This is an archive of past discussions about User:EEng. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is a war on April Fools Day, and it escalates every year. Now the warriors are going so far as to impose Easter onto the holiday, thus deluding its cultural impact and forcing rabbits and rolled-away-stones to influence the readily influenceable. Where will this end??? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't take away my April Fool's tree! Are we going to start calling them "Holiday jokes"? Don't you know the Founding Fathers of the US were jokesters? And fools? And so were the Founding Mothers. And so were the Founding Side Chicks. (And fuck the Founding Fathers of anywhere else. US rules!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is what I feared. Behold the monstrosity that comes from mixing April Fool's Day with Easter. So it begins. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Call upon your knight errants to do that for you. I've been getting to many tickets for assault on windmills and need a scenery change. L3X1◊distænt write◊15:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh no you don't. You're not getting off that easily. I'm seeing obvious discrimination between toads and frogs here simply because one speaks "ribbit" and the other speaks "croak". That is unacceptable on WP! Unless we can use inline text-attribution citing who made such biased statements, they must be removed. Our pond has no borders, and everyone is entitled to an equal lillypad...frogs, toads, dragonflies, horse flies, house flies, butterflies, assassin bugs, leeches, lowly amoebas (not that there's anything wrong with that), mosquitos - yes, the blood sucking mosquitos have a place here so don't go there - and that includes every single particle that was ever created (to our knowledge) - living or dead!! Got that? Make room on that frigging lilly pad - the gangs all here.Atsme📞📧23:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes ma'am. After I evict my good for nothing secretary, and throw out all his junk, there will be plenty of space on the pad… The pad will also actually be above water instead of slightly submerged.… Lord High, how much stuff do you have here? A quint, an Ulan and an A-10? What is the purpose of all that military equipment AND a fire engine?… Why is "39A" crayonned on the throw rug?…O shut up it is too a throw rug, just because it is made out of bunny hair, fish scales, and toad spit doesn't make it any less a throw rug! It was blessed by Oshwah!… No, you don't get 2 weeks notice you're back to work in 8 days!… Oh hello Officer is there a problem? Distaurbance, I don't know what you mean… theHypn0toad02:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Over at DYK there is a discussion on the inclusion of "interesting to a broad audience" as a requirement for a DYK hook. You may have an opinion on the subject. However, what I was really posting here about was this hook. You are very clever with hook suggestions and could probably come up with something better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for considering this request. If my present hook suggestion is turned down, I may split the nomination into two. I didn't mention it in the article, because some might call it trivia, but the guy who located the rock pool and researched the zoanthid found his laboratory had burned down when he returned to Honolulu. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
On 1 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Edmund Hillary, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hillary's portrait is now being printed on the $5 bill? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Edmund Hillary. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Edmund Hillary), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
That will require getting the linked article to GA pronto. I've got a GA reviewer lined up, but there may be work to be done to get the article into shape first. Is the team up for it? I've looked the article over and it seems pretty good. Any volunteers to look take a pass at it? It would need to be ready for GA review by the end of next week at the very latest.
Ok, so here are the stats: Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days (2462 days) DYKcheck does not account for previous versions with splits or copyright violations. You're recruiting expansioners to accomplish the 5x goal? Atsme📞📧21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
No, my friend, I'm recruiting people to bring the article to GA standards – perhaps you've forgotten that GA is an alternative to 5X expansion as a path to DYK. EEng22:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I hesitate to be a spoil-sport, but I have a concern about diminishing returns. The three existing hooks are particularly clever because they play on existing memes, and because they deal with the top three persons spanning the recent election. Once we get down to other candidates, the jokes progressively wear down: we could probably pun on Bush, Marco, Cruz, and on and on, but it gets progressively less funny each time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You're right. I had a nagging feeling there was something wrong, and your diminishing-returns point crystallized it. I withdraw the idea. EEng22:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Graciousness has nothing to do with it. You were absolutely right. If you'd said something stupid, I'd have said it was stupid. With grace, of course. EEng22:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
And as we all know, I'm always absolutely right and never say anything stupid. I'm gracious, too. (Not to mention humble.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
For future reference , Pants, avoid making arguments such as that your contributions have "stood uncontested for months until now", as if that means they should continue to do so. Arguments like this may give you words to fill space with, but they really just make your case look even sillier as they are specifically included in the list of arguments not to use.
