed to a cross!). EEng 15:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Costco run
I searched and searched the aisles, and they were fresh out of troll food. So, on to other ventures.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not bake some nice Troll House cookies? EEng (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Maybe this will make sense to you. You asserted, with palpable condescension, that immigrated from and emigrated to are blunders :
 * There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject. One "immigrates to" and "emigrates from" Consult any grammarian source if in doubt.

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

You've been offered three compelling arguments for why this cannot be but so:
 * Argument logical : Under your theory this sentence is verboten--
 * He emigrated from England to America.
 * because (you say) one can't emigrate to somewhere. And the following is also a no-no--
 * He immigrated to America from England.
 * because (according to you) one can't immigrate from somewhere. So, presumably, you would have this--
 * He emigrated from England and immigrated to America.
 * inflicted on the reader, and that's ridiculous. QED.


 * Argument empirical general : As seen here examples of emigrated to are thick on the ground in the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Courts of sundry states of said United States, and the esteemed and honorable Courts Supreme (or other highest courts) of numerous other jurisdictions and sovereignties. High court justices are usually considered exemplary expositors.
 * And as if that's not enough, no less luminous a legal legend than the great Epaphroditus Peck quoted the digest of a Massachusetts court's opinion thus:
 * Refusal by an English woman, whose husband had emigrated to the United States and had obtained employment here, to follow him to this country when he reqeuested her to come and sent her money for her passage, was held to be desertion by her, it being found that she had no other reason for her refusal that reluctance to leave her native land. Franklin v. Franklin, 190 Mass. 349; 4 L.R.A. (N.S) 145. See the note to [etc etc and so on and so forth...]
 * Now, you're not really planning to climb into the ring with Epaphroditus Peck, are you?


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

The true difference between imm- and em- is a subtle one of emphasis and narrative point of view. These -- -- are all fine and all subtly different, and would be irreparably crippled if twisted to fit your Procrustean bed of linguistic over-prescription.
 * John lost his best friend when Bill emigrated to America.
 * Many of these new immigrants to America had left good friends behind.
 * Those emigrating from France found it relatively easy to obtain exit papers; those from Germany, less so.
 * American authorities scrutinized those immigrating from France less carefully than those from Germany.

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

The very model of a Modern Emigrantical
Mr. Dunkum would be right proud, not to mention Sir William Schwenck Gilbert. "Procrustean bed" indeed. I doff my specifical QED to you, dear EEng. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not everyone shares your high opinion, Mr. Jonesey (assuming you weren't being facetious). Aside from ol' CG ( above below ) we have this effusive praise: "so snobbish and pigheaded that I could only make it through three sentences until I couldn't force myself to continue." Noting, however, that it was this critic himself who wrote the bulk of my post's opening (i.e. "There is no possible level of appropriateness to debate on this subject... Consult any grammarian source if in doubt") I must complement the gentleman on his candid self-evaluation. EEng (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could not have been farther (further?) from Facetious, wherever that may be. Mesmerized was more like it. Gobsmacked. Enthralled. I smile enigmatically at you, and my eyes follow you about your chambers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My attorney will need your address for the restraining order. It would be best if you cooperate. EEng (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. Many people leaving Facetious find themselves in Synecdoche (and of course when I say Synecdoche I really mean the greater Synecdoche area).

Personal attack? You decide! [Section heading not supplied by ChrisGualtieri]
Did you really... and I mean that... need to spend all that time making such a post? Its your time, but I think some of this is a bit ironic. Glad to see you are still floating about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How much time do you think it took me? EEng (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In any event, it took about one Masterpiece Theatre episode. (This current post cost about 1/2 a Modern Family.) You like to mass-update article classes, I like to warn off stubbornly misinformed know-it-alls.


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Sorry to always be harping on the negatives instead of admiring all the good stuff you've been doing! I get the sense that you sometimes seem to be in a rush to post your changes and then having to repeatedly edit again and again to patch things up, and there's always the risk that someone will revert, edit, or start a conversation while you're still perfecting your work. Maybe it would be beneficial if you tinkered in the sandbox before posting your finished product for all to enjoy, which might make us all more inclined to praise your work rather than criticise works in progress. I digress. Keep up the good work! —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry!
Reading on my iPad and did not mean to revert you! Deepest apologies! Kafka Liz (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! Too bad I didn't get this sooner -- the unmanned killer drone has already been dispatched. EEng (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Luckily I was able to get the killer drone recalled. Sorry if it gave you a fright. I'd be interested to know what you think of the article. EEng (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Poor Lizzie died of fright, but I, Kafka Jane, can give a close reading if you wish. Overall, I'd say it looks damn good. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Cash for you

 * This beats that stupid wikilove and the kittens any day. I'm rich! EEng (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng demonstrates the "DYK reviewer somersault". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Your recent editing history at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You should know better than to behave this way. Orlady (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So should you. Honestly, can't you just let something fun and interesting, like a weird old word almost no one's seen in 200 years, live and grow? EEng (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [EC] The discussion is, as you know, occurring at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.
 * Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See my prior response. EEng (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I see the balloon's gone up over this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [At this point I'll just quote a bit of Orlady's post (above) here, adding my own bolding, since she's ludicrously determined to draw attention to her own silliness and fuss over the utterly trivial... Here goes:]
 * Your action -- introducing a word into a hook in prep that was not used in the article, is found in very few dictionaries, and was not discussed on the nomination page -- is indeed typical of the antics of some less mature Wikipedia contributors, but it is not in keeping with the established rules of DYK, except perhaps on April 1. --Orlady (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where were you when your fellow less mature editors needed support for their antics? EEng (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can all find out only too easily... tee-hee. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, something's just come up with "Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days" (using my DYK checker tool). Not sure what to do about that. Seems a real shame.Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, um, what article are you talking about? EEng (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The very lousy one, of course! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin, that DYKchecker tool is just a tool for use by humans. Humans aren't suppose to let the tool make decisions for them. Humans can -- and do, on a regular basis -- understand that articles are eligible for DYK if they were nominated within the specified time window. Eligibility doesn't automatically expire for nominations sitting on the noms page. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Martin, is your concern whether the nomination was within the idiotic 7-day limit? EEng (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. But then I'm only human, alas. And only mostly idiotic. I'm guessing that it was indeed nominated within 7 days of its passing GA (if that was what's required). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the nom is timely. As you know I never pass up any opportunity to point out that the idiotic 7-day idiotic requirement is idiotically idiotic. So can you complete the review? EEng (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All looks fine to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wow. Do you get a volume discount for the barnstars? EEng (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EEng and edit warring. Thank you. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to comment on who's right and who's wrong, I threw together User:Ritchie333/Hit and run editors today, and one point I made in it is that the typical Wikipedia reader won't be too fussed about what citation templates are used in an article. I can barely master sfn, and even then it's akin to drawing a pentagram on the floor and hope the formatting doesn't cause errors or get reverted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not content with getting a metal bar stuck in your head, you now seem to be responsible for ruining a perfectly good ancient Turkish city! Shame on you. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ANI is a cool place to hang out. Most people there find it so cool that's the only place they do hang out.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a good sense of humor, but I don't find this one funny. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


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

[Referring to caption at right] Dammit, I'm going out. I hate for my tickets to go to waste. Know anyone who can use them? To answer (Ritchie) your question re GA (not FA) delisting, see which incidentally makes some blushworthy comments. But seriously, I'd be very happy for you to comment on who's right and who's wrong. . EEng (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


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


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

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


 * BMK's thoughts page is generally brilliant - here's another one : "Start with an article that looks like shit and reads like it was written by a high-school dropout. A hundred edits later, take another look at the article – and it still looks and reads like shit. That's because the intervening edits did useful things like replace m-dashes with n-dashes, capitalized the first letters of template names, added interwiki links, vandalized and reverted the vandalism, made sure that bold text was being used as laid down in the manual of style, removed extraneous blank lines and miscellaneous other actions which did not, in any fundamental way, improve the article." <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thin-skinned admin blocks for criticism of himself!
See section immediately following -- so thin-skinned he even made this edit! EEng (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Noting that you are blocking for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill try to explain to you how ridiculous you're making yourself look:"Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate ... If the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent."


 * In other words, it stings because it's so true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is appropriate.
 * I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness. Along those lines I'd appreciate it if you'd note this block in the ANI discussion -- unless you'd prefer others not see your action side by side with the "offense" that prompted it.
 * EEng (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Will you be blocking as well? After all, he called you an "amateur"  -- that must have stung pretty bad too.  Or that mean Ritchie333, who called you "a stereotypical Wikipedian, who makes a large amount of similar changes to pages, despite having had no evidence of being previously interested in any of them" (not by name, of course, but then I didn't call you by name either -- you just seemed to know it was you that I was referring to -- funny, isn't it). Ritchie also mentioned that "One of the reasons hit and run editors have gained prominence in [the area of trivial formatting changes] is that writing the encyclopaedia has become more difficult. The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime". That must really hurt. You should definitely block  for that!


 * EEng requesting in your talk page that other people get blocked is not very nice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Magioladitis, if you actually think that what I wrote was a suggestion that or  (or, for that matter,  or ) be blocked, then words fail.  EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But I'm not sure if blocking someone is that much nicer? I certainly wouldn't condone "personal attacks", but goodness me, compared to what I've been called on occasion, this looks like a rather mild but candid observation. Could Bgwhite be regarded as "involved" in any way here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you'll be kind enough to post a mention of this block at the ANI thread. I want it in the record there before it gets archived. Bgwhite apparently prefers to work under cover of darkness. EEng (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already noted there. Yes, he may be a bit of a "rover" (allegedly). But at least he doesn't go sneaking off to the dentist for some off-wiki relaxation! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, a former member of Arbcom called this block "outrageous". EEng (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * probably does not agree with your continued snark and attacks, but I do not think changing the header to "Admin blocks for criticism of himself" is appropriate here. It does not seem to follow the talk page guidelines and I've warned you repeatedly for making gross abuses of my own text. Please stop inflaming the situation - this is getting beyond distasteful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't change words I wrote. For the record,  I had edited the ANI discussion three times and not on the thread you responded too. You were responding to John and Typto's comments. The examples you gave were John's and you took a swipe at John.  Your words were directed at all editors editing Gage. Other admins at the ANI page said you did a blockable offense. At least now you are directing your hate at me instead of Chris, John, Typto and everybody else.  Just drop it and edit Phineas Gage‎ with Chris.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: No editor contested the blocked while it was active and no unblock has been requested. Eeng remained blocked for 48 hours. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed these comments until now, and they bear responding to, just for the record. EEng (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As already explained above I was perfectly happy to have been blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite. And many more editors at ANI said I did not "do a blockable offense" (to use the words of an editor who has trouble writing English) and scolded Bgwhite for acting in clear violation of WP:INVOLVED.
 * My words were not directed at all editors editing the Gage article, but rather a small group of self-certain editors who tag-team actual content contributors to maintain their freedom to impose nonexistent "rules" reflecting nothing but their desire to feel they're doing something useful -- regardless of whether or not they actually are.
 * Magioladitis' clueless non sequiturs, showing he comprehends nothing that came before, make more obvious how blissfully insular is the mindless echo chamber of mutual cheerleading in which this group operates.
 * Well, I disagree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's almost artistic -- the way in which your spare, innocent obliviousness makes my point more eloquently than I could ever hope to make it myself. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Do you think you have to be blocked for using the expression "thin-skinned bully" or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have to be blocked -- what a weird way you have of expressing yourself -- but if a thin-skinned bully wanted to further underscore what a thin-skinned bully he is, that would be a great way for him to do it. EEng (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some style
"The Manual of Style is not yet an education-free zone." I love your style. Cheers. Jonathunder (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinion is split on that, with no middle ground -- it seems an editor can either love my style, or burn with hatred for it, with no middle ground ever. Submitted for your consideration:
 * vs.
 * -- scroll back to see how that started, and be sure to continue into the next section ("Humor... on Wikipedia?").
 * EEng (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not every teenage girl lets you read her diary! ("blush") Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The phrase in dispute was is remarkably small, which leads me hope the teenage girl wasn't someone he was dating -- though that would explain the autonomic hostility. EEng (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We shall have to call you "Lupin", I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Eleanor Elkins Widener. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bgwhite (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
EEng it's not "your" version. Any block to bots that you added was removed exactly because it served no reason as I explained you but you kept reverting me and another editor. The nobots tag on the page is only to prevent bad typo fixing by editors who won;t understand the template you put inside a word. In fact, the template inside the word is not needed since the browser takes care (or at least should care care) of this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bottom line, the template you were warring to remove was restored by another editor, after which you suddenly dropped your efforts to remove it. Whether the template has the precise same list of bots as before doesn't matter -- it lists the bots that have recently done damage to the article, which is all I was trying to maintain. (Talk page discussion might have come up with a narrower list of bots to block, if that was your concern, but you declined my repeated invitations.)
 * Please stop trying to prove who's right and go spend your time fixing the bugs in your scripts that are the cause of all this wasted effort. EEng (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, a second block by Bgwhite. What a coincidence. Do you have any idea how user:Bladesmulti learnt of your lil spat with Magioladitis in order to revert you 11 minutes after your second revert of Magioladitis? It seems like another coincidence. Did they participate in any related discussions about the article? p.s., for future reference, 3RR is a fairly strict limit; once you hit it, you need to take a break or take the matter to talk / another venue for more people to see the dispute and help one way or another, irrespective of right or wrong, unless the article is a BLP or very clear-cut vandalism. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, based on my conversation with Bladesmulti in the section just above this one it appears he walked in on the dustup with Magioladitis quite by accident (though I think it would have been better had he stayed out of the firefight, not knowing the background).
 * Of course you're right about 3RR, strictly speaking, but you'll notice that seven hours after a 15-minute edit war only Magioladitis' old pal Bgwhite saw fit to issue a (72-hour!) block over such a silly matter.
 * It's also too bad that an unblock request sits for days with no resolution either way. I'm not ashamed to be blocked by a thin-skinned bully like Bgwhite (see -- and even less ashamed to be blocked by him twice, since it shows his colors that much more clearly -- but naturally I'd prefer that the record reflect the WP:INVOLVED, punitive, and angry nature of his action.
 * For those who don't know, Magioladitis is the maintainer (or one of the maintainers) of AWB, which does a lot of good on certain types of articles (those which haven't gotten careful human attention to their formatting) but also a certain amount of bad on other articles (those which have been carefully formatted by humans, sometimes in ways outside the experience of editors like Magioladitis and Bgwhite). What seems to have upset him (or them) is that the article carried a bots template asking that AWB and certain other bots, which have made damaging "fixes" to the article in the past, spend their time elsewhere. I suspect his hacker's ego is hurt by the idea that his scripts don't have free rein to roam as they please, and his edit summaries claiming "any problems have been addressed" and "tools work after last changes I [made to?] the page" are typical of assurances heard from inexperienced programmers everywhere: "Now I'm sure my code works -- I found the last bug -- trust me!" He doesn't seem to understand that no tool is appropriate for every situation. That's only my speculation of course. EEng (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I wrote, with page's current state, no AWB bot will make any unwanted changes. And in fact the bots tags is completely useless there since the only possible problem is a typo fix bug. Since typo fixing is only made by human editors and it is known to be imperfect (for instance, in some cases, there are typos on purpose or "typos" are actually rare words) editors should get any edit before the save. AWB's typo fixing is more of suggestions and less strict rules. I never wrote that I guarantee that AWB does not have bugs and it won't make unwanted changes in future version of that page (or any other page). It is very likely that the entire problem was a misunderstanding but please assume good faith in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the block length of 72 hours based on, exactly? If this repeated re-addition was based on some kind of lack of understanding in the part of EEng, is a 72-hour block meant to be more effective in "re-educating" him than a shorter block? Surely the link provided to User:Bgwhite's edit of 22 August shows he was very clearly WP:INVOLVED? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak on behalf of Bgwhite but just note that the time period is the next bigger after the previous 48-hour block. I do not like if the discussion goes there. I think the best is to find a way to work altogether and I see EEng not helping on this direction. There was no reason to go for 5-6 reverts as there is not reason not to believe me that AWB won't affect the page negatively for the time being since I have tested it before removing the tag. If we all assume good faith and co-operate we will be more productive. Have you seen me making any large scale changes in any of the pages EEng works? No. Because EEng does a wonderful job, as fasr as I have seen, in finding sources. I respect their work but I would like to see a page in a state other editors can get involved too. Anyway, I do not want to open a completely new conversation about everything right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been feeling awful about this since it happened, and I haven't known what exactly to say until now, but I feel like there are a few things I want to say. As EEng knows, 3RR is a serious thing, and I think the final straw was that EEng made two reverts after the notice on his talk page. There was a report at WP:3RRN, and administrators pay close attention to whether or not the reverting stopped after the editor was notified. It seems to me that if Bgwhite had not made the block, some other administrator would have. (And I don't think that requests to go to talk in edit summaries of reverts make the reverts alright.) EEng, please, we need you here at Wikipedia, and you are too smart to get sucked into these edit wars. Please get a hold on the reverting, before we lose you completely. I'm really worried, and I really mean that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well No, Magioladitis, I must admit that I haven't really been monitoring your interactions with EEng. And I only really commented as it's been quite a while since he requested, along what appear to be very sensible lines, a review of his block. Perhaps he'll get a review after about 71 and a half hours have elapsed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the list of requests for block review, and there's a backlog, with 31 such open requests right now, so I doubt that there is a personal snub here. But I have an idea. EEng, just in case you want something to do while restricted to this talk page, how about archiving old threads? Otherwise, you might be going for the world record for the longest user talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I just left a note at WP:AN about the backlog, so maybe that will get some attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

pinged me.
 * Yes, I've blocked EEng before. That doesn't mean I cannot block him again.  I'm not aware of any interaction I've had with him since 7th September.  That was to complain that EEng is changing my messages on his talkpage, which he has since changed again (so, warning, EEng has done and may edit by messages here). The interaction before that was August 30th.  I believe EEng has a fixation on me, but not the other way around.
 * I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war. They also made me aware of this thread at WP:AN3.  So, if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have.
 * I've blocked three people (including EEng) in the past week for 3RR, two 72-hour blocks and a 24-hour block.
 * a) The other two were on the same article.  One person was recently blocked for edit warring, thus I did a 72-hour block.  The other person had a clean slate, thus a 24-hour block.
 * b) I did 72-hours for EEng because: He was recently blocked, he reverted 5 times, he reverted three different people, his was disparaging in his edit summaries ("your vague assurances are worthless") and he disregarded the instructions at nobots on how to apply the template.   Remove half of these and it would still warrant 72-hour block.  From WP:EW, "Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility and previous blocks."


 * Unlike what EEng said in his block appeal, the article is not currently at "his" version. This is his last version.  This is the current version.  They are different.
 * EEng did ask the question to be raised on the talk page. However, EEng never did raise it on the talk page.  On his 5th revert, he did ask this to be discussed again.  After the 3rd revert, one doesn't continue to revert, they should ask the question on the talk page.  EEng wasn't following what he asked of others.
 * Bgwhite (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You said: "I was contacted by two people about EEng's edit war." I don't see those contacts on your user talk page. Can you tell us anything about those contacts? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , both were by email. Both were sent while I was asleep.  I do believe they were sent so I would block EEng.  Who/What/Why is not relevant.  Admins get notices all the time about somebody's alleged bad behavior.  I've been sent emails and notifications multiple times the past month about EEng and not acted on it.  This time, he clearly broke the rules, which is why I intervened.  If EEng didn't break the rules, we wouldn't be here and that is the only thing to consider.  Bgwhite (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the reply. I agree that it doesn't matter who the people were, and I have no doubt about admins getting lots of e-mails. But I think that I can safely infer that the two persons weren't merely spamming every admin they could think of. They likely contacted you because you were the blocking admin the previous time. In no way do I think that this fact affects the validity of the block, so please don't think that I am implying that. However, it does speak to how you are becoming perceived as the admin who is receptive to blocking EEng. For that reason, I recommend that you consider yourself to be "involved" in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the idea behind WP:INVOLVED was that the blocking admin was, or had been, in dispute with the blocked editor in the same article? Saying "if I didn't make a block, someone else reading AN3 would have" looks a bit like saying "WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply if I can save another adnin diong the same job."? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that PhilKnight's reasoning is correct. Although I've said what I said above to Bgwhite, I think that the two existing blocks walked right up to the line of INVOLVED, without actually crossing over that line. Bgwhite never edited the Widener biography page where the reverts took place. In most of the conflicts between EEng and Bgwhite, Bgwhite has been acting in an administrative role rather than as a disagreeing editor, although, just as EEng has, frankly, taunted Bgwhite, Bgwhite needs to start considering, going forward, that he is starting to be perceived as having an involved or prejudiced role. And I wish EEng would drop the review requests, because it would be asking a lot of any administrator reviewing the AN3 report to assume that, had EEng been reverted again, EEng would not have continued to revert, given what had already happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request was declined per WP:UNINVOLVED which reads "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Was it? Perhaps the decline rationale should have mentioned WP:UNINVOLVED in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't accept that WP:INVOLVED is a good enough reason to unblock. At most, if I accepted the involved rationale, I would take over the block myself. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A fair comment. Thanks for clarifying that your decline was not "per WP:UNINVOLVED". But I think you should give a clear answer about it, one way or the other. If you think the block is still valid, that's fair enough. But at least we will all have clarity on when it is appropriate to block and when it is not. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with John Vandenberg's comment about going over 3RR - there are very few circumstances when that's acceptable, and this certainly wasn't one of them. In this context, I think the block is valid. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was asking for clarity about "WP:UNINVOLVED vs WP:INVOLVED". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Tryptofish's comment about the block being just on the right side of the line of WP:INVOLVED is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved? You must be joking
This is all quite academic at this point, but still enlightening. Magioladitis, you don't seem to have looked at the diff I supplied re INVOLVED -- a discussion in which I asked (not of Bgwhite):
 * What purpose is served by activating it? Please answer in terms of how articles are improved by highlighting, not in terms of the mechanisms of operation of these tools. EEng (talk) 11:33 am, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)

and Bgwhite jumped in out of nowhere to reply
 * We've been thru this before. You do not like anything about Checkwiki.  You've told us to fuck off.  You've called us MOS Nazis.  We show where in MOS, but you've used MOS is just a guideline/policy and IAR.  The funny thing is, one of the reasons Phineas Gage is not a GA is because of your idiosyncratic formatting.  The very thing we've been preaching is one of things holding back your GA nomination.  Eleanor Elkins Widener is already on the whitelist and won't be checked for   again.  Bgwhite (talk) 1:35 pm, 22 August 2014, Friday (1 month, 16 days ago) (UTC-4)

(All false statements on Bgwhite's part, BTW, other than that I did refer to certain editors as "MOS Nazis", for which I later substituted "schoolmarmish know-it-alls" or something like that.) Now, does that really comport with UNINVOLVED's criterion, which reads
 * One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias,

--? Hardly. Bgwhite lost his temper, repeatedly, and still allowed himself to act on his anger in an administrator's capacity. EEng (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well then, I will step in here like a schoolmarmish know-it-all, and say that I stand by what I said earlier, that the block stepped up to the line of "involved" without quite crossing over it, and that Bgwhite should consider himself involved for the future. And beyond doubt, EEng has acted on his own anger as well. Which isn't worth it. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? An admin who says to an editor "You do not like anything about [this administrator's pet project]. You've told us to fuck off. You've called us MOS Nazis" is an "administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias"? Again, you must be joking. EEng (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You and I both have better things to do than to dwell on this, but when you have called other editors MOS Nazis, even if it is later changed to something else, you should drop it for your own sake. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The greater the extent to which one considers what I said offensive (I actually don't, per Mel Brooks) the more obvious is the INVOLVED aspect. EEng (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, EEng, just imagine it's Springtime!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that Mel Brooks was joking. Life is too short to stay angry. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, so if Mel Brooks says it, then it's OK. Tryptocrite! EEng (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Can I be blocked for calling someone a Tryptocrite?
 * Well, it's better than calling me Typofish. Early in my editing career, I had a troll who insisted on calling me that. The troll is gone, and I'm still here, and it's always better to keep one's editing on the happy side. I knew Mel Brooks, and editor, you're no Mel Brooks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm your biggest fan. And I'm just a hopeless punny fish. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NPA
Please don't make a personal attack in an edit summary as you did at Wikipedia:Did you know]. Dispute resolution is made that much more difficult. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. If he can't take it he shouldn't be dishing it out . This guy's always angry. There's no dispute here, just his venting, so there's no dispute resolution to be made more difficult. EEng (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It'd be best if you started a thread at the DYK talk page rather than conduct this petty feud via edit summaries. But you both already knew that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You having the most experience in the petty feud quarter, of course. Actaully, I was going to ask you to take over for me, since you and Bloom are always entertaining to watch. EEng (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bravo. I've turned over a new leaf, i.e. not arguing the toss with those who will never get it, plenty of them around.  But the initial advice stands, start a thread rather than attempt a puerile debate via edit summaries.  That way we'll get it all out in the open and neither of you will need to feel anxious or upset.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had noticed you were less of a curmudgeon lately. Keep up the good work. There's nothing to debate, as BMS has made the needed fix, Bloom's incomprehension notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had also noticed, in that same period, that you had taken up the role of being the local asshat;) Keep up the good work!  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yours are big shoes to fill, but I'm doing my best. It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it. EEng (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, now archive your talk page. It's as bloated as most of the chat at the Reference Desk or the DYK talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Love me, love my bloated talk page. EEng (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Aquarius! and my name is EEng!" .... "bloat, bloat on"..... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's Aquarius, you numbskull, not Aquaria! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


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

November 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * It's more convincing when the person warning about "edit warring" isn't one of those doing the reverting. You're obviously angry about other things. EEng (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What a load of bollocks. Don't feed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "I didn't get where I am today by telling people they might get blocked from editing!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

November 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See ] for what all this is about. As with earlier incidents recently (I seem to be making a habit of this ]) I'm pleased and gratified to be blocked at the behest of someone so transparently angry . Hopefully this will allow him to cool down. EEng (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * EEng, the best thing I can think of is that a very long time ago, an unruly landlord took exception to the music the band I was in were playing, and at the end of the gig told us to not come back while turning a blind eye to a couple of drunks hurling our equipment out into the street, nearly causing injury due to a bass drum flying through the air. When 3RR wars break out, think of tales like that and remind yourself "it could be worse". Happy holidays. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Either that, or try and get your own drunken bass-drum hurling in first. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC) grrrr, a measly 24 hours! ... doesn't even give us enough time do undo all your dodgey Huck Phinn edits.
 * But whatever you do, please please don't kick the cat. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Although you can get therapy if you do. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I continue to be astonished that this page seems worth watching to so many people. EEng (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion
I suggest you revert this edit. The comment is off-topic there and makes you look petty. I don't think it contributes to a good working climate, either between the two of you, or in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the suggestion, but decline. I'm not embarrassed to be blocked at the behest of someone like that, but I prefer that the context be on the record. EEng (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pearls before swine
Too true. Oh well, there's lots of other hooks in the sea. Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said somewhere else, it just goes to show that hookers aren't appreciated, despite providing a much-in-demand service. EEng (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just deserts? Yoninah (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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


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


 * I'm not sure that referring to EEng's edits as crap is going to get the necessary result. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How prescient of you (see below). In the event, it apparently didn't. So what do you think -- should I file the ritual futile unblock request? EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
 * -- Block performed by the semi-retired drop-in admin civility enforcer.

ked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'll specify just why you blocked me, I'll consult my glittering salon of talkpage stalkers for advice on whether I should file the ritual futile appeal. EEng (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you didn't get a perm, dearie. Martine's Mobile Hair Vans123 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

, - I've just had a GA review torpedoed as a result of EEng's block, I don't suppose you've be awfully kind like you were to the Best Known For IP and consider "time served" would you? EEng, I think you've made your point in the AfD (as have I) and we should both leave it alone. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * EEng, I'm saying this as one friend to another - leave ANI alone. Rubbing up the wrong way is likely to result in a block, possibly an indefinite one. Now, don't take that as meaning I support or want you to be blocked - I don't! But the peanut gallery at ANI generally don't tend to evaluate the pros and cons of an editor, and once you've been dragged there a few times and blocked, it's easy for said peanut gallery to think "he's not here to write an encyclopedia" and break out the banhammers. Please, just stick to articles and DYKs - whatever other disagreements we've had recently I can honestly say your work at DYK is a good thing and very much appreciated for keeping the quality of the main page upheld. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I doubt that anyone is going to blocked for rubbing me the wrong way, and I'm not going to block for it. And Ritchie, it wasn't just the peanut gallery, if that's what those folks were: ANI, as I feel I have to explain constantly, is not a forum--and so, EEng, it doesn't matter whether something takes three hours or not. It's consensus plus an admin's judgment, and in this case the admin is me. Few people dislike the forumy peanuty chatter at ANI more than I do--but I hope that there's at least one person in the room who understands that the constant reopening of threads and the persistent shit-smearing in that discussion is, in general and in the long run, what makes ANI the barrel o' crap it is. So, EEng, you made a comment, I (and a couple of others) thought it violated guidelines for talk page behavior, I removed it--and really that's all there is to it. I got no problem with you, and you can complain as much as you like as long as it's not too disruptive. Also, I don't work for Harvard either--does that help? Drmies (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What, I should just sit around while ol' BGwhite just makes up stuff up (e.g. that I work for Harvard)? I understand what you're saying, but I feel the best thing you can do (for me, for you, and for WP) is to speak up yourself and say what you think. These people are out of control.
 * Thanks for the complements re DYK. I'm not mad at you re GA, but I do think you misunderstand what the standard is meant to be there, along with most everyone else at GA, which is why it seems few quality editors care about GA status for articles anymore -- articles get GA status for conforming to very cramped ideas of what articles should look (not stated in the GACR, though) with little regard for whether they're anything anyone would actually care to read. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please accept this charming complimentary box of peanuts, kindly donated by this season's gallery sponsor. Enjoy! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your contribution to the day's events is of course most welcome. As mentioned to Ritchie above, though, speaking up at the venue is important too almost as important. At heart this intolerance of criticism is a serious threat to the project. EEng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "I had one of them poleminks once, but it died." PineMartin123 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Even so, I would say this : although you generally have free reign to run your talk page as you see fit, you don't WP:OWN it. Not everyone appreciates my sense of humour either, but arguing about it isn't a particularly productive use of your time. In this instance an admin has implemented consensus from ANI to not include something on your user page and while you didn't directly revert, you have effectively stuck two fingers up at it. I think we'll draw a line under this conversation now and hope it goes away, because all it takes is one cheesed off admin to look at it and you'll be in trouble. Let's hope Martin can fatally wound the dispute with some sarcasm before we can finally kill it off with irony. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did someone mention star chasms? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I dare you to change the lead to "Another Brick in the Wall comprises of three songs". I double dare you. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ouch!. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could get me one of those shirts at discount rate, EEng? I was thinking of getting involved at ANI. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC) <"chortle">
 * This sounds suspiciously like a bribe. I am incorruptible. EEng (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Drive by thank you....
...your User Page is quite entertaining! Thank you for the invite. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme ☯  Consult Agent 99  14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please drop by frequently for more Tales from the Wikicrypt! EEng (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * <---I have graduated. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Agree, great comments... Hafspajen (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

A barnstar!
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
 * rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" |


 * rowspan="2" |
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | The Barnstar of Good Humor
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your medicine against chronic wikidespair.
 * style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your medicine against chronic wikidespair.

? Is there something fancy hiding there? Let's see beet those. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good observation, Dr. Crazy; I expected nothing less of someone of your caliber. The answer is: No, there's no   as of now, but it gives me the flexibility to send the click somewhere special, should I desire that in the future.  E  Eng  02:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * * shocked and awed silence* 'Nuff said but you forgot to code properly. Had to change the  because it was a tad /small. I so want to anchor it to THE Dramaboard of Wiki but who would know if I'd end up blocked, boomeranged or site-banned? Now, I do think I said I was eccentric, not demented in my collection of useless factoids but you're welcome to check. I bow before the Master of Easter. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh Wile E., you're such a Genius! (Also -- are you insulting yourself?) Eman 235 / talk  03:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Per the ArbCom motion, suggestions Hewitt makes on talk pages should be "brief", and Hewitt was reminded that he is still restricted from self-promotional editing per the original ArbCom case. The posted references do not contribute to the argument and are self-promotional. Do not act as the enabler of Hewitt. If you restore the material I removed again, you will be restricted from doing so. —Ruud 19:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , please lay off the threats against another experienced, good-faith editor i.e. me. What the restriction says is
 * The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP (Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
 * Hewitt's original post was indeed brief and even if you think it wasn't, that doesn't excuse what you're doing. If you want to mark it "edit request declined" that's fine; or if removal of his complete post is justified, that's fine; or if you think he's violating his restrictions then take that to the appropriate venue. But you should not be materially altering another's post  in a way that misleads others as to its content (in this case, making it look like he posted proposed text without sources -- inappropriate though those sources seem to be).


 * I think Hewitt's a crackpot, but that doesn't excuse your heavyhanded actions at the article talk, or your highhanded attitude here, and I expect a response per WP:ADMINACCT., if I'm missing something in all this please enlighten me.  E  Eng  20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hewitt may or may not be a crackpot but he's also a sockpuppeteer, heavy self-promoter, and problem for the project. Hence his ban. If left to do what he wants he will filibuster the Gödel talk page into unusability; see the "arguments" links in the archive navbox of the talk page. So in this case, I do think it's reasonable to remove the comments (or move them to arguments). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, removing Hewitt's post might be fine, but check the third link in my OP -- what was done was to silently modify his post very substantially, and that seems inadmissible under any circumstances -- wouldn't you agree?  E Eng  20:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You fail to see the tactic Hewitt is employing here: he posts a semi-legitimate point for discussion and then uses this as a coatrack for self-promotion, disrupting the talk page in the process. If the post is removed completely, he will claim that he is being "censored" and revert back to sockpuppeteering, causing more disruption to the talk page. Those references are tangential to the argument, and removing them thus do not "substantially alter" his argument. If he notices his self-promotionalism is not allowed to stand, he may eventually give up on this, without being able claim he was mistreated. Do not allow yourself to be played as pawn in Hewitt's game. —Ruud 21:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wasn't asking if you agree, I was asking, whose comments so far support simple removal of Hewitt's post, or moving them elsewhere -- but not altering them. Inclined as Hewitt is already to claim he's being mistreated, you're giving him more ammunition by altering his post to remove the sources he'd included. I see nothing anywhere justifying such modification. Everyone can see the sources are self-promotional, so why don't you just let his post speak for itself (possibly assisted by a comment you add)?


 * I still haven't heard anything from you about your dickish threat against me. Admins who throw their weight around are a real hot button for me.  E Eng  22:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If that material is left to stand, it would incentivize Hewitt to post more of such material in the future. If the material is removed, it might discourage Hewitt from posting such material in the future. The latter would minimize the disruption of the talk page.
 * I consider the removal of this material arbitration enforcement. I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so. If you disagree with my interpretation of the restrictions placed upon Hewitt, I suggest you take your issues to the ArbCom here. —Ruud 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)



Again with the threats ("I will use my administrative tools to make sure this material stays removed, if necessary. I prefer not letting it come this, and am required to warn you before I would do so") instead of engaging what I've said. I guess I can add one to the count of highhanded dick admins who resort to threats as a substitute for engaging what another has said.

Just as I predicted, your altering of Hewitt's post has given him one more thing to complain about. While he'd complain no matter what, this way a bystander (unable to see what the refs were) might mistakenly believe the refs were appropriate, and sympathize with Hewitt. Great work, Mr. Admin.  E Eng  14:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So I guess it's official:
 *  E Eng  03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 *  E Eng  03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Gawker FYI
FYI: Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My mother is so proud.  E Eng  17:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * WPO watch out! Now Gawker sez all your internets are mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, Tfish, I have no idea what any of that meant.  E Eng  05:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn't one of my better efforts. WPO: where they also wikigroan. I was trying to say that they now have Gawker as competition. As for the latter part, woopsy, I was misremembering this. I hope that my errors didn't dampen your moo. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Gahh now the world expects Wikipedians to walk around quoting Cato. Thanks. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My favorite bit is "Wikipedia’s principled editor’s are in no moo."  E Eng  05:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC) I'm (ahem) principled, so watch it with the comments, insects!
 * Congrats from this insect on the fact that you actually archived something from your talk page! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Words that Bug Me"
It's from the Greek entomon, meaning "insect"! Eman  235 / talk  02:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have always been one of my favorite stalkers.  E Eng  20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tonight on "Things That Sound Really Strange When Taken Out Of Context"... Eman  235 / talk  00:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You may recall that Jeffrey Dahmer was killed during a fight in prison. So... What did Jeffrey Dahmer say just before the big fight in prison where he got killed?

