User talk:EEng/Archive 14

External videos
External videos
	Will repeat!

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

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Removing the colloquial tag from the article Lobotomy

EEng, if I had the capacity to fix the colloquial language present in that article, I would have done so. However, as I do not, my next best option was to tag it, so that someone else who does have the capacity to fix it would be more likely to notice and resolve it. Unfortunately, before that could occur, you removed the tag without fixing the colloquial language. I've recently been accused of tag-bombing, so noticing you had removed this tag a while ago in my contributions list was a little frustrating, to say the least. Why would I tag something if I could fix it? I didn't add it for fun. I'm re-adding the tag; please don't remove it again unless you're fixing it, or unless someone else fixes it but doesn't remove the tag. Thanks. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what colloquial language you're referring to, nor apparently does another editor who just removed the tag again. There's a {{Colloquialism}} tag you can add inline so others will know what you're talking about. E Eng 16:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I'm being hounded at this point. That person who removed the tag after you seems to be following me around. I should have added a hidden comment tagging every colloquialism along with having the banner template, but I forgot to do that. Now I don't really have the motivation, so I'm going to leave it alone. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You are not being WP:HOUNDed. David Eppstein is a highly experienced editor and a nice guy to boot, and he's trying (as am I) to guide you onto the right path. He no doubt saw your post here and went to see what the issue was. E Eng 04:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I happened to have lobotomy on my watchlist and found your edits that way. I did not have raft already watchlisted, but it is not unusual, when I see an editor being mistaken in a particular way, to check whether they might have been similarly mistaken elsewhere recently. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As long as you don't have lobotomy on your bucket list. That would be weird. E Eng 22:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if they dump the removed lobe into a bucket. Sort of like a localized guillotining. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You asked

It's why I did not explain, those in on it would get it, and those not in on it would not really benefit from knowing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Curious

I'm curious as to what you're trying to communicate here? That user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia since 23 February, though they're still active at the Simple English Wikipedia. What am I missing? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Private joke, nothing deep. E Eng 17:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Daily Dozen

Can you please revisit this discussion when you have time? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Just so you know ...

... the editor you reverted here was also blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet (and honestly, doesn't what they added sound like a sockmaster trying to justify themselves?). So, if you see that edit again in the future, that's what's going on, so any account making it should (especially if new) be reported to SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Stomp?

I assume you stepping on my comment here was an accident? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, we'll pretend it was an accident. E Eng 16:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Whoa!

What happened to this page today? All of the moves make me dizzy! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep your eyes closed.

If it's going over your head, you're too low. Pgmiele (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

John C Yoo

Turns out those torture memos were first seeded not just in the college, but in the vaults of Winthrop House [2]. Is anyone surprised? -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, so he is a Harvard College graduate. That saddens me. E Eng 17:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

He's also a University of California professor. That saddens me even more. Harvard at least has the excuse that his misdeeds were in the unknowable future. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

He went to Yale Law School -- figures. E Eng 19:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Grover Norquist was in Winthrop, too. Must have been something in the water. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

But then so were the Kennedys, so go figure. E Eng 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"hoist" v "hoisted"

Do you think perhaps, if it should be left as "hoist" [3], it should be placed in quotation marks to indicate it's quoting Hamlet directly? Or maybe with a corresponding bluelink to the article on the phrase? I've got no problem with it being "hoist", but chancing across it, my first thought wasn't that it was deliberately using the archaic version of the past tense. Since the modern usage makes "hoisted" the past tense, and since the phrase "hoisted by his own petard" is generally used in modern English, quotation marks or a bluelink would indicate it's deliberate rather than a typo. Any objection to one or the other? Grandpallama (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. :) Grandpallama (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Glad I could help. But for the record: if this was article space we’d worry about such things, but in project space we play fast and loose. E Eng 19:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, about five minutes after I typed out my original thoughts. Grandpallama (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI

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

You mean [4]? You need to read the history and THINK. There's even a link in the image captions to help you. E Eng 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Really, on ANI?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this relates to [5] (and I certainly appreciate El C's faint praise). Here's what I would have posted (in response to our esteemed fellow editor Rhododendrites) had I not been delayed elsewhere:

Well first of all, WP:TPO is clear that in project space, in opposition to article space, the thumb on the scale favors retaining someone's post after a tentative removal has been opposed by the post-er, and the xRR resides in the persistent attempts to remove despite that opposition, after which those with a concern should restrict themselves to commenting on a post they see as problematic.