Avoid also the use of scare quotes as if you're quoting what someone has written, when in reality you are just attributing a thought to them, as you did when you wrote "There's no such thing as "objectively funny"" on pain of straying into indirect criticism. I never stated, or even implied, the contrary, nor does the phrase ""objectively funny"" even appear in anything I wrote. It is particularly imprudent to do this when you yourself have included the relevant portions of my comment in your own. If you incorrectly quote the original then you're just attacking straw men. I therefore don't consider it at all significant that you accuse me of "ineffectual rhetorical flailings" when you can't even string TWO of my words together correctly.
Your comment in this edit was a little snarky, when I meant only that it was obvious from the reference who issued the stamps. You could have figured it out instead of tagging it "by whom". Akld guy (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, if editing increased by anywhere between 500% and 200,000% (depending on what kinds of servers the WMF is using and how they're set up and what sort of anti-DDOS measures they have in place), it might be enough to make an accountant briefly raise his eyebrow somewhere before getting back to work with a shrug and a muttered "no big deal". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@Akld guy: sorry but persistence in that belief is incorrect, observe the real morons...
Did you know that the WMF gets $30 million more per year than it spends, and that only 3% of the WMF's expenses are spent on hosting the servers? Thats right, only $2 million goes towards hosting all of Wikipedia, the other expenses the WMF has come to $67 million! They actually spend more on processing the donations ($3 million) than on hosting wikipedia ($2 million).
$11 million is simply given away in grants and awards (I want some!), but $33 million goes on paying staff (who?), $6 million on professional services (what?) and $2 million on travel expenses... they even spent $112,000 on office furniture!
@Prince of Thieves: Who cares about the scale of things? I'm not donating a single dollar, whether it's towards a $17.50 server fee or a $175 million server fee. It's the principle, not the scale. Akld guy (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
ug the point is there are loads of much better reasons to not give to the WMF than the one you have on your userpage, be creative! And yes I did once donate to the wmf, it was a long time ago. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
If you squint and get really close to the monitor you can see MjolnirPants on the peak. And yes, he's flipping you the bird. [FBDB]
Not to change the subject (but I'm going to change the subject). Does anyone else have a powerful urge to climb a mountain? It's never really been my "thing" before (I'm more of a camping-in-the-valley guy), but have done Mount Rainier, and now I'm itching to do another. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
You are changing the subject, but I don't have "urges" (if I can utter so vulgar a word, dear Roget, bring me some grapes, ah yes thank you, me boy) I always want to climb a mountain. Elbrus would work. I'm surprised we don't have a bio on Kate Matrosova, though. L3X1◊distænt write◊00:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I added an article to the list on Harvard College today, having forgotten that I already did the same thing back in December 2017. I saw after posting it again that you had removed it the first time. Could you help me understand what is the threshold for notability on the list? I certainly do not intend to add an article that doesn't belong. Since December, I improved Ungar's article. He was a long-time college president and a director of Voice of America among other things. Cheers! Thsmi002 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
{{Joke warning that may be misleading to some people}}
There just something weird about this entire discussion. I think it would have been a lot worse had I said "satyrized". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you are being pig-headed about it, and you really are going against policy. And for what? A joke! There are issues worth fighting for. This is not one of them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not against policy to point out that there's substantial disagreement about whether something's against policy. I think we'll end up with A1 but if so it won't be because of the supervote of one loose cannon admin. EEng20:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's not against policy to point that out. But there is a very real case that edit warring over something that falls within the scope of the American Politics ArbCom case, and doing so on behalf of something that implies criminal wrongdoing on the Main Page, is something that puts you on the wrong side of where you should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