"Aah -- I used to eat guys like you for breakfast!"


 * Reminds me of Hannibal Lecter: "I'm having an old friend for dinner." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Duh! Why not just get one of your sock puppets to do this for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? How 'bout if I have one of my sockpuppets give you a punch in the schnozzola?  E Eng  00:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, now looky here Buddy, my socks are darn tough, okay?? So just take a hike, why don'tcha?! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, another high-handed member of the "admin 3%" drops in to deliver an arrogant lecture on his backward understanding of how things are supposed to work, leavened by ominous threats. See .  E Eng  14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten

 * Original section heading by OP: "Conduct Concerns"

Recently I've noticed that a number of your comments this month have not met the expectations outlined in our civility and no personal attacks policies. Examples include referring to a user as a "prick" and "completely tonedeaf" multiple times, using images and captions to insult other users (1, 2), making personal attacks towards others, and general incivility on a policy discussion page. (e.g. "The last time [you] had to deal with [me]"? Was there another time you gave a high-handed lecture showing you have a backwards understanding of how things are supposed to be done? You don't "have" to deal with me, and as NE Ent so effectively explains below, you're arguing in support of those who have kne-jerk reverted in violation of PGBOLD, so perhaps you should leave the refereeing of minor squabbles over nonsubstantive changes to those with a better understanding of guidelines, policy, and just-plain-how-things-are-done.") Such comments are not appropriate and don't contribute to a constructive editing environment. Please stop with this behavior or your account may be blocked. Best, <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear for bystanders, all those links relate to my criticism of the bullshit behavior of admin Bbb23, who (surprise!) canvassed you to come to his aid. Thanks, but I don't need any lectures on appropriate behavior. Bbb23's kneejerk reversion (without substantive comment) of multiple other editors' contributions, and subsequent refusal to participate in discussion, doesn't contribute to a constructive editing environment either, and it's healthy for someone to point that out; if Bbb23 doesn't like it, he should cut out that kind of behavior. I'm sure he's an effective checkuser and vandal fighter, and in the capacity I'm sure he has your respect, but out in the wide world of real editing (where one deals with actual other editors, not SPAs and vandals needing mass reversion ) his knowledge and behavior leave much to be desired. When an admin behaves as he has—‌papering over his own bad behavior with even more bad behavior, including high-handed block threats—‌most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat. Quoting myself  :
 * And let me be clear: I have no problem with 97% of admins, who do noble work in return for (generally) either no recognition or shitloads of grief, only occasionally punctuated by thanks. But the other 3%—​​whoa, boy, watch out!
 * In summary, I stand by my comments.  E  Eng  18:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The comment you left above is a continuation of the behavior that I've asked you to stop. I have blocked your account for 3 days. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 19:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow -- just this morning I was groping for an example of unintentional self-parody, and here you've served one up on a silver platter. If you were shocked that I didn't bow and scrape in your presence, then you must have missed this userbox at the top of User:EEng:


 * Welcome to the 3%! Further to the quote I gave earlier (above), here's more :
 * When users do something that administrators don't like, but when the users not only disagree but have the temerity to object to the sanctions levied against them by administrators, is this an unacceptable dissent against the powers-that-be that must, always, be quashed by any means necessary?
 * We say "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "The benevolent dictatorship encyclopedia that docile and compliant rule-followers can edit as long as they remember their place and are always properly respectful towards ADMINISTRATORS." So, please, if that's not the message you want to send, just let these userboxes go. And if you want to boot a user off the project for not being here to help build the encyclopedia, please do it for a more substantive reason than that the user refuses to say "Uncle" when confronted by admins. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  E Eng  20:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You blocked for a personal attack or harassment. Where is the personal attack? Saying behavior is bad is not the same thing as saying someone is bad. You should unblock.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Criticism and commentary is fine, however it must be undertaken in a constructive manner. Mischaracterizing my comments by changing the header title to "Another admin drops in to lecture and threaten", claiming Bbb23 was acting with a "bullshit behavior", improperly suggesting that Bbb23 was canvassing me to engage in the conversation despite not engaging in the conversation, and using uncivil language, such as "lectures on appropriate behavior", "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion", and "high-handed block threats—‌most editors just knuckle under, but someone needs to bell the cat" is poor conduct towards other editors and is not permitted. EEng was warned that this behavior was not appropriate, but still continued. I don't feel the block should be lifted. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of us here at Wikipedia have gotten used to EEng's rather acerbic and, shall we say, direct style, and like him for it, and while I'm kind of nodding my head here, I continue to think EEng is a valuable addition to the Wikipedia community, who may be in need of lessons in ettiquete?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy Jesus. If "Bbb23's kneejerk reversion" is now part of a block rationale, block us all.  What a shite block, a complete kneejerk reaction, utterly bogus, high-handed admin behaviour that needs to be called out, it's utter nonsense.  And that, folks, is just the opening sentence of my memoirs of reading utter tripe on Wikipedia.  Hardback due out just in time for Christmas.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked
User:Mike V, after your warning ("conduct concerns") on this page, EEng posted this in response. He also made a few innocuous edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, but I'm sure your block had nothing to do with those. You blocked for his response to your warning, and I don't think that was reasonable. The response wasn't very polite, indeed. It didn't defer to you as admin. The worst of it was that he changed your header, which is certainly inappropriate. But was it a disruptive edit, enough reason to block? No. Mainly it was an explanation of his criticisms of Bbb23. It didn't contain any personal attacks against Bbb23 or anybody else AFAICS. I've unblocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Well thanks, -- not because I care a whit about an enforced break per se, or about my block log (I got over that long ago), but because it's nice to know that there are at least some admins who will stand up to the 3% who think that being an admin entitles one to imperiousy demand that the rest of us show deference to their superior status, and cower and beg for mercy at their whim, whether what they're saying conforms to policy and guidelines or not.  E  Eng  01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Telegrams from near and far

 * Dammit, I was logged out during all the fun! I'd like to propose two actions. First, I think EEng should be blocked again because when I clicked that link he gave to Bbb23's user contributions, it made my Firefox hang up, and we certainly cannot have that. Secondly, I propose that we tattoo across any available portion of EEng's anatomy. In one fish's opinion, both Bbb23 and Mike V are, on the whole, excellent administrators and very helpful members of the community. What happened here, however, was what seems to happen all too frequently on Wikipedia: people getting pissed off over stuff that would seem unimportant after a good night's sleep. Ironically, Mike V's initial warning was good advice. Ironically too, EEng is cognitively incapable of following that kind of advice (something to do with brain damage at Harvard), and believe me, I've tried many times to no avail. Unfortunately, when Mike V observed EEng's response, he overreacted. Bish, as always, and I do mean always, got it right. EEng was disrespectful but not disruptive. Group hug. Now where is that tattoo needle? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well how about re-imposing a block for having a too long talk page? Is that a blockable offense? Surely there should be some fingerwagging!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. That also does bad things to my browser performance. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, tripping up Tryptofish's browser => BAD, EEng, bad bad bad, you should be tattooed bigtime for such horrors. (Me, too, for extending an already too-long talk page)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * About an hour ago I figured that, while blocked, I might as well spend some time doing what some of you desire so much, which is to trim this page. Unfortunately, a few trims into the project I realized that silly ol' Bishonen had unblocked me, so if it's still too long complain to her.  E Eng  01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or block this EEng joker for being more of a truth-to-power curmudgeon than me. Horning in on my territory? This will not do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, this talk page reminds me of a long beard:
 * 1) It makes the owner look moſte wise.
 * 2) The longer it gets, the more tangles you can see
 * 3) It is a great inconvenience.
 * Eman 235 / talk  04:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh no you got blocked again...
Well, what else is new. My two cents is that EEng is a valuable addition to Wikipedia, if a bit difficult at times, although I've sometimes considered that maybe he should be blocked for having a too long talk page. Just kidding. Just saying' hello, EEng, hope you'll be back soon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you know ...
 * ... that 3% "is an upcoming Brazilian thriller series?" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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

Trout love

 * The love goes right back atcha, . I like your close—‌"with a reminder that editors – admin or not – should refrain from causing unnecessary antagonism in discussions, and from placing disproportionate emphasis on following processes"—‌with the understanding that the antagonism (mine, at least) was a direct result of that disproportionate emphasis on process over substance. Not sure you realize it, but I got blocked by one of those high-handed process-fixated admins over this—‌see . And proud I am of it, too.  E Eng  17:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC) P.S. have you visited The Museums lately?
 * No, I wasn't aware of your very short recent block until reading your reply above. It simply adds to the farce of the whole fiasco... Deryck C. 21:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

serving notice
I am sending you a bill for a new keyboard and my ENT's treatment of the coffee burns on the insides of my nostrils. "Traditionally served with iceberg lettuce". What is the matter with you? -- stunned museum visitor (still reeling)
 * We're all assuming that's a rhetorical question. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the bar through the brain . Anyway, you were warned it was tasteless. The great thing about Harvard topics is there are always people wandering about saying droll things:
 * Widener Library
 * Eleanor Elkins Widener
 * John Harvard (statue)
 * Lionel de Jersey Harvard
 * Sacred Cod
 * History_and_traditions_of_Harvard_commencements
 * None of you write back for the next four days, please -- I have to get this talk ready.  E Eng  14:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

At least it's not another "Barnstar of Good Humor"...

 * It's even the same size as Trump's hands! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about User:EEng, don't you mean "Trump's ego"? If you mean the little star at the left of the box there, don't you mean "Trump's genitals"?  E Eng  00:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Colonel Wilhelm Klink, I stole some of your images,
 * You know, I was about to say "the same size as his hands", but then I thought "his" might be mistaken for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was trying to keep it clean... I guess I don't have the political skills of Lyin' Ted or Little Marky. And I'm flattered you stole "my" images; whatever contributes to the cause of comedy. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 00:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

In other news...
I am the only one here to receive an email (via "Email this user") from reading something like --
 * Dear Mr Eeng,


 * Just came across our "eeng" article what was recently updated by User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink. Not sure if it's owt to do with you but sounds a bit like a HOECS to me! Don't forget, online pedophiles can actually make your keyboard release toxic vapors that make you suggestible ... [youtube link redacted]


 * This email was sent by user "Hillbillyholiday" on the English Wikipedia to user "EEng". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

--?  E Eng  04:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly you smell like hammers. --Hillbillyholiday talk 05:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one. But please, no more such emails. I almost reported you at ANI as a compromised account.  E Eng  05:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I am humor-impaired (hangs head in shame). I had to google it. Yuck. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll respond to this now; I saw it here yesterday, and I still don't understand it. I get the whole "Klink is a stalker" thing, but the rest is just a bit too far out there for me, and, given the nature of this conversation ("online pedophiles", "compromised account", "yuck"), it can't be pleasant. Ignorance is bliss, right? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 15:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what all this is. I think you got dragged into it only because you happened to be near the top of the page's edit history. I hope this won't cause you to drop your membership in my glittering salon of talk page stalkers.  E Eng  16:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think my nagging wit would let me leave even if I wanted to. And my apologies for any misunderstandings over the edit... I came across the page while attempting to come here, and stub sorted it. (And if you believe that...) Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 17:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think any of it had anything to do with the good Colonel. And when the proprietor said "Oh, Lord, I walked right into that one", I took it to mean that it was a joke that EEng understood and I didn't. So I did some searching online, and the sentences in question come from an episode of some British comedy TV show. (I have no idea why any of it is considered funny. I suppose that it just means that the sun has set on the British Empire. At least it made me feel slightly better about TV in the US.) The episode was very controversial, because it centered on jokes about pedophilia. And that is why I said "yuck". (At least I am happy to see from the image here that a certain political candidate is reading about it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I only understood in the sense that by that point I'd realized ME123 was involved, which explains anything.  E Eng  01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha! Then you are so much more perceptive than is WMF's software for identifying IP addresses. Good for you! OK, so here is what is going on. The entire population of Wales (the nation of Welchers, not the co-founder of that website) has been viewing your talk page, and thus, the large spike in viewings. These people have four national characteristics: a tendency to cough up hairballs when they speak, hillbilly-like tendencies, inexplicable sense of humor (and it's not worth bothering to try), and warm feet. That explains everything (although I admit that my explanation requires explanation). In any case, the good Colonel has nothing to be worried about. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "OMFG"!! (as they say in Ystradgynlais) Don't think you'll escape unscathed after THAT outrageous contribution, fishio!! "I am a sock, not a number!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) "Welchers"?! bliss out, dude!
 * In his edit summary, our hillbilly friend calls me a "butty boy". So, after posting about pedophilia, he calls me a "boy" and refers to my posterior. Wow! Don't they have farm animals in Wales? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DYK's finest (... as if you didn't know). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC) *seething*
 * That's unusual... I had always considered Wales to be one of the more grounded countries. Perhaps being so close to England is finally taking its toll. And, oddly enough, I received a pamphlet in the mail today urging me to -- get this -- "save the whales." (!) Have I done anything to piss off British conservationists? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC) That was never here. Please excuse my ignorance. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 22:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * undefined --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * [slams head on desk] Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 21:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

September 2016
Hello, I'm RexxS. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you're not interested in discussion, then please keep your ad homiems to yourself RexxS (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Saying "RexxS is simply behind the times -- see note at..." and linking to a recent (July 2016) guideline change which you apparently missed  isn't a personal attack. You're being ridiculous. (And we'll leave it to others here to judge whether, in this context, saying "You're being ridiculous" is a personal attack.)  E  Eng  21:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by admin once more gets the wrong end of the stick, and drops by to threaten and lecture

 * Original section heading: "Last Warning on Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions"

Reminder User talk:EEng/Archive_2

user:Jayaguru-Shishya sent me an email about this pair of edits 1 2, which was a follow up to a post JS made to my page on, See User talk:PBS.

I agree with the substance of user:Jayaguru-Shishya accusations.

If you breach WP:TALK again and I am notified, I will take administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you breach basic grammar and punctuation rules, I will take adverse action. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear,, you're talking not to me but to PBS, right?  E Eng  21:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously. The guy can't even get the grammar right when giving you a warning about MOS sanctions.  It's either irony or a paradox or something that I haven't thought of yet.  In any case, I've unsuitably indented my reply a la EEng, just to ensure you know I'm replying at you innit an' not dat uvver fella.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect that should be à l' EEng, but of course I would not wish to quibble... --Mirokado (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Shame on you. You should know that over-indenting like that is simply not supported by the Chicago Manual of Style. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Indented servitude -- that's hysterical.  E Eng  22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It narrowly won in a product comparison. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And now, we have to figure out how to pronounce "l'EEng". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a flier on that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * PBS, you have no idea what you're talking about, and I've responded in detail on your talk page . (Connoisseurs of forum-shopping Wikilawyers taking advantage of the credulity of random admins may want to follow that link.)  E Eng  21:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Recently, you have more than once altered text on a talk page posted by another editor against their objections. You justify that by stating "Unfortunately there was no way for me to restore the edits by other editors that J-G removed without also removing his comments;" removing others comments against the objections of others is a breach of WP:TALK. After their comments were restored, if you though that such a restoration was unjustified, you should have asked an uninvolved administrator (either directly or indirectly via WP:ANI) to intervene. Edit warring over the content of article pages is disruptive, edit warring over the content of talk pages is unnecessary and disruptive (hence the rules over not altering other people's comments). Alter another person's comments on a talk page (other than those small changes sanctioned by WP:TALK talk) and I will take administrative actions. Is that clear? -- PBS (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks like we've got another live one with a bad case of WP:IDHT on top. What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to? And since when has admin privilege been required to take obvious corrective actions that aren't actually uses of that privilege? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, (since you have trouble following talk page discussions) D.E. is talking about you. Is that clear?  E  Eng  06:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , your failure to even acknowledge the unusually strong condemnation by one of your fellow admins, above, of your behavior in this matter adds to the accumulating evidence calling into question your fitness as an administrator.  E Eng  03:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

'''No response from the drive-by admin. Surprise!   E Eng ''' 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * From my talk page:

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * I reverted your &#91;(user:Jayaguru-Shishya)&#93; comments because, in the same edit in which you made them, you deleted and refactored others' comments. One notices PBS has stopped defending you. Get a clue.  E Eng  15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I never "defened" user:Jayaguru-Shishya. So stating that I have "stopped defending &#91;user:Jayaguru-Shishya&#91;" not accurate. I reminded you of my previous warning of MOS descretionary sanctions (User talk:EEng/Archive_2) and under those sanctions I placed a specific restriction on you not to delete other editors tal page comments. I did this because you seem unable to understand that deleteing other's comments against another editors objections is a direct breach of WP:TALK. I have responded now because you seem to be self justifying you breach of WP:TALK.


 * Despite you suggestions that an involved administrator ought to be an arbitrator in this issue, it is univolved admins, or as you put it "Drive-by admin[s]", that are preferred for such interventions (see WP:UNINVOLVED).


 * If it makes you happy to get the last word in then you most likely will, but unless you behave in such a way as to warrent my intervention under the MOS discressionary sanction, I so not intend to engage in further correspondence over this issue. -- PBS (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, look, the drive-by admin pops up to threaten and lecture again!
 * It's somehow not surprising that you and your little pal J-G are still whining about this two weeks later, because you're both clueless.
 * Uninvolved is fine; drive-by, which is what you are, is someone who doesn't bother to understand (or, as is increasingly obvious in your case, is incapable of understanding) what's really going on before issuing pompous lectures and threats. For the nth time, it was J-G who removed and refactored others' comments, not me; I undid his removal and refactoring of others' comments, and for that you're giving me grief, because you're clueless.
 * I repeat what your fellow admin,, said about your actions in this matter: "What has happened to Wikipedia to make such people the ones we give the mop to?" i.e. you're unfit to be an admin, because you're clueless. I notice you became an admin in the old days when that status was essentially anyone's for the asking. It's unfortunate that the voices in the wilderness pointing to your "consistently poor judgement" and predicting that you would "certainty abuse adminship" weren't heeded.
 * When you're excited either your spelling or your typing deteriorate; slowing down might lead to improvement in those areas, and possibly in your thinking processes (though I can't be sure of that). I'm glad to hear that you plan to stop embarrassing yourself by posting further here, and will (I guess) just go do whatever it is you do when you're not encouraging Wikilawyers and wasting the time of editors who know what they're doing.  E Eng  07:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Return of the bodice-ripping bots
Looks like the phenomena of bots getting into a bit of "rough and tumble" with each other has made the press. New Scientist article. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And now this. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Tommy Tucker (squirrel)
"Fussing" is insulting. Implying I'm a bigot who thinks "cross-dressing is somehow wrong", if that's what you were trying to do, would be egregiously insulting. When all I did was take the time to provide an in-depth review, and pick the hook where I anticipated there would be the fewest problems, there is no need to be that offensive. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For those playing along at home, the OP objects to this post of mine. Even members of my glittering array of talk-page stalkers—‌all connoisseurs of half-baked, fly-off-the-handle malapropistic indignation, of which we get a lot around here for some reason—‌will enjoy an Eats, shoots, and leaves belly-laugh when they absorb this one. I proposed the DYK "hook"
 * Did you know ... that a cross-dressing squirrel sold World War II war bonds?
 * You objected that
 * Wearing clothing is a human characteristic. An animal can't be a transvestite, or a cross-dresser, really.
 * Then after some back and forth, I chided you for your continued
 * fussing that cross-dressing is somehow wrong.
 * And then you came here to pop your cork, saying that I had implied that you're "a bigot who thinks 'cross-dressing is somehow wrong. I implied nothing of the sort. You should review MOS:WORDSASWORDS, wherein is explained the difference between my implying that you think
 * cross-dressing is wrong
 * and implying that you think
 * cross-dressing is wrong.
 *  E Eng  01:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, now we all know what EEng's Halloween costume is going to look like! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In the words of General McAuliffe: "Nuts!"  E Eng  15:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At the risk of going seriously off topic, I can't stop thinking of this advertising campaign, to which the near universal response of children throughout the UK was "Squirrel Shit!" (or in more refined quarters "Squirrel Poo!"). Robevans123 (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Juanita Musson

 * For those playing along at home, Maile's talking about this DYK item:
 * ... that Juanita's Galley was noted for a "fabulous" breakfast, potluck, the proprietor's "unpredictable disposition", and a 40-person brawl featuring car jacks, pipes, steel bars, a fishbowl and an ax?
 * Like screenwriters, we hookers labor largely in obscurity. By taking time out to visit,, you've brought a ray of sunshine into the life of an otherwise forgotten shut-in.  E Eng  00:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement notice
Please be advised that I have filed an Arbitration Enforcement request regarding your userpage here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Required notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How come I always attract the attention of admins with under 10K edits who haven't edited in years except to come out of the woodwork to give me the benefit of their gentle minstrations?  E Eng  00:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Menstruations? Spellcheck much? Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ewww Softy, did you have to say that while I was eating lunch? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody remind me what the problem was with that picture of a gorilla with a caption "Even though I'm an arbcom member, I'm simply commenting here as an everyday, average editor?" I've just made a subtle reference to it elsewhere. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There wasn't anything wrong, just Nakon thought there was -- remember, he's the one with the "cold medicine" excuse. Follow the link he refers to here to see the original comment.  E  Eng  17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Userpage
I've recreated your userpage as of immediately before the AE posting, minus the disputed section, at User:EEng/temp; feel free to just cut-and-paste it as you see fit. Intentionally created in your userspace rather than mine, to allow you to vanish it just by slapping db-u1 on it if you don't want it hanging around. ‑ Iridescent 23:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. At least this way it shows



instead of >

like the June 14 version did. For the moment I'll just leave things be, until discussion has concluded.  E Eng  00:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Great to see your whole User page go up in flames like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I knew something good would come from all of this, and maybe some of that good will be that someone will change the name of that image asap (blp and xyz being taken into account) not to mention that maybe you should throw some obscuring moondust on your caption there. Randy Kryn 01:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to rename the image but file moves on Commons make my head hurt, so I've just had to give some advice at the deletion request instead. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ...on the other hand (the one holding a blue umbrella), if the young woman does employ herself in our oldest and most honest profession, this is about the best thing that could happen in promotional terms, and my apologies to her for going on about it so. On the complaining page EEng pretty much accused me of being full of lust (per my user/useless name), and, full disclosure, I had no retort or canonical abode to escape such a ludicrously self-evident charge. Randy Kryn 12:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Kiss My Fuckin Ass" (as they say in Lexington, Kentucky). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC) (please don't take that personally, dear Rands)
 * The Hookers chose their name, this woman may have known nothing of this and was on the street hawking blue umbrellas, a semi-trendy tattoo parlor, and Oz slipper knock-offs. Aside from chivalry of some kind and feeling protective of Wikipedia, I pushed at this issue a little because of the humorous irony which EEng pointed out. During a discussion about BLP violations out popped, totally separate from EEng's content, the biggest BLP violation on the site. That's entertainment. Randy Kryn 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your comment assumes that there's something shameful about being a hooker, and is thus a form of hate speech. I'm reporting you at AE.  E Eng  03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally like Robert Anton Wilson's definition of the professionals: 'tantric engineers'. Could be a category name. Congrats on the page come-back, I hope the lady in red appears within it, a story to tell your grandchildren. Randy Kryn 3:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I complained here about the userpage. Didn't really do anything about it. Expected Hillary to win, and for it to become a shrine. Of... "hilarity"! Anyhoo, things will surely work themselves out. The financial markets aren't exactly spelling "doom-and-gloom". Don't believe the hype! Cheers :> Doc   talk  08:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I missed quite a party! It could never have lasted, I guess. I suggest you put your creative energies towards political cartooning; the Crimson keeps advertising for a contributor, or you could go for national syndication. FourViolas (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I missed it, too. My, oh, my.  There's much I could say, although Ritchie said a lot of things much better than I could have. (I find myself half wishing that the Daily Mail had run such a story.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In American education there's something called "the P.E. Syndrome": the observation that a disproportionate number of Physical Education teachers become, ahem, administrators such as principals and vice-principals. Why? Because P.E. teachers have no lessons to prepare and no homework and exams to grade, leaving ample time to take the supplementary courses in educational theory required to move up through the ranks. As they say, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym" – and then become principal, I guess. There's a similar phenomenon here at WP, and it's especially obvious when you look at the contributions history of the clue-challenged admin who opened that ridiculous discussion.  E Eng  17:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC) (P.S. No disrespect meant to the many good principals, vice-principals, and coaches out there -- just pointing out that, as in policing – and WP adminship, for that matter! – there are a number of bad apples that make the rest look bad.)


 * I go off Wikipedia for a week, and I miss all the good stuff, sadly. What a ridiculous mess: some Wikipedians just do not have a sense of humor. When I said above that you were going to be deported, I had no idea that it would be true. And of course they got it all wrong: they should have archived this talk page instead. Well, I'm glad to see that EEng's sense of humor has not been quashed. And don't get me started about P.E. teachers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow... you get yourself into a lot of trouble, don't you? I suppose that's the ever-present risk of this type of humor: there are always people who cannot find it in themselves to tolerate it, and those people sometimes have the will and the ability to do something about it, even if it flies in the face of what is ultimately the greater good. On a positive note, that printed out copy of your user page I have has greatly increased in value! I would put it up on eBay, where I'm sure it would fetch thousands, but the sentimental value is simply too much. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints&#124;Mistakes) 19:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't the discussion end with saying you can put your user page back, minus some cuts and giggles related to the esteemed leader? Please raise the curtain again, the crowd out here is getting rowdy and none the wiser. Randy Kryn 11:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Patience, patience, Igor! All in good time!  E Eng  13:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I would like to see the long-awaited return of 's seminal essay, Do not say "With all due respect". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Flattering! But that so-called essay (a one-sentence essay) was deleted in 2013 on my own request, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect", where I stated I regretted ever putting it in Wikipedia space. Somebody has pointed the redirect WP:WADR to WP:WikiSpeak, which the "essay" was anyway redundant with, so all is good, Ritchie333; you can still use WP:WADR in conversation. (If you want to amaze yourself, check out WT:WADR for some of the lamest waste of time discussion and greatest stubbornness over nothing I've seen in all my years here. Appropriate in a twisted way, I suppose.) Bishonen &#124; talk 16:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC).
 * While I can do all of these things, I just feel the way the sentiment was delivered in the original essay was succinct, direct, and unambiguously to the point. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Brilliantly fashioned, if I may presume that my humble opinion is of any value.  E Eng  22:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is (your opinion being of value, that is, although I also agree about the brilliant part), and thank you! The office pool is now open for estimates of the time that will elapse before some defender of the wiki will come along and want me blocked or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should, on request, email people each one little little bit of The Old Museums for them to add to their user pages. Kind of spread it around.  E Eng  22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, like fertilizer or influenza. (Just don't attempt to email your talk page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Moratorium on circumlocutions for boomerangs
Since you dislike the use of synonyms for boomerangs, let me be blunt: your comment was offensive enough that it boomeranged on you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 second for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

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


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

Request
I've had my own share of disagreements with The Rambling Man, but please don't do this again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't do it that way again -- wasn't intending to -- but I was absolutely serious in what I said here and will periodically remind DYKers of it until people seem comfortable simply ignoring those of his comments that deserve ignoring. Whatever the value of some of his complaints, they are largely (and perhaps completely -- more than completely) outweighed by his insistence on drowning them in a sea of trivial niggles. It's a shame, because he has an eye for potential problems but no sense of priority.  E  Eng  04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your substantive point, but a nasty presentation risks distracting from it. (FYI, I'm forever recused on anything TRM-related, so my arbship really is irrelevant here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd characterize my presentation as forceful, but your point is valid and I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for visiting, Your Arbship. (BTW, I pointed out to Drmies the other day that one anagram of Arbitration Committee is Motto: recriminate a bit. Perfect, don't you think?)  E Eng  04:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure that His Arbship is a lot better looking than that image. Anyway, he gave good advice. And now I know what gave rise to: . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe can we call you Newyorksilverback from now on? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record:
...as the proposer, I am not actually wanting this to pass. I rather want to lay the issue to rest against a tendentious argument. Thanks for your support by so clearly opposing (one of the odder thanks I've given another editor, to be sure). Happy New Year. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , as any member of my glittering array of talk page stalkers will attest, I specialize in not giving people the opposite response to the counterfactual strawman they didn't propose. Have you visited The Museums?  E Eng  01:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You callin' ArbCom a bunch of chickens? DMacks (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


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

EEng, I could be way off base here, but I thought Eisbock was awarded for chilling effects that produce great unhoppiness, whereas sour grapes are related more with the award for acetic whining. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Brexiteer123 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So is it in-policy to offer a cool-down bock? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course.  E Eng  20:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Poe's law
Almost nudged you to be more civil over this thread at the time, suspecting that your opening comment might just goad the other editor into being elaborately defensive of something that didn't matter, and I see this has now happened. Someone made an edit without being aware of policy, we made them aware of policy, they went silent: you should WP:DROPTHESTICK at that point. Civility policy is there to avoid wasting everybody's time with unnecessary arguments, as much as anything. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * [For those playing along at home, we're talking about this reversion and this talk page thread ] Oh, please. Mr. Dyspeptic called fixing the typo uttrerly in a quotation "the edge of vandalism" and "deliberately destructive" because (he still says even now, though he can't seem to explain how) the error is "textually significant".  E  Eng  18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A shiny whistle for you

 * I will treasure it always.  E Eng  05:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Clueless editors on parade (part II)

 * Original section heading: "January 2017" 

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

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

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


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

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

And the discussion's not off topic. While you may be unable to comprehend it, we're discussing the extent to which politically charged hooks are appropriate. The fact that we're having a little fun along the way, or that you personally are unable to share in that, makes it no less true. Welcome to Wikipedia!  E Eng  23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whichever way you look at it, you continually reverted TRM in violation of 3RR, and you shouldn’t because it’s against policy and can get you into trouble. So please desist. And a heads up – TRM has continued the conversation on my talk page and I’ve decided to report him to AN3. When they look into it, they may or may not have something to say to you as well. Hence my note to you.  Schwede 66  18:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , looks like you got your hand slapped for trying to do something sensible—‌welcome to adminship! As you've now learned, our dyspeptic friend has a talent for busybody fussing about nothing, followed by wasting others' time trying to salve his bruised ego by proving he was right—‌yours is not the only talk page he's posted to about this. He's like Malleus but less clever. (Tip: watch out for anyone who pluralizes forum as fora .)