Beyond that, while your suggested approach has a superficial appeal, I really don't think it's applicable and workable. First, it wasn't really removed by multiple people multiple times, rather by one person multiple times (on perceived lack of merit) one person once (on perceived lck of merit) and after that apparently under the misapprehension that it had been added after closure; and note I wasn't the only one restoring. But more generally, ANI has more than a thousand active watchers [6] and if anything not super-serious could be removed on the say-so of just few of those then ANI would be a dreary place indeed; on the other hand, your point about giving extra weight to the opinions of those participating in a particular thread is a good one, and I'll try to keep that in mind in future.

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

As a final note for SchroCat, you've got to stop personalizing everything. As already explained I didn't even realize it was you [7], anyone can make a typo, and if you can't be good-humored about it, tough. I wouldn't put it that bluntly were you not so dyspeptic about everything, but your behavior is such that I'm not inclined to put much store in your continual cries of outrage and victimization.

As for getting blocked, well, if I don't get blocked at least once in a while then I'm probably not doing my job. E Eng 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup:

Um, borderline personal attack – what???? So let me get this straight: so now it's a personal attack if I make fun of my own typo? But (and super-serious here now): I have never made fun of anyone's dyslexia; saying that I did without evidence is a personal attack; and if such accusations keep up there's gonna be an ANI thread on that. So have a fucking care. E Eng 21:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Followup followup:

And now ol' SchroCat decides he's going to end the discussion [8]. Gotta love the control-freakism. Or am I not supposed to say that because being a control freak is a disability? E Eng 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You know I was disabled once ~ Oh I'm sorry, I don't know why I said that ~mitch~ (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Some requests

Hello EEng,

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

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

"Tanks" for the compliment, and you already know I respect you as a "really useful administrator". And thanks for the sympathy, but to paraphrase something I told ol' Ritchie recently, after you get blocked enough times you really don't care.

The situation is a bit complicated, your proposal is a bit complicated, and a proper response will take more effort than I can muster tonight (but you needn't fear that means I'm looking for a complicated way to say No). Probably tomorrow. E Eng 06:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Cullen's advice about mockery and about ANI images is very good, I want to encourage you to accept it. As for your usefulness...^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to live in a world where you can't make fun of a typo. – Levivich 01:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

And I don't want to live in a world where you say the kinds of incivil things about me that you have said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As someone who has gotten into plenty of real-life trouble for jokes at the wrong time, it's definitely a "know your audience" problem. I think most people won't care or will get a laugh out of EEng posting a humorous picture for a typo (and let the record show that I'm one of those people, EEng is free to post pictures at will on my comments, especially when I make bad typos), but if someone objects to you posting on them...man, just apologize, make it clear that you were just making a joke about the spelling or whatever and weren't trying to insult them, and maybe make a list of people who have asked you to not do that (and then, you know, leave them alone). I think everyone wins that way. creffett (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't argue with that at all. And I argue about everything. – Levivich 01:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, no you don't. creffett (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I do. – Levivich 02:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour? E Eng 05:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Now be sensible. From what I hear, you've made yourself indispensable! creffett (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You must have misheard; they said "indefensible". – Levivich 03:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you making fun of his typo??? E Eng 04:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Don't worry, Cullen, I am going to respond to your thoughtful post, but it's been a busy week.

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

Cullen328, if you're suggesting that my advice is good, I feel personally attacked and I might just have to take this to AN/I. I have a reputation to maintain, you know. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

EEng - example of happy typos for your enlightenment - read the edit summary, then the exchange. And then there's the cash register receipt. Of course, if you want to get t-banned there's this one. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 06:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
As for that cash register receipt, I am surprised that this particular item only costs 99 cents. With tax, that's less than $1.10 in most jurisdictions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Penis broken, please use finger!

The penis, mightier than the finger. Bonus observation: the linked article contains the phrase "The very same advert was erected in Egypt"].
E Eng 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

LMAO ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Cullen, I remember back when they were a dime a dozen. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This block business has led to Jimbo Whales coming by your talk page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Tryp - won't that work as a template? *lol* {{cnn}}?? Bellezzasolo, aren't you a template expert? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, User:Scheinwerfermann/Cetacean needed I believe! There's a significant deletion log at Template:Cetacean needed. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess it didn't have enough of a porpoise around here. creffett (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

😂 Porpoisely mammalian, I'd say, creffett. Bellezzasolo, I would never be able to remember the spellings. Can we not add a simple shortcut, like {{cnn}}?