OFFS. Unstriking contributions to the discussion struck by someone other than the editors who made those contributions, and against the clear wishes of those editors, isn't edit warring. And being "connected to Russia" isn't criminal wrongdoing, so what's all the fuss about anyway? EEng20:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
With your idea about the image caption, I think that solves all problems, so I just figured I'd stop by here to say "fuck you"[FBDB]. Now go and amuse yourself by looking for that Easter egg link at my user talk page. Try it, you'll like it! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
And the tag at the top reads: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.Atsme📞📧22:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Richard Almgren works for a Dildo manufacturer called Dodil. hmm... then... we're not a company by default as we are sponsored by the Swedish Government...[3] AHHHH. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
What is your strategy for archiving your talk page, noticeably your third archive looks much greater than the other two, I need your guidance. Cards84664 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
My third archive has size zero. Do the others have negative size? If you're looking for any kind of guidance from me, you must be desperate. EEng03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)p
Hi. I've done enough looking around on the web to know that DCB is a unnotable talentless self-deluded poseur, the type that survives on the fringes of the art world just because someone has to fill the empty spaces in group shows in unknown galleries in insignificant places. There's really no point in expending any energy on him beyond keeping track of his insertions and deleting them on sight. He's never going to amount to anything, which is probably one of the reasons he's driven to make up all sort of untrue shit about himself -- including that he has a degree from Harvard and is an "honorary alumnus" of Johns Hopkins ([4] "About the Foundation") -- and to attempt to publicize himself on Wikipedia. It's actually rather sad, because by now the Chevalier probably believes much of what he's made up about himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
As you know I have a special talent for this kind of invective, so it's not really as much trouble as it may seem, and I like to have something with which to occupy myself during the otherwise tedious meetings with captains of industry and world leaders. I wouldn't normally bother twice with this type, but his passing himself off as a Harvard alumnus really gets my goat. Harvard's produced its share of pricks, but they're talented pricks. He should have chosen Yale, where he'd fit right in. EEng05:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey, do me a favor, the next time you meet with a captain of industry or a world leader, ask them how come they stopped returning my phone calls. For some reason, ever since that incident with the capybara that Fox News blew up into a cause celebre, I seem to be persona non grata among the Bohemian Grove / Trilateral Commission crowd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It's funny you mention TC, because we're looking for someone to be in charge of world cobalt prices; the current guy's got too much heat on him from the Russia thing. You interested? EEng06:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Cobalt, huh? Isn't that some kind of blue metal or something? Doesn't matter, I'm good to go. Just send me my diplomatic passport and International Immunity from Arrest and Deportation and I'll be on the first flight to Rio. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
EEng, Beyond My Ken: Just to help you guys out, I was going to post this on his talk page, but I don't want to spill the beans:
Unfortunately, the most applicable range of 172.58.128.0/17 belongs to T-Mobile where a block would wipe out 32K IPs. It's been done before, but for a really short period of time. 172.56.0.0/18 is another T-Mobile range that he has edited from which has a longer block history (you can probably narrow this one down to 172.56.32.0/21 to find his edits). 208.54.87.0/24 is another one he has edited under (again T-Mobile). So knowing those three should help find his edits.
“$40K a Year to Attend Harvard University as Me.” Requirements include a 4.0 GPA in high school or a 3.5 GPA in college. Only males need apply, since, as the listing tells us, “I have a male name.” The lucky person tapped for the gig doesn’t have to do much other than “attend all classes, pass all tests, and finish all assigned work while pretending you are me.” Don’t worry about having to actually get into the Ivy League school: “I’ve already taken care of that,” he says.