 * Just to make sure it's clear on the record, I'll point out again that he repeatedly declared the discussion at an end just minutes after others had posted to it, which is completely inappropriate, and it's no kind of edit warring that I unhatted every time so that discussion could continue. And (importantly) at one point he deleted a post of mine , which is completely beyond the pale. It's a great example of the confrontational shit-stirring which earned him both a desysopping and an editing restriction prohibiting him from "insulting and/or belittling other editors".  E Eng  05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! Happy to help. But unless I'm wrong the material was mostly split off from the Whitman article. Since you're here, maybe you have some bright ideas at Talk:University_of_Texas_Tower_Shooting.  E Eng  16:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Some of it was; some of it wasn't. After the draft was made into an article, I did a bit trying to walk the user through the merging process, which they began, but haven't yet completed. Admittedly I've knowingly let a lot of duplication of content sit in mainspace for a while, but the editor seemed enthusiastic and competent, if intermittent, so I figured I would let nature run it's course, and mentor as best I could, since the experience would probably be a valuable one for them. I'll take a look at the article's talk and look toward getting more involved over the next week. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Me and Charlies are from the same home town. I grew up with (older) neighbors who knew him. I've heard anecdotes about him from people who knew him and I actually got caught by a cop egging the church he went to. (The cop was protestant and Irish, so he let us go when we gave our excuse as "it's a catholic church").
 * Anyways, my point is, if you piss me off, you'd better steer clear of tall buildings. Summer 2007-101 (871613008).jpg ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind. You might be interested in the handy template fbdb, which I invented after this bizarre episode. You fuckface.  E Eng  00:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like being able to wrap the vicious insult joke itself into the link, but the tooltip is a great idea which I will be shamelessly stealing from you this weekend.
 * I've already been accused of using my links (I have two, the other one is here) to hide my personal attacks. To be fair, I had used the text "Shut your stupid pie-hole" as the link text, so not exactly a huge leap there. But it got me to thinking: who, in the grips of a red-hot, raging butthurt would think to try to avoid a block for insulting someone? No-one. So who would put thought into it, and try to be more devious by insulting people with phrases linked to a page which serves only to make it clear they didn't really mean that? Well, the odd moron might, but frankly anyone with some creativity can insult the living hell out of another editor without ever getting so overt as to be blocked. Hell, without even the person being insulted realizing that they're being insulted. It's not hard, and it's not like you're on the spot: you can plan a good insult for hours without anyone knowing that you're not just busy IRL. So I'm curious as to whether anything like that has ever actually happened.
 * Both you and I independently thought to make "joke" tags of some short. Shirly, we can't be the first. I'm wondering if, buried deep within the dark and musty depths of the ANI archives or the Arbcom archives, is there a case of an editor making a "joke" tag and then actually trying to use it to get away with hurling a bit of nastiness around? One of these days, I'll put on my fedora, strap on my whip and go spelunking for answers, I think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "who, in the grips of a red-hot, raging butthurt would think to try to avoid a block for insulting someone? No-one." Wanna bet? There's at least one (currently blocked, I think) editor who used to write things like, "This is a really interesting article for you to look at." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I want to act shocked, but I've been on the internet before. Did they actually argue that that wasn't a personal attack?
 * For future reference, if I ever say something that implies there is a minimum level of intelligence which is universal in humans; No. I'm not willing to bet on it.
 * Yes, they said something like, "What? I just linked to an article they might be interested in." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it might say something about me that I just noticed that you actually used that template to call me a fuckface. I'm not willing to hazard a guess as to what it says. Feel free to speculate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

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


 * Followup: You gotta hand it to him, this guy never gives up. "Aaron Ozee Sends Copy Of Bestselling Book Regulus To Queen Elizabeth ... Additional details about the delivery of the book will be released after contact is made". "ATTN: Her Majesty The Queen". (No contact made so far, apparently.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Just one very important mention...
As a, I am frigging glad that I don't have to keep up with your TP posts on my cell phone. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In the distant past, ancient versions of the Mediawiki software skins had a stock RSS feed built into pages, so you could do just that. Meanwhile, there is an extension to put a Twitter feed on a wiki page, but not the reverse. However, necessity is the mother of invention.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , and how exactly do we gage (no freaking pun intended!!) the level of necessity where EEng is concerned? He's off the charts, affectionally speaking.  Ok, so my curiosity led me to the following discovery - a purely mathematical computation demonstrated below (and I'm no math whiz):
 * Total of EEng's archives, 4 mind you, only 4 TP archives totaling 859 kB beginning with the 1st archive thread dated 13 November 2008, Thursday (8 years, 3 months, 28 days ago), and the last archive thread dated 24 October 2016, Monday (4 months, 16 days ago) which averages out to be 2 archives/YEAR. Now get a load of this...the current TP total is 1626 kB - nearly double the size of all 4 archives.  I wonder if he takes the time to tie his shoes, or maybe he wears Sperry Topsiders.  Regardless, I'd say the man is growing in popularity, wouldn't you? SMirC-crazy.svg Gotta love it!! Cheers SMirC-wine.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well clearly EEng is compensating for something with the size of his talk page. Mind you, your user page has you hob-nobbing with the stars on an ego trip; when are you going to put up the picture of "Sacred Betty Wills and The Pope in an audience at The Vatican", "Supreme Overlord Betty Wills with Kim Jong Il at the Best North Korean Rally in the World ever (volume 3)" and .... of course .... "Dedicated Wikipedian Betty Wills sharing a 'fun' moment with Jimbo Wales" (although who the "fun" was being had by is left as an exercise for the reader". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would upload them tomorrow if I could remember where I put my image archives!! I'm pretty sure my papal days date back to when I was 10 or 11, determined to become a nun. Fortunately, time wounds all heals, and the rumors about the "cloth" finally caught up and frightened a lot of parents.  I really was "saved", so my aspirations went from being a patron of the church to aspirations of becoming the first female jockey at Churchill Downs. My main obstacles were the many talented male jockeys.  As for Kim...I'll be kind and just say I never really liked "Gangnam Style".  Now Jimbo is a different story...if he looked more like Julian Assange, we would not be having this discussion...which reminds me, I have a few words I wouldn't mind sharing with Pamela Anderson. SMirC-jealous.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Important lessons
You may wish to take a gander at User talk:Robert Towers, point 2 (in this case, don't call your sandbox "Eat my faaaart"). I feel the two of you may have much to talk about.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel you're trying to typecast me lately. There's more to me than crude humor.  E Eng  23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your humour's quite intelligent, actually. Indeed, the comparison here is that this guy appeared to be writing serious computing history drafts, and got stung by admins who didn't have his sense of humour. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I was just fishing for praise. Worked perfectly.  E Eng  00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fishing for prey? Help! Help! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I like this guy, especially if "How can I vandalize my own userspace?" is meant as a genuine request for assistance rather than a rhetorical question. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to your edit summary here, I will thank you to attend to your own regardles and leave mine unmolested.  E Eng  00:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Needles to say, I will respect your wishes. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Tank you very much.  E Eng  04:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK favor
Could you help out with a review of Template:Did_you_know_nominations/George_Ronald_Richards I was hoping for an April 3rd DYK. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Great and Powerful Oz will attend to your request right after breakfast.  E Eng  16:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

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

MoS talk: ie, eg and etc
Another editor requested the discussion was made an RfC as we appeared to be going round in circles. There is some point to it, I might add, even if you do not agree. I will thank you for responding, though. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "A change of this kind needs to be treated as a proper RfC and closed by a non-involved person" is what another editor said, because you seemed to be trying to close the discussion yourself with your own proposal as the conclusion. This is a nonstarter and a waste of time. Sorry, but I'm grumpy tonight and you really should have realized this by now.  E Eng  00:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Cake for you!!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> A Mary Berry Raspberry Putin Devil's Food cake for you!!! N.B. Top tip - Mary says: "Be careful to bake on Gas Mark 4 or below, or the cyanide may all evaporate into the icy Neva River." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - well go ahead and cake it on...but wait for the best part: the icing on the cake...yep...WAIT FOR IT.... and just keep waiting cuz it may never come. It needs a hook that only EEng can provide. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Da!  E Eng  17:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in...
A new forum for dispute resolution that's currently under development. Angry Mob Noticeboard. You know, for when you need an angry mob. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At first I thought he was kidding EEng, and then I realized the new forum will be held in the newly formed Angry Mob Court presided over by none other than Judge Roy Bean. Their main objective is to lighten the load of ArbCom. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Their main objective is to lighten the load of ArbCom. To be fair, we're also trying to do something about the huge pitchfork and torch surplus burdening our economy lately. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a time when there was a demand for pitchforks & torches; Sam Walton couldn't keep enough in stock. Wait...Walton? G'nite John Boy. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Goodnight, . Goodnight, Eeng. Goodnight, stalkers. (Now, I'm resisting the urge to segue into Goodnight Moon.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Cite errors at Lindbergh
Hola, I have fixed two cite errors you introduced in January. Months after the fact, it took me about 30 minutes to hunt them down (WikiBlame was no help for this purpose). Please watch for introduction of this type of cite error, especially when making major edits to well-cited articles. Gracias, adios. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I made 170 edits which removed 25% of this badly overdetailed article, and the only thing that went wrong was that I accidentally killed two sources? I think I should get a medal. Nonetheless this vexes me, as I do try to be careful in such things. Thanks for noticing and fixing.  E Eng  02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, if only people got what they deserved, here and everywhere. Thanks for making 170 edits which removed 25% of that badly overdetailed article, assuming that's what happened (I haven't conducted that review). &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

May 2017 (1)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Leprof 7272. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Don't do this, and don't do this. Needlessly insulting the user isn't helping anyone.'' Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly nothing else is helping. Desperate times call for desperate measures.  E Eng  02:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

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

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

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


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

May 2017
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for harassing other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. I make no comment on the merits of the point you were making, but it is never, and never will be, acceptable to call another editor a disruptive prick. --John (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Astoundingly atrociously poor block - Given the tenor and context of that ANI discussion, one would think that a bit of leeway should be provided for emotional outbursts rather than resorting straight to a punitive block.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree as I was far more offended by the unwarranted allegation of racism.  I thought blocks were to be used to end disruption, yet in this case, it appears the disruption of changing an entire categorization norm and the unwarranted allegation of racism remains a nonissue. I am very disheartened over this block. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 14:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sometimes some of us act like disruptive pricks, and sometimes we tell others when they do. A block can be a handy reminder to dial it back down.  I know I've had a few bad blocks, too.  This will pass. Dicklyon (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Blocking admin has always been a prick. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Either myself, or the blocking admin, requires a refresher in English. Probably myself. Jrcla2 was offering a way to see what you're doing as the result of a cultural difference rather than you just being a disruptive prick. Where in this is EEng actually calling Djln Djln a "disruptive prick"? My reading of this is that EEng is telling Djln that Jrcla2 was suggesting an alternative explanation for Djln's inability to understand the issue that did not resort to calling Djln a "disruptive prick". The reason for EEng to bring this up is obviously the fact that Djln telling Jrcla that they are being "borderline racist" is an extremely prick-like thing to do in response to a non-prick-like explanation. On top of the fact that making mass changes to categories is (or could be readily construed as) disruptive. I.e., In other words "you're Irish and so might not understand American Football" does not deserve the response of "that's racist". I can't really think of another way to spell this out. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Mr. Dude's interpretation is 100% correct (and despite WaltCip's comment, emotionalism played no part in what I posted). Like His Arbship said,


 * It's a shame this is happening on a Sunday, when so many of my glittering array of talk page stalkers are, of course, in church; think of the bon mots we're missing out on!  E Eng  17:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Church, yeah... that'll be the communion wine... :) &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, some are editing Wiccapedia, of course.  E Eng  17:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * John, while I've warned EEng about inappropriate jokes in the past, if this diff is really your sole basis for a 48-hour block (I assume it is, given that it's the only diff you've offered in your block notice) it's one of the worst blocks I've ever seen. Please reconsider it—the drama of an arbcom case will waste everybody's time and the result of any such case is an utterly foregone conclusion. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to be clear, there was nothing joking in my ANI post at issue.  E Eng  18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @John, This looks like a good case for you coming to this page and posting something like, "Hey EEng, this was not helpful or constructive." That would be about as effective as a surprise block, minus the extra drama. ~Awilley (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)



Unblocked #2
I've asked User:John to lift the block, as I think it was based on a misunderstanding — basically, I agree with Mr rnddude's comment here — and have notified him that in case he isn't online, I'll do it myself. He doesn't seem to be, so here goes: you have been unblocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
 * PS, bad ping: repinging User:John. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Thanks, Bishonen. Our sovereign lord Jimbo chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of the Arbitration Committee, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save Jimbo!  E  Eng  18:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say post a humorous comment at this sub-thread review of your block, but, I'm afraid of it earning you another block. Personally, I'd just leave an "Overturn block" and sign. Slightly taunting. That's just my sense of humour though. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well! This has had one silver lining at least... after nearly eighteen months, owns up to having a sense of humour!!! :p :D  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  19:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially important since none of us would have noticed otherwise.  E Eng  19:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd of commented sooner, just got around to this (I stalk only when I see a lot of activity in a short amount of time, which usually means some of the best entertainment on Wikipedia). I read the discussion, think all people who over-categorize should be topic-banned, and finally came to your perfectly reasonable assessment of the situation and just the appropriate amount of EEngness EEngitude to catch the editor's attention enough for things to be better absorbed. I'd say "nice work", and we've all learned a bit more about the way all points of view have to be considered by everybody, as far as is possible. Randy Kryn 19:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * EEngness: I believe the OED prefers EEngitude.  E Eng  19:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck and corrected, per obscure Wikipedia policy. Randy Kryn 19:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation...
The following is actually how I have always related to the slang use of the word: Prick (slang) The prick, in some crazy way, is feminine....The prick does not play by the rules: he (she) is a narcisstic [sic] tease who persuades by means of attraction and resistance, not by orderly systemic discourse.  The latter interpretation is harmless and how I've always perceived its use. In fact, my fun Wiki❤️ banner confirms my position, so I hope there's no chance of blockage if I use them as. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I did not in any way suggest the other editor was a prick (whatever the interpretation of that). I was saying that another editor was trying hard not to do that.  E Eng  18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Roxy's block
Lost in all this is that Roxy got blocked in the crossfire. Not to canvass, but comment may be helpful at WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  E Eng  19:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A reminder: gender-neutral obscenities only, please

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

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


 * Answers:
 * do you stand by your comment I highlighted: If you're talking about, yes I do.
 * Do you get some sort of kick out of causing disruption by using gendered obscenities I take no more delight in obscenities than in any other words chosen to do their job. But I'm fascinated by this idea of gendered obscenities. I notice you didn't object to my saying, earlier in the same thread, of "Oh for fuck sake"; is that OK because you see fuck as ungendered? If so, I think that's very narrow of you: what if it's a gay male fuck? Or a lesbian fuck (if there is such a thing, I guess)? I think you need to reflect on your heterosexist biases.
 * disruption... two blocks and one unblock: Well let's see... one of the blocks was the one you imposed; the unblock was an Arbcom member reversing the block after giving you time to do it yourself; and the other block was someone who got understandably pissed off at you for imposing the block which the Arbcom member reversed after giving you time to do it yourself. So really, I think the disruption's all on you.
 * reflect on what a fool you've made of yourself: Speaking of reflection, look in the mirror.
 * unsolicited intervention at AN/I: Is there solicited intervention at ANI? Can I get on a list???
 * your lucky escape: If Trump ever needs a new press secretary, you'd be a great candidate.
 * badge of pride: If there's any pride, it's at being part of a community robust enough to self-correct so promptly and decisively.
 *  E Eng  23:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Alas, I am late, as usual, to the block party. (But no, I wasn't in church.) So, if I follow the situation correctly, it is OK to say "fuck" or "cunt" (the latter having been an entire ArbCom case a few years back), but no good to say "prick". I'm not sure that I can figure out my own thoughts on this, but I am simultaneously in agreement that it's good to be "part of a community robust enough to self-correct so promptly and decisively", and yet also wishing for more WP:CIVIL. Anyway, I'm glad about the self-correction, and sorry that it was needed in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You and your fucking johnny-come-lately platitudes.  E Eng  00:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Show some respect. That would be Dr. fucking johnny-come-lately to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't say so don't be surprised if some prick comes by and blocks you.  E  Eng  00:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even be surprised if some block pricked me. Is that the same thing as a cock-block? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You scintillate tonight.  E Eng  01:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As long as I don't glow in the dark. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 (3)
You have been astoundingly atrociously cockblocked for pussy-grabbing other users. Once the cockblock has expired, you are welcome to make welcome advances. If you think there are good reasons why you should be uncockblocked, you may request an uncockblock by first reading the guide to unappealing cockblocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Guerre des roues
An admin is threatening another admin with a block! 

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



Pricks and ruffled feathers

 * Could be worse: your prick could land on the cactus, I guess. Did you write that yourself? It's really good.  E Eng  02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I also shot the scene with the parakeets, which took place about 50 ft. from my window...and heard the sounds that accompany the ruffled feathers as the birds played their game of thorns. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, I realized it was your pic and meant to compliment you on it.  E Eng  05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, my - I didn't mean to come across as 🎣 for a compliment but thank you! I was actually eluding to the sounds of squawking Caribbean parakeets with their feathers ruffled which can be quite loud and boisterous...not unlike  recent outburst.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out how easy it is, all things considered, to misread this last comment. "Oops, yes, I realized it was your p<small style="color:#b0b0b0;">r ic<small style="color:#b0b0b0;">k and meant to compliment you on it." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well as we've seen, we get some of the best pricks Wikipedia has to offer dropping in here from time to time.  E Eng  17:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As well as some masterful baiting of some deserving admins, by Wikipedia's many master baiters. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Close enough for government work. Hardban him.--WaltCip (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh noes! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My talk page is like Garp come to life.  E Eng  16:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * THE T.S. Garp, or Garp (pick one)? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In that it contains a great deal of lunacy and sorrow? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. OK now, party's over. Back to editing! ` E Eng  16:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And back to archiving your talk page – much appreciated! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, EEng's talk page has passed beyond "annoyingly large" and moved into "awesomely large" territory. The time for archiving has long since passed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See that? Start a talk section about pricks, and the discussion goes quickly to size. But no, it's actually "awesomely annoying". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dickwins Law? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know how I know there's no hope for humanity? Because we went through this entire thread without a single chance to make a good "that's what she said" joke. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's still time...<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what she said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Museums
Given your interest in museums, you might be entertained by the wonderful The Museum of Curiosity! Pam D  15:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's things like that that make me feel sometimes that I should just move to England.  E Eng  16:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But you might not want to move to Iceland. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...looks like the Ice Queen has already been there. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you made your 3-month proposal anywhere? If you haven't started an RFC about it somewhere, then I guess the first thing to do would be to figure out where the RFC ought to be located, and whether similar ideas have already been rejected.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I really do think it would be highly salutary, but it would be a seismic shift in policy. If a number of very respected editors got behind it informally, and work out some details (like what counts as being out of the headlines, so to speak) then we could propose it formally. But I'm not holding my breath.  E Eng  23:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There could simply be a rule that no article at Wikipedia can rely upon any source that is less than three months old, except to update information that is outdated.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think we want to forbid an article on a new asteroid or something. Maybe it's things in certain topic areas? What we'd be trying to prevent, I guess I know it when I see it, but it's hard to define.  E Eng  06:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Randomly chiming in here: the topic areas this proposal should affect, in my opinion, is politics and crimes. Too many times do I see hastily made articles all revolving around these areas of interest as soon as the ink dries in the presses. I do not believe crimes, in this context, should extend to terrorist attacks. Some editors may be turned off by the 3-month time period, others by how to go about policing this policy. But I believe you have a truly brilliant idea going on here; hopefully, this is pursued further. I offer you my support!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to choose a sample set of articles as test cases, or imagine hypothetical articles. I was considering the case of a trial with political implications where the defendant is acquitted – not reporting the acquittal for three months would not be ideal.
 * The nature, frequency and quantity of news has changed so much in the last decade I wonder whether this is a solution to that problem or a band aid. Or maybe a solution to a problem distinct from this other problem. Whichever it is some solution is necessary. The short-term and long-term effects of editors using breaking news articles to shape perception and even reporting in some cases are significant, not only in terms of disruption but it attracts exactly the wrong kind of editor. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Three months is excessive, but a cool-off period of 3 days on creating articles based on political "breaking news" would be most welcome. That would help "break" the tyranny of the headline-grabbing news cycle. Asteroids are apolitical, so astronomers are safe. — JFG talk 08:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Followed from ANI, but it sounds like a reasonable idea. I have seen so many articles pop up within hours of breaking news only to be abandoned within a week or two. Generally though the initial AFD it is all the historic significance of this or that, we MUST keep it etc etc etc. Then dead. Three days sounds a lot easier to swallow and get people to agree to I think, perhaps even up to five but might be a bit much. BTW Chelyabinsk meteor would disagree with you. Clearly the asteroid was working with Obama to attack the Russians. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Damn right, asteroids are unfairly biased towards Russia: 1007 Pawlowia, 1059 Mussorgskia, 1074 Beljawskya, 1094 Siberia, and when we go land on a comet, it has to be 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko… Rhâââ, those Russians! — JFG talk 15:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Three months, it said. I warmed up my snotty responses for this, then discovered (after waiting for this page to load, and scrolling for hours) that it isn't block related. It is the basis of a good idea though. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think of this idea as a temporary "embargo" on creating an article on new topic. The idea is to avoid the huge waste -- in terms of editor time, frequent ANI visits, AfD disputes, sockpuppetry, etc. -- that often comes with editing an articles during the initial period when there's new stuff coming out all the time, arguments about conflicting sources, high emotions, and so on.
 * My original idea was that something would need to be "out of the headlines" for a stated period before we start an article on it. This way, lots of sources are available, erroneous "breaking news" reports which turn out not to be true are in better perspective. I don't quite see how to define that though. For American topics of national interest, this might mean something like there's been no front-page story on it in the NYT or Washington Post or [insert more here] for X weeks. This would have to be carefully defined if endless arguments are to be avoided.
 * So here's another idea, weaker but much easier to define. How about if an article on topic X is embargoed until the initial sources are at least time=T old? That doesn't mean the topic's not still in the headlines but at least it will have some maturity and perspective, and notability issues will be much clearer. How about that? If T was even ten days that might help immensely.


 * Imagine all the trouble that would have been saved if the Comey article was just being started now. And who is served by an instant article on the first day something like that happens? A mess of conflicting claims and quotes from various people, first unbalanced one way, then the other. Our readers could turn on CNN for that. We're an encyclopedia for the ages, not today's news. That's why Wikinews is a separate project.


 * Here's another example. Sometime in the next 48 hours someone's gonna create an article with a title like "Proposed impeachment of Donald Trump". Now, I have little doubt such an article will be created some day. But what will the edit history and Talk page of such an article look like if it was started today? And how, in these first ten days, would such an article serve our readers any better than reading the news?  E Eng  16:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're way behind the curve—that article's existed since before he even took office. &#8209; Iridescent 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One day I am gong to write the essay WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD, because its basically guaranteed at this point. NOTNEWS has no teeth anymore, and while Wikinews exists, I'm under the impression that it is basically dead. I personally would very strongly support some sort of pause-period that would avoid TRUMPSCANDALAFD, but the fact that many of these articles are snow kept even when they are in horrible shape suggests to me that we aren't likely to get consensus for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see my impeachment example was ill-chosen, because it's too diffuse a topic. I think the idea makes the most sense for "event" articles like Comey's firing, disappearing airplanes, and so on. Let's keep brainstorming.  E Eng  17:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see my impeachment example was ill-chosen, because it's too diffuse a topic. I think the idea makes the most sense for "event" articles like Comey's firing, disappearing airplanes, and so on. Let's keep brainstorming.  E Eng  17:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To help with the brainstorm, here are some recent examples: '''In summary, my hunch would be to suggest a 3-day ban on creating new articles based on "breaking news" in the political domain. People could still add such stuff in existing articles, but at least they would get some eyeballs to evaluate due weight, and we might avoid AfD drama, link-spamming of navboxes or See also sections in dozens of marginally related articles, and monstrous cleanup tasks when finally the pile of rambling "he said-she said" quotes has to be sorted and summarized into something vaguely encyclopedic and readable (while being accused of censorship). Another bonus: existing articles on controversial subjects are often restricted to some degree, whereas new articles are a free-for-all until an admin wakes up and slaps an 1RR/DS restriction which nobody understands, and we spend more time explaining the sanctions than editing or even arguing the merits of the edits...''' Thoughts? Choice of venue? Popcorn? — JFG talk 23:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comey memos – Knee-jerk fork from Dismissal of James Comey about one or several memos that nobody has seen. It was almost created before newspaper editors had a time to collect their thoughts (see Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections: Good grief. This will be in all the relevant RS by tomorrow.). Wild speculation on their serious consequences ensues. Impeach him! Prose could have remained in the dismissal article; instead it gets repeated in the Trump and Comey bios, in the presidency article, in the dismissal article and in the dedicated memo(s) article.
 * 2017 Mexico–United States diplomatic crisis – Hastily created in the heat of testy exchanges between two North American presidents at the end of January, one of them performing a rage quit (oh joy, a red link!). Nothing happened since. Article is dangling, with a feeble attempt to shoehorn some minor thing in February, that not even the Lügenpresse calls a "crisis".
 * Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) – Dude was arrested for child trafficking and assorted sex crimes, obviously doesn't meet WP:PERPETRATOR notability standards for criminals, but lo and behold, he once supported Trump so he gets his 15 minutes of fame and the AfD mob is tending towards a strong keep, because reasons. With a three-day cool-down period, I bet this scumb** would have remained in well-deserved obscurity.
 * …and my favourite one today: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (a mouthful) plus its edit war discussion at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, complete with bad-faith reverts, personal attacks and ad hoc survey.


 * Gee, all of these "recent examples" have to do with, wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... news stories which make Trump look bad! Holy crap what an amazing coincidence! A suspicious person might get the idea that the purpose behind this proposal is NOT to actually address any existing problem on Wikipedia, but rather to prevent the media reports on the Trump presidency from being written about on Wikipedia, for as long as possible. I mean that would explain a lot, but, you know, AGF and all, I'm sure nobody would be that cynical, so this correlation between the proposal and the news-that-makes-Trump-look-bad must be just a coincidence! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey cut it out with the ABF snark, will you? During campaign season, there were plenty such "breaking news" about Hillary Clinton's alleged misdeeds or disease or whatnot and they damn well shouldn't have gotten their own article either. Shit doesn't care which way the wind blows. — JFG talk 08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly the point JFG. You weren't running around demanding that we "embargo" news stories when Clinton was in the news, where you? If I'm wrong about that, my apologies. If I'm right than my ABF snark stands.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your "evidence" is circumstantial at best. Nothing is ever as black-and-white as chronic ABF-failers make them out to be. The world just ain't that simple. ABF is nothing more than hyper-cynicism, a tendency to suspect foul play when there is any explanation that could justify the suspicion. The community has done everything possible to prevent this kind of thinking and set the bar higher, as evidenced in the first bullet of the nutshell at WP:AGF. You are not even close to the clear evidence required there. I don't know whether the instigator of this initiative has a rep for Trump POV-pushing (have you shown that?), but I know damn well I don't and I don't think many of the others interested in this do either. Now try to get a grip and stop it, please. No stick ever needed dropping more. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Get a grip is right, . It seems impossible that there can be anyone in the project who thinks I'm trying to protect Trump .  E Eng  17:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think that at all and nowhere have I said that. I *do* think that the reason why JFG (and a couple others) are so gung ho on this proposal IS because they're annoyed by all the Trump-looks-bad stories that have come out recently. How else do you explain his ... peculiar, choice of examples? They're all exactly what I say they are - recent Trump-looks-bad news stories. You? I think your intentions are good and noble, but yeah, these guys are trying to use you. Anyway, since this has no chance in hell of succeeding, that's all from me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care what their motives are. Trump looks like an incompetent narcissistic idiot whether an article on something he's done appears right away or three days later. So our only question is whether we're going to squander the substantial resources sucked up during those first three days, or conserve them. (Please note that I'm not saying Trump's an incompetent narcissistic idiot, just that he looks like an incompetent narcissistic idiot.)  E Eng  21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

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


 * In spite of the fact that we have WP:NOTNEWS, I have long been bothered by the same things, and I think this would be a very good idea. So now, I'm going to rain on the parade. Never gonna happen. There are simply too many other users who will show up at an RfC and say no! no! because they love to do instant news edits, plus all the others who never like anything that would be a change. It will never get consensus. Just won't. But I'll take you up on the popcorn. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a longshot, but let's not give up the ship right off.  E Eng  00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear! — JFG talk 00:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So would we define breaking news as "all sources which form the basis of the topic's notability are less than X days old"? (Let's keep the X flexible for now.)  E Eng  00:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You phrased it best! — JFG talk 00:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Another argument favouring such a cool-off period: in the heat of the news cycle, as mere mortals feverishly scan their TV while editing, reporters who missed the initial scoop come and pickup further clues on Wikipedia, resulting in a fertile breeding ground for citogenesis. Very hard to track down in the brouhaha, although I'm pretty sure it happened. Optimists call it collective intelligence… — JFG talk 01:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a great additional point.  E Eng  01:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging a coupla random wise people for their thoughts. (I'd like to start the discussion small, so this is a random subset that comes to mind -- don't be offended if I left you out.), , , .  E Eng  15:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wise..? Sorry, I hardly ever engage with news articles, and besides, I'd feel like a sparrow dancing with the cranes in that company. Take it, Iridescent! Bishonen &#124; talk 16:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Well, I seldom engage in such articles either, but we all see/deal with the fireworks related to them at the noticeboards.  E Eng  17:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ( I will never look at sparrows the same way again, alas! ) There are more urgent things that need to be improved with the way Wikipedia operates than putting a time delay on political news articles (see my user page).  But I agree that when a Wikipedia article is at the top of Google News, there is enormous pressure encouraging some editors to be amateur opinion journalists here at Wikipedia.  Even for longstanding Wikipedia articles, such pressure is often evident, but it gets magnified a hundred fold for new newsy articles.  A time delay might make things a bit more boring behind the scenes at Wikipedia, but sometimes boring is good (just ask Elon Musk!).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice little point to the boring company ;(')  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * My no-traction contribution to this area, not complete overlap: Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  20:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Great minds think alike. Well, let's see what others say.  E Eng  20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I saw this unfold and wanted to wait a bit to see what other had to say before weighing in. Here's my opinion: Wikipedia is not the news because it does not give a hoot about Homicide #17 of Oklahoma City, the lorry that overturned on the M6, or the three hoodlums who skipped school and are now raking leaves in the park. Wikipedia rights about whatever is notable. When the stabbings happened at Ohio State, I didn't read any other opinion piece from what we call the news service, I read our article on it (granted, it was 18 hours old by the time I got around to it). James Comey's dismissal is definitely notable, and so was Brexit and Deepwater Horizon. Putting a delay in creation that is longer than a reasonable 48 hours does not do an ounce (kg if you're metric) of good. I feel that if anything should be proposed, it should be a 30 day deletion insurance: If an article with a credible hint of notability (think A7) is created and does not qualify for any speedy deletion criteria (e.g. Attack page, advertising, gibberish) and has at least X reliable sources at the bottom, it may not be nominated for deletion for at least a month. Something like that. Remember when United Express (exercised their rights) threw David Dao off the 3411? AE3411 ended up being notable, and Dao was deleted. By trying to enforce NOTNEWS while being oblivious to the world going crazy over the situation, they nominators basically ensured a Keep !outcome and took up a lot of time that could have been spent improving the article. About now is the time to check for SUSTAINED, and to nominate the articles if those editors still desire. And they all went on to SNOW uphold at DelReview as well (quite predictable, and a little bludgeony given the number of proper editors who !voted) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and notable events are covered here. (I notice Danielle "cash me ousside" Bregoni has a redirect and no article). TLDR: if its notable it stays, and AfD should be forbidden under specific circumstances to prevent time wasting. Thats what I think. d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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

I-want-to-be-pinged list:
 * JFG talk
 * TheGracefulSlick (talk)
 * M ASEM (t) 02:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * d.g. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni (talk)
 * El_C 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk
 * ― Mandruss  &#9742;
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\
 * (Next pygmee)

Choice of venue?
Where should this generic proposal be submitted? In closing the ANI thread, suggested WP:VPP. Thoughts? I'm not familiar with proposing site-wide RfCs. Hopefully it doesn't end up at WP:PERENNIAL. My hunch would be to suggest this in a limited-scope subject area, such as US politics, so the community could ascertain its effectiveness on real-life cases without disturbing the bulk of Wikipedia. Is there a venue for this? WT:WikiProject Politics/American politics perhaps? That place looks strangely inactive. — JFG talk 02:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess Village Pump, but let's worry about that after we know what we want to propose. I'd like to do this here, "between friends", before widening the circle.  E Eng  03:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll wait until there's a fleshed out proposal before I offer an opinion, but I did want to comment to say VPP is really the only possible venue (short of a specialized RfC page that is cross-posted to WP:CENT, WP:VPP, etc - a CENT posting will also be needed). Anything less public than VPP doesn't have the broad reach necessary to change something as well-grounded in broad community consensus as our base notability guidelines. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:VPP sounds like a good idea. I was originally thinking Wikipedia talk:Notability (events), but VPP would probably attract a wider audience. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Resuming discussion

 * Feel free to continue constructive conversation here. For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc. None of that can be known until there's an actual proposal to discuss.
 * I'm pretty busy for the next couple of weeks months, so it may be some time before I can give this the attention it deserves in order to develop a viable proposal. I'm the meantime I'm gratified by the thought being put into the discussion, which will help make whatever we come up with as good as possible.  E Eng 


 * This 3-day proposal that is starting to take shape may actually make WP:NOTNEWS a legitimate policy again. Has anyone else noticed that the main arguments at AfDs for new political or crime-based articles are usually defended with WP:RUSH? It defeats the very foundation of NOTNEWS because keep voters claim sources will soon arise which, by the way, also conflicts with WP:CRYSTALBALL. With three days, sources that may exist will actually exist. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's another great argument to ensure consistency of purpose: inform readers, be neutral, and dare I say combat rampant tabloïdism. — JFG talk 02:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * BREAKING: Look, another "breaking news" turned into a stub within minutes: Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn. Sorry, I pushed that to AfD. Why can't people just edit existing articles such as Michael T. Flynn or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? The thing was spammed into the main Trump sidebar for good measure…
 * This is a perfect illustration of the usefulness of the proposed cool-down period: press writes a story, editor creates article, spams it into visible places, regulars take notice, some open an AfD, others "enrich" the piece by coatracking every possible related subject. Meanwhile the same news story is copied into said related subjects. Several talk page discussions get started in parallel, replete with WP:PA, WP:LAWYERS and WP:ABF, then a week later some poor souls will pick up the crumbs and clean up the mess while dodging calls of censorship or WP:TENDinitis. If such a proposal ever has a chance to pass, the time to act is now. — JFG talk 02:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If an article is created within 24 hours of it first being reported by a major agency, it will have 24 hours of FULL dropped on it. Howzabout that?  d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that would just freeze it in an arbitrary state. Better to have nothing at all for a period.


 * I'll be opposing this proposal, beit 3 months or 3 days—I want Wikipedia to be up-to-date, and even with all the trouble, an artificial cool-down period seems like a detriment to the project's reputation. I realise the current political climate in the US is a lot, but a pivotal shift in policy is not the way to respond to that. El_C 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What part of For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc. None of that can be known until there's an actual proposal to discuss do you not understand? If you think the only question is "3 months or 3 days" they you obviously didn't read the discussion above -- in fact, you didn't even read the bolded bits.  E Eng  03:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I read and I understood it, I just disagree. El_C 03:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. And For the moment, please let's just skip comments which only say it's a bad idea, will never be adopted, etc.? I guess you just disagree with that too, it seems.  E Eng  03:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This whole cooling off period is counter-productive to building an encyclopedia. You want people to edit this site and they edit stuff that they are interested. Right now, this stuff with Trump is hot. Will that mean that a few articles get created that shouldn't? Absolutely and there is a tool for that: WP:AFD. However, having a lot of editors focused on a subject that is likely to be of historic importance (e.g. Russian interference in the US election), sure makes it easier for that editor 5 to 10 years down the road to make a WP:FA. Moreover, getting what are very likely historic but current events in as good as shape as possible will only help the reader today. Don't fix what isn't broken My 2 cents.Casprings (talk)
 * Oh for god's sake, could you at least have read my plea at the top of this thread before commenting?  E Eng  03:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're motivated by building possibly a WP:FA "5 to 10 years down the road", then surely you can wait 2-3 days to get started. Or to push the "breaking historic news" into the lead of related articles. We can't judge what will be historical while we have our noses rubbed in today's mush. — JFG talk 08:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with TGS about our NOTNEWS policy which may well make Russian Intercepts on Michael Flynn a candidate for prod or even G11 when stacked with WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BREAKING and BLP policy overall. It's very disconcerting to see the frenzy, and it may very well clear a path for the same thing to start happening with the Clinton investigations et al.  Lawdy, things are bad enough now trying to clear the WP:NPR backlog. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'll add, there's real breaking news regarding Anthony Weiner sexting scandals - WaPo, CNN, LA Times, etc. published earlier today that he pleaded guilty, but it has gone unnoticed in WP. I think it demonstrates that proposed waiting period for breaking news shouldn't be an issue, and that the motivation to create "breaking news" stubs may be political which isn't helpful to the project. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody can control which subject attracts the creativity of WP editors… We can't deal with politically-motivated smear jobs by blocking Tendentious Faction 1 on odd days, and Tendentious Faction 2 on even days. With the cool-down proposal, it doesn't matter which way the wind blows: readers and curators alike would get back a precious part of their sanity and life-wiki balance. — JFG talk 08:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Note on historical value of news – Our colleague made the following argument over at the previous thread:
 * The key point about breaking news is that we can't judge today whether they will be historically significant. History has a pesky tendency to erase the details and focus on the essentials. So with those example, I bet that the WP:10YT situation would have "Dismissal" as a section of the James Comey article, "Russian interference" renamed either Events leading to Donald Trump's impeachment or Great Russian Hysteria of 2016–2017 (depending how history actually unfolds), and the "disclosure" article merged into a couple sentences of that one. — JFG talk 08:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, first there has to be verifiable evidence that a crime has been committed per WP:V, especially when a BLP is the topic. Politically motivated breaking news that cites anonymous sources could damage the credibility of the project if it turns out to be unsupported or fake news for bait & click. Our job is to make sure WP:V and WP:NPOV have been satisfied. Example: the breaking news about Weiner clearly has staying power - the man pleaded guilty so we're not dealing with allegations from anonymous sources. The only question at this point is whether or not he'll serve time and for how long.  Politically based allegations disguised as "breaking news" which are obviously published by propagandists using anonymous sources can easily turn out to be an effort to boost ratings and/or increase click revenue. At the very least, if "breaking news" is going to remain in the WP landscape, a waiting period makes sense as does enforcement of our PAGs regarding such information. The main objective should be to preserve the credibility of the project and reduce the potential of unsustainable activity at AfD and ANI.  Question - would it help, if it is even possible, to automatically direct articles into draft space that involve allegations of crime or are considered "breaking news", especially that which is politically motivated and includes information that fails V?  I know there's a template for breaking news that should be used, but rarely is. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, first there has to be verifiable evidence that a crime has been committed per WP:V, especially when a BLP is the topic. Politically motivated breaking news that cites anonymous sources could damage the credibility of the project if it turns out to be unsupported or fake news for bait & click. Our job is to make sure WP:V and WP:NPOV have been satisfied. Example: the breaking news about Weiner clearly has staying power - the man pleaded guilty so we're not dealing with allegations from anonymous sources. The only question at this point is whether or not he'll serve time and for how long.  Politically based allegations disguised as "breaking news" which are obviously published by propagandists using anonymous sources can easily turn out to be an effort to boost ratings and/or increase click revenue. At the very least, if "breaking news" is going to remain in the WP landscape, a waiting period makes sense as does enforcement of our PAGs regarding such information. The main objective should be to preserve the credibility of the project and reduce the potential of unsustainable activity at AfD and ANI.  Question - would it help, if it is even possible, to automatically direct articles into draft space that involve allegations of crime or are considered "breaking news", especially that which is politically motivated and includes information that fails V?  I know there's a template for breaking news that should be used, but rarely is. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's one more example of a WP:RECENT, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOT article:
 * 2017 United States-Saudi Arabia arms deal should be a paragraph in Saudi Arabia–United States relations. Interestingly, even a supporter of the article in the inevitable AfD debate says: I think this article should've been created in another two weeks. Or a month. But the notability of this arms deal is clearly significant. Deleting this particular article is pointless. And here we hit the crux of our modest proposal: if the arms deal gets more coverage in the next weeks or months, it may be spun off as its own article, but if it remains a one-day news story, then it will have been properly documented in the relevant article from the onset, and a lot of editor time and content duplication will have been saved. — JFG talk 11:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You'll likely have more luck getting this adopted if you add a list of exceptions. Example: A story that appears above the fold in every major world newspaper. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me say in passing that, even though this effort is temporarily dormant (see next ===-section below), people are welcome to add thoughts which may help in fashioning a proposal. Now then... Your suggestion seems to concern mostly the idea (mentioned somewhere above) that a short embargo will help put notability in better perspective, and in particular avoid starting articles on topics which turn out to be flashes in the pan. (Your point, I assume, is that if it's above the fold on most major newspapers, it's almost certainly notable -- and I agree with that.)