Or how about {msnbc}? {whalewanted}? {ww}? E Eng 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, whale...whalecome to EEng's TP. It's a real killer. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

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

In copyediting I leave the lead to very last, after I've done (and therefore read) the rest of the article, so I can't say much at this point except that eponymous and buoyed and spawned and (beyond the lead, but an especial peeve of mine) accolades make me want to vomit, and factoids such as "youngest person to single-handedly write and perform a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" and "first act to have four albums sell one million copies within one week in the U.S." are ridiculous. But you gotta love that she spent her early years on a Christmas tree farm. E Eng 10:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

'Eponymous' is for beginners - mononymously is what the cool kids are putting in their FAs. Haukur (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Monotonously is more like it. I love it that the first outbound link in the article on this Kylie Minogue creature takes you to a page whose lead image is Plato. Her own lead image shows "Minogue performing at The Queen's Birthday Party" – I can imagine Queen Liz thinking, "I'm just glad Winston isn't alive to see this." E Eng 18:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

EEng, you are getting too snobby even for me here, and that's pretty hard to do! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It is recognised as her signature song and was named "the catchiest song ever" by Yahoo! Music. – Right. E Eng 18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, now I'm curious. Where does (did) it say that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead (or lede, you snob). We're talking about the article linked behind the word mononymously above. E Eng 18:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Minogue! I thought you meant Swift. Yeah, that's BS. Everyone knows that the catchiest song ever is this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly the same thing, so you see great minds do think alike after all (and please do not post the traditional followup to that). E Eng 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The traditional followup to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Look What You Made Me Do --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

All together! E Eng 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

If you find time

Early tools

Three-phase rectifier for high voltage transmission (HVDC)

Inventions that transferred the power from man to electricity

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

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

Atsme, I'm sorry to note that I never got to this. I'm afraid now isn't the time either, but I don't want you to think I plan to let you down. Ping me sometime when you think of it again, at least 6 months from now. This is probably something best done when the libraries are open. E Eng 03:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, Atsme, I've looked at this again, and it's just too far from my areas of competence for me to add anything useful. Sorry. E Eng 16:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your memory is damn impressive, and so is your probity in light of your decision to respond at all. I say to hell with competence. Nothing wrong with the article as it sits now.

Atsme 💬 📧 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your interference over at DGG's talk page

Thank you for your opinion.

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

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

I see you have found your way to the proper place to discuss this. See you there :) CapnZapp (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns [9].

Now you're talking about "interference" and "the law". You need to find something else to do on Wikipedia. I'm serious. This nannying of others' user pages will not end well for you. E Eng 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remain civil. CapnZapp (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep it up and I'll show you some real civility. E Eng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Your presence at Talk page guidelines

For those intrepid enough to still be playing along at home, this has now metastasized to [10] (that section and the one immediate following it)

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

As seen right now in the thread at issue, you have a peculiar idea of what constitutes constructive discussion. I'm doing my best to help you see you're wasting your own and everyone else's time, but it's not working. E Eng 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If your idea of having a constructive discussion is "let's not discuss it, everything is fine as is" then you need to actively put forward arguments for that, arguments that then can be evaluated, rather than merely trying to shut down discussion. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Meh. 'fraid I don't have a large interest in making so large an issue of large user talk pages. And if you over archive, you're being secretive or something. Now, ima go protect or delete something.Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

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

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

CapnZapp, okay, templating EEng (after the normal, non-templated discussion above) is just condescending. Don't do that. Or, if you prefer:

TEMPLATE
THE REGULARS
AT YOUR OWN PERIL
WRITE ~~YOUR OWN~~ A PERSONAL MESSAGE
MORE ~~PERSONAL~~THOUGHTFUL
LESS STERILE
Burma-shave

(not my best work, but it'll do) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, but even on a bad day you're pretty good. I changed PERSONAL TO THOUGHTFUL. E Eng 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice! Sounds and scans better. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Now changed YOUR OWN to A PERSONAL (avoiding repeat of YOUR OWN). Let's remember to get this one into the template. E Eng 05:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Your own" scanned better, though. Repetition isn't always bad (see repetition (rhetorical device)) and avoiding it can be worse (see elegant variation). Also the question of whether repetition or its avoidance is better can get you into ~~lame~~ fun wiki-arguments (see Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Langville). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Herr Doktor Professor. E Eng 14:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As compared to analog

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

For those playing along at home, this concerns the repeated removal of the lower image-and-caption seen here [11]:

The flaw in your analogy, Chris troutman, is this particular nest doesn't belong to the wasps – it belongs to the community. The Signpost's editor-in-chief most of all shouldn't be tampering with commentary on the items it publishes, and if Megalibrarygirl wants to selectively remove comments on her essays then she needs to publish them on her own user page. Of course, given the subject of the essay there's some irony to all this [12]. E Eng 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of irony, actually: [13]. E Eng 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem, EEng, is that the joke is not neutral. You have your own intentions. However, I and Smallbones both pointed out to you that there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult to a group of people, in this case, non-binary people. You may not agree with us, but it is a valid interpretation of what you wrote and it is always best to err on the side of civility. Wikipedia isn't stand up comedy: it's a place full of people with very different ideas who need to work together and making some people a joke is antithetical to that. Since the image is now back up, please remove it. The second image which you posted with diffs, is also not civil in my opinion where you categorize people who are concerned about the joke as "people intolerant of criticism of themselves." I am not intolerant of criticism: I am intolerant of making marginalized groups the butt of any kind of joke. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Being born and bred in Berkeley I knew what a woke-scold was decades before the term was coined, and you are a woke-scold. By folding everything that anyone even conceivably could choose to take offense at (there were ways to interpret the caption as an insult – gotta love it) into one giant ball of weepy hysteria [14] you give a bad name to people (such as myself) who care about actual things that actually harm people. You prattle about civility but give a free pass to those who blatantly accuse other editors of conspiring to suppress coverage of women and so on. Turn that high-powered perception on yourself, busybody. E Eng 02:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi EEng. I've been polite and only pointed out that you are being offensive. And you continue to do so. "Woke scold" is a new one! What you're doing is edit warring and escalating the situation and doesn't need to happen. If you don't like the truth, that's fine. But what you're doing is wrong and I'll say so. Notice I've not called you names or made any aspersions on your character. I said you did one thing wrong. You should admit your mistake and move on. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Behold the sermonizing social justice warrior on her high horse, clothed magnificently in dudgeon! So supremely arrogant is she in the certainty of her moral superiority! Christ, you lack even the modesty to qualify your opinions – phrases such as I think and it seems to me are traditional ways of reminding yourself that maybe, just maybe, you're just one editor among many, though of course they're unnecessary if you know you're always right. Maybe that's it.

A polite woke-scold (e.g. If you don't like the truth, that's fine) is still a woke-scold. If by "edit warring" you mean I restored a comment – a comment you removed ... from a discussion of something you wrote ... because you disliked it or couldn't understand it – then you better give WP:TPO another read, Madame Administrator.

Every liberation movement goes through its That's not funny! stage, and the sooner that's over the better. No doubt you mean well, but you need an emergency injection of perspective, proportion, history, and humility. I'm a gay man who was fighting the good fight – and not by sitting behind a library desk in a pussy hat, I assure you – when you were in diapers, so I require no enlightenment about oppression and injustice. The next time you remove another editor's comment because it doesn't conform to your self-righteous standards I'll have you at ANI so fast it'll make your head spin. Signal your trendy virtues some other way. Got it?

E Eng 03:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Here, put this [15] in your pipe and smoke it.

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

A car? Who needs it !! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC) p.s. I'd just like to point out that EEng is never wrong, and even when he is he's totally woke.

[16] E Eng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well hello there, Ritchie. How good it is to see you around again; for a while we feared we might have lost you. You seem to be reading the situaton upside down:

I'm not picking the wrong target, nor indeed any target. She picked me.
I never doubted that she and I probably agree on most social and political issues, and I don't know where you'd get the idea I might think otherwise.
Nor would I imagine she's a shrinking violet. Her problem's the opposite: she confuses her personal opinions – even on something as subjective as a joke – with what she calls "the truth", to the extent that she thinks it's OK remove others' discussion posts in violation of TPO because, well, she knows the truth. That's the behavior of armchair social justice warriors of the woke-scold variety, and as you know I have little patience for such hubris, especially from those on the thinking end of the political spectrum, who should know better.

She had plenty of chances to back off and agree to disagree, but no. Perhaps she'll think twice should a similar situation arise in future.

E Eng 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

EEng, I think you're confused. I'm not picking on you. In fact, I've barely interacted with you. I only pointed out that one joke in the comments on the Signpost article was offensive and removed it to promote civility on Wikipedia. It would have been easier to just leave it off, but you don't want to do that. The joke is most likely going to stay up on Signpost, a place that should be neutral, since no one wants to start an edit war over a joke. Fine. I don't want to edit war either, but I also don't appreciate your personal attacks. It's really petty of you and shows you can't take criticism. Your joke is both regressive and offensive. If something is offensive to a group of people even if you don't think it is it's still offensive. Not sure why you don't understand that. I've said my piece, I spoke the truth and that's that. If you want to talk more, ping me. But leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't like to see two of my favourite editors slugging it out with each other. You both make enormous contributions to the encyclopedia and Wikipedia is a better place for having you both around. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