BMK, it looks like somebody already took the offer years ago, (passing himself off as a Harvard alumnus), and appears to have involved theft of a goat, which is not quite as severe as cattle rustling. Atsme📞📧18:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi EEng, I thought I should let you know that I have started a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know on the Trump hook and image issue. I thought it was worthwhile retesting community consensus on this issue now that we have three "faux politician" hooks rather than one. Because of that, I took the liberty of redacting your post on April Fools set order since the poll raises the possibility that the Trump hook may be moved. We can of course restore the thread later when that issue has been resolved. Apologies for the lack of notice, but with only a few days left to April Fools there was no time for prior discussion. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
This stalker has expressed very strong opposition to what is actually being proposed. I think it will be the drama-from-hell if it happens that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said somewhere else, there will be trouble only if people want there to be trouble (and I'm not in any way implying that's you). EEng06:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
DYKers needed
Level-headed, DYK-experienced editors are needed to (1) build the two prep sets for April 1 (looks like we'll be running 2 sets of 8 for 12 hours each) and (2) promote the preps to Q. The latter has to be an admin, of course. See links above. EEng06:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
"Level-headed"...you just took out 2/3rds of your potential edit pool..."See links above"...took out another 1/3rd...but the rest of us are happy to help. Atsme📞📧19:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It would have been nice when you did not use PAs to blemish a nominator on an article. The article was rotten, unsourced and seemed to fail WP:GNG. Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten and seems to fail WP;GNG. Congratulations with that achievement. The Bannertalk20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"Thanks to your work to add all kinds of related sources the article is now just rotten" -- I guess I've been confused all these years, because I thought adding relevant sources is what we're supposed to do. Anyway, the article may be rotten (and it is) but that's got nothing to do with AfD. The article was unsourced, but if you'd simply googled the article title you would have come up with several good sources immediately, and saved us all this trouble. It's not a "PA" to point out that you apparently didn't do that, as WP:BEFORE calls for you to do. You seem to be under a misapprehension about how AfD works -- articles don't pass or fail AfD, rather their subjects do, regardless of what's in the article. EEng (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Samuel Eliot Morison was a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. Mason Hammond was one of the real-life "Monuments Men" you may have learned a bit about in the recent film of that title. If you're seriously suggesting they're not reliable sources then I'm afraid there's a gap between us that further discussion will be unable to bridge. EEng (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hover your mouse over the link and you'll see it points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mikado#behold. If you click on the link you'll see it takes you not only into the Mikado article, but the #behold makes it go specifically to the location of the {{anchor|behold}}, where that particular song is discussed.
Does that make sense? Generally if you find an "anchor" in an article you should just leave it. EEng (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the, um, tips, Martin. (And what a cheerful narrator!) Very useful here in the US, where we are well on into the process of legalizing recreational use. In contrast (jingoism alert!), our page on The Roaches is the very essence of UK twee. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Awww... "The legend says that she fell in the pool on a foggy day whilst walking along the top of the Roaches. Ever since that day she has been enticing unsuspecting victims down to the pool and to their watery grave." How lovely! It's because it's only just down the road from Coronation Street. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I also like The Roches. As for the CfD, they should have nominated that stupid roach category instead. But I've gone to that CfD and made a suitably dyspeptic !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
"We don't give out our ages, and we don't give out our phone numbers (Give out our phone numbers!) / Sometimes our voices give out, but not our ages and our phone numburrrrs!" EEng21:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, technically "two apparently sane people, one person I've never heard of so have no opinion of, and one serial fuckwit who's so consistently stupid that closing all discussions the opposite way to whatever he's supporting is actually a workable admin technique, but always just about manages to weasel his way out of any action being taken against him", but that would be a little long-winded. ‑ Iridescent16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Aye, the Roaches. After meeting them at a venue back in the olden days they drove by and stopped me on the street to put my name on that evening's show guest list. One of my faves. And yes, the two cartoon characters added to the category should be removed (cartoons, and one is a cat, what's the world....), the main member of the category is the space-mother cockroach and never Mark Twain shall meet. Randy Kryn17:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Damnit, just read The Roaches page and it looks like Maggie died yesterday, cancer. Not fun to be a Roche fan today. tears. Randy Kryn17:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Plans for a follow up hook have been thwarted a bit as the not-very-notable “glamour” model known as Teresa May has been AfDed a few times. She apparently released a video, “Teresa May’s Punishment Party” which seems an appropriate title for her more famous namesake. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Just came by to say eh. I downvote. (the same "'broad' is a sexist term for a woman, and someone just said 'broad' in a different context" joke happens on a near continuous basis on Reddit).