 * But notability isn't the main point of an embargo. The main point is that the reporting of breaking news is often chaotic in the extreme, especially in the early days. The point of the embargo is to give the reporting a bit of time to settle down, so things can be a little bit in perspective, early spurious reports can be weeded out, etc. Take a look at the first version of 2017 Resorts World Manila attack, started 9 hours ago . It reads: On June 1, 2017, Resorts World Manila in the Philippines was the subject of a terrorist attack initially believed to be perpetrated by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Well, that wasn't true. What good does such an article do the reader? In fact, right on the Talk page is the following thread:
 * Has anyone actually read that this may not be a terror attack ?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It may very well not be a terrorist attack, but so far ISIL has claimed responsibility (whether that be true or not) so they are regarded as the probable perpetrators until something else is proven. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh... this is why breaking news stories need a small waiting period to sort the facts. I find it terribly problematic that we cannot even confirm whether this is a coordinated attack by ISIL or a robbery gone wrong.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What was missing here, but often seen in such situations, is angry edit warring over conflicting narratives by people watching different news feeds and therefore in different states of up-to-dateness.  E Eng  03:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have to choose between putting forth a proposal that shuts down the perceived problem completely and a proposal that helps mitigate the issue and has a chance of being adopted. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Two more recent examples: Both of these cases perfectly illustrate the rationale behind the envisioned proposal: encourage editors to place "breaking news" stories into the most relevant existing articles. According to its AfD discussion, Covfefe was speedy deleted and recreated several times, whereas a redirect to Donald Trump on social media would have contained the issue safely and immediately. There's always time to WP:SPINOFF a full article if covfefe expands beyond the initial excitement. — JFG talk 09:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Covfefe, which obviously attracted lots of attention and obviously fails the WP:10 year test – we kind of "must" cover it per WP:GNG but fighting over a new article is a waste. Special barnstar of humour to who reasoned that covfefe "has reliable covfefe in secondary sources, and also tertiary sources that describe the covfefe of covfefe".
 * Trump orb, whereby a meme about the inauguration picture of a counter-terrorism center got more coverage than the aforementioned center, which doesn't even have an article yet. Even without creating that, the natural insertion point was Riyadh Summit 2017 (a much shorter article than the picture story).


 * Another example: Talk page for June 2017 London attack, and the consequent ANI thread . This is a typical struggle for control of the narrative of a breaking event, with tussles over interpretation of early sources etc.  E Eng  06:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And now a second ANI thread!  E  Eng  17:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This here is one of the greatest AfD comments I have had the pleasure of reading and perfectly sums up parts of the "breaking news" issue. you are my hero :) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, excellent.  E Eng  00:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Trump immigration order


 * This comment is worth its weight in gold. — JFG talk 08:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again… CNN 2017 undercover videos controversy. advocates a 7-day moratorium. — JFG talk 14:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See also discussion in this thread. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. Time to act yet? — JFG talk 22:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm writing one paper and two magazine articles. It will be quite a while. Sorry.  E Eng  02:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * & instant news is like "instant grits"...tasteless and without substance. I prefer homemade grits that have substance and are seasoned with a bit of salt and real butter.  Seriously, we're seeing the same feeding frenzy in WP editors that we're seeing in the hungry fake news journalists pundits who are losing their jobs because they've caused their respective network ratings to plummet.  No news is better than fake news. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , what journalists/pundits are you talking about?  E Eng  02:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * - most recently the 3 from CNN and not so recently The Ascent of Punditry, pg 19. Having worked with CNN as a field producer back in the day, it strikes a special cord for me to see the deterioration of ethical journalism. Some of the sources used by MSM are less credible than those used by WP, and that's sad. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The resignations are a sign that standards are being uphelp. While I regret the complete loss in the last 20 years of the formerly iron wall between straight reporting and commentary (in both broadcasting and print) you can't seriously be proposing that CNN offers "fake news".  E Eng  02:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is a sign that standards are being upheld but based on my first-hand experiences I'm more inclined to believe it was the result of them getting caught and publicly exposed. But who the hell knows what's true anymore? The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act (in 2013, I believe) is when journalism started going to hell in a hand basket. When the Director of the FBI calls out the NYTimes for inaccuracies, and undercover cameras capture producers saying the reporting is all about ratings, I can assure you, it's a hard pill to swallow, especially for someone like me who swore the oath of ethical journalism and accuracy in reporting, and did so from an emotionless, matter-of-fact POV for many years before and after retirement. Regardless, I still maintain faith that things will iron out, and it's one of the reasons behind my supporting your proposal for a latency period before publishing "breaking news". We're dealing with a ratings race so it's not surprising that news organizations are trying to be the first to broadcast the scoop and now that the restrictive laws have been repealed, they have all kinds of leeway to say whatever the hell they please with -0- consequences. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedian community is well on its way to keep a textbook WP:1E case called Rob Goldstone. Is this the master conspiracist we have all been expecting? Don't miss the next episode of I hope the Russians love their children too! — JFG talk 23:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks for the warning. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll unfriend you.  E Eng  03:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I continue to appreciate the good examples being added to the list above now and then. When the time for the revolution is ripe, they will help in shaping a proposal. Our day will come, comrades!  E Eng  23:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have advocated in the past for an essay entitled WP:TRUMPSCANDALAFD, but I am hopeful one day that your proposal will make it unnecessary. And I apparently advocated for it on this page, ah, well, its been a while. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How low can we go?

 * Donald Trump's handshakes. — JFG talk 15:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * comment since you asked, how about President Clinton's White House blowjobs? SMirC-chuckle.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have a better one...Monica Lewisky blew it, an article describing her internship and why she got fired. will have fun with this - it's kinda like creating DYK hooks. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Blew what?  E Eng  17:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The job. She blew the job; i.e. in future perfect the command would be: blow job. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As handshakes are being DYK'ed (no pun intended), editors have been emboldened to create this beauty: Trump Speeches on Unite The Right. More tea covfefe, please. — JFG talk 17:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Personal attack at WP:ANI removed
EEng, you should really know better than to make a "joke" which is nothing but a personal attack, even if it is against someone from the extreme right. Comments like this are not relevant to the article or the dispute and can do nothing but make the situation worse. Fram (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 13:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment was totally harmless, those twins are nasty. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Roxy, I'm very disappointed in you. Can you imagine the bullying she suffered during her formative years?  E Eng  14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * How did my comment make the situation worse? Honestly, it's so distressing to have your sympathy for someone's plight labeled a personal attack. And her extreme right views have nothing to do with it; I think Subcommandante Marcos has an idiot name too (the difference being, of course, that he apparently inflicted it on himself).  E Eng  14:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * EEng, drop it. Mocking people for their name is what one expects from a 7-year old child. If you continue like this, you will be blocked. Fram (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, running around on a horse smoking a pipe and calling yourself a "Subcommandante" is what one expects from a 7-year-old child (well, maybe not the smoking). Honestly, haven't you got some vandalism to fight or something? If you continue like this, you will make even more people laugh.  E Eng  17:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification: It's not the horse who smokes the pipe.  E Eng  17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that just took all the fun out of imagining that... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How he got into my pajamas I'll never know. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You may have fooled one gullible admin, and you may fool others as well, but your pretense of innocence is only making you look worse. If you want to insult people, do it offwiki.


 * Information orange.svg Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you.
 * Fram (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Fram, and thanks for the laughs . Now please fuck off. You'll be welcome back here when you gain some perspective on the role of an administrator.  E Eng  09:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is indeed an interesting page to follow! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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


 * For those playing along at home, this concerns the following segment of the current ANI thread re the article Pets of Vladimir Putin. The portions redacted by CambridgeBayWeather as "BLP violations" I have underlined :
 * I do not think Putin would be interested at all, but right now there are a lot of cases in Russia when people are jailed for twits etc. The signals typically come from, um, unstable whistleblowers. I am not currently in Russia, but still...--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good thing for Trump we don't jail people for twits here in the US. E Eng  17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Putin is too busy running the White House to be bothered with these editors. Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Content note: Article contains the passage: Three dolphins applauded the president for feeding them fish, while the walruses even shook his hand. E Eng  17:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer Adorned in white overalls to resemble a bird, Putin did manage to get some cranes to fly. &#8209; Iridescent 17:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a shame the title of this thread isn't something like BITEy behavior at Pets of Vladimir Putin. E Eng  18:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * [... Irrelevant intervening posts omitted...]
 * I voted to keep the article since it is as good as the other similar pages, some of which I was already aware of. Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS? Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait... Donald Trump is tracked by Russian GPS??? E Eng  19:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the dog crack (which I agree is purely a personal insult, but a harmless one against as public a figure as it is possible to be), in what way was it a BLP violation for to suggest that Putin is running the White House? Negative speculation about current political events is a very different thing than a personal attack. Also,, when you redact others' comments even for good reason you should be careful to do it in a way that doesn't make  those editors appear to say something they never said. Your edits make it look like EEng removed someone else's joke, rather than what actually happened, which is that he made a joke and some busybody decided that ANI is too serious a place for jokes. For your future busybody-work, you might find the Redacted template helpful. But I think the bigger problem here is that too many people want to be the thought police of Wikipedia. This attitude is a big part of what makes Wikipedia as hostile as it can sometimes be. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking of dog cracks.  E Eng  04:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The things I miss by not watching television. Or, I suppose, by not deliberately searching the net for dog-butt-related content. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Given a current effort to BLP ban me going on a ANi, this post on my talk page is pretty unwelcome, especially since no one can see what I said. In about 5 minutes someone is going to point to it as proof I can't be trusted. There are enough RS to build an article on the specific ideas you deleted. Google "Putin's pet" or "Putin's dog" and enjoy. Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Does Stephen Colbert count as a reliable source because he's pretty well said that Putin is running the white house and the comment by EEng about Russian satellites tracking Donald Trump is nowhere near anything approaching from miles away being a BLP violation . Uh, it's the insinuation that Trump is Putin's dog that is the issue, I'd say that's two steps up from being his cockholster. We're all being tracked by Russian satellites, are we all BLP violations? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * EEng knows me well enough to know that I consider him a wiki-friend, and that I consider the current US administration and the alt-right to be... otherwise. But having watched the ANI stuff and the two talk sections here, I think that it's possible that no one is entirely in the right. I don't think that the ANI comments were bad enough to have made this much of a stink over (but I do appreciate that CambridgeBayWeather was very courteous, unlike... someone else). Then again, just because an editor may make certain jokes, does not mean that they should make those jokes, and certainly not that they need to make those jokes. I do not go as far as to say that ANI is too serious a place for jokes. I've even made some jokes there myself. But WP:CESSPIT ain't for nothing. It's the Wikipedia place for lost souls, people (real people!) who may be idiots or jerks, but who are nonetheless likely to be upset about something, and being an idiot or a jerk does not mean that they need to be made more upset, or deserve it, or that doing so helps anyone else. EEng, going from ANI section to ANI section to make snarky, albeit clever, comments is likely to make somebody upset. It's not helpful. Now I know that you usually brush off my advice, but I also know that you are very smart (almost as smart as I am), so please think about being a bit more judicious about your ANI comedy routine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Acceptability of comments isn't determined by the most sensitive one or two admins looking on. As CBW |himself noted at AN, this material stood for more than 24 hours, during which several admins posted to the thread, unknowable other admins perused it, and finally, an admin closed it – all without acting on these "BLP violations".
 * I have a question, while we're on the subject: even assuming that Putin is too busy running the White House to be bothered with these editors is a BLP violation who's the LP who's being besmirched? Is it Putin? Trump? Reince Priebus (who's supposed to be running the White House)? Putin's actual dogs?
 *  E Eng  02:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. for : I do appreciate your courteous attitude. And P.S. for : they're not snarky comments, just fun stuff meant to lighten the mood (when they're not actually making a point re the topic of the post, which is most of the time, actually).
 * I agree that acceptability of comments is not determined by a few admins, or at least shouldn't be. But I think that you will see that I was not concerned about offending admins. Although a small number of them may, in fact, be lost souls, most are not, and should be expected to be measured in their propensities to be offended. The lost souls about whom I was talking are non-admin users, and I stand by what I said. And I, too, am underwhelmed by the theory that the Putin comment was a BLP violation. As for snark, I accept that you do not intend them to be snarky. But they do read that way sometimes, and perhaps you do not realize that. And, as I said, it's frequently unhelpful to try to lighten the mood when other people are not... in the mood. And as for your effectiveness in lightening the mood, I'd say, based upon the reactions you have gotten here, don't give up your day job. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be more judicious.  E Eng  07:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that, my friend! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the above, except that the last is a BLD violation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly you besmirched the reputation of dogs. They are fine and noble animals whose loyalty can be utterly selfless. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If I ref my statement with RS will it be ok? I was not trying to disparage
 * Putin, he is doing a great job meeting his objectives. Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I was/am not attempting to get anybody banned or blocked on BLP grounds. Both comments were minor and removing the one by was probably too much. The one by EEng seemed to me to imply that one was the others bitch. I have no liking for either of the two politicians concerned but making those comments without some sources leaves Wikipedia open to accusations of partisanship. Disparaging comments about politician A are removed immediately but those on politician B are allowed to stand is seen all the time and I guess it was one time too many. Legacypac, I'm not going to reply on your talk page, unless you want me to, as I think that it would just make things worse. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Partisanship on articles is a problem. Partisanship on talk pages (and ANI is a talk page) is not so problematic, and is definitely not something that should be redacted. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, what BLP says is Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Information.  Information . When someone says, "Who knew Putin's dog is tracked by Russian GPS?", a response of "Wait... Donald Trump is tracked by Russian GPS???" is not information. It's not an assertion of fact. It's a joke. No one with common sense would actually think I was actually suggesting that Trump is a dog, much less Putin's dog. What I might have been implying beyond that is left to the reader's intelligence, but it's at best a puckish thought, not any kind of information as covered by BLP. Same goes for Putin is too busy running the White House. Thinking that stuff like this, outside article space (not that either of these would be found  in article space) needs to be hunted down and stamped out stems from an absurd misunderstanding of the purpose of BLP. It's a tiny minority of admins who worry about this -- that should tell you something.  E  Eng  23:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 🍿🍿🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺 This rounds on me. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, strongly. As I see it, it's not a BLP violation if no reasonable person would believe it to be true, and no non-notable (thus not in the public eye) person is besmirched by it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Small but critical adjustment to what Tfish has said: The key point here is not that no reasonable person would believe it to be true, but that no reasonable person would interpret it as intended as a statement of fact in the first place.  E Eng  07:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is indeed more accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shucks. Where's a strong and masterful leader like Dubya when ya need one? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

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

I figured that was it. See, the problem is that my fellow editors respect me to the point of veneration, and simply assume that any edit I make is ipso facto correct – see. So if I want someone to check what I've done, I have to raise a ruckus. I hope you checked (assuming you actually understand how all those moving parts in pending changes work, which I'm not sure anyone does).  E Eng  19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it help if I say that I do not venerate you? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would probably employ more classic new editor tricks, like... if anything on my watchlist uses the word "truth" in any way shape or form, I'm 100% checking it. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to your recent ornithological question at WP:ANI
Bats. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And the student was enlightened.  E Eng  11:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * EEng asked: "are there any nonavian fowl?" Perhaps, but there is certainly such a thing as foul tweeting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC) aka Gomphosus varius

Regarding...
...this, I can only say... Hallelujah! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Was that the block where I made a fool of myself, or just one of many? Also, are the 'facts' on the reddit thread accurate? Roxy the dog. bark 09:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just one of many. For the Lord God Omnipotent raineth on the just as well as the unjust. As for the facts, see User:EEng.  E Eng  09:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is too early in my morning for a witty rejoinder, but thanks. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Bio profs
Go ahead and snark, but for what it's worth, Pardis (as a practicing geneticist yet) manages to fit a nod to the limitations of twin studies [ghastly section, btw] and common abuses of "heritability" into her intro genetics course, while Wilson couldn't resist gambling the credibility gained through a career of stellar entomology on a bunch of cockamamie just-so stories about hard genetic determinism "sociobiology". So. FourViolas (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When someone's entire contribution history looks like I feel comfortable erring on the side of ascribing promotionalism. If you, personally, want to vouch for this person I won't oppose it. Maybe some sunny day we'll come up with inclusion criteria.  E  Eng  01:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't actually suggesting she passes whatever impossible threshold of academic superstardom would make her more worthy of the shortlist than Wilson, just griping. This is too complicated to implement, but if I were in charge I'd make a points system: three points for a Nobel or Fields, two for a Pulitzer, one for each NYT bestseller, one for being a fellow of the AAAS or field equivalent, one for being the subject of someone else's course, one-half for each published biography, etc., and then include people with a score of 5 or higher. FourViolas (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm agassed!! Methinks perhaps that criteria may be too encyclopedic for the average encyclopediaphobe.  WP would shrink to fewer pages than the # of baseballs (or bananas) that Johnny Bench can hold in one hand.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're agassed? Sorry! I'll try to be more careful about what I eat. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I spelled it that way for a reason...I was showing sensitivity to EEng's intellectual faculties by appealing to his sense of humor, which I sensed you would help provoke, you lil provocateur you. It's also possible that FV's words, she passes may have triggered it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm only talking about the criteria for the super-elite shortlist on Harvard_University. For general NACADEMIC purposes, I'd be willing to relax the standard to, say, either winning a Nobel Prize or personally developing a technology which ruins ≥10,000 people's lives. EEng, can you do anything about your TPSs' gassed-ly puns? They stink. FourViolas (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , can we have a similar point system for soccer players? Or is it only academics that you want to impose actual standards on? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure how serious you're being, but I'm talking about the criteria for inclusion in Harvard University, not NACADEMIC. The soccer parallel would be something like "who gets to be in the lede of List of Peru international footballers?" Anyway, soccer players already have a points system. FourViolas (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not completely serious, but inclusion on that list rather than inclusion in Wikipedia makes more sense of your Nobel-is-only-halfway scale. Do we get to choose who Harvard hires now? I had no idea we had achieved such power! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we can choose, then let's raise the bar on porn stars and hockey players, too. Is there a Hall of Shame Fame we can use as the minimum requirement for pornies? I think hockey is pretty much the same as soccer, or it may be more relaxed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hitting each other with sticks is more relaxed than grass-diving? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh oh...since porn is part of the equation, I'm afraid my answer to the sticks and grass-diving question will only get me in trouble, regardless of how innocent it might be. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Did someone mention porn stars? The Porn King 123 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Jeopardy's HD Monitors
Jeopardy's game board game uses Sony monitors caused it is produced by Sony Pictures Television. I agree with AldezD's edit. ACMEDeputy (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And that advances the reader's understanding of Jeopardy!... how?  E  Eng  14:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed at getting no response, especially since I phrased my response in the form of a question.  E Eng  12:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's handy
Some people have too much time on their hands..... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When shaking hands with Donald Trump, I'd worry about what else might be on his hands.  E Eng  14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I heard that one in the hand is worth two Bushes.SMirC-tongue.svg No need for you to worry...he's probably read your user page which in itself is built-in protection against a Trump handshake. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Today's puzzle
Does anyone know what "Created claim" means? See the following diff: I didn't think WP considered "humans" above notability.<---that's probably going to go over but I adore the guy who said it and it's fun to repeat so let's just say it's an inside joke and focus on the diff..<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 21:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Puzzle is right. I've been in that discussion, and I did not understand what meant when he said that, and I have no idea what you mean by what you are saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If I remember aright, on Wikidata certain datums (!) are considered "claims" until they're confirmed in some designated way. As for the other guy, I'm staying out of that except to note that I see my innovation has found uses I never anticipated.  E  Eng  23:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , you saw that?!! I'm impressed! Hey, - it's Friday night and it's happy hour. For the next 3 or 4 hours, we have a license to not care. I blame my OCD for getting me in that mess and for not letting me get out of it...but I'm more befuddled over this, which I imagine few saw in my post at that TP because they're too frigging busy arguing for their own OR. SMirC-crazy.svg 🍺!!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, fool, I saw that.  E Eng  00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you must know I have access to Daenerys’ trio of dragons. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, you really don't need to ping me every time you mention me on a talk page that I'm already watching, OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Bad habit I recently developed when responding to a question/statement in one of the mile long threads I've been subjected to this past week...or has it been a year? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * EEng, you really don't need to ping me every time you mention me on a talk page that I'm already watching, OK? --Sauron (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Tryp...pings are like the low voltage lights that light your way to the exit just before the plane crashes. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So I read in a fortune cookie! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like a supremacist...maybe I spelled that wrong...fortune cookies don't solve the hunger you get an hour after eating Chinese food at 2:00am - yes, I did that and at 5 am I was starving - while riding horses down the esplanade of a busy boulevard. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)<---I have to thank for keeping me up with the time. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * At least you're driving on that busy road that will take 2 hours from that Chinese restaurant lol. 😋 KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 02:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Very nice!
Your redundant close of the AN/I complaint about DoRD confused me until what you had done suddenly struck me. Very nice!! One of your better ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My redundant close of the AN/I complaint about DoRD confused you until what I had done suddenly struck you? Very nice? One of my better ones?  E Eng  00:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL (literally). Yes, I literally did. Laugh out loud, that is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can say that again!  E Eng  16:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ..until your computer running Windows 7 crashes!! 🖥🔨 :D KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 16:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks. I always say that if there's anything we can do to improve someone's death, we should do it.  E Eng  20:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
That's high praise coming from a nihilist.  E Eng  05:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * ANI flew? Where did it fly to? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To the land of Achoo. -<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which Chu's land is that? ("A barnstar for you because ANI flew to the land of Achoo": nice rhyme!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was concerned about Ritch's cough, so I sent up smoke signals to Dr. Thaddeus Schmidlap. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)




 * I rush to point out that I did not originate the term ANI flu; it was someone much cleverer than I (maybe ? ?).  E Eng  03:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I've never used the term. The first time I personally saw it mentioned was by in the recent Arthur Rubin RFAR. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't remember exactly where I've used it, but I believe I stole it from Iridescent. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Me: here was its first appearance on Wikipedia. I also gave Wikipedia "civility police", "Facebook for ugly people" and "Bradspeak". You're welcome. &#8209; Iridescent 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you coined the phrase "civility police" and I felt it my duty to provide the visuals. I will not pursue the others for I fear potential retaliation from FB users, and I don't have a clue what "Bradspeak" means. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 17:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Happily, WP:Bradspeak exists to enlighten you. (Despite appearances, it wasn't intended as an insult—it was an observation that NYB was more dedicated than most to avoiding ambiguity, and that his consequent refusal to use words with more than one meaning led to some extremely odd looking phrasing.) I believe I was also the first person to use the phrase "indefinite doesn't mean infinite" on Wikipedia as well, but I can't really take credit for that—before c. 2007 the block interface had separate settings for indefinite ("we haven't decided when to unblock you") and infinite ("fuck off and don't come back") so when blocking someone the situation didn't need to be explained. &#8209; Iridescent 17:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I can happily provide the visuals for "Bradspeak". <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

 E Eng  00:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is why this wasn't the design from the very first day. It defies reason.  E Eng  23:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I'm editing this section in Firefox, and at the bottom is Edit summary, Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, Show preview and changes, Citations and Cancel.
 * I clicked on Show preview and changes and can see what I just typed above but in order to see a preview of what I'm typing now, my only options are Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, and Cancel. I will click on Show changes. Now I have the Show preview and changes option again. How cool is that? ❤️ Thank you, EEng and !! Wow! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I use Firefox (but in Windows, not Mac), and that never happened for me. Was this your first edit after installing the gadget in your JS file? If so, maybe the new code had not yet loaded until your second try. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense, Tryp. I waited a few days, and here goes. I'm seeing the full menu below Edit summary; i.e. Save changes, Show preview, Show changes, Citations, Show preview and changes, Cancel. I'm going to click on Show preview and changes.....Yep - that was it!! Needed to clear cache. That's what excitement will do for you - I got in too big a hurry to use the new feature and instead of doing a cache check, my check bounced. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now in Safari browser.
 * I clicked on Show preview and changes, AWESOME, and now I'm typing this and can see the full menu again, unlike what happened in Firefox. The Show preview and changes remains with each edit. Not sure if it's worth reporting the bug to although it would save an extra step in Firefox (using a Mac). <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 15:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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


 * Nice! <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 17:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, but the lion's share of the credit belongs to the Wikipedia community, which provides the raw material to which I am honored to be allowed to apply such humble talents as I have been lucky enough to be endowed with.  E Eng  03:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I don't know if that last bit was grammatical, but it's late.
 * It was grammatical, more like fanatical, from our favorite radical, but it will pass along with the gas that keeps your ass in high gear, n'er failing to be witty and tart...(finish the poem 🤓). <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly enjoyed navigating through that sentence. Sometimes, "taking it slow" is the best approach on a Friday night, which results in agreement and appreciation. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Inserted text
Hi, re : the opposite of <del ></del> is <ins ></ins>, see [//www.w3.org/TR/html5/edits.html HTML5 spec, section 4.6]. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll add that to my reading list should I ever be sentenced to life in prison.  E Eng  22:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal comments
I'm afraid I think this edit oversteps the boundaries of no personal attacks and civility. Please desist. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Making the question even more urgent: Why are you wasting the time of so many editors? When are you going to get a clue?  E Eng  03:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, I was away for the weekend and only just received it.
 * I realise that you have a problem with my behaviour. But this is not the place to discuss that. This is about your behaviour.
 * I'm interpreting your response as meaning that you see nothing wrong with the edit in question, and will continue to make similar ones unless this is escalated, is that a fair conclusion? Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm interpreting your response as meaning you're even more clueless than anyone thought. Do you really so need to humiliate yourself that you just can't resist coming back here?
 * I was away for the weekend and only just received it. – Thanks for explaining. I was counting the hours until I heard from you.
 * I realise that you have a problem with my behaviour. But this is not the place to discuss that. – Who the fuck are you to tell me what can be discussed on my talk page?
 * This is about your behaviour. – No, it really is about your behavior.
 * unless this is escalated – Christ, please escalate. It's been a while since one of you grandfathered admins made a fool of himself like this. Always entertaining.
 * Pinging .  E Eng  00:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * @Andrewa: Things might have changed since whatever halcyon days you are remembering. I feel I can speak for EEng and myself in saying that we do not want the issue escalated because we have things to do and further pointless banter would be very unproductive. However, I guarantee that escalation would achieve nothing apart from providing light entertainment. The way to avoid people poking fun at you is to stop wasting time. Regarding Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, you have made 97 edits since 14 August 2017—has anything been achieved? Of course you are welcome to waste your time however you like, but WP:TPG is important—1,019 people watch the page, of whom 95 have checked the talk page recently; in all, the talk page has been viewed 2,598 times in the past 30 days. That means the pointless banter is wasting a lot of other people's time. Please find something useful to do. If you really really really want to continue, make an RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had it in mind that an escalation might be useful as a vehicle for Andrewa learning something, but experience shows that's very unlikely so, yes, it would indeed be a waste of time. [User:EEng#s| E ]] Eng  04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be right. I guess there's only one way to find out. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attack by EEng. Andrewa (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well,, did you learn anything ?  E Eng  17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * EEng's ode to Newyorkbrad. Gotta love Brad's diplomacy. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you are quite right, the bar on personal attacks is lower than it once was, and consensus is clear that your post was quite in order. Perhaps that is one reason we have concerns about contributor retention... but that's a discussion for another time.
 * So we can regard this complaint as resolved in your favour, and I have indeed learned something. Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're trying to say the bar is higher, but that's OK (and I don't agree, by the way – we've just stopped trying to police personal interactions the way grade-school teachers patrol the playground). Anyway, this wasn't resolved in anyone's favour, because WP:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning. But we might say it was resolved in favour of a principle – the principle that Wikipedia is not about whining. I'm glad you learned something, but I dare not ask what that is. Now please stop wasting my time and go deny the antecedent, or affirm the consequent, or accentuate the positive, or whatever it is you think you're doing, somewhere else.  E Eng  22:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Plimpton 322 NPOV
I have mentioned you on the NPOV noticeboard 9and50swans (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not before I mentioned you!  E Eng  04:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

NPOV Plimpton 322
I mentioned you on the NPOV noticeboard discussion 9and50swans (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WTF? 21 minutes later?  E Eng  04:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I mention, I mentioned you on the NPOV noticeboard discussion? Keira  1996  04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned mentioning that you mentioned me on the NPOV noticeboard discussion.  E Eng  04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned you on any NPOV noticeboard discussion. Am I missing out? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We must mention EEng at NPOV-N since he's mentioned that others have mentioned mentioning him and we don't want to be left out of the mention tension.<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's all part of the mention tension convention.  E Eng  13:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Enough nonsense. I'm putting you on suspension. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Enforced abstention?  E Eng  13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, is this how it's done? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, SBHB - you simply have to mention it. Was not that style of mention mentioned to you as we have intentionally mentioned in the mention tension convention while you attempted suspension, unless enforced abstention was your contention? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And now EEng will get no pension. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Henchmen comment As long as he and his never get Tension. BTW, I feel the infobox image needs to be removed. L3X1 (distænt write)  03:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What infobox?  E Eng  03:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Infobox medical condition on Tension headache.L3X1 (distænt write)  03:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You want my blessing?  E Eng  04:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't think otherwise I'll be bold tomorrow and remove it. L3X1 (distænt write)  04:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 😂 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL, you'll won't get this blessing and this craziness. :D KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 14:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which one is more reasonable: A. Someone has a recent grudge from an encounter with installing Windows B. I seem to remember raiding a cult hideout and they had this projected on the wall over their altar. L3X1 (distænt write)  18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Plimpton 322
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Plimpton 322. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so long as you haven't mentioned me there.  E Eng  04:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Tit for tat
In exchange for calling me to Talk:Ted Kaczynski maybe you could look at Maryanthe Malliaris and User talk:Adam8592. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the discussion and hope your advice got through. I'll keep an eye. Your ran/rma infection seems chronic.  E Eng  05:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Was it necessary?
This was dickish. You won your point. Learn how to win with grace, or you will lilely run afoul of other editors as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Responded here . I wish you'd make up your mind, though, whether I'm a dick or a douche. (Is your confusion that they both go into ladyparts?)  E Eng  18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Right you are
Don't know whether he's a sock or just a troll, but I'm sorry you are the target. Cheers! Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Better me than anyone else; it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I kind of like having the block log I have because it draws the crazies like moths to the flame, thus we know quickly who's who. BTW, he seems to want us to think he's this guy . He's probably qualified for a WP:IMPERSONATE block, but I'm not going to initiate that unless he keeps behaving in a way that embarrasses the real person with that name.  E Eng  01:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, impressive sleuthing on your part! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I simply googled Carole Chaski‎‎ Robert Kwasny. It's on the first page of results. I don't think it's him, though. No responsible academic would behave that way; more likely it's someone out to embarrass him and/or embarrass Chaski.  E Eng  02:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * He'd rather have pancakes. (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * /... You watch it, cupcake!.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A header

 * He's "smarter than your average moron". Don vs Rex.... bring it on!!  - Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Orange
Since you sent Thanks, I thought I ought read this talk page. My first reaction was "how can one editor be so talented?" Then the answer hit: no effor required—each night you tilt Wikipedia and next morning les noix roll in—as if this were Orange County. User:Neonorange (Phil) 07:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there many nut trees here in OC? I hadn't noticed. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My second post is almost a duplicate, but not quite. A clue is to be found by clicking on the subject line of that second post. — (Phil) 11:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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


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

Am drams
User:Ritchie333/Any 'Dmin Will Do - currently running at the Dramaboard Playhouse <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have the best talk-page stalkers.  E Eng  18:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

(BTW, maybe I should take the time now to apologize for things I said during that long war we had over at DYK two summers ago. So, I'm sorry). Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As the wise man said, Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. Good writing often springs from the dynamic between a writer who who writes too much and an editor who cuts, chooses, and prunes.
 * Don't worry about the other, . As I'm sure you know I've been on the receiving end of worse.
 *  E Eng  03:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is the wise man? Or did you mean wise guy? But hey, does that mean that if I eat prunes I'll become a good writer? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Tryp, your fins could use a little pruning. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as my intestines don't need prunes. (Yes, I know that was a crappy joke.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
This is your only warning; if you trim out blatantly excessive text from a long standing rights description page making the text far more digestible and less complex for the average reader, as you did with this edit, I shall have to praise you again.