None of us can really say whether or not a joke is offensive to a group of people; we can only say it's offensive to us, individually. I've seen people say or do things on Wikipedia that I think are obviously and egregiously antisemitic. But I can't speak on behalf of all Jews, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to assert that something was antisemitic or offensive to Jews–I can only speak for myself. And speaking for myself, I can say that I strongly agree with Ritchie about not liking to see two good editors going at it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, just a regular day down at Sootypedia. Sweepevans123 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree with all three of you. Now stand aside while I finish this off... E Eng 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Jesus, will you get clue? In ==>YOUR OPINION<=== it's offensive. Can you really not see that it's just ==>YOUR OPINION<===, that everyone else need not kowtow^[1]^[2] to ==>YOUR OPINION<=== and that it's not OK for you to remove another editor's post based on ==>YOUR OPINION<===? Apparently you still haven't reviewed WP:TPO as previously recommended, and maybe try taking a hint from the ever-wise Levivich and let someone actually offended (if there be any) speak for themselves; this isn't a schoolyard and you're not the teacher.

As for leave off the sermonzing about who you think I am and how you think I should act – I can only interpret that as unconscious self-parody. I'm sure you're a nice person, and as said before I know you mean well, but these tautologies that begin by assuming that ==>YOUR OPINION<=== is obviously the truth are beyond tiresome. Give the broken record a rest now. Really. Tomorrow morning I have to play the authority figure and will be expected to say wise things, so I just haven't got time.

E Eng 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Levivich, this might be a good time for you to break the tension with a Burma-Shave. Or not.

References

^ I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect [1]. -E Eng
^ Darned Chinks. I'm so offended, ~~I've resigned twice.~~ I'm in self-isolation for 14 days. -Martinevans123 (talk)

Hoping that I am missing something here, but can anyone explain to me why using Chink in the above context is okay? Perhaps helpful if I copy the Wikipedia page introduction is an English-language ethnic slur usually referring to a person of Chinese descent.[2] The word is also sometimes indiscriminately used against people who look and have an East Asian appearance. The use of the term is considered offensive. Kees08 (Talk) 22:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing the answer to Kees08 question too. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be interested too. You're missing a diagnosis. It's not as if it's clearly been used in an ironic way, is it. There aren't even any irony marks. Disgusted of Wuhan Wells (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, will you marry me? E Eng 21:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
No homo. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Breeder. E Eng 22:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you can get a device for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Just in case it will matter to you, I think you happen to be in the wrong here. We all make mistakes, and we should all try to listen with an open mind to other people when they tell us we've made one. Paul August ☎ 16:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Note, I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August ☎ 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
For the record I appreciate your intelligent intervention. E Eng 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

What you think does matter to me, actually. I'm always open to reasoned discussion on something like this because I recognize that my humor is sometimes a bit, um, shall we say... edgy (plus I'm always interested in learning more about why people find things funny or not funny, in any context). But because of Megalibrarygirl's precipitate action, that's not what this is about; it's about one editor setting up her personal judgment as overriding and unerring, and being unable to recognize that that was a mistake (and contrary to WP behavioral guidelines as well). E Eng 18:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I vote for trouts all around - I don't think MLG should have unilaterally removed your comment given her position (would have been more appropriate to either ask you to remove it or start a discussion), and I don't think you should have continued adding it after it was removed. This isn't a hill worth dying on for either of you, and I suggest both of you just take a deep breath and let it go. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no plans on dying, but self-appointed scolds are a particular sore point with me. Had MLG simply offered her opinion, a quite possible outcome would have been that I would have found something even funnier to post in a different vein – strange how constraint can liberating in that way. But instead she took the in-your-face approach, and I just don't take that lying down especially from mop-holders.
I let it go with my post 3 days ago timestamped 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC), but MLG just keeps coming back for more. I have little doubt, however, that she's learned her lesson and won't do this again – to anyone. E Eng 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