PS: Took about a minute anda half for Chrome to finish loading this page to the point it allowed me to click on new section... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
To emphasize that my post was out of chronological order, and so that, should my post grow into a side "branch" of the thread (as others reply) it will be visually "off to the side" of the main flow. EEng06:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw what happened when Citation Bot "got busy" with BracketBot .... if you thought rabbits bred fast, watch what the bots can do when they're "at it".... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a technical edit -- it's just a gnome swooping in to "improve" an article by doing something which has no effect on what the reader sees, merely changing one form of valid markup to another form which the gnome prefers, or which he/she mistakenly thinks is the "right" form because that's what he/she happens to be more familiar with. See WP:MOS: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable under the Manual of Style, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." The watchlists of those who maintain a given article are gummed up by, and their time is wasted in reviewing, such worthless busywork. EEng23:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Boilerplate notice
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
[Leaving this because of what looks like mass WP:ASPERSION-casting and mischaracterization of the views of everyone on the other side of style dispute, made by you in a extraneous WP:POINTy image sidebar at WT:MOS earlier today, and which you defended as appropriate at my talk page after why it is not appropriate was explained. You last received a WP:ARBATC DS notice in 2014, and were not engaging in things like this in the year after that notice, so maybe this will have the desired effect. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)]
What some people think reading an article should feel like to the reader
To be fair, what I was saying was that some people seem to think that articles should be dry as bones in the desert [6], which he says is a personal attack. Then this morning I got pinged into this maelstrom [7]. EEng04:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a personal attack, its a straw man psychological projection and mischaracterization of everyone who disagrees with you about decorative quotation boxes, to character-assassinate them has holding a stupid/crazy position that they do not in fact hold, and thus a civility problem and, as a big extraneous sidebox jammed into an RfC discussion it probably qualifies as WP:POINT disruption. You should have had the grace to remove it when it was objected to. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not character assassination (!) to say that some (not "all") editors think that articles are supposed to be dry as dust. Lots of editors express such a view, asserting that dry, flat, cold = something they call "professional". Please now have the last word in this completely insane discussion on this trivial matter. EEng13:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Fussing over userpage content
You can't include the entire lyrics of a Randy Newman song. Copyright reasons, you know. Take it down; maybe include a small excerpt. DS (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Not that Randy Newman would mind, of course, but you're right – rules are rules, and President Trump is definitely going to be a strong enforcer of intellectual property law, he being such an intellectual himself. Personally, I'm gratified you read far enough to notice. EEng16:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
My, this is a close election. Not nearly as comically one-sided as projected, yes? Perhaps that can make its way into the "museum"? Doctalk06:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Eh, I for one support Brexit. As for the Donald, well, we'll have to wait and see. I had a comic thought about a short trump speech; Trump on the Birther Movement; "She started it", Everybody else; Mr Trump... t-this is the third presidential debate. Not kindergarten. Trump: Wrong! Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
".... most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so", dearest EEng you will next be telling us that the Pope is Catholic and bears defecate in woods (as long as the woods aren't Canadian or Mexican, in which case they just "perform" on the wall instead). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear EEng: Like many editors here, I am very saddened to learn of the executive order to have you deported to Mexico. Truly, I have enjoyed editing with you. As for me, when they go low, we go high, and several states approved legal cannabis, so I intend to spend the next four years getting high. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Go through various noticeboards, and catalog the subject area that produced complaints for some thousands of random threads, which can be normalized by the number of articles/edits in mainspace articles of that subject. Should make for an interesting read - hopefully someone does it, and we can get support for your proposals. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I've been saying this for years. Instead of # of articles, I think the right metric would be page views. My prediction would be that the lowest signal-to-noise ration will be found in: footy, wrestling, porn stars, and music genres. Eliminate those and we can all live happily ever after. EEng07:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