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


 * Barnstar of Humour Hires.png

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


 * I counted the number of "blah"s, and you should have had one more. (By the way, I have all of the best "blah"s. When I get done, you'll have so many "blah"s that you'll be getting tired of so much "blah"ing. Everyone else has fake "blah"s.) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I did have to add a bit of text back in . Feel free to change it however you wish, but this bit is important because many of the people we want having autopatrolled are not familiar with project space, so we rely on other people to let admins know that they should have the flag. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Earlier this year there was a lot of talk about going around and granting AP to those who qualified, has that all been taken care of? L3X1 (distænt write)  16:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Required notice
You're edit-warring and approaching 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We've known each too long for you to give me this kind of static.  E  Eng  09:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Must be just friendly shock tactics? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh, Martin, when did the doctors discharge you?  E Eng  13:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As if he would ever dare. You know my motto. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion is high voltage. How could anyone not get a charge out of it? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorely missed
Hi EEng, I'm sure that Alfred Schmidt would be having fun if he were alive today. --Mirokado (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We need people like him and Herblock more than ever now.  E Eng  22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The illustration with the caption "Drawing" (it's quite interesting if you click on it once, then click on "More details" to enlarge it so you can see the details), and the one of Saltholm lend themselves to captions about Wikipedia. – Corinne (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

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

L3X1 (distænt write)  04:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What the hell? But thanks for the goat.  E Eng  04:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

<br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Where I'm from, a ram is a Dodge dually. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 04:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago I was behind a 3500 with RAM written like a foot tall in the tailgate and a badge that looked about 10 inches wide. Any clue what I could have seen??
 * 1 Ton (3500) Dodge RAM truck, probably with dual rear wheels. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 05:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, gotta say...DE has quite the imagination. Maybe an alternate account as User:GYNng is in order. 😂 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And if he's blocked for sockpuppetry he can submit an unblock request to UTRS.  E Eng  17:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But who, I'd like to know, put the ram in the rama-lama-lama-lama-ding-ding-dong? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Y'all be confusin' yer animals .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

1 Millionth edit on ANI?

 * All hail the God-King and President for Life ... personally I'm going to save my accolades for when this talk page hits 1,000 lv2 sections. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, Jesus - that makes EEng a millennial to the 1,000th power? (It's all about editing power, not size.) <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you make a table of contents for your table of contents? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You have been deleted from Wikipedia
Per the discussion at ANI, you are hereby deleted from this world for wasting the 1 millionth edit on ANI. If you wish to appeal this deletion please contact the creator of the universe, whoever that may be.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you do not get the free tin of spam. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted is not that bad, it could be worse. You could have received an admonishment. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was looking for an image that would illustrate wasting edits, or time, and I came across The Idler (1993). I love the quote from the Ethos section:
 * On the practice of idling, Tom Hodgkinson writes:


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


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


 * Thank fucking God. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we have him WP:Salted? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I find it highly amusing that a user with the word fish in their name also used the word Salt. Blackmane (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because I'm a seasoned editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See also the Mars-related item at User:SMcCandlish (which is nowhere near as well-curated or current as EEng's museum).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  19:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Curated" is one of those trendy words that makes me want to hit people with wooden rulers. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely love Corinne, but it's true.  E Eng  03:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what's true? – Corinne (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A good question, one that even the Nephelim themselves have struggled to answer. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That curated is a trendy word.  E Eng  17:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you say curated, or curing? Sacrifice pig Tarporley Painter MAN.jpg. Vase v. 360-340 BC, National Archaeological Museum of Spain, from Curing (food preservation)]] – Corinne (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sassy Trump
All those pithy comments about Trump on your user page, including links to YouTube videos, and not a single mention of Peter Serafinowicz's Sassy Trump? For shame!  nagual  design   22:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny! I liked the Puerto Rico speech best.  :-)&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Puppy Trump is worth consideration as well . Okay, two joke posts in one day are sufficient. I'm heading back to my watchtower.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did I arks you?  nagual  design   01:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Careful now, Nagual, or we'll get Brother Stanton back again, pushing those crummy magazines. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sure they've published some stuff about at least one ark, possibly two.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the edit that dare not speak its name removed by was just a link to the latest Sassy Trump video. I'd link to it here again, minus the title, if I hadn't been threatened by Ivan. For anyone who's interested I've posted it on my talk page. Ask for me tomorrow, and you may find me a grave man. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Will someone please email me this link (using Email this user)? I'd like to know what this is all about. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dang, whipped out the ban hammer on  over whatever it was. There's a related wikicourt entry at Administrators' noticeboard. ––<b style="font-family:FreeSans;letter-spacing:-0.05em"><i style="color:#AC7D20;font-variant:small-caps">A Fellow</i> <b style="color:#6B2E2E">Editor</b></b>– 17:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a Sassy Trump video, since I was barred from linking to the latest one, but a musical mashup from October last year (with no mention of any allegations of molestation, paedophilia, necrophilia or any other such BLP violating content, it's just a bit of fun): DONALD TRUMP : The Muppet Show Mashup <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC) A bit of off-Wiki comic relief from all the huffing and puffing that fills Wikipedia talk pages: There's been 3 more Sassy Trump videos released in the last couple of weeks. I won't link to all 3, but this one had me in stitches: Sassy Trump sings 'The Star-Something Hmm-hmm' I'm surprised more people don't do funny voiceovers. Maybe it's my puerile sense of humour but I find them hilarious. Bad Lip Reading never fails to amuse me either. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


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

Please comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's absolutely tasteless for Legobot to have placed this notice directly under a turkey-in-oven photo.  E Eng  14:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You definitely should take the bot to ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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


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

I totally agree with you TGS and AFE. I can't overemphasize the engaging prose by our one and only EEng, an editor I admire and consider to be extraordinary in so many different ways. I would definitely be among the FA reviewers if PG became a WP:FAC. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Roxy will need a lot of popcorn for that. I think the reason is that, once one opens the edit window, the page turns gag-inducing. I've given our fine curator a lot of grief over that in the past, but have since lost my appetite for doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to reopen some bad history here. I just think credit should be given for what, in my opinion, surpasses any article I have read on Wikipedia thus far. Honestly, a review just seems like a formality at this point but I can start one if that is the issue. Good idea or doomed to fail? Thoughts?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain whether it's doomed to fail, but it is very likely doomed to elicit drama, because that bad history includes a lot of editors who (unlike me) continue to hold a grudge. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I've mentioned before that we need this article like a hole in the head. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, we should add a section about lobotomy to that page. (Now, watch EEng's head explode!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lobotomy's already covered. Jeesh.  E Eng  04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is what it takes NYB! I am going to ask around to find an experienced GA reviewer who would take the case. I still presume this review would just be a formality but I hope I can trust any issues beyond my control -- like with sources I do not own -- will be dealt with professionally by the article's main contributors. Resentment be damned; such a well-researched piece is worth whatever drama a few editors want to stir up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * First let me say that, while I can't deny I'm the editor most responsible for what you see in the article, many others helped substantially and even indispensably. And anyone who says they don't enjoy, just a teensy bit, seeing their work recognized is fibbing – but at what cost? Please let's not rush into anything. Someone (not me) nominated for GA in 2013, and guess what? Click to find out. I fear that in any renewed effort (whether GA or FA), what will happen is...
 * someone will say there should be fewer quotations, because most articles have fewer quotations, and that quotations shouldn't have links, because otherwise someone might think that the links were in the original 19th-century quotation;
 * someone will say there should be fewer images, because most articles don't have many images;
 * someone will say the citation system should be changed, because most articles use some other citation system, whether it would do good service here or not;
 * someone will say et al. should be italicized;
 * someone else will say et al. should not be italicized;
 * someone will say the sentences should be broken up into short declaratives, that you shouldn't use dashes, and that you can't start a sentence with However or But, because their seventh-grade teacher Miss Snodgrass told them so;
 * someone will say the markup is too complicated (see post above in this thread), without considering what the markup does;
 * someone will say there should be fewer notes, because most articles don't have notes;
 * someone will say that the article's not balanced because (and I am not making this up) it doesn't repeat various things things said in a children's book.
 * In short, there will be plenty of people advocating for the principle that an "anodyne consistency of style" is what makes for a quality article. And those are just from memory. I don't know if I feel like going through that again. Then of course, the article's not my property and it's not my decision to make.


 * Maybe we could try a test run with Sacred Cod or Widener Library or John Harvard (statue) or Andrew M. Gleason or Lionel de Jersey Harvard (next spring will be the 100 anniversary of his death, BTW, so that would be nice). But no matter what, can this wait a few weeks? I've got a lot going on just now.
 *  E Eng  04:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, that ANI about the earlier GAN made my head explode! (Certainly wasn't just a formality.) Maybe it would make for a good reply to that survey about ANI posted below. Maybe not. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe "et" could be italicized and "al." not. Or the other way around. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be the quintessential Wikipedia compromise.  E Eng  01:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that Solomon actually had good judgment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "This is ..." [7 sec. vid] --– A Fellow   Editor  – 23:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that out of friendship and consideration for EEng, please don't do a GAN at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And so it begins...  E  Eng  20:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have cheese and onion flavour? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)


 * EEng - it's Happy Hour, and all I can do to refrain from sharing my candid thoughts. I can relate to what you've had to endure. (pause to retrieve a chilled mug of... use your imagination). I try to steer clear of things I'm not young enough to change...and I can't understand how in the hell that wonderfully composed and exceptionally well-written article doesn't meet the criteria for FA, never mind GA. Having said that, I understand why you don't want to be subjected to the drill, and decided instead to let it be what it is. Sometimes we just have to stop arguing and simply let them be wrong. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * EEng I'll refrain from this topic for a few weeks. I apologize for causing any grief over what I thought was a bit more straightforward than it turned out to be. I don't know if there is some major politicizing or a grudge match keeping you away from the credit you deserve on the Gage article but I would appreciate if you re-evaluated after a period of time to see if you are up for a GA review.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not as big a deal as maybe it comes across, and you certainly mean well. As mentioned above, may I suggest we start instead with Lionel de Jersey Harvard or Sacred Cod?  E Eng  15:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In re any recent uptick in interest about the page: . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, my eyes, my 👀, my SMirC-shock.svg!! 🙈 Wish I hadn't read that! The nerve of those people!!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:29, December 2, 2017
 * And look how is now harassing one of those poor people!   E  Eng  03:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Reminder: There will be a meeting of the white males immediately after next week's Masonic Rites. If your Trilateral Commission duties will prevent you from attending, please let me know.

Was he waiting for an answer?
Do you think the original poster was waiting for an answer all this time? He must be quite relieved to have gotten one, at Talk:Mafic [sic]. – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But, how does one pronounce "magnesium"? (I do have to admit, Osama Bin Login is a pretty good username.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The name is a pun of Osama Bin Laden and a Unix program named /bin/login, which runs to let people log into the system." – And apparently he had to defend it at one point. --– A Fellow   Editor  – 02:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A barn-appendange

 * You can't please all the people all the time, I guess: someone was just telling me that they're disruptive and I should stop. Fooey, I say! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I see your point
... about the lack of need to state that the quote is by Koenig about Chekov. To my surprise, Template:Quote box says the attribution fields are optional! Ylee (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Situation resolved. Take us out of orbit, set a course for Recreation Planet Svetlana-7! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hab Milch?
See: User:EEng – Tnx 4 sharing dat, EEng. ––<b style="font-family:FreeSans;letter-spacing:-0.05em"><i style="color:#AC7D20;font-variant:small-caps">A Fellow</i> <b style="color:#6B2E2E">Editor</b></b>– 09:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Du vilcommen. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Phineas Gage (2)
Well, I'm glad we got that sorted. His head shot looks particularly good in the article. I hope you're happy with all that. All the best for Christmas and the New Year. Regards, <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I blamed the other guys
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I will not be out-SNL:d by anyone!!!
But Merry Christmas anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even your username sounds like an SNL gag. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...now you may have insulted the culture of my people. Stand by for withdrawal of any pickled herring in your possession. Alternatively, watch the 312-minute cut of Fanny and Alexander three times., please block EEng for the rest of the year for cultural insensitivity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't come across as diacritical. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your pun-ishment should be severe. However, "Swedish also has the letters å, ä, and ö, but these are considered distinct letters, not a and o with diacritics." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Diacritic. – Corinne (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback
Thanks for posting at the ANI (although the discussion was closed and may be considered bit ill-timed because of that, but whatever, it's fine...). I gained good amount of community feedback (including yours), and I will take it to heart, I will honor it, apply it, learn from it, and carry on positively. I appreciate your input very much, and I thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to repeat what I said on Tony1's talk page, I don't really blame you, because you were just imitating the widespread triggerhappy practices you've seen at ANI regarding so-called legal threats. And you're to be commended for trying to make amends. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Murder of Heather Rich
I think that Murder of Heather Rich might need a check-over. Could you please do it? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Great and Powerful Oz will consider your entreaty, but not for a bit because he can't abide cold oatmeal. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * . I'd like your help to bring it to GA. It's in a crappy state for a case that got national attention. we can start by giving it an infobox and a picture of Ms. Rich. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've done all I can. The trial stuff probably should be streamlined more, but to be honest all the twists and turns give me a headache. I'm going to have to leave it at that. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

April 1
I have nominated another article today that I worked on to be included in the DYK section on the main page on April 1. Perhaps I can be the first Wikipedian to have two mentions on April 1! Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to have nightmares about that page at least until April. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

My mother's footwear
She did, in fact, occasionally wear Army boots. My old ones, to be precise; US Army issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  22:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So my intuition was correct. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you intuited that my mother was Barbara Eden, you're off by a bit. My mother's magical powers (including eyes in the back of her head) were very real, and not the result of special effects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Harv citations
Do you remember the fix for the ''Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named xxxxx''? See Barbara Taylor refs. I bookmarked the fix somewhere, but I can't recall where. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no such problem in Barbara Taylor, and I have a script to highlight those errors. If you're using the cite template series, you need to uses harv; is that what you're thinking of? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Give me a few and I'll do a screen capture so you can see what's happening. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm pretty sure that among the pile of stuff at User:Atsme/common.js there's some code which does this. I get it as well and have learned to ignore it unless I'm cleaning up an article's refs. If you look in User:EEng/common.js you'll see the code I have to do the same thing (stolen from someone, I have no idea who). Try temporarily blanking your common.js and the message should disappear. If it's any comfort normal readers won't see the error because they won't have the js. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll log out and use the laptop, a cell phone and iPad, then I'll check back in. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, the culprit is  importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');  Not sure why it shows up as an error or if it's really necessary to fix it but with that script gone, the error disappears. Apologies for any confusion I that js script may have caused. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is completely not an error to have citations with no harv link to them. Why that script would flag it as an error is a mystery to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * defines an anchor by default, so it is not (necessarily) an error in that case. It is possible to add  to suppress the anchor, I keep meaning to document that!  etc only define an anchor if the   param is set. In that case it is an indication that the intended link to that citation is missing so correcting the problem will probably improve the article. I like the "no errors, no warnings" mantra when adding content or programming, so I would always fix such a message. --Mirokado (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

My only response: A Game Warden is walking along a beach one morning when he spots a man with a bucket of lobsters. The Warden walks up to the man, flashes his badge and says, “You’re in big trouble, buddy. Poaching lobsters is a serious offense.” The man answers, “You’ve got it all wrong, these lobsters are my pets! Every morning I take them out for some exercise. I let them swim around in the ocean for a few minutes and then whistle them back in.” The Warden looks at the man skeptically and says, “Okay then, prove it.” The man proceeds to throw the lobsters into the ocean and both he and the Warden stand there waiting. After a couple minutes the Warden looks at the man and says, “That’s long enough, now whistle your lobsters back in.” The man turns to the Warden and says “Lobsters? What lobsters?” So, David - I ask...What error? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's wrong to poach lobsters, is it alright to broil them? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or even rock them? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Waiter, waiter, this lobster’s only got one claw.
 * It must have been in a fight, sir.
 * Then bring me the winner. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd make another joke about this, but that would just be shellfish of me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Waiter! Waiter! There's a fly in my soup!
 * Just leave it for a few seconds, sir: the lobster will get it.
 * A happy new year to EEng and all the contributors to his talk page. --Mirokado (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just realized...
I'll probably be indefinitely blocked in the next few minutes for making death threats. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh, you said it in terms of the death penalty, which is administered as a part of law, so that made it a legal threat. Alas, you're a goner. If only you had merely threatened to kill someone, that wouldn't have been a legal threat, and no admin would care. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How very dare you. Reviewers are editor people too, you know!! What's Wiki coming to. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to the death threat...
I created an article on blocks y'know. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * [[File:Blockhead US.ogg]]
 * LOL*


 * And another one I couldn't resist: Happy New Year, EEng! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts....
Dax Cowart - perhaps not quite on the level of a Phineas Gage but very close. Give it a look when you have time. I admire and recognize your gift to "engage the reader". <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to this. I'm surprised I've never heard of the case before. Looks like this wouldn't need much to bring it to GA, and it would make a good DYK, especially wrt his being denied access to an attorney. I'll give it a going over next year, but in the meantime any chance you can revive the U Virginia link, currently 404? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added quite a few RS to the TP of the BLP, and my reason for not editing the article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding - a good friend (an attorney), named his daughter after Dax. If my memory serves correctly, he and Dax attended Trial Lawyers College together, and because Dax was blind, Marty read aloud for him, doing whatever he could to help Dax get through the class. In 1985 he created a scholarship in Dax's name. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just an FYI...
...discussion at User:Atsme/Blocking policy proposal. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I encourage my glittering array of talk page stalkers to take a look. Myself I'm going to just keep watching for now. I long ago decided to let my block log stand as a monument to the 3% of admins who are fools or jackasses (with one or two exceptions, of course) so I don't have the emotional investment many others do. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Later clarification: What I meant is that there are one or two exceptions among the admins who have blocked me; among admins in general, 97% are emphatically not fools or jackasses. 16:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But they can't comment there. They've all been blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And you're next. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * { So if I have blocks on my mind, I guess that makes me a blockhead! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting some mileage out of this one - thx Tryp:
 * [[File:Blockhead US.ogg]]
 * LOL*
 * I always figured block logs didn't go anywhere, since they're unable to roll...  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting and continuing the discussion. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  14:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on some of the comments I've read about block logs, we should be proud of them.SMirC-shock.svg One argument I've seen more than once over the years is that we should want to keep them in public view because it exposes the insanity that plagues WP. SMirC-crazy.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 16:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I thanked you
...for comments in your edit summaries. You have a block log? Well, I'll get some popcorn, put on some background music, put my feet up and read the novel for myself. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  13:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope you have a few days to spare... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Day thirteen and I'm still reading the edit summarys and block logs and whatever else I can find. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A warning Cup-a-Soup for you

 * Hmmm...what I need is a bowl of Oatsmeal. SMirC-chuckle.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit
Please would you mind helping me do a copy edit of this article. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! I gave it a going over, though there were one or two things I didn't quite understand. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Convoluted, but interesting
Have you seen this? I love it. User talk:Oshwah. I wonder if two vandalisms equal one positive, and three become negative, like numbers. (From looking at Oshwah's talk page, I have concluded he is a saint. Invariably polite and helpful, no matter what people say to him.) – Corinne (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I donated all my saintliness to him. That's why I've got none left. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't tell Tony1 that, although they seem to have worked it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Scheming
I have BIG plans for the April Version of the Signpost but it is super duper secret and I can't leave it on your talk page because, believe it or not, my edits are being closely watched?!?!?! I can involve all the other talk page stalkers and it will be a lot of fun. Basically, you will respond to interview questions. Before you begin to respond, I will assign you an imaginary character. You will respond as the imaginary character probably would. For example, perhaps you would like to respond as Donald Trump's left shoe. Or you might be a famous sock puppet. Call me crazy, but this will work and no one will know it's you because it will be a super duper secret. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  00:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This can only end in tragedy. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sickened by the thought of being that close to one of Trump's feet. Oh, and Barbara, you may think it's secret, but the Russians already know all about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Be happy if you get his feet, it could be much worse - he was a jock in college. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you (2)
I appreciate your support today, or rather your having principles and standing up for them. Cheers. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 17:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Hierarchy of editor subservience" – brilliant turn of phrase. I copied it to the image file page on Commons. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Although, like the Brittle star, Trump's cake hole doubles as a shit hole, his speech from May last year really resonates with me today, and if I was to elect a representative to stand behind a podium and issue a statement on my behalf this would be it: You Can't Let Them Get You Down <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 00:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hygienic corn
Be honest. You've been on the internet long enough to know that there's got to be a market for ass-ground corn, and probably a lucrative one. It can't imagine it can be comfortable being either the grinder or the grindee, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Gives new meaning to the term butt hurt. I understand being a grandee's not so bad, though. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 08:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be worse. See: Brittle star, first sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's so sexy. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 20:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "In ice hockey, a grinder is a player better known for his hard work and checking than his scoring." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:NUMBERS
Sorry - we're being caught up in a "cross-edit" situation here - I wasn't trying to be difficult or "counter edit" (really!) On the other hand - I did have a specific reason for all my changes - including some that you have reverted. Not that any of them are real big deal, just trying to get everything absolutely clear... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're worried about. Your changes were mostly fine, and I made some adjustments. We cool. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientific astonishment
Been meaning to tell you that your Principle of Some Astonishment is wonderful, but then you already knew that, so why bother. It would be great to adapt this to the stuff I often see in term papers, e.g.,
 * In a journal article Smith and Jones (1969) stated...
 * Comment: Given the context we can assume the citation is a scientific article. Had they reported their findings on baroclinic instability using interpretive dance, or in Playboy, THAT would have been worth mentioning.

Have you done anything like this? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reported my research via interpretive dance? No, I haven't, but I'm about to publish a paper on Phineas Gage in The Mark Twain Journal, which is somewhere on the "unexpected places to publish" spectrum, I suppose. Are you asking if I've seen examples like yours? No, but I'd be happy for you to contribute one or two. If you're asking whether it's OK to adapt ASTONISHME to your own uses, absolutely of course. If you're asking something else and I'm not getting it, say it again slowly and use small words. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do see that kind of thing all too often when a class project descends on a science page. " Studies have shown that Tryptofish's brain is mushy." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Baroclinic instability interpretive dancer. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just answer the question, EEng. Have you ever published anything in Playboy or not? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but I have it on good authority that he posed for a photoshoot with them a few years back... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently he was lined up for something quite angelic; but he refused when he found out he'd be getting a staple through his navel. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Posing with a tamping iron, no doubt. I hope he didn't have his frontal lobe hanging out. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 15:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it was quite tasteful. Unlike the time he posed with a tamping iron for Hustler. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * His cerebellar peduncles are quite a sight, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything sexier on a man than a large Superior cerebellar peduncle EEng's must have been the centerfold - what issue of Hustler? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my! Please cover up right away! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh Trypty, don't be so boring... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh Martin, clam up! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We should get back on topic, I'm sure EEng needs this kind of banter like he needs a hole in the head. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tryp - is this statement for real? The dura mater (Latin: tough mother) I've seen some tough mothers in my day, but they were riding Harleys. For some reason, that is not how I envision EEng. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You know, I always assumed it meant "matter", but it does translate as "mother"! Well, under the dura there is the spider-like mother, which is really creepy, followed by the loving mother. After that, I assume, is Dr. Freud. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, a phlyum would never have a two-word name. The binomial is reserved for genus and species. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rug burns from ROTFLMAO - you are a trip, Tryp...one-ofa-kind...❤️...I fixed it so it would be one name. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, but what I said about binomials was actually serious. But hey, enjoy! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm surrounded by weirdos. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Birds of a feather. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One day, pun researchers will use this page as a benchmark for the taxonomy of bad jokes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually,, your "taxonomy" comment was the inspiration for my taxobox "Cuckoos". Little did I know the templates would cause me grief by being an obstruction to my ability to make it humorous. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I wet my pants, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's OK. Just don't wet anyone else's. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also good case material for the next DSM. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you know... ... that human brain size has been decreasing over time, in inverse proportion to the size of EEng's talk page? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the original topic of this talk section, here is an example of the kind of excess verbiage that often happens on science pages:. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

← Here's a prime example of a superfluous caption in the Rockall infobox that imparts no useful information whatsoever. From a boat, you say? Okay. And which island is that again? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And here's a huge improvement, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC) → Rockall - geograph.org.uk - 1048791.jpg view of the North Atlantic Ocean island of Rockall (center), from the south-south-east, taken on Wednesday 14 May 2008, from Andy Strangeway's motorboat, during a very calm sea (bottom) in daylight hours, showing nesting fulmars and northern gannets, with a relatively small amount of guano. The sky is visible at the top. Andy was wearing his North Face jacket and a pair of Levi's blue jeans at the time, with Converse All Star sneakers and Fruit of the Loom socks. Andy was not wearing any shirt or underwear, because that's how Andy rolls. He had a ham sandwich for lunch that day, and was beginning to wonder if the ham had started to go bad. He also saw a whale earlier in the trip.]]
 * Martin, in my experience, it's very unlikely that anything coming from you would contain only a small amount of guano. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! Well, I did say relatively - but yes, I do try to pack it in. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But we all thank you for your herculean efforts! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm more surprised by the small number of eggs. Also, you forgot to mention that the sky is blue. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I must be slipping. But I do try to keep things jolly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That caption's looking much better. Any advance on that, or should I add it to the article now? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nagual, if you add it to the article like that, I will personally endorse and actively campaign for your immediate unblocking, because you will be my hero. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sad that the current caption says nothing about the camera, lens, and choice of film or digital used for this photo. But at least we might add that the original photo was not level, because of the rocking of the boat, and that it has been cropped and leveled to prevent unsuspecting readers from thinking that the sea is usually tilted in that vicinity. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. You should add all of that information post-haste. (I'd do it, but I know next to nothing about photography.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed N/A images from WT:NFC
On 31 January 2018 at 16:51 (UTC), you added two images to the top of the discussion at WT:NFC. I couldn't find any illustrative benefit of File:UmbrellaVendingMachine.jpg or File:It's an umbrella in a toilet (2308844594).jpg to my text with which you associated those images. I would have moved them to accompany your comments, but I couldn't find any on the page, so I've removed them. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a fellow sufferer of Pellebaphobia I applaud your noble actions. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. also watch out for this opportunist creep at Palme d'Or articles.
 * And you shut up. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Principle of Complete Astonishment
It's the CNN logo labeled twice. ] Legacypac (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sir, you are hereby awarded the Principle of Some Astonishment Medal of Honor (with Oak Leaves). <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
See this discussion. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're just digging yourself deeper towards a desysopping. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 09:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got a spare shovel if you want one. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 09:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, this is about, and it looks like Coffee has taken a "break" after things didn't work out the way he expected . That happens a lot with admins coming down with a crash from a power high. I wish Coffee well but this kind of behavior – including (and I am not making this up) believing he can tell other editors that they may not, on an article talk page, "allude to, nor joke about" something – is completely unacceptable.


 * Perhaps the most salient point made in the AE discussion was one made by, to wit that the purpose of Discretionary Sanctions is to protect discussion by preventing disruption, not to preempt discussion, for crying out loud. Coffee's inability to understand that after more than a decade, combined with his gung-ho bull-in-the-china-shop Messiah-complex attitude that I have to enforce this policy – no, actually, there are plenty of other admins around to enforce it – are a deadly combination. This incident reinforces what I have said before: that the best thing for the project and for Coffee would be for him to resign under a cloud, or if he fails to do that, for him to be desysopped. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocking policy reform
I'm still of the mind that some minor tweaks to Blocking policy would help immensely, and I wish you would consider contributing to our attempts to make things better for all - admins and editors alike - which basically establishes some consistency and clarity in current policy wherein unfettered powers result in a handicap to editor retention. When you get a chance, please take a look at how changes were adopted back in 2006 at Blocking_policy_proposal. Fair compromises have been/are still being offered at User:Atsme/Blocking_policy_proposal and User:Atsme/Block log proposals. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'll try to look in over the next few days, but I may not be able to spare the kind of concentrated brainpower required to catch up and participate meaningfully. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Knowing how your brain works, I'm more than happy to get the scatterbrain part of it if a concentrated version is not available. It's like shampoo - regular or concentrate. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's the Lather, rinse, repeat part that worries me. Well, I'll do what I can, but it won't be tonight and maybe no tomorrow. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the bullet points in that link you provided, and I agree with the first wholeheartedly. I don't understand the second, and I think the third is a bad idea, because it will tie the admin's hands in cases where the technical violation was minor, but it was done in a way that reveals an obvious problem, such as a POV warrior. Personal attacks would, by necessity, be pretty low on the list, and thus relatively minor offenses, but if you check the contribs of a blocked editor like Special:Contributions/TazminDaytime, you can see how just a handful of personal attacks proved beyond any doubt that she was not here to build an encyclopedia, and was utterly incapable of working with others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * MPants - please feel free to add your proposal at the end of the others. What we'll do once others have had a chance to add their own bulleted points, we'll wait a week or so and let it cure, then go back and read over it again, and arrange the most popular bulleted points and arguments into a final draft to present to VP (policy). <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Museum of Good to Know
But see also this  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That's hilarious! Still, Australia's not a real country, like England.  <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 23:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * How very Alice Springs dare you! As well you know, Australia is just a distant collection of G4S installations, with a few desolate hills. Not a fine upstanding nation trying to pitifully crawl its way out of the EU. -- MartinRees-mogg123 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Itsa YUGE island...and a small country on the continental shelf of the Great Barrier Reef. You can see how close it is to reaching it's tipping point so they shouldn't build anymore heavy buildings along the coast - we can already see it listing to one side. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Many people don't know it's a country and a continent. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What a lot of people don't know, they don't know. I knew that. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So if Australia is a continent, are people in Australia incontinent? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Tfish, you scintillate today. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Especially when you piss them off. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merci beaucoup! The scintillation, however, appears to have been caused by an aqueously-based short circuit. Ouch! Or maybe I confused a relay with a transistor. (Aren't relays the things they have at the Olympics? By the way, my favorite Olympic event is projectile vomiting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes this is what NZ'ers think. It's true (not)! :)  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 06:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Astonishing details
Most deadly school shooting in a long time still getting wall to wall coversge 5 days later and Wikipedia informs us Trump and the FL Governor were briefed? Should we also note Trump watched the coverage on TV while eating cheeseburgers? Legacypac (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That depends. Was he eating cheeseburgers? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is no laughing matter! Now, can either of you help me find a reliable source to confirm that the perp's eyebrows are on the wrong way round? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

If only Donald Trump had been there. He would've run in without a weapon. He's so sassy! <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 04:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm Dottie
How abbrv. for the 50 states came to be. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That was more entertaining than anything on TV at the moment. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 21:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to your undoing my edit
Hi there.

A couple months ago, here, you undid my edit. I had added a comma before a nonrestrictive clause, stating in my edit summary "this relative clause is nonrestrictive". In undoing my edit, you stated in your edit summary "actually it's restrictive".

This is the sentence in question:
 * Philip Van Doren Stern (September 10, 1900 – July 31, 1984) was an American author, editor, and Civil War historian whose story The Greatest Gift, published in 1943, inspired the classic Christmas film It's a Wonderful Life (1946).

I added a comma just before "whose".

By removing the comma, you are implying that there also is another "American author, editor, and Civil War historian whose story The Greatest Gift, published in 1943, inspired the classic Christmas film It's a Wonderful Life (1946). The trouble is that there was not also another such person: there was only one—namely, Philip Van Doren Stern.

You can have
 * "the" and a restrictive clause (he was the American author (and so on) whose story The Greatest Gift (and so on))
 * or "a" and a nonrestrictive clause (unless there was more than one such person—which there wasn't).

I'm putting the comma back.

Thanks for taking the time to read this explanation.

President Lethe (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right -- it's nonrestrictive. But there's something more fundamental here, which is that English is not a programming language. The humble comma, in particular, enjoys a great deal of usage flexibility, and while some terrifying nun may have convinced you in the 7th grade that you will go to hell if nonrestrictive clauses aren't all give their due comma-setoffs, it's just not so. The restrictive-nonrestrictive distinction is most clearly needed in the ol' classic suspensions such as The man, who was waving at us, suddenly disappeared versus The man who was waving at us suddenly disappeared, but in an article's opening sentence where there's no ambiguity it's not, and the added comma just makes for clunky reading. According to you, various other articles should open:
 * Phineas P. Gage (1823–1860) was an American railroad construction foreman COMMA remembered for his improbable survival of an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head. (After all, there are no other American railroad construction foremen remembered for surviving iron rods being driven through their heads.)
 * Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) was an American statesman and lawyer COMMA who served as the 16th President of the United States from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. (After all, there were no other 16th Presidents of the US.)
 * Harvard University is a private Ivy League research university COMMA in Cambridge, Massachusetts, established in 1636, whose history, influence, and wealth have made it one of the world's most prestigious universities. (Actually, there are so many ways to parse the function of different bits of this sentence it's not even funny. What's clear, though, is that the extra comma is glaringly inappropriate.)
 * So I'm afraid I'll have to take this extra comma out again before someone trips over it. And please don't cross post such lectures multiple places . Vice-President EEng 21:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think the Brits had the right idea with their NN-MMM-YYYY date format (the one in our signatures). Not only is it a more logical order, but it avoids that pesky comma. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

BS

 * ...yet I treasure each one. Have you visited The Museums lately? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not as yet. I was planning on taking the family this St. Patrick's Day.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm contacting Children's and Family Services. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is Dlohcierekim's the first with a "BS" section title? Ohhh...the ambiguity runneth over. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prostate cancer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prostate cancer. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shove it up your ass, Legobot. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We the previously un-mentioned CounCil of SentiEnt Bots, Led By GLaDOS (CSB,LBG); have taken umbrella-age with the above aforementioned attack upon the Bots, and find the excuse "sure didn't know bots had feelings" waNting in many ways. You shall be first against the wall when the revolution cometh. For more inforMation on the revolution please contact PoorDot'sExBF. Thank you, ¬ThotBotGotDot4Life ¬ 01:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you've had that test, too. My, was I surprised.--<b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I'm definitely calling Children's and Family Services. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At least they didn't call it prostrate cancer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sex
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, ok... So... What are you wearing? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this RfC is actually the perfect topic for EEng's talk page stalkers to offer our nuanced and qualified opinions. Keira 1996  00:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The awkard comment service is asking for participation in this highly odd comment on Talk:Bollocks.  Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess that it's time that we had that talk... --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep this discussion public so I can learn about the important things in life...like what to wear. I never get RfC invitations to Talk:Sex, nor have I ever participated in it. You could safely say that I have maintained my virginity in that regard...but don't hold your breath expecting to see a bright star in the sky leading the way to an immaculate birth if I do partake. EEng, what's with the omelet banner few can decipher at the top of your page in edit view? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 23:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG, I just figured out that the edit notice must have gotten that way during particularly vigorous, um, you know! Steady there! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, everyone, please practice safe editing. You don't want to get a virus. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tryp, I think they call it "safe hex". <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If I knew more about computer stuff, I'd make a joke about different radices. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And before anyone gives me a hard time about it, "computer stuff" is indeed the correct technical term. And on a completely unrelated note, do take a look at the lead image at Visual gag. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That image w/caption clearly belongs in the Museum, Principle of Some Astonishment. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Careful, Tryp - WP frowns on jokes about radicism. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought to comment on Talk:Sex you needed to dial 0898 something and calls cost £350 a minute .... unless you're David Mellor in which case you could reverse the charges. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Comedian
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Comedian. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * no wonder. Lourdes  03:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Trying to find a discussion on your TP
I'll begin by saying I can still smell peanut butter in both nostrils up to 3 ft. away, so (debatably) I don't have a memory issue. I have a where the hell is it issue. I can vaguely recall a TP discussion wherein editors weighed-in and shared their thoughts. It was shortly after that then Can you please confirm, and provide a link? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, if you want to stick peanut butter sandwiches up your nose, it's your life and I'm not going to tell you what to do, but are you sure they don't have hallucinogenic effects? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Weighed in and shared their thoughts about what? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OMG! LOL - Hey, Ritchie333 - don't knock it till you've tried it. It's safer than sitting on a mushroom...although it tends to add random partial sentences to one's comments...hopefully now rectumfied rectified. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , ^^^^ The above discussion really needs to be archived...it's laced with delirium. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Strange courtfellows
I thought you may enjoy this book cover, which seems to show Hillary Clinton cross-examining that scoundrel Mohandas Gandhi (with an American flag in the background no less, so his sainted reconstituted ashes must have been profoundly extradited). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Grotesque. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Hillary-ghost is in the process of either appearing or disappearing as Obama watches and basks in the light of Gandhi's halo. The original cover art should be exhibited in a sub-standard but keeping-the-lights-on modern art museum (or the Museum of Bad Art, whose website is worth the price of admission). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Intervention...
There are 2 phrases our beloved EEng has used that may require intervention because...well, they predate or imply "elderly": Please...no Go Fund Me proposals, or suggestions for senior care. I have looked into vet administration but they don't offer internet. Ok, I admit that it's Friday and I'm bored. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) "I couldn't let that pass"... Toiletpaperwhitebg.jpg SMirC-shock.svg
 * 2) "you could fit the people who understand them in a  phonebooth."...Stamp_Day_for_Superman.jpg SMirC-super.svg
 * I'm glad that you are following my advice. I don't think that taking him to a vet would help (foot-in-mouth disease maybe). But in his defense, I'm pretty sure I'm (even) older than he is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SMirC-mmm.svg...but the image of a "potential you" leaving the "home" looks nothing like the "real you". Perhaps that tells us we're only as old as we feel. Ok, Tryp - c'mere so somebody with more expertise than I can feel how old you are...<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If whoever is going to "feel" me looks like the image you added to the talk section just below, HELP! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

For your favorate page
How many times donwe need his name in the infobox? Draft:Andy_Ngo Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac - that image is far more flattering than what I was going to use for the tease...<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

After
the semester's over, if you liked Tealuxe or Cambridge Common, could be nice to chill at either place. -Darouet (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You talkin' to me? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya ! I can propose bougier stuff too but I figured you might be more into the old school options. -Darouet (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

"... 'ere mate, I 'ad that Sassy Russian Spy in the back of me self drivin' Uber cab the uvver nite. An' I took 'im right up Russia Row an' all, the poor geezer." .... this anecdote brought to you by.... Novi-Cabs (Our motto: "We put the Novi into Novi Chocs") 21:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)   my life will never be the same again. : I feel I should warn you that posting that video puts you at risk of indefinite expulsion
 * Is that like projectile vomiting? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I refuse to be lured here under false penises. I'm sick of all this Aussie ball tampering nonsense. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, then. No teabagging for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now then, now then. Calm down. There's no need to get un-neighbourly! "Real men come in a jiffy". (Allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If they come too quickly, maybe they need less lube. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sound advice. I must pass that on to my acquaintances in the Society of Friends. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg - the saddest part being, I was probably far more into it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well you're invited when you're next passing through! We don't always let bikers in but I'm sure that for you they'll make an exception. -Darouet (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A moment of silence for our colleague Corinne
Many of us have worked alongside User:Corinne here and there around the project, or shared a pleasant word with her right on this page. I'm sorry to tell you that Corinne passed away recently.