One question seems to me to be how to determine whether something (say a joke) is offensive. Surely you agree that just because a joke was not intended to be offensive does't mean that it isn't offensive? Correct? So how do you determine whether something is offensive? Do a certain number of people need to be offended before something can said to be offensive? Maybe is not zero or one, maybe something is more or less offensive depending on the number of people who find it offensive? So even if only one person finds something offensive, then it *is* offensive, just not very? So what should one do if someone tells you they think one of your jokes is offensive? I guess it depends on how generous you want to be. For me, if some thinks one of my jokes is offensive—even if I think they are the only one who thinks so—I think my response would be to apologize, and retract it. It seems to me to just a matter of simple politeness. Paul August ☎ 11:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Better questions might be: why does it matter if a joke is considered by some to be offensive or not? Is there such a thing as an inoffensive joke? Should an offensive joke be treated differently than an offensive non-joke statement? Is making an offensive statement (joke or non-joke) a problem that requires correction? Only then can you get to: how many people have to think it’s offensive before it’s considered offensive? The base assumption i chafe at is the notion that a joke is some kind of frivolity, whereas being offended is an actual injury of some sort. I disagree with both characterizations. Just as I disagree with the characterization in this section heading. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: Sorry, I'm not following you. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Or something else altogether? Note as I've written above: I didn't create this section, and so I'm not responsible for the title, and I make no claim that anything I've every done was "intelligent". Paul August ☎ 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I've clarified that I inserted the heading of this subsection. E Eng 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August:, I'm disagreeing fundamentally that a joke should be retracted because it offends one or even more than one person. (Also, I didn't mean the header comment as a criticism of you or as implying that this conversation wasn't intelligent; rather, I think the conversation above the header was also intelligent.) The joke, as all good jokes, brought an important truth to light. In the context of an article about "invisible women" – about how women are overlooked by the history books – EEng made a joke about non-binary gender. This has many layers of meaning. First, it reminds the reader that non-binary people are, today, right now, the "invisible people", just as women once were (and, in many ways, still are). A second layer is that by looking at a picture of people who appear to be women and calling them "women", we are assuming their gender identity–something that modern society is trying to get away from. Calling them the first "non-binary" programmers (because they were programming analog computers) is a clever way of linking the struggles of women in the past to the struggles of non-binary people today, while simultaneously noting how language (here, the meaning of "non-binary") can change over time, just as social attitudes and oppressed group's rights and privileges can change over time. All in all, it's a clever way to say, "don't forget there are still invisible people today, and they're not just women". And this message was better delivered as a picture with a funny caption than as a long paragraph of text as I have provided here.

So, should we then erase this message because – OMG! It has the word non-binary! It's a joke about non-binary! That means it's offensive! Kill it kill it kill it!! No, to me, that's just a really shallow understanding of a really deep and brilliant joke.

Humor is a very powerful tool when it comes to changing minds, and, by extension, changing societies. It should not be discounted or eliminated based on one person's, or a small group of people's, sensibilities. At bottom, there is no such thing as an inoffensive joke. If it's not offensive, at least a little bit, it won't be funny. And if it's not funny, it won't be heard. So I think in these situations, we should leave the picture, not complain about being offended by a "non-binary joke", and instead be offended by the fact that non-binary people are even more invisible than women. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I just said said that, had MLG simply offered her opinion, I'd likely have recast the joke some other way. Perhaps an intelligent conversation such as this one [17] could have ensued. But unilateral removal (which, I tire of repeating, TPO forbids)? Repeated unilateral removal? I've made my attitude on that abundantly clear above. E Eng 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not the removal was right, I'm trying to say that your response could have been more polite. Just saying ... Paul August ☎ 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I started out perfectly polite [18] [19], inviting MLG to comment on what she was concerned about. E Eng 16:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I tread carefully in these things, having been accused myself of being too silly on wiki-pages sometimes (although the more common accusation is that I'm too ponderously serious on wiki-pages, such as I'm being now—of course it's quite possible that both these things are true). Still, in this instance I happen to agree with those who have opined that these images and their captions are, at best, an unnecessary distraction from a significant discussion. If I'd been the first one to see them, I would probably have removed them myself, and I'm thinking through whether I still ought to do so. Also, while I'm absolutely certain this is not how the word was intended to be used here, I am also surprised that no one has observed yet that "scold," used as a noun, is perceived as having sexist connotations and, especially in reference to a specific female editor, should generally not be used. Addendum: I should add that I have a very high level of respect for your (EEng's) talents and abilities, and a disagreement on this specific item doesn't detract from that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, for the record I have a high level of respect for your talents and abilities, and I'm not just saying that because you're an arb and, ya know, you never know what turn things might take. I want to be sure you read Levivich's post above at #Levivichx because, while he's read in a bit more than I had in mind, by doing so he demonstrates vividly why humor is powerfully useful in getting people to think in fresh ways about important and difficult issues. E Eng 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. Sorry, I reject your scold scold; in modern usage the word's been fully liberated [20].

Followup: I said earlier that discussion, instead of knee-jerk censorship, had a good chance of stimulating me to find a better way to make my point. Thanks primarily to ol' Levivich, here we go:

There may be some non-binary people among those operating this differential analyser, but from the historical record there's probably no way to know it.
-E **Eng**

I dare anyone to find offense in that.