That's very interesting (and for once at this talk page, I'm not joking). Dramas per page view. I think there might actually be a bimodal result. The greatest frequency of obvious idiotic conduct (in other words, where it is easy to see what the problem was and how to deal with it) would indeed be in those topics. But if instead one focused on the most intractable conflicts, a different population would emerge, with a lot of religion, politics, and pseudoscience showing up. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Some years back during the height of the MMA wars, I suggested wiping out the entire MMA wiki project. Best analogy would be the nuke from orbit option. Full saturation. Even had a few people agreeing. Blackmane (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to avoid intractable conflict, specialize in writing and editing biographies of 19th century state legislators. They all meet WP:POLITICIAN so you need not fear AfD. Other than that, nobody cares, which gives an ambitious editor free reign. The downside, of course, is that nobody cares. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I would have thought that pages about species of aquarium fishes would be similarly drama-free. Alas, I've seen nasty arguments started by WP:ELNO and WP:NOTHOWTO advocates who care more about rules than about subject matter. Far from intractable, but enough to surprise me. By now, nothing surprises me anymore. After all, early in my editing career I got death threats because I had said that I thought that an image from a Japanese comic book did not need to be deleted from part of a page that was discussing that image. (It was when the geniuses at Something Awful were on a crusade to delete anything about Japanese pop culture from Wikipedia because... well, they just couldn't stand it.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever considered making a userbox template that would track how many dollars you have in the game? Some of them are obviously untrackable (like editor review, R.I.P), and others hard to track, like third opinion, but most of the user rights can be done, and also probably the FAC's and related. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the second brilliant idea here in the last 24 hours. I'll put this on my list of things to do between now and when I die. EEng02:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I bought you something!
I actually appreciate the cheer leading at the joke cat RfC, but there was no way I wasn't going to tease you about it.
Do you really think the definite article improves the hook? To me, it just makes it obvious that "the horney dicks" is a nickname given to some group of people. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm. If I didn't already know, I wouldn't have any idea that the phrase actually refers to a group of people, but since it strikes you that way feel free to change it back. Or maybe "some horney dicks"? I leave the choice in your capable hands. EEng13:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Since both of you are conveniently gathered here in this thread, I have a favor to ask. I need a GA review + DYK review of Harry R. Lewis ASAP. Could you each volunteer for one of those? It means a lot to me. EEng16:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Good looking out with that second link; I'd never seen it before. I'll probably post something soon, I've been crawling through it and taking notes and I don't really have much to say (but I'll say it at the review page in a bit). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I was about to send you the same message. Don't know what to think, really. I honestly feel bad for the guy, but as recently as this year he's been denigrating other editors (including me) off-wiki, and attacking notability policies. I just don't see how he can be trusted not to repeat the immensely destructive behavior we've seen before. I'm traveling with limited bandwidth so ping me on any further developments. EEng16:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Would it be an idea to at least report the vandalism to the Wikipedia community? No matter how much you dislike someone else, personally I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to have to experience this. Fiskje88 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It's already noted on his talk page and as the vandal is blocked I don't see what more can be done. FTR I don't dislike RY; if anything I feel sorry for him. EEng16:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Say what?
Since you seem to think engineers are mindless robots blindly applying rigid rules, - After I said, "I'm the engineer type"? Logic fault. ―Mandruss☎05:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it didn't say just how far your tongue was imbedded into your cheek area. Museum is cool and I wish I could feel that humorous when I'm at Wikipedia. I've been trained well, and it doesn't turn on and off very easily, so I generally just leave it off while I'm here. How sad is that? (Although I was cracked up by "with no respect intended".) ―Mandruss☎07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed recently you were accused on the MOS TP of hiding behind an "internet persona". If this is true, does that make it an EEngVAR issue? Primergrey (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll stop replying. Sometimes, I know I'm being goaded and still can't stop rising to the bait. Thank you for your reminder. Unless there are problematic edits to articles (as opposed to talk pages) the matter merits no further response. Feeding the beast is an apt metaphor.
It's good to have a voice of reason around.