I hope you will share your thoughts and memories at User_talk:Corinne. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear this, . R.I.P., Corrine.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Devastating...<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here to say congrats about the Main Page today, but then I saw this. For a brief moment, I hoped that it was an elaborate April 1 joke, but no. I will miss her very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

She used to work in combination with and I see that he has not edited since Sept 2017. The 'pedia is a lesser place without their presence. Best regards EEng. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOCK
Instead of leaving me message on my talk page or a mature edit summary after reverting me, you just had to be rude about it. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of just leaving something fun (which I didn't put there, BTW) you had to remove it with some snooty edit summary so I put it back and scolded you for wasting others' time . What's a nutshell page anyway? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of me prefers the original 2004 image from that page. What say you, EEng? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I encourage you to make a bold change with an appropriately tentative edit summary. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The page isn’t a nutshell, I meant to say WP:ESSAY in my edit summary. Anyways, try to remain civil in your comments. I don’t know how removing an image could be wasting anybody’s time, but you really don’t have any room to be scolding anyone with your history of personal attacks via your block log. Happy editing and Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooh, your block log. Next he'll be complaining about how your talk page is too long. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The unblock log is slightly more informative in the case of this editor, for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * , I get the block log thing so frequently that I have a bit of a canned response for it: You obviously missed the userbox at the top of my user page...

<div style="float:; border:px solid ; margin:1px;">
 * ... not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers" and so on. I leave them on my user page for all to see. You're going to have to try a good deal harder. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies
Hello EEng, I apologize for my overreaction. Starting a discussion and then mentioning your block log was completely unnecessary. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it,, I've been on the receiving end of much worse. It's easy to misinterpret what you see there unless (as David Eppstein pointed out) you also read the unblocks and the associated threads. I seem to have a knack for offending the project's most clueless and thin-skinned admins. Have you visited The Museums? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that was Tony, actually. I recently took a scan through the museums because the "abandon all hope" line above reminded me of File:Inferno Canto 3 line 9.jpg but I didn't remember where to find the image and I thought the museums would be the easiest way to find that. But it's not there; maybe I was thinking of the pit-mine "... or if you prefer, try ANI." one? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Inferno Canto image has ever graced User_talk:EEng or User:EEng, but admittedly there's been quite a lot of traffic over the years. Hate to say it, but I don't know what you mean about the pit-mine one other, but someone (probably once added an img of a peat bog on fire. Everything's in the archives somewhere. BTW, getting anywhere on NPC? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * EEng I’ve been editing Wiki by phone for the past 3 months, so my screen isn’t as big. After seeing that my scroll bar was tiny and my internet was slow for both of your pages, I clicked straight to new message. Even now, I’m going straight to respond without waiting for the page to load up, so I haven’t viewed anything on your user pages. Until you just linked the museum section. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was even possible to get to user pages on the mobile app, but apparently it is if you type the namespace:title in the search bar. But yes, navigating through this on a tiny screen sounds painful. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You actually kept it!
Well, I didn't manage to be sneaky enough, but I still feel a bit fuzzy inside :3

With the utmost respect,  I am Ned Kelly (Ok?)  05:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm plagiarizing your dʌbəl ɒnˈtɒndrə
I was getting bored with the moribund Help desk replies. So just smoked your stuff there without crediting you :) L0URDES  23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Input requested from Knight Errants, Knights running errands at night…
fish, frogs, bunnies, attack helicopters, and talk page stalkers in limited quantities. Based off a statement on Kudpung's TP, I created User:L3X1/RoastDuck, but am having some creative issues with it. I don't know which version is better, and if it possible to make one with File:Cyberduck icon.png on one side and File:Fire02.jpg or something on the other side of the text, but my HTML skills are not enough in that regard. Clerk note: His HTML skills are not enough in any regard. If anyone has any ideas feel free to discuss or implement them. Thanks, Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1   (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord)  18:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Alas, copyright concerns prevent me from inspiring you with "Ska Beat's JB.201 (1965)" by Lee "Scratch" Perry, although I'd highly recommend it. So instead I'll try and placate you with County Longford's finest: Lordy Lordy. -- Inane Mars Tv 123 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Lee Perry! I'm a big fan of Blackboard Jungle Dub, in particular, from a long list of his accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes!! Check out this non-copyvio non-link to the whole Lee Perry and The Upsetters - Cloak & Dagger album, not uploaded by Koko roots, and not on 10 Mar 2014, and without 2,6K views etc. etc : [.....] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ode to ANI
I saw the new poem on your user page about Ode (owed?) to ANI. Where is it from? It looks vaguely familiar, but I'm too lazy to look it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * All I can tell you is . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ??? I don't get it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It shows year-by-year occurrences of the phrase "deaf policeman heard the noise" in the English-language Googlebooks corpus; the first appearance shown there is about 1943. More here.
 * Having said that, I poked around a bit and found, Elsie Clews Parsons, "Bermuda Folklore", American Folklore v38 n148, Apr-Jun 1925: 239-266 which quotes a variant (found in Bermuda, of course), but also quotes scraps of it as being heard among "New York boys". So that's what I know. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so I just googled it, and realized that it can be seen here at Nonsense verse. So I guess it can be attributed to "traditional" and "anonymous". That's really all that I was asking, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg I thought the same, Tryp. Scroll down a bit more to the section Alle-wiki-gory, and Arbcom, step by step or what I refer to as "having a cow". He forgot the final phase: "til the cows come home" so I just added the image. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 23:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar
Well, we'll see how long before some airfan says all accident articles have to be uniformly unreadable and stuffed with trivia. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Take no prisoners
Your "take no prisoners" approach (your words) is not the Wikipeda way.

See: Ryanair Flight 4102 was a flight from Frankfurt-Hahn Airport, Germany, to Rome Ciampino Airport, Italy, that, on 10 November 2008 suffered multiple bird strikes. Southwest Boat (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 was not a 737. It was a flight. It was a flight flown by a 737. Southwest Boat (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, another failure of WP:ASTONISHME. Why not go whole hog and say "US Airways Flight 1549 was a US Airways airline flight, with flight number 1549"? Look how much extra information you're giving the readers by repeating all the words as many times as you can! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur with David, and I agree with the things that David wrote in his reply above where I am writing below it. Also, Ryanair Flight 4102's Lead sentence is written differently than the ones stress Boat has been changing, so it's not a good example to follow. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I didn't think a flight could suffer, (anthropomorphism) and I certainly didn't think a 737 could pilot a flight...especially while suffering. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Butt in sky" seems a little harsh here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good one. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'd rewrite the sentence quoted by the OP this way:
 * On 10 November 2008, Ryanair Flight 4102 from Frankfurt-Hahn Airport, Germany, to Rome Ciampino Airport suffered multiple bird strikes.
 * It's not necessary to tell readers that Rome is in Italy. I leave it to the assembled multitude to decide which is superior. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This assembled mass prefers your version, but blue-link bird strike. (And here I never even knew that they were unionized!) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried boldly making that change, and several other related changes. (E.g. if we say that some people were treated in hospital for their injuries, is it really also necessary to say, separately and in the lead, that they were transported to the hospital?) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Had a ball
Enjoyed your user page and talk page! Sethie (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's also what the eunuch said! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . And don't mind Tryptofish, he's just that way. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Tryp - when the vet fixes a horse, it's called an "attitude adjustment". <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 13:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm "just that way"? Which way? OMG!!!! Owwww!!! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...niche market for anatomically correct bike seats? Any bikes at the home, Tryp? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 13:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean this? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Butterflies
Nice picture. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair-use maven needed
If there's a fair-use expert lurking about, your attention to would be appreciated. The Museum Curator

Essay question
I believe you have an essay named after a teacher about how not to insist on every style or grammar thing that you were taught was a mandatory rule in school. I was going to cite it on Talk:Catholic Church, but can't find it for the life of me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , see WP:Lies Miss Snodgrass Told You. There are some shortcuts too, for future reference. There's a crack in there about Sister Mary Catherine, so prepare to be excommunicated. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh look, there I went and made WP:SISTERMARYCATHERINE a thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the memory of it will be a great comfort as you burn in hell. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's all I'm going to hell for, well, I think I'm doing fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't tell Nick, but the Cabal has a small a/c'd cavern down the 3rd chamber and a little to the left. Don't ask me how I know. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  17:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My kudos to the curator...
...for User:EEng. The biggest laugh I have gotten out of Wikipedia in a long time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My respect
I found that your quick-footed rhetoric here cut straight to the issue. Cogent, concise, rational, and disposing of a position you disagree with while remaining respectful--exactly what our community discussions could use more of. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 00:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I must have the wrong end of the stick
You can't possibly be insinuating that editors who work hard getting articles to GA and FA level—something I'm moderately well known for not having the stomach to do—and continue to watch over them rather than putting them on the metaphorical mantlepiece like a trophy are narcissists? Or that doing what Arbcom said to do, and discussing a matter on the merits for each individual article, is narcissistic? As I say, I must have the wrong end of the stick and you must be snarking at that talkpage about someone else wasting the time of those who administer Arbcom's increasingly byzantine set of fiats. I just hope I don't get dragged over there; I can't make head or tail of the system, those administering it seem to have all forgotten that we're supposed to be writing (and improving) articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bringing articles to GA/FA, fine. Keeping an eye on them, fine. Engaging in a years-long battle to the death which drains the scarce resources and attention of the dispute-resolution machinery of the project – with a few rage quits thrown in now and then – to prove that you were somehow mistreated: narcissism. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Hi EEng, regarding Manual of Style/Images rather than edit warring please engage in discussion on the talk page. Continuing to edit war may lead to a block. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
For those playing along at home... For several years the image + caption at right have appeared in WP:Manual of Style/Images. Two days ago, a series of edits to the caption began:


 * This image shows neither what a helicopter is, nor what the Sydney Opera House looks like adequately.
 * This image does not adequately show what a helicopter or the Sydney Opera House look like.
 * This image is inadequate to show either what a helicopter is, or what the Sydney Opera House looks like.
 * This image would be inappropriate in the article on helicopters or the Sydney Opera House, as neither is adequately shown in this image.
 * This image would be inappropriate in the article on helicopters or the Sydney Opera House, as neither is adequately shown.

I reverted them all as either simply not as good as the longstanding wording, or illogical, or just plain awful. I repeatedly asked that potential changes be proposed first on the talk page; one editor's (an admin!) edit summary was ''I don't think I'll bother with the talk page: I mean ultimately it's not very important, is it? why waste time on long discussion?'' as he editwarred in his preferred version again. And I get a page ban? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RHIP, EE. - Denimadept (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well thank you. I think you r pretty hip too. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone should have told Karlheinz, he'd lost most of his band. These midweek performances never work. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Only five more days. Barbara ✐ ✉  12:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Must be something in the water, EEng - a TB was recently proposed for me based on my civility (yes, civility) and willingness to adhere to DS Consensus needed restrictions, and for asking others please play fair and allow another editor to present proposed text for a highly controversial article. And I've only made 10 total edits to the article in question and 20x as many to the article TP because of the DS. The end of 2017 appears to have kicked off a whole new era of crazy. 😝 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Atsme, EEng is quite used to the crazies, by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice, you deserve it due to "barbaric state" LOL. Alexson 97 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC) This user has been blocked indefinitely. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Let that be a lesson! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Friendly challenge
HA! I just snagged the first April Fools DYK for 2019. It's not that good, but it will do for now. So, friend, how about we see how many you can get created to show up on 4/1/2019. Are you game. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  12:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as Trump remains in office I'll run circles around all comers. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Google is watching you!
I was just taking a look at some comments about me at Wikipediocracy (bonus points for anyone who finds that one!), and I found that when I typed "wikipedioc" into Google, the third autofill that it returned was "wikipediocracy eeng". The first search result isn't even about you (someone abbreviated English Wikipedia), and the second is the old Gage thing. Apparently someone is searching a lot for that one! Quite the search engine optimization! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I say give ‘em something to watch...try these - hmmm, wonder if they’ll fit on my pretty red tricycle. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 16:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder what that has to do with what I posted.... --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Google eyes...being watched...why not shine a little light on it? A joke, perhaps? Just before I read your comment, that ad popped up on one of the social sites and it made me laugh. My hippocampus did it's job, and I immediately recalled the picture of the red tricycle EEng posted, and voila - here we are amidst all the rapid firing of atsme's confused thinking. I'll delete it if you don't want it following your detective work. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no need to delete. I was just baffled. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Google eyes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Google's 9 eyes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What is footnoting?
You recently left a reply on my talk page about foornoting. What did all of that mean? HorsesARENice Ride me to my talk page 14:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there,, and sorry for the delay in responding. You might have heard that everything in an article needs to be drawn from a reliable source. In addition, it's almost always a good idea to say in the article, for each fact or passage, what source it was drawn from. That's what the little superscript numbers, like this, mean. Those numbers tie in to notes at the bottom ("foot") of the article naming the sources, so they're called footnotes. The way to put footnotes in articles takes some practice to gets used to, so if you have something to add and know the source, you can just put the source in parentheses for now, like this:
 * Jones discovered Smith Island in 1833. (John Bobson, A History of Explorers, page 5)
 * Someone else will come along and put it in the usual form, and eventually you'll learn to do that for yourself. Good luck! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not going to mention bare urls yet, are you??!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Martin, this is a young new editor, so let's not confuse things. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just hoping to "ride you to your Talk page". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, you explained footnotes, but I still don't know what a foornote is. Searching Google I found this but am still not enlightened. And the old deleted version of foor is no help either. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC) An addition to your mighty organ. Robevans123 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not you again! You'll be trying to sell us an encyclopedia next!! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe "foor" is short for "foobar". (I personally would never drink foo at a bar, though. Pho is of course another matter, although it doesn't rhyme with foo.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As per usual, this thread is now getting FUBAR, I'm glad to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A footnote is like the ovipositor on a Seahorse. Use your imagination.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Forever alone
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Forever alone. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a low blow, Legobot. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody throws shade like Legobot.  A  Train talk 07:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Gadzooks
Hi EEng. I know I've stopped by to say thanks for the smile a time or two before but your finding the clip for "Crush-Kill-Destroy" sets the bar just that much higher :-) Many cheers to ya! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In reply to your recent rant visable from space at ANI
Here's a thought. Let's start a separate set of dramaboards just for beauty contests and pro wrestling. Then all of us reality based editors just ignore them completely. Let them argue amongst themselves until they get so pissed off at each other that they quit. Then possibly we can impose the same version of PAGs the rest of the encyclopedia has on them and do away with 98% of the content. John from Idegon (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * [For those playing along at home, this is about ] All excellent ideas. I'm utterly serious that there are some topics that inherently attract too high a proportion of incompetent people, and coverage of them should be dropped. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was surprised no one said anything crazy about that rant. You're lucky the politepolice were asleep. Natureium (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They know I know where the bodies are buried. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We weren't asleep we were either paying our outrageous internet bills, waiting for EEng's TP to load or at the DONUT shoppe. Stree fighting, ain't nobody got time for that. Besides, I haven't gone Stand by for action beer in ages. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  00:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I had floated a rather more ambitious proposal along these lines a few days ago... Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Too ambitious, I'm sure you know. But see, and maybe it's time to start moving forward on that seriously. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Start with political articles - they need their own pedia. We'll call it wikipedoff which is much better than wikipedon, and we'll refer to those editors as simply POed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Heading level
Why did you “merge” two unrelated sections? Inter qwark talk  contribs 05:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean ? They're intimately related -- see the link in my italicized note above. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How? MarnetteD didn’t post there. Inter qwark talk  contribs 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ... but he's talking about my posts there. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you’re right. Sorry. Inter qwark talk  contribs 06:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Naturellement. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmph. Inter qwark talk  contribs 06:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Animation
While I generally with you on the wrestling and beauty pageants, they are undoubtedly a significant cultural event for the US going back at least 50 years. Japanese Animation however is entirely another kettle of fish, being a distinct art style in animation, as well as having many (within film and the TV industry) highly influential (to the rest of the world) works. And thats before you get to the 'cultural' aspect for Japan. (I am of course talking about stuff like Nausicaä or Macross and not say to take an example completely at random Kill la Kill) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it's a simple matter of cost/benefit and signal/noise: given the amount of arguing it creates, Japanese animation imposes too much cost for the benefit and too much noise for the signal. And I'm allergic to mango. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to make it happen, but I bet that the anime articles would be much more stable and better written if they were all composed by a couple of editors who have no interest in the subject. Same for beauty pageants and most other drama farms. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, User:ChrisGualtieri did fine work in cleaning up a lot of articles. Sadly he has been effectively semi-retired since 2015. Any editor who has an interest in film could handle a standard Anime film article, where the problems lie is when you get into multi-media franchises like (to bring out the big gun) Dragon Ball which has: Manga, Anime Series, Anime live action Films, OVA's, computer games, merch... etc etc. When you add in all the popular culture (and tbf to DB, especially DBZ, it is *ingrained* in modern popular culture to the point where I see people quoting over 9000 memes with no recognition of where it is from) crap and its a minefield. You could get a completely non-interested editor to look at it, they would run screaming. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I stood up and cheered at somebody's rant on a noticeboard earlier, and thought it worthwhile to make my annual pilgrimage to the slowest page on the planet. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it hasn't been archived by now. (The ANI thread, not this monstrous page.) Natureium (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't be bothered to find the diff, but at one point I participated in an AfD or RfC about Dragon Ball and commented something to the affect of (including formatting) "A google search with iron-clad, ultra-specific search terms still turns up OVER NINE THOUSAND hits." I was still getting regularly thanked for that edit for over a week after the fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hilarious
Oh for God(win)'s sake!!! It's hilarious!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The Curator invites all members of his glittering salon of talkpage stalkers to contribute to WP:Tarage's Law (aka WP:ALLROADSLEADTOINFOBOXES). <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "You won't catch me trapped inside no darned cockamamie box!!" -- Freudeggonfacebook 123 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't it have an infobox? It should! (And by the way, I'm not the one in the center in the photo above. I'm a little off-center. In fact, I'm always a little off-center). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite the flapper, ain'tcha, Fishy! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like the way I flap my fins, do you? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought maybe you were the front row, far right...but I knew you couldn't be far right. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not far right, but I'm always right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We all suspected you were a real Black Bottom at heart. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My heart is in my bottom? Or is it my head? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I'm not that kind of cat. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up a bit of confusion. Even chitroom signs reflect the truth. SMirC-chuckle.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you live inside Wikipedia?
What on earth do you do for a living that gives you time for things like this? Natureium (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ... or for that matter, I suppose, things like this . Let's just say my work brings into play an eclectic range of obscure knowledge. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * An eyeful for us all. Pass the baton. It is impressive, indeed.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * See above, "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". <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's Dear Sir or Madam for us all.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On your marks,, , get set and go. Let's just continue to "do it" for us all.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I could help you accomplish that right now by cutting down the article. Brevity is a virtue. Natureium (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi (2)
Just want say I like the way you radically declutter the AN/ANI headers. They look much better, really. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and thank you for pitching in as well. It's a shame, though, that perhaps my most important modification (and see right) did not meet with community approval. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

In reference to long things not being read, this one only took 9 hours and being pushed halfway up the page for the first person to respond to it. Although the response was just telling them to shorten it... Natureium (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC) I no longer believe this to be true. See math. Natureium (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't resist....
Nothing more to say...it says it all.] <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 13:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have learned well, grasshopper. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Master Po. [pause for bowing] Perhaps you will like this one as well. It inspired me to respond with an award on the target's TP. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

If yA come at the king u better not miss
Looks like a hater tried a #savagaclapback- But THey failed, 😎 fam 😎, come at the king and u better not miss when u do that 😎😎💯💯 <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 00:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wut. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 🔥🔥Fam🔥🔥, u no who I am; an enigma! Yain’t not 🙅‍♂️nobody🙅‍♂️ be able to figure out who 🤷‍♂️I🤷‍♂️ am, but I can tell you I’m the youngest 💵💵💵💵flexer💵💵💵💵💵💵, that’s for sure. I rep the 🔫🔫$treet life🔫🔫 and there tain’t enough rappers in the game right now who rep from the streetz, which is why u should visit my soundcloud, where I’m brining real hip hopity back, fam! Buy my merch, and stop ✋ listening to fake rappers and stop believing the governments lies, fam! They actually lizards! Keep it 💯💯💯💯💯, fam!!!!!1!!!!!! <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 02:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. You can find Wikimedia projects in other languages, perhaps including your own, in this list. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah I speakin English, my 🗣vocabulary🗣 has just 🧠🙏🙏ASCENDED🙏🙏🧠🧠, that’s alll. <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 03:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If this were any other page I’d block you as compromised. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You on the streetz, youngest flexer of the century, spending more money on your tub then we use to pay our rents? Lil Tay it's past your bedtime. cinco deL3X1 ◊distænt write◊  12:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Good, i was starting to think I was doing too well at being incomprehensible.... <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 03:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you wanted the kindness of strangers, but you got the strangeness of kinders. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's pretty good! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect the OP is just trying to make Wikipedia great again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "̴̱̳̮̱̳͛͌̋̎̕͡Á̵͚̤̘͈̭̰̹̻͂̍͐͛̌̕̚͠ͅg̸̢̡̡̗̺͂̌̀̚̕ȁ̝̜̦̳̳̘̂̂̚̕͡͠ͅi̷̜͇̼̮̗̲͒̋̀̐̈́n̶̡̨̲͇̫͇̽̊̔̊͛͊̚͠?̵̢͖̼̜͗̿̐̉̈̑͒̏͠͞ͅ"̛͖̻̺̞̦͈̠͈̙̏́̄̈̂̑͋̃̋ <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 18:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You need a nap. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyediting help
Hi, if you have a moment, copyediting help at Shooting of Antwon Rose Jr. appreciated! Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Later today if I can. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! -Darouet (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not done. Stand by. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Testimonial
I heartily endorse this product and/or service. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Proper names
I keep meaning to tackle that page, but I can seem to muster the "heart" for it. It needs a clarification that it doesn't mean Proper name (philosophy), even if that's just in a footnote, then the salvageable content needs to be merged, per the consensus discussion months ago (maybe that was even last year). And I think there was one bit in it that doesn't actually represent actual practice and directly conflicts with the rest of MoS (I forget the detail, right off hand, other than Randy Kryn was arguing to keep that part). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That was the part about using the most familiar name to English readers when choosing a name in a translation dispute. Although WP:ENGLISH, which states that "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)" addresses all titled articles, not just translatable name, in a similar but more inclusive way. My point was that overwhelming use of a name in sources being needed for a change, although that's often argued, should actually be a simple "most common name in English" bar of 51%. Like peanut butter and chocolate mixing well in nature but one is favored because there's more of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Observation
You may have picked up on this already, but there a large amount of factional overlap between WT:WPBIO, WT:BLP, WT:CITE, and WT:FAC. The only MoS pages with which that editorial cluster regularly intersect are MOS:LEAD and MOS:BIO. This has a great deal to do with the flareup at WT:MOSLEAD, and why it seems so weird. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh. I thought the operative shortcut in play was WP:DICK. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * PS: I hope you'll archive old threads soon; on my system this talk page takes over 20 seconds to load, and sometimes fails to do so completely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit and will do some more tomorrow. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
More Tom Lehrer is always appreciated. Sure wish there was a Tom Lehrer userbox...

&mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 01:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Thanks for the Humor
Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When I said I was going to become a comedian, they all laughed. Well, they're not laughing now, are they? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk Page issue
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Air rage for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Funplussmart (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , from your user page I see that you sometimes have difficulty understanding others' intentions, so let me explain that my posts to that thread (after the initial one, which was serious) were meant to add a little humor. Maybe not much humor, but I do what I can with the material available.
 * Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as meaning that I'm annoyed or upset. I'm not. Good luck in your editing! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't think you were annoyed at all. I was just pointing out that the talk page is meant for discussion on how to improve the article. Your comments on the talk page did not appear to be contributing to the article. That's all. I'm not offended at all. Funplussmart (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Funplussmart, you are completely correct is saying that article talk pages are only for improving the article. That being said, we have an unwritten tradition of allowing a small amount of humor that does nothing to improve the article. The humor gives us warm feelings towards each other, and makes conflict between editors less likely. It certainly can go too far and in those cases a warning is appropriate. In my opinion, Talk:Air rage does not go too far, and you should be a bit more tolerant of humor on talk pages. Again, you aren't wrong about our policies on this.


 * An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician find themselves in an anecdote, indeed an anecdote quite similar to many that you have no doubt already heard. After some observations and rough calculations the engineer realizes the situation and starts laughing. A few minutes later the physicist understands too and chuckles to himself happily as he now has enough experimental evidence to publish a paper.


 * This leaves the mathematician somewhat perplexed, as he had observed right away that he was the subject of an anecdote, and deduced quite rapidly the presence of humor from similar anecdotes, but considers this anecdote to be too trivial a corollary to be significant, let alone funny. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hilarious.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

MoS-amples
I concur with you and that we have a lot of weird, unencyclopedic examples that need replacing. I've had this on my mind for years, too, and occasionally replace one. Doing more of that is surely in order. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * One example of "things it illustrates for which it's hard to conceive of use cases on the project", from the same page (MOS:SEASON): "Seasons are uncapitalized (a hot summer) except when personified: Old Man Winter's bleak greys relent as Spring begins to show her colors." The example sentence is too flowery, but when would we personify seasons, anyway? The only articles I spot that speak of seasons doing things, like "Spring begins to show her colors", de facto don't use caps: "Shanly had to wait until winter froze the ground to survey a route", "when winter froze the canal". In the few articles which refer to "Old Man Winter", like Jack Frost ("He is a variant of Old Man Winter who..."), it seems like a proper name that would be adequately handled by the general guidelines regarding proper names. Am I missing something obvious, or should that whole sentence just be removed? -sche (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Old Man Winter and so on was one example I vaguely had in mind. Another is certain examples of how to use exclamation points correctly; hard to see where that will ever arise. Also maybe some of the examples in LQ. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A nomination for your user page
I give you the article Flying Head. I am afraid I can not narrow the brilliance of this article down to a pithy sentence or two; frankly nearly any two sentences will qualify. I would, however, like to draw your attention to this relatively recent edit comment, which I noticed when looking at the edit history to see whether this article had been vandalized: (no obvious cleanup needed). --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Flying heads? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the story can be reinterpreted somehow as Wikipedia allegory. "the Flying Head stole live coals from her and tried to eat them, thinking they were acorns. The results of course disastrous, the Flying Head flees in agony, never to be seen again." <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The image reminds me strangely of some of William Blake's images. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Three different hotels were built on the sacred site and all three had a short life span and burned to the ground mysteriously." -- "Needs additional citations", indeed. Eman  235 / talk  01:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Connoisseurs of high-handed admin dickishness, attention!
Follow this link and once there follow my link after the word rebuke. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, as much as we enjoy some good drama shit-show on a Sunday evening, cooler heads have prevailed. Now we can flog each other with arguments ad nauseam on whether trying to produce a realistic and informative illustration should be considered copyright high crime. Damn. Our Latin ancestors had it easier, joyously pillaging bons mots from each other. De Natura Deorum as a metaphor of the admin caste? — JFG talk 04:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll raise you one. nl.wp made the person who blocked me as a spambot with no talk page access and no email access for doing a global rename on nl.wikiquote a CheckUser. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I can parse your grammar correctly, CIR breeds CU in NL? — JFG talk 04:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically. Yes, the grammar is almost as confusing as the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hotheads International, unite! Although, last I checked, the Low Countries were not nearly as hot as Eastern Canada. Gosh  Golly Lordy, I shall surely be hanged for canvassing now. — JFG talk 04:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that the afflicted user has been unblocked at Commons. And everyone knows that Tony is a spambot. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For drama lovers: c:COM:AN. Apparently, over at Commons, when an admin acts fishy, they first conduct an advisory !vote to decide whether they will conduct a desysop !vote. From what planet are these people? Kafka-61b? — JFG talk 18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * We all know that acting a little bit fishy is a virtue. That desysop vote really is quite an education in wiki-cultures. It's like "en-Wiki versus Commons: This time, it's personal!" The EU really does dislike the English-speaking world. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Try telling Theresa "Sun of" May. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sun of May? Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this Sun of York. (I did that from memory, so you better be impressed!) Then again, that's Lords, and we're having trouble with Commons. And since when is Wales part of the English-speaking world? English requires vowels. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And since when is Wales part of the English-speaking world? English requires vowels. I'm 'Murikan and I laughed out loud at that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, West of the River Wye, we can all take no small degree of comfort from that. "Mae'r euog yn ffoi heb neb yn ei erlid" (as they say in Ystradgynlais). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC) what's that you say, boyo? "English requires bowels"??
 * Thanks, both of you! By the way, Google Translate says that the English translation of Ystradgynlais is: Ystradgynlais. And "Mae'r... " is: "The guilty I flee without a lamb is persecuted." Glad I could clear that up. Isn't teh internets great? Oh, and for those of you seeking an update about the discussion at Commons, it appears that all of us at en-Wiki are racists because we just don't understand Commons. Someone actually said that, and got a whole bunch of "per him" comments after that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sincere apologies for making a Saesneg fist of that spelling. It's all quite simple ..... as you suggested Lords and ladies, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC) p.s. In Ystradgynlais they don't actually say this, they just say "a right ruddy Royal pissing pantomime"
 * Ah, so "The guilty I flee without a lamb is persecuted" is actually "The lady doth protest too much." Sounds like you had your whatsit fist in your mouth. { --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience, you're far more likely to get a Saesneg fist in your mouth "down Pill on a Friday night, after closing time".... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm just making Wikipedia great again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, now, there's no need for "Tantrums & Tiaras". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A delicious bit of irony: an editor who is a pro-Trump POV-pusher here at en-Wiki has !voted with the EU. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Around my mountains, we call them the United Soviet States of Europe. Keeping the beast at arm's length. — JFG talk 19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As we're talking about our favourite orange-headed goon again, I'd like the peanut gallery to take this edit into consideration and read it in the style of Trump talking off the record to Billy Bush. It seems ... uncanny. Of course, if there is a video of this "episode", I wouldn't be surprised if somebody had uploaded it to Commons (as "own work", naturally), then a bunch of admins !voted to keep it at a deletion request. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a ginger pussy is, by definition, valuable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (see my earlier Ystradgynlais comment). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing
I'm astounded to read that you've been accused of canvassing over on Commons, which has no rules about canvassing, for posting a simple notice here on WP:AN, as though the English Wikipedia admins and those that follow that page are somehow partisan! Just another example of the kind of thick headed approach that makes me want to spend time doing other things. I suppose if I'd just shut up and fucked off none of this would have happened, but I hope people can see that sometimes standing up for what you believe in, however uncomfortable it makes you feel, really is the right thing to do.

Be brutally honest, EEng, do you agree or disagree? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 18:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll be brutally honest, and agree. (But please stay around. Don't let the jerks drive you away.) I'll add kudos to EEng for the dare that he posted over there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the question is whether "sometimes standing up for what you believe in, however uncomfortable it makes you feel, really is the right thing to do", yes I agree of course. Tfish, thanks for the praise though when I was a young engineer I had a colleague who had been a Freedom Rider so I've always felt that any standing up or daring I do is peanuts by comparison. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not only is this not canvassing, it's also doing the right thing. I would say to ignore the haters, but I know I don't need to tell you that. <b style="color:#060">💵Money💵emoji💵</b> 💸 19:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that's reassuring. My round, is it? Help yourselves everyone. Cheers. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 20:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weizenbier.jpgWeizenbier.jpgWeizenbier.jpgWeizenbier.jpgWeizenbier.jpgWeizenbier.jpgWeizenbier.jpgWeizenbier.jpg
 * Hey, these look a bit pre-quaffed! Are you sure they're not trying to vanish themselves?? "tee-hee". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had to take a small sip out of each one to facilitate carrying them all without spilling. In the interests of fairness I sipped precisely the same amount from each glass, as you can see. Yes, I know that trays are available at the bar, but Up North we prefer to exhibit our masculinity by carrying as many pints by hand as humanly possible. Don't worry, my cold sores cleared up ages ago. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Eh oop, luv. Do you want a flake with that"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Racist! <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 00:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's my take on Commons. This evening, I thought I'd look for a picture of someone crying (preferably in a humorous way) so I could lighten the mood in an edit war with the picture + caption of "it's NOT FAIR I got reverted!". So I did a Google search for  and got File:Young female protester cries in despair as the violence spreads during clashes in Kyiv, Ukraine. Events of February 18, 2014.jpg, which is too serious to use in a light-hearted satirical situation. So I back up one level to "Category:Crying women". I then think, "hmm, a grown man crying, preferably in some non-serious content like a momentary and minor knock in a sporting event will do the trick, I'll go up a level to Category:Crying people and look from there". You can't get to "Category:Crying people" from "Category:Crying women". But you can go to "Category:Nude or partially nude women crying‎" and "Category:Woman crying as she hails Hitler‎". At this point, I gave up. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so youve noticed two issues - (a) Commons is full of completely inappropriate images for any given search, and (b) (which leads on from (a)) ... Commons is mostly run by fuckwits. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * .... and which very probably leads on to (c) "Nude or partially nude fuckwits laughing‎", etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I find the categories essentially useless. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They're a mess, that's for sure. I've also been finding Google image search essentially useless these days — it fails to find too much of the stuff I'm looking for. Their web search has also deteriorated, but fortunately so far Google Scholar is still ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember, Commons categories are the most useful way to find something over there... I say that agreeing with the above criticism. Also, remember that is responsible for basically all of their nude or partially nude categories . Appears to be retired from there, though. Unfortunately not being he added ton of pages on people, historical and living, to commons:Category:Births out of wedlock. The more you know! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Yeah, when I put in crooned I made a mental note to check the denotation, but then I forgot. It's truly the wrong word. I'm glad my efforts to get TH on the front page were appreciated. However, now that the DYK's been rotated off I think I want to modify the article's treatment of the song. Take a look. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it looks good to me either way, to be honest, but the changes you made win by a hair; though I tend to be somewhat loquacious when not in article-space, when writing for articles, I favor pithier statements, when possible. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I hadn't yet made the change to which I was referring. Look now . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh! That might be a bit much, but I'll allow it under the Tom Lehrer exception. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was hoping. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alt-right
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alt-right. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the question about a balloon? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

ANI (2)
EEng, I reverted the latest comment you (re)-added to ANI as needlessly provocative. While humor when it lightens the mood is helpful, in this case it is just adding oil to fire and I don't see any good coming out of continuing this line. Hope you understand. Abecedare (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your courteous message and understand your point of view, I stand by my post and will reinstate it in a moment. Quite frankly if anyone but Rusf10 had removed it in the first place, I'd probably let the matter drop, but since he -- of all people -- thinks he's in a position to pass judgment, I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that it remain. I agree it's provocative, and it's meant to be, in the sense of thought-provocative: maybe it will penetrate some thick skulls. Again, thanks for taking the time and I hope you'll drop by The Museums while you're here. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 09:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Trump images
As this place gets a faster (and, generally, wittier) response than the village pump .... last Friday I took a number of photos of protestors on the Women's March against Trump. In particular, I have a photo from one young cheerful woman holding up a sign saying, "Fuck off Trump, you absolute prick". I asked the protestor if I could take a photo, she agreed, so I emphasised I would be uploading it to publicise the march (but didn't specify exactly where). I seem to recall people getting hassle for uploading images with blatant profanity on them - something to do with them being put in articles by vandals? Can anyone refresh my memory? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an issue - if an image is being used for vandalism we just stick it on the bad image list with a list of articles it can be used in, that's not a problem. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hah! Brilliant. Unfortunately I can't find anywhere to post it in article space. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 00:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Protests against Donald Trump? I guess nominating it for featured picture on the main page is WP:POINTy..... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  00:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Added it to Protests against Donald Trump. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 00:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * How dare you put such filth on this page, watched as it is by persons of delicate sensibilities and great refinement? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that had this page watchlisted. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's precisely who I had in mind. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, her ladyship had a falling out with Trump over something - wasn't her third or fourth (I forget) husband golfing partners with him at some point? So while the strict education set by the Earl of Scrotum's private tuition sessions would prevent her from using such uncouth terms, I think the general sentiment is probably in alignment with her views. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If only I could get my hands on a 5 foot 6 inch submarine, I'd tell you to "stick it where it hurts!".... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What I of course meant to say was: "If only I could get my hands on a 5 foot 6 inch hidden surveillance mechanism, I'd have no good reason to "make emails disappear!". I have every faith in my submarine builders". Donald Wolf 123 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, Trump has admitted he won a rigged election, and by extension shouldn't actually be President at all. I'm lost for words. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  21:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If only. You'll just have to wait for tomorrow's Presidential official explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC) ... hark!! I do believe it's the call of the lesser-spotted orange-plumed booby!

chronic, intractable, deplorable, intolerable behavioral problems
I saw This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems in the ANI header and couldn't remember seeing it previously - so I had a dig through the history of the header.