We turn now to the great John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, "Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion"):

We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.

TLDR? Thinking people don't suppress; they discuss. E Eng 19:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK let's get married because you just quoted my favorite philosopher, and it was my favorite chapter of my favorite book of his, and you quoted it at length. (You had me at "it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied".) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I knew you'd come around, Mr. Nohomo. I usually introduce On Liberty as "the greatest piece of political philosophy ever written" but for some reason this time I hesitated for fear the discussion would get sidetracked by a debate about that. E Eng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm the first to admit that some of my posts aim merely to break the tension or buoy spirits. But are you claiming that the image+caption above doesn't make a memorably useful point in the context of the original discussion? E Eng 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I claim that it very foreseeably became a distraction that substantially outweighed the value of any point you intended to make in the thread. Next, diverting the thread still further to an argument about whether the image and caption should remain, with a re-posted image with a new and nasty caption of its own, was a double digression or meta-digression. Removing the images from the thread was, at a minimum, a very defensible thing to do, and your harsh and unnecessary personal comments about the editor who took the lead on trying to remove them were yet a further distraction from the original discussion. In addition, your position that you might have been willing to see the image removed after all, if you had been asked more nicely, is in tension with your position that the seeming joke actually carried substantial informational value. As for the word "scold," we'll have to agree to disagree; if you continue using it in the context of specific female editors, I predict that sooner or later a serious complaint about the connotations underlying the word will be raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"The majority of individuals punished for scolding were women, though men could also be labelled scolds." Yes, a bit like the common cold, but might be more serious and lead to 14 days "self-isolation". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You're off on the sequence of events (for which you can be excused given what a mess it was) but I'll just say that once it was explicitly asserted that it "could very easily be taken that you are making fun of non-binary people. We don't do that" – naming me specifically as committing this alleged transgression – there's no way I was going to leave the record uncorrected. Smallbones chose the venue by posting that where he posted it.
I didn't say I'd be willing to see the image removed (though it's the caption we're really talking about), rather I said that non-kneejerk discussion had a good chance of leading to a better caption. And it finally did.

E Eng 02:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see nothing in your responses above that indicate to me that you are listening to or taking on board any of the constructive criticisms your fellow editors are trying to give you. It would be good if you could try harder to do that. Paul August ☎ 14:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm listening; I just don't agree that my original posting was inappropriate. And it seems to me that you're not listening to or taking on board what I've said: Discussion, not suppression. I will now say for the final time that intelligent, non-kneejerk, non-strongarming discussion not only could have, but finally did, lead to something better. The mess in between is entirely down to one editor's ham-handed arrogation to herself of the role of censor. E Eng 15:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That you seem to believe that everything you've done here was perfectly appropriate—that you seem to believe all your critics are wrong—that you take no responsibility at all for any part of this problem—is disheartening. If you continue in the same vein I don't think this will end well. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

All of which still leaves the question whether I should remove the whole set of images and captions from that talkpage as being a disruptive distraction from the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Why would that be a call for a single editor to make? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If at the same time you remove Smallbone's public implication that I'd "attack[ed] or mock[ed] [a] group whose members include those who do not have a choice about their membership in the group", and leave (floated to the right, of course) the image with the revised caption (the one seen above in this thread – which surely comports well with both the original essay and the discussion) I'd be perfectly happy with that. E Eng 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What point exactly are you trying to make with the gorilla image on the right? Are you saying NYB's trying to intimidate you? If so it would be better to say so directly. That's another problem with some of your images, their use as innuendo. Paul August ☎ 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

That's the image - and caption - that got EEng blocked in what was possibly the most incompetently vindictive block in Wikipedia's history. I assure you NYB will be well aware of exactly what it's meant to mean. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad NYB will know what it means, however (clueless me) I still don't ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to my glittering array of (talk page stalker)s for saving me the trouble of explaining. I will just add that this little subplot illustrates a principle which, had it been applied to the main issue of this whole thread, would have saved a great deal of gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair: instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. And for the record, if I thought that NYB was trying to intimidate me, yes, I'd just say so. Now stand by while I find a tasteless joke on innuendo (assuming Levivich or some other clown^[FBDB] doesn't beat me to it). E Eng 19:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

With the help of some stalkers, I found what I was looking for: this brilliant chain of puns by Guy Macon. (Key words and phrases: pun account in arrears • semicolonoscopy • innuendos.) Please note: Guy's just coming back after a serious illness so please visit his page to wish him well. E Eng 02:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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