On another matter: I'm no good at finding lost minds. But here's the Ming you were looking for:
Remember our long-lived friend (who amazingly, seems to have actually taking his indefinite block to heart)? While this one guy is a rank amateur by comparison, similar lessons apply, especially this one: in general (sad to say) it's too much to hope that the party with whom you are engaged will be convinced; convincing those watching and listening should be your goal. Once you think you've achieved that you can fall silent, leaving your interlocutor to babble on contentedly. EEng (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)CRASH! Oh dear. That thing wasn't genuine, was it? After all, a Ming is a terrible thing to waste.
Coffee fueled parody, at WP:talk MoS/D&N
I must thank you for one of the best (and funniest) scenarios of Wikipedia editing I've read. I'm going to be chuckling all day. The cleanup you're doing on MoS is making it actually useful, and I thank you for that as well. I should probably appreciate that more, but it doesn't make me giggle with joy. htom (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
EEng, your comments are requested on...Talk:Serial killer. You do, however, have the right to remain silent. Eman235/talk05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
You may have noticed that accounts that bother me here often fall mysteriously silent soon afterward. Ever think about that? EEng02:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Edits don't need sources; information one adds needs sources. I didn't add the information, just copyedited the text to say the same thing a different way. EEng08:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said, "the information you're adding" needs to be verified, per WP:BURDEN. Otherwise, it will likely be challenged and/or removed. If you've just moved info already sourced, please copy the source(s) to that section as well, to avoid confusion. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If the source(s) for this information is/are listed elsewhere in the article, please also attach them here, or the edit risks being removed. X4n6 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I take it, by your failure to respond to my question, that you've realized that I added no new information. Since I didn't add it, I have no idea where it might be sourced. Why are you still wasting our time on this? Before you get any bright ideas, BTW, I remind you that BURDEN sets the standard for removal of unsourced material (outside BLPs) as being that you genuinely believe no source exists -- not just because you can challenge it. So please don't get any WP:POINTY ideas. EEng09:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What you should have gleaned from my response, is that I had no interest in playing games. As you're clearly not interested in claiming ownership of this unsourced material - and since you appear equally disinterested in providing appropriate sources for it, I've removed it per WP:VERIFY. X4n6 (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
And I've restored it. There's no reason for me to "take ownership" of this information since, as now both I and another editor have told you, I didn't add it. And VERIFY doesn't require, in order that material remain in an article, that it be verified, merely that it be verifiable. Did you make even the most basic attempt to find a source before engaging me in this nonsense waste of time? The fact that you can remove something unsourced doesn't mean you should, especially material this new and duly tagged [citation needed]. EEng10:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.X4n6 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I really don't want my talk page to become a debate venue, but I can hardly imagine what we're supposed to conclude from the fact that you've referred us to a New York Post piece by John Podhoretz for what you apparently think is a serious purpose. EEng07:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You're using your user page as a venue. What's wrong with discussing things here? Are you saying I can't post here? Doctalk07:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment. (Wiki-related matters provide enough of the former.) Keeping that in mind, you are a welcome and valued member of my glittering salon of talk page stalkers. EEng07:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of debates: wow! It's already here! Monday, 9PM EST! None of us know what to expect, really. Just a crazy ride we're all on. Cheers :> Doctalk07:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It can now be revealed that I'm the Trump stand-in Clinton's been using in preparing for the debate, so in fact I can say with confidence that I do know what will happen. Unfortunately I can't tell you. Sorry. EEng07:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello EEng. I just wanted to say thank you for your various museums. They have helped me immensely in living through this craziest (the nicest word I could think of - the others are much darker) of elections. Well, the day is finally here and a fellow wikipedian dropped this gem off on my talk page. I thought I would share it with you in appreciation of your sage sensibilities. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I watched the clip, and was not impressed - don't care about the Trump part, just the bullhonkey about Brexit - so am unable to resist responding to it. We've had this little Brexit incident where we voted to leave the European Union. Ah, not that most of us wanted to of course, no no. It was just those people who bothered to vote. Poppycock, you regressives wanting to undermine the democratic process. You had your opportunity, and despite the largest voter turnout for anything in who knows how long (if ever), you lost. You self-righteous buggards. Democracy may be the worst system, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. I get that this is meant to be a joke, so no hate directed towards anybody, except for "SavetheDay" as they seem to genuinely believe the hogwash they spread. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Just as it's clear most Americans voting for Trump don't understand the implications of doing so, it's apparent that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, either. Saying so isn't an attempt to undermine the democratic process, but rather a call to strengthen its foundation, which is an educated and informed electorate. I thought the video was brilliant (in the sense in which the English use the word). EEng18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I hate to point out but your choices in the U.S. give you the option between a liar and an idiot. [I]t's apparently that many or most of those voting for "Brexit" didn't understand the implications of doing that, I don't think you could be more wrong. The proof will be in the pudding - if it ever gets baked. The EU is looking more like a trojan horse to me everyday. [A]n educated and informed electorate - you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. There's plenty of informed voters who voted for and against Brexit and whether you like it or not, there's plenty of informed voters voting for Hillary and Trump. Same info, different outcome. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
you'll only ever see a voter as "informed" if they think like you do. I don't know whether that's the way you operate, but it's not the way I do. However, facts are facts, and since the overwhelming majority of self-described Trump supporters still think that Obama was born in Kenya, there would seem to be a severe informedness gap. As for Brexit, interviews post election show that many, if not most, Yes voters could not describe coherently what the EU is or does, or even pick it out on a multiple-choice list of descriptions of important international organizations.
However, as I have with other such threads on the page, I would like to declare this debate closed. This page is meant for discussions about improving the encyclopedia, or to provide pleasant relief for editors from the humdrum cares of editing – not political debate. EEng19:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't engage further except for one minor detail; I don't know whether that's the way you operate - If it were I'd be utterly confounded as to your support of Clinton. As it so happens I am not. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you're an mature adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. I even have some! Atsme📞📧03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment.[14]
- it was a slip of the keyboard due to my irregular finger sizes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. [pause to treat rug burns from rotflmao]. Only you would have caught that - ❤️ your wit!!! Atsme📞📧23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Well thank you, Yoninah! Since I'd just made my first nom in a long time, I thought I talk a walk down memory lane. Any maybe I will again now and then, but I don't think I'll be there regularly -- too much trouble for too little result. But feel free to call on me for my talents as a hooker. EEng16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Tryptofish, just noticed this. If you can get the article to GA, I'll come up with an off-color hook about male salmon and their big kypes. EEng08:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Probably not, but it took me an awfully long time just to find this section on your talk page. And stop groping the salmon with your tiny fins. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, EEng. You got me twice because I did not know who F.I.M. was. I make that kind of typo now and then. Brain says one thing; fingers another. OK, now can you advise me of any other point? BTW, I found NOTNOT to be interesting too. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}23:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
My word, that was brave. But his article gives no indication that he ever travelled further north than London?? If the Humphry Davy vs George Stephensonsafety-lamps-at-dawn is any guide, it must have been some canny Geordie, not some posh softie Cornwallite, who was the true inventor? But I'm happy to leave as is, pending more research! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
If you'll scare up some good sources on the rocket thing, we could put together a new article with a catchy DYK:
...that a 19th-century shipwreck victim might find a rocket coming toward him?
You wouldn't want me on decaf, since that would make me cranky from lack of caffeine. (I'm actually far less cantankerous than people think I am; they seem to assume I'm always being dead serious, and imagine me scowling, when I may be laughing). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I sort of doubt I'll be able to get through election night without drinking heavily. But I'll give it my best effort. GABgab15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Just curious... Atsme📞📧 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
--Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
BMK, it looks like somebody already took the offer years ago, (passing himself off as a Harvard alumnus), and appears to have involved theft of a goat, which is not quite as severe as cattle rustling. Atsme📞📧 18:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Eman235/talk 22:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Eman235/talk 06:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 02:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- it was a slip of the keyboard due to my irregular finger sizes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. [pause to treat rug burns from rotflmao]. Only you would have caught that - ❤️ your wit!!! Atsme📞📧 23:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