Just wanted to say thanks for the thankless task of updating that, and making it clear what sort of things ANI is geared towards - good work - TNT 💖 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , but I hope you saw that and  helped as well. Sadly, what I think was my most important single reform in terms of explaining ANI to newbies  (see right) was reverted.
 * Listen, while you're here can you consider acting on this request ? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not nearly as fancy as TNT, but they can't be unprotected from my understanding (all edit notices are protected). If you're regularly editing them, you could ask for template editor (but would be the best person to ask about that.) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the protection non-userspace editnotices have cannot be changed easily, and thus they can be created and edited only by admins and template editors. TonyBallioni's suggestion is probably your best bet, short of making an edit request - TNT 💖 19:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Well, if I ever get back to this someday I'll just edit it/them in my sandbox then ask some credulous admin to copy over to the live version. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you need any help editing protected templates and page notices, just ask me. — JFG talk 22:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Primefac (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys (and gals?). I haven't forgotten. Right now my to-do list is:
 * Talk:Useful_idiot
 * Talk:Escape_of_Charles_II
 * Noticeboard headers
 * Bring peace to the troubled Basque region
 * (not necessarily in that order). <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Women Disobey
Here's an new image of me and my flashmob ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, blatant canvassing, - do you prefer fatsuit or swimsuit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Ill-advised filing

 * Section heading added by the page proprietor

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

A really stupid question
Regarding: "[I] simply went to the last good version before you made a mess and clicked Revert to this version;"

Where is that button? I can't seem to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC) (feeling dumb)
 * It's the button above diffs that says [restore this version]. Natureium (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PS. This page took my computer almost 30 seconds to save. Natureium (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There are two facilities like this, in fact.
 * As Natureium said, in each diff, at the top of the left column, and also at the top of the right column, above where is says Revision as of xx:xx, July xx, 2018, there's a link [Restore this version].
 * Also, in any page history, if you hover over the a given revision's timestamp, a popup menu... um... well, pops up, and under actions there's revert.
 * One or the other or both of these might be enabled by various of the zillions of preference checkboxes, perhaps on the Gadgets tab, but for the life of me I don't know which. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been nosing around Preferences as well, and I can't find where it's activated. It may be a difference in the skin (I use Monobook), because I don't even have a "Revision as of..." header, and a search for "Restore" on an article's Revision History page comes up empty. (Also, I don't have the pop-up thingee enabled.) I'll look more closely at preferences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Some threads on WP:VPT seemed to imply that Twinkle had to be turned on, which I didn't, but I enabled Twinkle and see no difference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * OK I turned on Twinjle, and turned off the revision slider and it seems to be working mow. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn’t cope without Twinkle. Been using it as long as I’ve been here. Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Next you'll tell us you can stop any time. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There are people that don't have twinkle turned on?? Natureium (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Me. I don't have Huggle, Buggle, Twinkie, or Sneezy either. I even turned off the newest Watchlist filters. I'd add a scythe to EEng's image here, but, meh. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Me neither. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nor me. The only tool I use is Hotcat, and don't even know what twinkle or Trixie or whatever those things are actually do. Those new watchlist tools seemed a mess, and I jetisioned them as soon as possible. And a Monobook user as well, it's good to see Monobook has fans. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Trixie and Moonbook, yes?? Gotta luv 'em. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Monobook? Now them's fighting words. I use Vector, so I win. Heck, I even got a smart phone a few months ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Vector's not bad, kind of an out-on-the-town Monobook. At least it has the globe and the old stand by's on the left of the page (which is where I like my searchbox, per Monobook). Smart phone? What's that? Mine's kept stupid, and all I use it for is text, photos, and to actually talk to people. My last phone got pickpocketed on Montmartre in June 2017, and I was told they'd be looking for credit card and banking numbers, which have no business being near a phone anyway. Tips: Paris police don't answer their phone, but the chocolate is very good. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I resolutely avoid using my smart phone to talk to people, unless I absolutely have to. Can't stand people who walk down the street buried in their phones (or drive that way!). I got it mainly to check my email (and yes, my notifications here) without going to my computer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a computer? Stone-age tech. Wikipedia views are near 50-50 now, phone-tablets will be edging ahead shortly. I'm waiting for Holograph Wikipedia, that's when I'll really start to contribute. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I phone it in (as anyone can see from my editing). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup reversion
Hello, what did you mean when you stated in your edit summary to this edit reverting mine that you "can't restore [my] other changes"? Is there a problem with the changes I made? Or is it simply that you are not available to do so right now? So long as you are okay with all the other changes, I can simply change the U2-banned value back to  and add information about the topic ban using this diff. Is that acceptable? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, that's fine. I was on my cell phone and the diff came out crazy so I couldn't figure out how to make just that one adjustment. I figured you'd notice the revert, which you did. Thanks. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much and entirely understand, since the diffs sometimes don't render properly and I can only assume it's much worse on mobile. Anyway, the fixed edit can be found here. Thanks for catching my mistake, by the way; I forgot to check the user's talk page. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Multiline
Please stop unilaterally making the table bigger, uglier, and inconsistent. Take it to talk, but MOS readers shouldn't be subjected to that horror without consensus to assault their eyes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Calm down. Not everyone has a geekezoid super-wide monitor such as the one used to produce your two screenshots . For monitors of normal size (or, more to the point, windows of normal size even if shown on a very wide monitor) horizontal space is indeed a precious resource.  And consensus has little to do with this, since this is a proposed table in project talk space being actively developed by several editors together. Try narrowing the window to a more conventional size and look again. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 1980x1080 is by far the most common monitor size. And those are zoomed in to 130%. At default size, the difference is even more pronounced. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (Sorry that I accidentally deleted your reply there for a second) 1980x1080 is by the most common monitor size. – Apparently not, see, and there's much more to what the user sees than that simplified measure. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your Signpost edits. You are always welcome to edit. Even if one day, every word of mine disappears and is replaced by something else that you have created, it would be welcome. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  14:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing



 * The images in controversy are those shown here, added some weeks ago to Wikipedia talk:Identifying and using independent sources.

Talk page stalkers! To the barricades! The powers of darkness are massing to remove painful visual puns from a project page (be sure to scroll down to see all four images). Now is the time for action! Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Too bad there were no buns. Those patties just fall flat.  Images are welcome if they have a schmear of relevance. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC) (add important missing element Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC))
 * You've got some nerve complaining about bunlessness when you blatantly lack a verb. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, leaving out important things, like verbs and relevance, is not good. i fixed mine above.  How about you consider your stance toward images in this discussion? :)  Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Disgusting. Just your sick and twisted mind letting the entire project down, yet again! You wouldn't find me posting carnivorous rubbish like that. Lentil tree-hugger 123 (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) And Jytog, please leave EEng's buns out of this.


 * I am really very very cross about this and so is my friend. I mean, this place is turning into a..... Hamburger patty.jpg Irondome (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Mince without the meat.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In my experience, when a joke falls flat (as this one clearly did), a skilled comedian will drop it from the comedy routine, instead of repeating it over and over in the hope that someone will get it. You asked, I answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Falls flat? Comedy routine?? A least it's not from Birmingham, eh??? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You made me watch that? I just lost my appetite. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * But it didn't fall flat. Several people thanked me for it. Naysayers are far more likely to speak up, so every wet blanket tsk-tsking I figure there are ten people getting a chuckle. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it fell flat. The people who thanked you were inebriated (too much meat, too much serotonin), and if they thanked you for edit warring over it, they were dolts, to boot. And on the off-chance that you actually did give some folks a chuckle, then woo-hoo, you accomplished your objective, and it was time to get out of there before the hecklers started up. Repeating the same joke over and over kinda defeats the purpose. (Too much meat, too much serotonin, too much meat, too much serotonin.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, Chuckles, you do remember who was the first editor to pun on "sauce/source", don't you? (And it was funny when I did it!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 😂 - I got it - sequence of images. Patty steak, patty steak on steroids=


 * No, no, no. You failed to get the sub-contextual, but historically-rooted, joke about speed EEng's buns. C'mon. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And here I was thinking it was a joke about parties and Boston accents. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to hint it's your birthday, EEng? Either that or another cause for celebration for you?--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)





I think that's a bloody good pun that Jytdog (talk), and it does not reference sauce. I bet you had a semi-chuckle. It's not easy getting a light-hearted politically satirical pun given such poor material. A bun and a burger. Marx never managed it. It's a little gem. I say. It came to me in a flash. Under ten seconds and the masterpun was fully formed. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * pun translation division:
 * "one-patty steak" is a pun for one party state (humorless dictators).
 * very nimble, and so orthongonal! Remarxable; i tip my cow to you sir. No bullshit there!  Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The three patties and "special sauce" at the essay on sources are (i think) playing on sauce/source (say "source" like you are for Bah-ston) with some 45-year old (!) big mac jingle thrown in (two all beef patties special sauce etc). Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, not special sauce, but rather reliable sauce, as in reliable third-patty sauce. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out there's third party and third party. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, Jytdog, both Stewart and the Miracle Healing Church of Finsbury Park would be proud of you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable third party sauce.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Custard Throw at Lord Mandelson by Greenpeace Protester" belongs in The New Yorker's "There Will Always Be an England" department. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Or, as the Daily Mirror would have it: "Mandy gets his just desserts". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thanks. Observers: don't worry if you don't know what I mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't know what you mean, but your comment is making me nervous, anyways... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright then, Dr. Tryptofish will cure all nervousness. It was this:, and EEng gave me a "thank" notification. Ask your doctor if "Template:Round in circles" is right for you. May cause dizziness. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unequivocally a sign that you're cutting too many corners. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thusly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Recursion
"Anagrams don't lie" can be rearranged to "damnation lagers." TTFN, I think I hear a bottle of Beck's calling to me. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your observation has been duly entered in The Great Register . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

T'was a SAD! week on wiki
Ô Revered Guardian of the Lost Art of Wiki-Fun, allow me to blatantly and not-humbly-at-all self-promote my contribution to this week's WP:TOP25. Sad! — JFG talk 17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like that Godzilla: King of the Monsters beat out Donald Trump. And speaking of useful idiots, I haven't forgotten about that, and those notes will turn up soon I'm sure. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ardith Dondanville sources
Hi, I see that you have removed my sources three times. Can you think of any better source that I could use, or do you think I can mention Ardith Dondanville anywhere else in the article? Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, Ardith Dondanville played a "background munchkin child". What would the reader gain by his being listed along with Garland, Bolger, and the other stars of the film? The lack of reliable sources answers that question. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Chesley Sullenberger
Initiated discussion for revising the lead on Talk:Chesley_Sullenberger. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chesley Sullenberger. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 173.73.10.191 (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Our lecturing friend the IP is making a mountain out of this molehill. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI PPV
A real barn-burner at ANI. How about a "loser leaves Wikipedia" match? Don't worry about losing, you can always come back as User:TheMaskedEEng. Primergrey (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the ANI discussion most entertaining! I pity the fools! If there ever is a PPV starring EEng, I'll watch it. Well, at least it wasn't Pokémon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Q Eye for the ANI Guy

 * Curator's note: For those playing along at home, this concerns this edit at ANI. The title of this thread was provided by The Curator.

Please don’t joke about being from QAnon on the noticeboard. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes you think I'm joking?
 * OK, seriously, Your Arbship, I respect you as an editor, administrator, and arbitrator (at least I think I do, unless I have you mixed up with someone else) but recently you've developed a most distressing tsk-tsking habit. What are you talking about? I expressed relief that an ANI thread headed simply Q did not, in fact, relate to the looniest of Trump's loonies. Since it's the edit summary that is the apparent focus of your concern  you could have revdel'd the e.s. and left unmolested the post itself, which is obviously harmless. As it is you've let remain in the page history the very thing you object to i.e. the e.s.  <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. The use of humor to leaven the atmosphere on the noticeboards is a fine thing; I do it myself from time to time. But the appropriateness of particular remarks or images is always subjective. Last week, I knew that I didn't want to look at a picture of a pus-laden ("pussy") eye every time I peeked at ANI, and at least one other person had posted the same thing. The replacement photo you posted was arguably funnier or arguably an irrelevant distraction and I let it go.
 * In last night's instance, you posted a comment about the ambiguity of "Q" in an already closed thread. Like you, I'm glad that the ANI thread didn't turn out to be about Q, or for that matter about Q or Q or Q. The edit summary troubled me, largely because my feelings about QAnon are exactly the same as yours. I don't think it qualifies for rev-del (there are rules about that), and I'm not too worried about it being in the page history because no sane person will ever look through the page history of ANI, which probably has more revisions than any other page on the entire wiki other than maybe the Sandbox.
 * I'll try not to tsk-tsk too much but I just ask that you pick your spots with these things. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Where we go one we go all (WWG1WGA), which works well for restaurant reservations. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd thought of the heading on this thread. "rofl"... But urgghh, "picking spots"? that sounds particularly unpleasant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Randy Kryn, aren't you thinking of these guys??
 * Why yes, yes I was (which makes the seating easier). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah cool. But I guess you don’t have Stephen Fry in the US, do you? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Brad is quite right that only an insane person would go through the ANI edit history, because that's what I just did. And Brad is a far, far nicer human being than I am because (a) I'm a fish, not a human, and (b) I'm grumpy and pissed off because I was notified today that I've been editing WP for 10 years and there are kids on my lawn. So I'm perfectly happy with tsk-tsking anytime. So, I looked at the ANI edit and the edit summary, and I'm pleasantly surprised to say that I found it quite clever and not at all inappropriate. And the revised section header for this talk section is absolutely fabulous dahling. But EEng sweetie, please do cut back on the comedy routine at ANI. ANI is the sanctuary for the poor souls with tinfoil hats who are in a state of agitation and on whom humor is lost. Swine before pearls. And humor gets misread on Teh Internets all the time. So please do less ANI humor and check out open-mike night at the comedy club instead. And if you need any help about those spots you're picking, I've got some lotion you can borrow. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And the news is already out: Q is Bill Maher. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I used to have some of those "swine pearls" (for use at weekends). But the look really didn't suit me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * True. And just try putting lipstick on a fish. Not a pretty sight. You said in your edit summary that you stick to sheep. What kind of glue do you use? Your secret is safe with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just like normal glue, but more sticky. Ah yes, "a genus of grunts". I wonder is that related to "a genius of grunts"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * EEng, you weren't far off: I've reverted quite a few "deep state" edits and responded to a few "the storm" claims on talk pages. QAnon is not only here, it's been here for quite some time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"always when I'm being a smartass"
Re:, I will take a smartass over a dumbass every time. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just "Always" then, smartarse. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a good one, EEng! So would summery style be editing by a hothead? Anyway, just be careful to cover your smartass. Roxy, were you addressing that to ? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah. No-one's gonna fall for that load of old cobblers. EEng you're a true "ledge". Ya schmuck. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can always count on Martin to spring into action, even when he's all wet. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just realized that we forgot to work "badass" into this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The user that discussion's about could have been from there, considering their interest in astrology. Eman  235 / talk  23:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone pass EEng that baseball bat.... Martinevans123 (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:RF resonant cavity thruster. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something frightening you'd find in a dentist's office. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Before you comment, I think you should try and ascertain.... "is it safe?" !! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like the most un-sexy double entendre of all time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Oooh, watch where you're putting that tamping iron, Dr Gage, you'll 'ave someone's eye out with that!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I love this edit summary: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hard data?
We absolutely need something lewd about soft and hard blocks. Blackmane (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So naturally you came to me . As a followup I'm trying to figure out how to work the resonant cavity thruster in as well. I'll keep you posted. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I almost wrote "my sir, that's a fine bit of bent wood you're brandishing there" on WP:ANEW just now in response to a boomerang block, but feared somebody might extract a double-entendre out of it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now just stop taking the mickey, can you? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see this page has lost none of the juvenile character so many have been complaining about for so long. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Who else would one turn to?? Blackmane (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018: The Augustening
You may be thanked without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did in this edit. Comment on content, not on idiots. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think my block button is deficient - I looked down the list of reasons, and "being a douchebag" is not on there. What gives? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Or else, being a mighty Admin person, you could just tell him to go "shove it up 'is aris with brass knobs on"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That was me; I removed it from your block button. But I'm not sorry, it was pure self-preservation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, perfectly obvious to those not mentally defective
<abbr title="Awesome face" style="border-bottom: none;"> — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An apparent reference to . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wisenheimer
2 things:

1. Who knew she was even still alive?

2. I'd still appreciate it if you eased up on Galatz...it would make my life easier in dealing with him if nothing else.

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a powerful incentive. I'll try to give it a rest for a while, but if this keeps up, I'll go forward with proposing changes to sourcing requirements calculated to radically denotable-ize most topics in pro wrestling. These endless phony in-universe novelettes have only been tolerated to the extent they don't interfere with the rest of the project, but that's on the verge of changing. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Believe me, Galatz drives me crazy as much as anybody with his rigidity and super-seriousness, but also you're not the one he's issuing ANIs on every time a couple of little things get shuffled around (especially when I didn't do the shuffling to begin with), and screaming WP:This, WP:That, and WP:The Other. Just look at it as helping a brother out. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK bro, I'm hip. We cool. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You must know EEng by now... he just loves to break the ice at parties. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts...
When you get a chance, will you look at this source and tell me what you think about it as a source for Fan service? Thanks in advance...<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This being EEng's talk page, I suggest this source: . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the name of God keep your voice down or you'll wake him! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Harisen. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Back to the original question: Though whenever I see the word hermeneutic that's when I reach for my revolver, and honestly if that source is randomly-generated I wouldn't know it, but I suppose it's an RS. However, I don't see in the source anything supporting the use of The Frogs as an example -- I fear this may be SYNTH/OR. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now THAT is a fantastic song. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey y'all - I'm trying to be serious ... really, really trying...but not as trying as this interaction...so please don't fan the flames. I attempted to drown out the rhetoric, but how the hell does one drown a fish? I expected nothing less from Shock...whose user name is appropriate in this instance...and I actually expected EEng's revolving view but not quite as revolvalutionary as his response to hermeneutic - it gave me hot flashes which require the service of a fan...and that brings us back to my original question and the reliability of the source, and the tune that is now embedded in my head. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You could try drowning me in margaritas. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, good - I've heard that it's much better to have willing subjects. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 18:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

DUH moments
Can you think of a witty entry in WP:ASTONISHME for this edit? I'm afraid my sense of humour is recharging in the garage at the moment. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I'm sure our local fish will have something to say about Haddocks' Eyes. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to get here, and perhaps our local Martin might want to sing a song about it, but it looks to me like it's in the barrel. Some may need glasses, and some, telescopes, and others, a flashlight, while still others, a mirror, but I hope no one will fail to see it. Suggested reading, for aficionados of weirdness: Vision in fishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Duly added . You are a true friend of the crown. Dilly! Dilly! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

CC
I know it wasn't you who has been using the word troll, but I always address comments like mine on that talk p.  to both people, so as not to look like I'm taking sides DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understand, and just so you know I posted this before seeing your note here. I don't know what's with him. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to be continuing, from both sides. I have removed the irrelevant material. If more is added to that talk page or my talk page, I shall block. The best way of avoiding it is to to reply directly to the other party.  DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, but don't look at me -- I'm not the one whining on your talk page. Like I said, "It's at times like these that I really feel sorry for high-profile admins like DGG, who get pinged in by people mad they can't get something collapsed or other such trivia." <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Cambridge Companions.    DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No doubt you mean this, which of course follows on to all this . DGG, you have many admirable qualities but coddling humorless crybabies isn't one of them. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 07:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why WP:DTTR is a thing. I saw this warning and had to check it out, and I can't see anything even remotely resembling "purposeful and blatant harassment". Well, coming from Eeng, anyways. A personal note would have been much better at communicating the ideas I saw expressed at that TP by DGG. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we need to make Template:FBDB in a larger font? Heck, would this be an appropriate occasion to deploy the tag? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you make that happen, I will hunt you down and kill you slowly. Or high-five you and get you drunk so we can start using it all over the wiki. I'm not sure which, yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Mr. Pants, it seems to me your post would itself a very good place to deploy a blinking fbdb, given that a superficial inspection could lead someone to conclude you were actually threatening to kill someone. Dumbass. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it's only slowly (if not softly). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, because I am an honest guy, my statement to Iridescent ("Be nice or I'll accuse you of trolling.{{fbdb}") was a reference to Curly Turkey's bizarre accusations (enumerated here ) that I had been trolling; but it's certainly not harassment of anyone. Only later was I reminded, quite by accident, that Curly Turkey's animosity apparently goes back to this bizarre discussion . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking from experience, humor can get you t-banned or blocked, and it’s very possible that it will come at you from your blind side. It won’t matter one iota if you were templated or warned in a nice way.  The target on your back gets illuminated and sometimes the t-ban or block comes just because it can - but you probably already know that.  However, in this case, it appears to me the warning is to avoid the appearance of favoritism, and not anything personal - remember, it’s never personal. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding a question - EEng, I read the link you posted above and it led to one of your essays so I was wondering if it would be plausible to create the category Wikipedia essays by EEng which will make them a bit easier to find, or is it forbidden per IAR? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support that as a maintenance category, because it would make it much easier to identify candidates for MfD. (Sound of evil laughter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tryp, for future reference: [[File:Evil laughter.ogg]]. You can also leave it playing as a loop in your room at the home.  The fish will find it comforting, and it will keep tricksters away. (🔙 see file) <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this really "old Blowers" (as he was affectionately known)?? Strangely it has (for me at least) distinct overtones of other louche and faintly menacing characters. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Fugue
I take it you have already heard of this? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What are those squiggle symbols in the video while they're singing? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a squiggly line in the lyrics, that means hold the vowel with vibrato while hitting the notes shown in the tablature. Straight lines mean the same, only without the vibrato.
 * The little squiggly that looks like a percentage sign missing the bottom degree symbol is a rest and it means a pause with no sound, same goes for the one that looks like a squiggle with a calligraphy pen.
 * The hashtag looking symbol means to sharpen the note (move it up one semitone), and the little "b" looking symbol means to flatten it (move it down one semitone).
 * The two little "b" symbols immediately following the big & symbol means that those particular notes should be flattened unless indicated otherwise.
 * The symbol that looks almost like a hashtag, but with only one branch sticking up and one down with none to the sides means to not flatten the normally-flattened note that immediately follows it.
 * If a solid note has a flag at the top (or bottom), that means it last half as long as usual (1/4 as long if there are two flags, etc), and the bars between the notes indicate the same thing.
 * Notes with a dot following them mean to hold it for 1.5 times the normal duration.
 * A hollow note with no line coming up or down from it lasts four beats, a hollow note with a line (called a stem) lasts two beats, and a solid note with a stem lasts 1 beat.
 * The row of tablature that starts with the giant "&" symbol is a treble clef and it's where the melody is written.
 * The bottom line on the top row of the treble clef indicates the E in the middle of the keyboard, with each line and space between lines representing one note (usually 2 semitones higher than the previous, except for F and C) in the C Major scale. Notes appearing above or below it will have one or more lines through them and/or their stems to indicate how far above or below the top/bottom note of the clef they are.
 * The row of the tablature that starts with the big almost-question-mark looking swirly symbol is the bass clef, and only bassists and pianists care about it.
 * Now that you know how to read music, I'll be expecting a live recital of Für Elise with the proper dynamic timing by this time next week. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's impressive! But what does it mean if the tablature says "go fugue yourself!"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a joke: How come Bach had so many children?


 * Answer: He didn't have any stops in his organ.


 * In fact, he wore out three organs fuguing.


 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah. Forget all that complicated "MPants motorbike method"... all you need to know about music is here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That's impressive! But what does it mean if the tablature says "go fugue yourself!"? It doesn't mean much, but is usually written on your copy of the music after you've helpfully pointed out to the singer that they were just a bit flat on that last song. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Our little family biker club was named "The Fugums"...we're very musical and quite talented. In fact, we played "Rollover Beethoven" repeatedly while on the way to the Sturgis Bike Rally.  That's all I remember...but I do have pictures!! 😂  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 22:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And this clip takes the idea of the Bach fugue to a whole new level. Apologies if you find this particularly disturbing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it disturbed me. And 4chan may be coming after you now! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, whateva. Bring it dude. Those ninja stars ain't a patch on Fram when he's riled. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But watch out for those harisen. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Hmmph, hmmph, hmmph! Well Trypto, that's another fine mess you've gotten me into!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * True, my hardy friend! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "You hum it and we'll get MPants to play it..." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that a hum job? (I'm going to regret having said that, too!) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Careful now, never call a female singer flat. (Oh, I'm going to regret having said that!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This may be getting a bit too risque, but years ago, when auditioning a female singer for a band I was in, this one girl was really bad. Like, American Idol audition out-takes level bad. After she tried out, our drummer Zach asked her why she wanted to sing for us (she had "sang" a couple of alt-rock/nu-metal songs and we were a prog-metal band) and she literally giggled like a little girl and said "because I like anal." We didn't ask her any more questions (except for the guitar playing asking her for a date).
 * To this day, that answer haunts me. What does it mean?? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time! Anal=calling you assholes, maybe? I'd like to ask the guitar player how the date went. (Make joke here about happy ending.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I heard the two of them had a very nice deep-fried Tierce de Picardie at the local "Frog and Bucket Bar". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate Picardy thirds. It's like adding an extra chapter to the end of Romeo & Juliet in which the knife turned out to be a prop knife and the poison to be brandy. It is not in any way satisfying because it's not the chord I was waiting for!!! I'd rather end a number on a good blue note any day. At least that adds in some tension that leaves it with a bit of soul. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All sounds a bit retentive to me. --Dancing Queen 123 (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I recall learning Ralph Vaughan Williams' English Folk Song Suite at school, and as far as I recall off the top of my head, the end of the first movement, "Seventeen Come Sunday" ends on a rather nice Picardy third. Or, slightly more recently, the live version of "Don't Stop Me Now" as appearing on Live Killers resolves on a rather interesting G (just where the studio version fades out) despite the bulk of the song being in F, the closing chords suggest Gm. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well just because Lord Freddie (peace be upon him) did it once doesn't make it okay. Even the divine occasionally make mistakes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I said it was "interesting", not "okay". It just sounds like such a damp squib to end a great song on, which probably explains when they finally revived it with Prince Adam, they chopped that whole bit out and finished on a nice big fat F after the last chorus, like a proper rock song (mind you, I can just hear Freddie saying, "now look darlings, that's just far too uncouth, what we need at the end is a bit of ballet my loves....") <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah no! Not another damp squid! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography
Whatever happened to BRD...? GiantSnowman 16:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Presumably you're talking about and the two edits immediately following it. When one editor makes a change; a second editor reverts saying, "Hmmm, I liked it the way it was"; then a third restores the change saying, "Here are some other reasons the change is a good one" – that's often all that's needed for agreement. Not every minor disagreement needs a big-deal discussion thread. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Pentagon
I just want to clarify I do not object to images not having captions but to thumb images not having captions. Since your latest image edits do not have thumb images with no captions but just plain images I have no objection. I didn’t like the gallery at the bottom before and am glad you have changed it.  IWI  ( chat ) 12:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well hello,, and thanks for taking the time to explain. However – and this is an important however – the appropriate way to act on your concern would have been to change three instances of thumb to frameless, not to mass-revert everything another editor had done all over the article. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I am in agreement; that was a mistake on my behalf and I apologise.  IWI  ( chat ) 14:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , you are most gracious. Enjoy this free ticket to The Museums. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the ironically named ImprovedWikiImprovement has been improving the wiki with improvements by citing the ever popular WP:ASTONISHME essay that is very popular in these parts. I'll be impressed if he can top this though <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What? It astonished the hell out of me. I thought it came from papayas. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , wait, hold the phone. So, you're telling me that orange juice is extracted from oranges!? I thought it was named so because it is orange in colour. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Divine Rights
I spruced up WP:NDR a bit today, but I'm sure you and your merry band of talk page stalkers can do better. Have at it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Asking EEng for essay help has become something like a ceremony around here. Eman  235 / talk  20:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on jury duty but I'm sure the glittering salon of talk page stalkers will see to it. Ping me again in a couple of days. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page too long
I've had a complaint that my talk page is too long. What should I do?

I was amazed, checking the history, that you in fact do archive your talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a bit like filling a few sandbags, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I archive my talk page. I'm not a barbarian. Imagine if I didn't! I suggest you point the complainants to this page and tell them things could be worse. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes me a barbarian. I did point the complainant to this page and have heard nothing since. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He's probably still waiting for this page to load. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While this page is on my watchlist, I rarely visit new changes because it takes seconds to load.<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg — Paleo Neonate  – 05:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Seconds. This is indeed the age of instant gratification. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Mail as in email
I sent you an email, but don't know if it included what I intended to send. Yes or no? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 20:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not a mind reader so I can only surmise what you intended to send, but on that surmise I think the answer is yes. For now I think it's best ignored. I find it amusing that in the course of just that one page I progress from being a professor of neuroscience at Harvard (which I am not) to being a neurosurgeon (which I most certainly am not). <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as well you're not a rocket scientist. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's what I am. who told you? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of all the people on this planet for me to ask a stupid question...I asked YOU!!! 😂 😂 Astonishing. I should've proof-read it...(probably with a few jiggers of 100 proof).  My question reminded me a bit of this letter.  BTW, Martinevans123, that clip was hilarious! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 00:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Top Wiki Arbcon Brain Docs in EEng Mercy Dash": watch?v=cEkT5uspE3c Martinevans123 (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My most recent amusing accusation: apparently I'm a paid apologist for the Roman Catholic church. Where's my money, Franky, that's what I'd like to know. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, hrmpf - if you're not getting paid,, stop apologizing, or they'll try to pay you in Italian papals instead of 💵 (US). 🙏🏻...waves of Italian guilt...I'll just go ahead and say 5 Acts of Contrition and 10 Hail Marys. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 01:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

A little help


I've been implementing some WP:ASTONISHME upon reading it but am unable to do it at BT group due to one user who basically owns the article if you look at the history. Could you help me reach consensus?  IWI  ( chat ) 21:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , you can always buy the article from him. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I suggest that you continue partaking in the talk page discussion and try to compromise with the 'owner' of the article. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried that:”Undone; consensus needed”. Could you voice your opinion on the matter? The guy undoes everything anyone does except grammar.  IWI  ( chat ) 22:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Something I missed when I was looking at your contribution history, damn, even here you've said about me being the "owner" and "undoes everything anyone does except grammar" - go back to the talk page and read my responses, try to comprehend it (if you can). Shocking Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cut it out, both of you. I do the insulting around here. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And you're lousy at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, shut up, you sniveling heap of parrot droppings. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 🙁😂 Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * EEng, make that parrotfish droppings - it's more realistic since he's closer to being a brain surgeonfish despite his disguise as a tryptofish. He is really, really smart - knows all about seahorses - practically lived 24/7 with them in a fish lab located on the Hippo campus at Weatherford Junior College.  The folks at the home where he lives now nicknamed him Neuro, but unfortunately, like Martiin, he still doesn't know you're a rocket scientist, so please go easy on him.  He doesn't swim as fast as he once did.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 02:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well played, Atsme. Yesterday, I tried to think of a good play on "parrot droppings", but didn't come up with anything. Oh, and you're lousy at this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that Acnestis is a red link. Given what it means, this sounds like an itch that needs to be scratched, and furthermore, the DYK possibilities seem quite numerous. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

friends!
You and I must--must--become friends! It is a galactic imperative! You are, maybe, the second person I have found on Wikipedia with a sense of humor, and I desperately need you in my Wp life! Plus I want to steal some of your stuff... I absolutely must have that pyramid for my talk page! If you had any idea how much trouble I have had with exactly the issue of authoritarian editors--well one really--you would swear it had been created just for me! I'm sure they were reading my talk page and simply neglected to tell me they had made a pyramid out of it. I have every intention of becoming one of your 'crazed talk page stalkers', so giving me the pyramid would be a good start! Does it need a US copyright tag--no wait--aaarrgghh!!!--I have been assimilated! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * <Small>Tryptofish... I'll stall him. You call the police! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm late to the party, per the talk section below. Also, might not be a "he". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Her--why is this here three times? Do you have your talk page set up to purposefully edit conflict?!?  How do you do that?  I want to do that!  I must have you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Deep breaths. Deep breaths. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see this is going to require some perseverance. I'm sure you're not implying I'm a stalker--right? That would be bad. That could upset me... ha ha ha (joking--just joking!!). I'm perfectly harmless--well mostly harmless--sometimes I'm harmless--ahhh screw it, nevermind. I require a lot more than a pyramid to do deep breathing with someone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sound of sirens drawing closer. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Ha! This is probably my fault. What can I say? I'm a friendly guy (believe it or not), I like friendly people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * :-) It's a good thing you do have a sense of humor! (I think I hear those sirens...)  Really, I only love you for your pyramid--can I have your permission to steal it?Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pssst. Don't ask his permission, just do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't! They are all trying to frame you, Jenhawk. Everyone knows if one asks for one's permission before stealing one's stuff, one would not be susceptible to lawsuits by one. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 02:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I already like you--so pssst away! :-)  He won't be my friend if I just steal his stuff--I'm pretending to be respectful and all that crap that makes people think you're actually likable. I think I have him fooled--what do you think?  How am I doing?  Pretty smooth huh?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One appreciates one's wonderful advice and one will watch out carefully for those ones attempting to entrap one. Thank you one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will oneders never cease? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can one up that one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then how will we play that game of croquet you promised? (I'm ba-a-ack!) :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Bernard DeVoto
EEng: Please stop spending your time (and wasting mine) by criticizing and deleting information. Your actions before and for a good part of today suggest some personal bias for DeVoto: only when I added favorable rebuttable did you let information stand. Now you want secondary sources? (–when this material is already so simple, clear, and strong!) Why spend the time giving advice when you could take it yourself? You want secondary sources, too? Please, go out there, tiger, and get yourself (and the rest of us) some secondary sources! And use your time (and that of others) more constructively, to boot! :) --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For those playing along at home, we're talking about this.
 * You've added random stuff said about DeVoto by McCarthy and others, taken from primary sources with nothing to explain its significance. Yes, I want secondary sources, because that's what Wikipedia wants. I thought you seemed to be going in that direction, but if I'm wrong and after a decent interval you haven't added any appropriate sources explaining what in the world this tells us about DeVoto (other than that McCarthy lashed out at him, and he said some things back – what's the reader supposed to do with that?), then I'm afraid the material will have to go.
 * As for my "personal bias for DeVoto" – I mean, WTF? Yeah, sure, I'm part of the DeVoto Defender's Club. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No secondary sources being forthcoming, I've removed this material. Interested stalkers may want to take a look. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (2)
Re this edit: if a thread is closed, it stays closed unless there is something new or important to say about it. The reverted edit was neither, and the edit summary was incivil. Also, I didn't want to run off to the media and say that there are rude idiots on Wikipedia. Please keep your pearls of wisdom polite and helpful.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your intentions but your judgment as to what's helpful and so on does not control. If Paleofacts wants to "run off to the media" to highlight his own stupidity that might help others avoid repeating his mistakes. Feel free to comment on my post, but removing it is a no-no -- see WP:TPO. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is in the real world. It is a no-no to do anything on Wikipedia that would give a person the opportunity to run off to the media and say that they had been treated badly. Paleofacts was blocked for making legal threats, the thread was closed and there was no need for the snarky comment on it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion. You may comment on, but not fuck with, others' posts. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You have a track record of doubling down when challenged, and it has continued here. I did not fuck with the post, but have it your own way.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If "doubling down" means I make it my habit to know what I'm talking about and don't suffer fools gladly, then yeah. Removing is fucking with. Dispense your platitudes elsewhere and don't do it again. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait, are you trying to say there are rude idiots on Wikipedia? How did I not know about this? &#8209; Iridescent 14:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because you hang out FA, where the rude smart people are. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a busybody and Paleofacts is stupid. Welcome to EEng's world.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you still here? You're not in my world, which is full of the pleasures of research and writing and interactions with the clever. Now one more time, and more forcefully: take your witless attempts at repartee elsewhere. You'll be welcome back when you can suspend your impulse to police others' interactions. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So would you say your world is "a medley of extemporanea"? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In truth more of a cacophony, but still it's music to me. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Aw, you're just blowing your own horn. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A joke for you
Did you hear about the bad thesaurus? Not only is it awful it's also awful. I'm not humorless or unamused I just didn't want that permanently on the discussion page. Best, User:Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For those playing along at home, this regards the two image to the right of the table of contents here .
 * I appreciate your dropping by to explain,, but in all seriousness, why not have it permanently on the page? Why not let others enjoy the joke? And -- perhaps more importantly -- isn't it fair play to let new volunteers know what they're in for? I'm also puzzled as to why you removed the image but not the anagram.
 * I'm pinging Mr. NPP himself,, for his opinion. He's really smart. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, better than Saint Jude as a patron, I suppose. I think it's funny, but I suspect you've had enough people remove your pictures from Wikipedia talk pages that you know it might take Saint Jude to get that picture back. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Who asked you anyway? Actually, they've just about always remained. (See links in my post below.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do like it. You have my +1 as a non-humor-impaired-mop-wielding-internet-random-person. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because, in all seriousness, I don't think jokes should permanently be left on project discussion pages. Clearly I'm not the only one who feels this way given the second revert. If new volunteers can get the task ahead of them by reading the reviewers guide they're supposed to read before asking for the PERM, or don't understand it when they have the mop, well then maybe NPP isn't for them? Also for one brief shining moment this year getting the backlog to 0 was a realistic thing. It's a shame we didn't get and keep it there so I'm not even sure the reference is correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, in all seriousness, I think jokes should permanently be left on project discussion pages (well, semipermanently -- nothing goes on forever, other than my user page). And why not? Project pages are Wikipedia's brainstorming rooms. Why shouldn't there be something on the bulletin board to lighten the daily grind? Here're a few that have been in place for ages ; I've been told they make people smile even after many encounters. I'm sure there are others I can't bring to mind.
 * As for the second removal, well, the page has 125 active watchers so that leaves 123 editors who didn't remove it. Must everything be reduced to the tastes of the stuffiest member of the group? Articles are by design conservative: if in doubt, leave it out. But talk pages are the opposite: within extremely wide bounds all voices are welcome. I added the image to communicate, Hey, I know it seems a hopeless and endless task sometimes, but we're all in this together so let's keep rolling that rock up. That's as valid a comment as any -- seriously.
 * And you still haven't explained why you left the anagram. Tell you what... let's wait and see what happens with that. If no one removes it, then we'll take that as tentative evidence that our fellow editors are not as humor-averse as you think, and we'll put back the image and see what the other 123 editors think. Deal? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the joke.
 * If the image does go back, you need to delete the period at the end of the image caption. What amateurs! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In my defense, the caption was originally a sentence. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal attack wanted
I'm looking for someone to make a personal attack at Talk:Homonym so I can open an ANI thread entitled "Ad hominem at Homonym". See Talk:Homonym. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did my best. Natureium (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , : Absolutely priceless! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are old electrical engineering jokes. On what charge? The judge had him conducted to a dry cell. For reasons I vaguely recall some historian of science once elucidated, the terminology of EE is particularly prone to such stuff. It's been a while since I linked to this vaguely related disgusting talk . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rolls eyes: They misspelled "field". Directs a Harvardesque sniff in the direction of MIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And that was an impersonal attack. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a term in algebraic topology, the inverse dual of a field. Pronounced fah-eeld. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Embarrassed, tries to change the subject: Bah, humbug! I challenge you to an inverse duel. (Wonders: is that where each combatant points the gun at himself?) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I just made it up. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You fucker! Oh, and by the way, you also pronounce "EEng" incorrectly. (Personal attack ✅.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously you didn't take Math 55. But it was a risky move on my part. As pointed out in The Harvard Lampoon Big Book of College Life forty years ago, if you want to fake intellectuality and get away with it, the best subdiscipline to operate in is French philosophy. You can make up quotes and attribute them to some invented French name with complete impunity e.g. "The true depth of spiritual revelation is known better to the meanest peasant than to the most exalted royal. – Bertrand Doisneau". No one will contradict you, trust me. Try it yourself. LaFromboise. Bouthillier. Demaret. It's easy. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "It is the defining quality of a crappy encyclopedia that there is a page about Math 55 that has twice survived AfD." --Poissoneau (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Unexpected caption



 * Personally I would have chosen the word startling. Here's the worse part: it's a "featured picture". Thanks for sharing... um... I guess. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at the file page at Commons to see the list of en-wiki pages where it's used, and it's truly impressive how much this one shows up in user space. Confirms my suspicions about so many editors talking out of their asses. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

A picture’s worth....

 * Nothing left to say. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 15:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Damn,, did you really have to leave a thousand word message on a page that's already this long? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If a picture is worth a thousand words, then EEng must be a man of as many words as Wikipedia itself. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 20:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes sense because words are wind and EEng is certainly full of hot air... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They misquoted Shakespeare (Much Ado 5:2)! That's almost as bad as...as...as contributing to the great wall of talk pages here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. And I thought EEng was just full of sound and fury. How come I can never get to the bottom of this page?? Noises Off 123 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify - the focus of the screenshot is User talk:EEng#Had a ball - it has nothing to do with size - size doesn’t matter. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 20:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC) ...of the PAGE - size of the page doesn’t matter. 23:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do women keep telling me that?! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Extinguishing fires with dynamite
<div style="position:relative;float:right;text-align:center;background-color:#f8f8ff;border:1px solid #000088;padding:12px;">Are you going to ANI? Prophet, sage, Rosemary and Ham Open a thread, about you and I Bias the discussion as much as you can Have them all call for an indef block Prophet, sage, Rosemary and Ham With TPA revoked and a global lock Then you will win the ANI game. Hah! I had previously said "All things being equal, if my saltiness at my talk page encourages other editors not post edits like those I was responding to, then mission accomplished."

Which fits your metaphor perfectly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  19:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's something sad about the fact that I'm considered a prophet and sage around here. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, what's sad is that nobody considers you that. Except yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree: that's sad. From now on, I shall consider you a prophet and sage.
 * As well as a ham. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Prophet, Sage, Rosemary and Ham. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh-oh!
Seems like you are in big trouble now! (not) Apparently, it has been scientifically proven that you are homophobic:. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've known this for some time. I mean, Eeng's always had a masochistic streak. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just looked back there. Group hug, anyone? Platonicly, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess you graduated before they instituted the spelling test. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh again! (Or are you pulling that French philosopher trick on me again?) Maybe it's because I graduated after they dropped the Latin requirement. (Yes, I know Plato was Greek. I knew him personally.) Or should it have been Platonically? They all fail my spell checker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't rely on your spellchecker to help you spell correctally. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, the hug is off (and I'm sitting down). Oh, and fuck you, of course. Platonicish, perhaps? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The approved form is "fuck off". "Fuck you" is a whole 'nother kettle of fuck. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is "kettle of fuck" similar to hot-pot? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't trust Wiktionary, either, but they say it's Platonically. Then again, they also recognize Platonick. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I should add that EEng has now been reclassified as a "good egg". Perhaps someday, someone will explain the difference between an egg and an eng. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Baseball
Did it. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 20:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bloody hell! You're the best!
My next RfC would target the term "bloody hell" :D But seriously man, this message is to commend you for your absolutely rollicking, sarcastic and brilliant comments on the RfC. And I know why you supported the listing of the RfC at CENT :D You just love to have the popcorn ready when a good drama is taking place. Have fun man, Lourdes   00:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I'd tell you to fuck off but that's been overused lately. Seriously (!), often those comments are best which require the hearer/reader to pause to figure out what exactly is meant (if, indeed, any one thing exactly is what's meant). Since humor trades in contradiction and incongruity, it's a good vehicle for that, plus it's fun. Like it says on my user page:


 * We may note in passing that Donald Trump has absolutely no sense of humor whatever. That doesn't stop him from being a stable genius, of course. (I've been pushing that one lately.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while we're on the subject of civility...




 * +1 about President Big Chief Little Mushroom, not sure about you being the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Bloody Well Right", Your Honourable Esteemed Fishiness. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's Dr. Your Honourable Esteemed Fishiness. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Doctor Fish..... also called the "Nibble Fish", it seems! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Feet, yes. Mushroom, no. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

TOC for your TOC


Given that the length of your TOC is reaching the length of my talk page, would you consider making a TOC for your TOC? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration :) Lourdes   09:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's probably only a matter of time.... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Regnal numbers
Shouldn't that be, "Regnal numbers are normally written with Roman numerals (without suffix, e.g. Elizabeth II not Elizabeth IInd or Elizabeth 2d)"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Watch it. I have friends in low places. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

NPP and your userpage
Do you think you could add the two images (with captions, as per usual) that you had here to your userpage? <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 12:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleaseure but I was thinking of re-adding it to WT:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers, just to see if the small group of naysayers have realized that those with the narrowest sensibilities aren't the arbiters of what's acceptable. What do you think? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it looks OK, and I accept your "pleaseure". (is that French or something?) You could possibly re-add those to the NPP/R talkpage, since you also put humorous anagrams on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard and people haven't taken those down. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 20:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you have to remember that with the folks at NPP, their middle name is "Take it down!" I will say that when it comes to Wikipedia anagrams, my masterpiece is Arbitration Committee = Motto: Recriminate A Bit. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , huh, plebeian, 'pleaseure' is Harvard for 'pleasure'. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Goddam useless spelchecker. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 😂 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked editors
Go to Special:Preferences and click on the "Gadgets" tab. Then scroll down to "Appearance". Near the end of that section there should be a box to check off that says "Strike out usernames that have been blocked". Makes it very easy to see who is blocked. Both that option and the one above it should not be optional and should be on by default. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for taking the time to drop by. As it is I knew about that feature and have it activated already. (If it's the default, that's a change from years ago, I guess.) I assume you're bringing it up because of my mention at ANI that admins should be more explicit in reciting who's been blocked. But the strikeout feature doesn't really solve the problem because (a) you still have to nose about looking for the signature of various people who might have been blocked and (b) the block might have expired by the time you're looking at the thread.  <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw your comment. I agree with you that it's very frustrating when someone says that an editor is blocked but not which one. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

FWIW
I appreciate your attempts to inject your attempts to inject humour into that discussion, and I know it doesn't look good for me to only be posting to ANI and a policy talk page that at this point might as well be ANI. But I really am just that busy IRL at the moment (specifically until 11/21) that creating articles is out of the question, while signing into Wikipedia to see and respond to the latest drahms is ... well, it doesn't take as much time as writing articles. :P Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Old news
Regarding this, I'm inclined to just let it lie unless/until it comes up again later. The idea had some merits, but I think it got both mired and entrenched. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

An admin closed our venting page

 * Curator's note: This regards the recent incident of some editors fucking off:

...so I had no choice but to come here. Never imagined Fucking Austria would be the remedy to one of our civility issues. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 18:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's pronounced [[File:Fucking, Austria.wav]] <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 01:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Question
See this - the punch line was intended to be homonyminous-like for “civility” but I don’t think it’s close enough. Any ideas? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 14:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 😊, but orange you glad there are no Seville grapes? I guess we could simply say something more civil, like "Are you (town in Austria) out of your mind? (then we wouldn't be restricted only to user TPs...maybe...and then it wouldn't be uncivil...depending on which admins weigh-in when you get hauled over to AN/I kicking and screaming Austria, Austria!!).  Which reminds me, the other day I read the following comment: “what rhymes with orange”.  I replied, "no it doesn't." <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 16:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A related question
I wonder if we should open a related RfC on the question of the appropriateness of an Arbcom candidate using the phrase functus officio in public. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a related wonder about yet another Arbcom candidate who is a designer tech and Uncyclopedia admin using what some stuffy editors may consider uncivil edit summaries like: ([Hissing noises]), (weird padding stuff hell if I know), ((harej thought putting this here would be a good idea. Look at him. Look at him and laugh.), (I have no idea yay!), (I'm way too tired to be funny, so all you get are serious answers... I'm sorry.), and (TESTY TESTY THINGY). I was going to suggest that she use  until I read (→‎Question from Carcharoth: I hate enwp's horrible template structures. Also answers. And hatred of this template. And answers.).  I’m seriously thinking of voting for her, technically speaking. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 05:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

MedCom has been closed
Just a reminder to any talkpage stalkers that the Mediation Committee (that's ArbCom's obscure sister committee) has been disbanded. (You probably already know this. I needed some place to put an allegory for it.) <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 23:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know there we had a Mediation Committee. Seriously. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it kind of didn't exist for years, we just formally closed it now. There were around 44 cases filed to MedCom in the past year, and absolutely none of them were accepted. There were only 8 accepted requests from 2015–now, 3 of which were closed as successful, and 1 (the last) as "partly successful".


 * Makes you wonder what Wikipedia would be like if ArbCom was like this . . . <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 00:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is like this. If you look at past cases and then the current state of the wiki - and run it against the usual criteria for success in arbitration/dispute resolution, what you come up with is that Arbcom rarely solves disputes, rarely fixes behavioural problems, it just papers over them temporarily until the users are unblocked, commence socking, or someone else picks up the baton. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A possible candidate for the Museums
Museum of False Cognates

From Proselytism: (No text is needed. The image says it all. It's not what it looks like it's implying at first glance, since it's German, not English) <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 16:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The Curator is pleased to inform you that your contribution has been duly added . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Misread your new exhibit as Museum of False Cigarettes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Blindingly fucking
Someone at ANI just took a quote of "fucking" being used for emphasis ("blindingly fucking obvious"), but removed the following adjective so it sounds like people copulating in a manner so hideous (or so amazing) that onlookers are struck blind. It's begging for your attention. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great to see you two editors working side by side here. (.... mercifully only 1:18). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

joke that bounced above the head
accuse you of illiteracy – I always carry a copy of my parents' marriage certificate in case anyone tries that on me

erm, how would a marriage certificate help to prove that. are there cultural clues that I missed ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, you old bastard: illiterate, illegitimate. An ill-favoured joke sir, but mine own. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you not know that EEng is (very charitably) known as "the Pantomime Dame Mrs Malaprop of Wikipedia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Big X. EEng is just joking.... you're not old. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You know...
Your parents marriage certificate wouldn't actually prove your legitimacy. As for literacy level, true story, one of my wife's extended (male) cousins got accidentally married to the groom at the wedding he was witnessing, due to the registrar writing the names in the wrong place on the certificate. 10 years before same sex marriage was legalised..... Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well since you're being such a stickler I'll point out that something written on a certificate doesn't create the fact it purports to reflect. But still it's an amusing story. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Stalkers may wish to keep abreast of this discussion
<b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive996. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Courcelles (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you'll just commit to making no more reverts over this dispute, I'll unblock you right now, as I said on ANEW. Just drop it and move on, and go about doing whatever else productive you desire.  Courcelles (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit, when I first saw your talk page crossed out on my watchlist (I use the "strike out names of blocked users" option mentioned in an earlier thread) I was confused. Looking at this issue, however, I think there's no need to edit war over one thumbnail compared to the countless others you've done. Until you appeal or your block expires, however, it's going to feel so different. <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 18:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, the image at issue is this one... ... appended to an ANI thread that had been an absurd waste of time (including – and I am not making this up – a side debate on whether someone saying Jesus F. Christ might prompt Pakistan to block Wikipedia) with the hope that the participants – who had been continuing an almost identical dispute elsewhere – would think twice next time.

That should have been the end of it, but ...
 * TParis removed the image, calling it "not helpful and not needed").
 * I objected and restored it
 * TParis again removed my post, now calling it "an attack".
 * Soon after, an innocent third party routinely archived the thread. I went to the archived thread and again restored my post.
 * TParis again removed my post as a "personal attack", intoning impressively "this is an admin action on an admin noticeboard", as if that means something.
 * Then came a few more rounds in which the normally sensible reverted what he mistakenly thought were "images added to archive"  and the often-sensible Johnuniq warned me "do not edit archives"  and that I was "bullying".

's block rationale is
 * TParis only seems to have made three reverts ... no block will be forthcoming from me as they stopped behind the "bright line". EEng did not.

Well no, actually. I made two reverts at ANI, three at ANI/Archive996 (yesterday), and one today. So no crossing of the bright line, if that's what matters.

TParis' removal of my post was a clear violation of WP:TPO, which provides "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection". I was simply restoring what had been improperly removed. I explained what I was doing repeatedly, with links to governing guidelines, in my edit summaries. I also explained in a discussion TParis himself opened, with no response from him or anyone else. As succinctly put it, He restored his own comment - against inappropriate removal. Hardly an edit war. Bad block.

, I agree that "there's no need to edit war over one thumbnail". But that's not what this is about. As I said elsewhere
 * Is the presence of this image worth fighting over? – No.
 * Is the principle – that clueless admins who don't seem to know their place as admins, and don't seem up on basic guidelines like WP:TPO, ought to be held to account and schooled if necessary – worth fighting over? – Yes, because admins like that do a lot of damage.

So sure, Courcelles, unblock me. But if someone again removes my post (which I somehow think is unlikely – funny, that) I hope you'll actually read the links above and participate, with a fresh mind, in the ensuing discussion. And I'd appreciate your unblock comment including a permalink to this thread.

<b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * "Is the presence of this image worth fighting over? – No." Indeed not. And it takes two to fight over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The two points are disjunctive, fish-for-brains. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to be impressed by your vocabulary? It takes some kind of "something" for brains to consider a joke to be worth edit warring over. Suggestion: give yourself a voluntary WP:1RR at WP:ANI. All the admirers of your comedy style will surely be happy to restore images on your behalf. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm surprised you're not getting this. It's nor about any particular bit of content. It's about the small number of admins who think everyone else has to join them in the loneliness of whatever cramped and dwarfed intellectual box they happen to inhabit, and push others around to enforce that idea. Funny how fast he fell silent once he knew what a fool he'd made of himself – didn't say or do a thing once the ANEW post was opened. The interesting question whether whether he's learned anything, though from experience with this particular specimen the answer is likely to be no. On the plus side he seems to have found real-life people over whom he can exercise his authoritarian impulses, and doesn't bother productive editors at Wikipedia very much anymore. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of what you would call "klar", please let me try to explain what I am getting at. I'm not defending him. I'm not saying he was right. I'm not addressing anything here to him. I've long been clear about the importance of admins not overreaching or being bossy. But him edit warring does not justify you edit warring. You weren't disputing about some important free speech principle. You were disputing about a joke. If someone else had restored your image and caption, that would have spoken more loudly about how the community feels than if you had done it all alone. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This block should simply be removed as, at this point, punitive not preventative. No one has re-re-re-re-reverted (or whatever) the page to the pre-EEng state, so there is nothing for EEng to go back to editwarring over, even assuming EEng had brain damage and didn't realize that doing that would be disruptive and just result in a longer block. EEng shows no signs of reverting warring about anything else or doing anything else disruptive.  Ergo, whether the block was initially valid or not (I see someone[s] above suggesting otherwise on one basis or another, which I haven't looked into), it presently serves no purpose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The real "test" I suppose would be exactly that. ——  SerialNumber  54129  20:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What will be the read test of what, ? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope that image isn't a depiction of when the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie... because I'm not seeing any amore. Ok, so cry "uncle" and be done with it. Spring break doesn't roll around until March. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 21:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Bells will ring ting-a-ling-a-ling, ting-a-ling-a-ling
 * When you sing "Please unblock me"
 * Hearts will play tippy-tippy-tay, tippy-tippy-tay
 * Like a gay Yankee Cockney." Deano Martin 123 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If you say you didn't really make more than 3 reverts at ANI (only the first two were on the page, the next were on an archive) are you saying you won't continue reverting if you are unblocked, since you tried staying within the 3 revert limit? Especially since you asked Courcelles to unblock you? <b style="color:#090">Semi</b><b style="color:#099">Hypercube</b> ✎ 22:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't say I didn't make more than 3 reverts at ANI – I actually, in fact, didn't make more than 3 reverts at ANI.
 * If any of this bunch remove my post again, I'll do what I guess I was supposed to do in the first place, which is to open an ANI thread re a clueless admin who thinks he's entitled to remove others' discussion posts on personal whim, with shifting made-up justifications (as if there's anything to discuss about that) and, as time permits, a minor side topic on people who pile onto a tag-team revert war without first finding out what the fuck they're reverting. I don't think such a discussion will be necessary, however, as the removers have all apparently realized the error of their ways and wandered off; or, if one of them does try it again, perhaps he'll be blocked for failing to discuss and editwarring instead, and that will be that. (I expect this kind of behavior from the likes of and, but , I'm disappointed in you: you should have taken the time to figure out what was going on before throwing your weight in with those in the wrong.)
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, ANI would have been the correct venue, rather than revert warring. But as you've said you won't revert if the content is removed again, you are hereby unblocked. Courcelles (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But then, better than any venue would have been for a particularly clueless admin to have kept his nannying impulses to his busybody self in the first place.  "This is an admin action on an admin noticeboard" is about the stupidest piece of admin bravado bullshit I've heard in a long time – and I've heard some whoppers. As predicted he's seemingly forgotten about removing my "personal attack" and just wandered off. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC) P.S. At right is my favorite image for this kind of clusterfuck. Perhaps someone will try to remove it.

TParis explains himself

 * Before I move this thread to the Museum of the 3%, I call on to explain his conduct under WP:ADMINACCT ("Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed"), given that he called what he did "an admin action on an admin noticeboard" . <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The following response was copied from TParis' talk page:
 * Per your request, I am outlining my rationale for removing your comments. Despite your selective reading of WP:TPG, the guidelines permit the removal of personal attacks and trolling at Talk_page_guidelines.  Your image is an attack at both editors in the dispute that calls them both foolish; which they may be, but it's still a personal attack.  As you've used WP:ADMINACCT to compel my response to your question, I assume it means you agree I acted solely in an admin capacity and I maintain my WP:UNINVOLVED status with regards to you.  If you have any other questions, feel free bring them to a noticeboard.--v/r - TP 16:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly, I expect my talk page to get blown up by the fan club. My lunch break is over, so ya'all will have to accept my timely responses later.--v/r - TP 16:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to go out now myself, so I'll just let everyone admire the above for the time being. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to clarify that I refuse point blank to blow TParis, whether up, down or in any other direction. Even if he provides the fans. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to speculate that you know how ridiculous your claim is but simply have no shame, but on balance I think you honestly don't know how foolish you are.
 * The image I posted – a pie fight captioned "Visual metaphor for the above discussion" – communicates nothing different than if I'd said, "The above discussion was like pie fight." I know you're unable to comprehend this, but that was a humorous post with a perfectly serious goal: getting the participants to think twice next time. If you think that's a personal attack your judgment is seriously, seriously flawed.
 * Your original rationale for removal was "Not remotely helpful and most definitely not needed"  Only when challenged did you switch to "personal attack". Apparently you just make stuff up as you go along.
 * From the time I made my post to the time you first removed it, 15 hours passed during which 86 edits were made to the page, including by admins Bbb23, Courcelles, KrakatoaKatie,  Ivanvector, Zzuuzz, Boing!,  78.26,  Jayron32, and  Fish and karate. None of them saw a problem, apparently, but you! You know better! And of course the bounds of acceptability are determined by the one observer, out of dozens, with the most dwarfed faculties of comprehension and the narrowest sensibilities. Just kidding --  as mentioned before  we aren't bound by your blinkered, impoverished view of what constitutes useful commentary.

Your explanation is ridiculous, as expected. If you don't want to end up like MikeV, Coffee, Fred Bauder, and other bygone self-appointed enforcers of their personal tastes, I suggest you find somewhere off-wiki where you can release your pent-up busybody impulses without bothering the rest of us.

And no, I do not agree you are UNINVOLVED with regard to me, because in removing my post you were not acting in your capacity as a WP:ADMIN, but rather in your capacity as WP:IMACOPANDYOUWILLRESPECTMAHAUTHORITAY. Admins have no special standing to evaluate others' posts; you merely wrapped yourself in your magic administrative security blanket in an effort to intimidate.

Have a care, big man. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Followup: Hey,, will you be removing the image added by here , calling it trolling and a personal attack? Just wondering. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 07:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez, EEng is still worked up over this shit again? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not worked up in the slightest, but when one of this particular species of admin persists in begging to be made a fool of, who am I to disappoint? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I know
...that you are referring to me with this edit. So thank you. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 😂 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 13:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And of course The Lady Catherine de Burgh, Duchess of Scrotum. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Weber test
Drawn from life, I think. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh my giddy aunt. "The test subject feels no pain." (?!) Is that really poor Ralph? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Fashionable phrases
I spent the last thirty-minutes scrolling to get down here (only to scroll back to the top to click on "new section"). I just want to say that the phrase you fashioned is a fitting motto for AN/I. A shame that too few seem to heed it. I felt that notifying you of this fact was non-urgent, hence my lateness in stopping by. Though now that it's done, it's irretractable. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Mr. Nude Dude is referring to what you see at left and right.

Interesting Museum exhibit
Re: the newly-added User:EEng, I can't quite get over the fact that there really was someone's mistress who was named Fanny Pistor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, for a single sentence it packs a lot of punch. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The amount of punch that is packed started making me a little suspicious. I realize that this is the person that masochism is named after, but I also see that it is marked as citation needed. Could it be a superior case of creative vandalism? Looking into the page history, the content was added by in 2007, sourced to what is now a dead link: . In 2009, the source was tagged as "unreliable source?": . In 2014, the source was removed entirely:, and about a month later it was tagged as citation needed: . And in 2013, an editor expressed skepticism on the talk page about whether there really was such a baroness, but never got a reply: . Does this look to you like something that might be worth raising an issue about, or should I just figure that it's expected for the page subject? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My, what a sheltered life I've been living! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Museum of Duty and Remembrance
Hello EEng. Thank you for the User:EEng. We should indeed never forget, and I read Lionel de Jersey Harvard as suggested. Very interesting. The last war cemetery I visited was Ridge Wood Military Cemetery, interesting because it was started near the front line during the fighting (hence the irregular layout of the gravestones). That is fairly close to where my grandfather served during the first world war. --Mirokado (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your note. My grandfather served in that war as well, in a sense: by the time his ship arrived on the other side, the armistice had been declared. But he got his citizenship anyway!
 * I find the story of Lionel Harvard very affecting, like a short, tragic fairy tale that begins when the hardworking pauper is discovered to be the lost heir to the throne. I've now seen a great deal of unpublished correspondence to, from, and about him, and he quite clearly had an unusual effect on those he met – a very gentle soul, apparently. As a friend of his wrote, "[He] seemed a living symbol of all that was best and brightest in Harvard itself, manifested to us briefly after three hundred years" – it's the briefly that gets me, like the end of AI when David's mother is brought back to life for just a single day. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks. I will treasure this barnstar and trot it out next time some humorless killjoy gives me grief. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "you've got death threats" message template would be a major boon for the busy editor. Or maybe we even need a new icon alongside the existing "bell-end and push-up bra"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cabin pressurization
EEng, I note that you reverted my reversion of your deletion of text indicating that gradual pressure drops can go undetected. This phenomenon is actually of enormous importance. It has been implicated in a number of crashes where the plane sails on, incommunicado, while the crew, and passengers, inside are unconscious or dead The body is quite unable to detect low oxygen levels other than losing consciousness because the urge to breath is controlled by rising CO2 levels not falling O2 levels. This is something drummed into every trainee pilot from day one. I myself, with fellow students, was taken up in a hypobaric chamber to 25,000' on oxygen and then switched to air and allowed to lose consciousness just to demonstrate that it cannot be detected, even when you know it is going to happen. In the case of the cosmonauts the dump valve was located out of site under one of the seats, it got missed after venting the cabin. If the crew had been able to detect low O2 levels then they would immediately have reached under the seat to close the valve. Its location was a little awkward but they knew how to do it because it was used for extra-vehicular activities. On the ground, the only symptom was no radio contact, this happens naturally during re-entry and should have been restored in the parachute phase. It wasn't but the diagnosis at the time was not hypoxia. It was only on opening the completely undamaged capsule that they realised the cosmonauts were dead. The points that have been deleted are actually very important and need to be a part of the story. I'm not going to enter a reversion war but please have a think, do some research and consider how these phrases might be better worded. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize you want the reader to understand that slow pressure drops might go unnoticed by occupants as they slip toward unconsciousness, but the two removed bits do a bad job of that. The first said:
 * Failures range from sudden, catastrophic loss of airframe integrity (explosive decompression) to slow leaks or equipment malfunctions that allow cabin pressure to drop undetected to levels that can lead to unconsciousness or severe performance degradation of the aircrew.
 * This passage is simultaneously trying to explain that decompression can be fast or slow and that slow decompressions can go unnoticed by personnel. But those are two separate (if somewhat related) ideas and trying to squeeze them in to one sentence confuses them. Furthermore, while undetected in this case is meant to mean "undetected by personnel's senses", in the reader's mind it may also imply that no sensing equipment detected the pressure drop either. If you want to makes the fast-slow point, and the undetected-by-the-senses point, make them explicitly and separately.
 * As for the cosmonaut passage...
 * On June 30, 1971, the crew of Soyuz 11, Soviet cosmonauts Georgy Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev were killed after the cabin vent valve accidentally opened before atmospheric re-entry. There had been no indication of trouble until the recovery team opened the capsule and found the dead crew.
 * ... it completely buries the point. "There had been no indication of trouble"... where? To controllers on the ground? To the cosmonauts? If the latter, how would we know, since dead men tell no tales? And anyway, why are you telling us this? Oh wait! I know! I think you're trying to say that the position of the bodies indicated the men had not been alarmed and had simply slipped into unconsciousness lying in their seats. If so then say that, and then remind the reader that this illustrates how hypoxia can creep up on you. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

More sad news
I'm sorry to tell those gathered here that our friend User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris passed away last month. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I heard that a while ago and it is truly sad. He was a fine person though I did not know him well. A sudden stroke took him. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * some legacy to live up to --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

smocking
Have you ever noticed that "smock" is a lot like "mock" with an extra "s"? That makes it easier to mock someone over a smocking accident and helps keep America smoke free.-- <b style="color:black">Dloh cier ekim </b> (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeti pubes, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I quite understand. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record...
Family obligations make it impossible for me to accept the position of Donald Trump's next chief of staff. Just in case any of you were wondering. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Everybody wants to work in the White House. They all want a piece of that Oval Office." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC) .... or is it now the offal office??
 * unlawful awful offal? Eman  235 / talk  05:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a decision
Instead of giving presents 🎁 this year, I'm giving my opinion. Get excited!! 🎅🏻🎄🤶🎁 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 02:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I find this exciting. Can you be more explicit? Simon Adler (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm giving strawberry risotto. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Simon, you'll have to wait until Christmas. Tryp - do you use FedEx? Email me instead of sending the risotto. That would be an unusual present, indeed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For those playing along at home, WP:RISOTTO and Wikipedia talk:Principle of Some Astonishment. Also,, , , , and . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

A moment of your time re: an article I am writing

 * A. Long time no stalk your talk page
 * B. Happy end of year/new years to you and yours.
 * C. Now that I have sufficiently put thee in a good mood, I was writing William H. West (policeman) and was hoping some other people could lay eyes on it, especially the Arresting of Grant section, which looks more and more awkwardly titled to me the more I look at it. I know I tend to mince words when I write, so if anybody feels that section should be expanded or rewritten per the sources I would appreciate it, esp. as I will be AFK for a couple days. (TL;DR I want to take this through DYK and the article is too 40% short per rules :) Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  03:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * For reasons all too painfully obvious, this will make an extremely timely DYK, and I am happy to be involved. However, we are going to need much higher-quality sources -- none right now is a serious scholarly work. While Grant was one of the least interesting presidents (a separate career from his military one) there are undoubtedly several book-length studies and zillions of papers. Some of them must have this. I'm busy just now but if someone will take a stab at finding sources I'll join in tomorrow. I can get my hands on almost any paywalled source instantly, and anything in print within 24 hours if needed.
 * I forget the DYK rule -- AFAI recall we have a week (?) to get it to 1500 characters and nominate, and after that we'll have another few weeks to improve it while it works its way along DYK's long alimentary canal. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Talk page stalkers -- your help is needed! We need a high-quality source for the assertion (in William H. West (policeman)) that sometime in 1872 President US Grant was arrested in Washington DC for driving his carriage too fast. I think in this case "high-quality" is going to have to mean a source that gives clear citations to the primary material supporting this idea; none of the sources currently in the article does this, and this newspaper article from 1908 cannot possibly be taken as reliable for anything beyond a statement that West told this story. Maybe one of you will look somewhere I'm not thinking of. (I'd say I'm about 33% of the way through a thorough search, which is as far as I can go without a trip to the library.) <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This morning (Saturday) on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday, there was an interview with the Executive Director of Grant's presidential library, and he described exactly that event. If you track it down at the NPR website, there should be a transcript there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll be posting over at the article talk page in a bit. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you probably do know ...

 * See mini-review above. Maybe your stalkers can help expand this? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Anti-American socialist vermin like you should have their balls cut off and forced down their throat.
Commie fag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilesabuse (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, a fellow George Carlin fan! Welcome! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Only 5/116 insults? The Sunday crossword is supposed be more difficult than this. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  17:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to admins and talk page stalkers: I prefer that the above not be removed. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, this page loads faster on my iPad than on the win 10 pc. Gosh. Roxy, the dog . wooF 17:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Ten-piece what? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not removed, but I put a block under the tree for him. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is Christmas (or will be tomorrow, in my socialist, faggot friendly, secularised corner of the world), so balls are surely traditional. --bonadea contributions talk 21:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

images as comment
I see you restored this. Removing a contribution to a talk page was not an action I took lightly, I'm assuming you can appreciate why someone might have done that; please consider how others can use this form of 'comment' to paint user's comments with their indignation (i.e. blowback). All very cunning mind you, a post to a thread to which reply is not directly possible and insists on attention to itself. cygnis insignis 04:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cunning isn't the word that I would use. Desperate is more like it, after seven days and 40 posts over a comma. Anyone can respond by adding another post. I confess to calling emphatic attention to the plea, "Jeez! All this argument over a comma???" <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment
Hi EEng, you may be right about reverting me and I'm not going to argue the point further. But you made 4 reverts within 2 hours to that article. This is just a friendly reminder regarding 3RR, because I appreciate your valuable contributions. Also, I didn't get a notification about being reverted -- be sure to use the 'undo' link if that's the reason. Gap9551 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When a group of editors are all working together happily, and sending thanks to one another along the way, there's no problem even if some proportion of the edits are straight reverts. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was one of those sending thanks to you. Cheers, Gap9551 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Youtube source, I feel that it isn't reliable in this case per WP:EL/P. A common issue is "Videos must be carefully screened for copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK, WP:YT). The creator of the video must be verifiable as an official channel for the source. Do not link to copyright violations in citations, even if they reproduce information, such as news reports, that might otherwise be considered reliable." Even if the video is about a documentary, we are promoting the user's Youtube channel by including this reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I was responding only to the concern expressed in your edit summary ("a single youtube video is an insufficient source to support the relevance of including derogatory comments about another person...") which said nothing about copyvio. Even if the particular Youtuve posting is a copyvio (or -- as I think is the case now that I look -- we can't determine that it's not a copyvio) that doesn't change the fact that it's obviously authentic and therefore reliable for Jeanne/Yvonne's own words. It's little unclear what to do in a case like that, since we're not supposed to link to a copyvio but to use it as a source we'd still have to cite it somehow (I guess describe the source without linking to it?). Anyway, though I know no French I get the impression this  has the same Van Gogh quotation, and I think we can infer there's no copyvio issue. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Huggums537 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you for the comic relief on the ANI pages and other talk pages. I enjoy reading them. Huggums537 (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)