But there's always a silver lining. With everyone sequestered at home with little to do, I expect that the NPP backlog and any open arbitration cases will be resolved with remarkable speed. E Eng 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

am i reading this correctly? i don't mean to beat the dead horse here, but... oh, who am i kidding, i'll get the glue and the club. As a non-binary person who loves computers and puns, that shit's funny as fuck—i legitimately doubled over laughing and I can't think of a single one of my many, many non-binary friends and peers who wouldn't agree, if not without a groan. With all due respect to the people who are trying to stand up for my community, talking over us is not the solution. Anyone who thinks that that joke was out of line should try growing up non-binary in a religious family—it should put things right into perspective for them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Like I said earlier in this thread, instead of jumping in to denounce something which you imagine might offend someone else, maybe try letting the someone else speak for themselves. No doubt someone will now explain that you're so oppressed that you identify with the oppressor. E Eng 20:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Since you pinged me in your edit summary, I guess you want a response. There is no "the someone" here. Rather there are many someones. Sure it was funny, if understood, and sure some will have understood, and not be offended. But not all (perhaps not even most?) Do we not care about them? Paul August ☎ 21:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't particularly want a response, though I'm happy to have it; I mostly just wanted you to see what an expert witness had to say. In answer to your question: yes I care about them, so much so that I'm trying to help them see that even the weightiest subject admits (and benefits from) a bit of levity. E Eng 21:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
That humor can be beneficial is not in dispute. And having good intentions is not an adequate defense. Results are what matter. Something is offensive if it offends, not if it was meant to offend. Paul August ☎ 11:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but that that's an oversimplification; under your formulation there would no degrees of homicide -- off with their heads! Not only does a speaker's intent matter in and of itself, but knowledge of the speaker's intent inevitably affects the hearer's perceptions. Plus, here at WP we're supposed to assume good faith in interpreting what someone says and does, not search for offensive interpretations. When (if) someone actually offended appears on the scene we can discuss that, but for now all we've got is (a) the woke-scold fretting that someone could be offended against (b) someone actually in a position to opine affirming that they are not, in fact, offended. Perhaps Theleekycauldron could ask among any friends similarly situation and let us know the results. E Eng 13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

After a rigorous referendum held by the Secret Society of Non-Binary People With Secret Handshakes™, theleekycauldron news network is ready to show some preliminary results and call the race. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you may need to check Florida. (And tell all those non-binary woke scolds to "grow a pear", of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: The "yes" votes, of course, won the "referendum college". Also, what do you mean by "non-binary woke scolds"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll just have to take the fifth on that one. Maybe I should add scare-quotes? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I did get that there was sarcasm there, but i think you might've meant, like, "non-binary transphobes" or something, since they all thought the joke was fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I sought a "soupsong" of sarcasm, but sent a surfeit, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The binary woke scolds are worse: they categorize everything as either "good" or "bad". Levivich 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And their dads are so opaque and shadowy; nowhere near trans parent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Cisgender people don't get a vote.

Essay critique

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave it a look and tinkered a little. Let me know when you've developed it more. E Eng 23:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Care to comment? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Less Than Zero

The text is "Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered: ... Less Than Zero", where the Less Than Zero wikilink is [[Less Than Zero (song)|Less Than Zero]]. Less Than Zero (song) (capital T) is a redirect to Less than Zero (lowercase T), so the claimed example is a violation of the point it's supposed to be making. Less than Zero is also a DAB, so it wouldn't be a great example even with a lower-case t. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I see you're figured out how to WP:SOFIXIT. E Eng 04:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thesaurus abuse

One of the weirdest things I know is when a writer with a slightly shaky command of English decides that it is a good idea to produce an "original" text by copying an existing text and changing some content words into (what they believe to be) synonyms. I think of it as "thesaurus abuse" – I have run into it from time to time on Wikipedia, and am not sure whether it is more amusing or awful, but feel a sudden urge to document it somewhere where it might be appreciated...

One of the earliest examples I saw was a plot summary in a draft about a TV series. It was first a copypaste job from a promotional website; when that had been revdeled, the editor added a thesaurused version of the same text, which was also revdeled, and yet another version was produced – at that point, I think the entire draft was deleted. I copied and pasted the two versions into a Word document and have occasionally used it as a cautionary tale with my students; I won't subject you to the whole thing, but the original contained the sentence "Diya is forced to bridge the class gap between her and Arjun's family, while also pursuing her dreams", thesaurus abuse version 1 had "Diya is compelled to connect the class hole among her and Arjun's family, while additionally seeking after her fantasies", and TA v2 "Diya is constrained to interface the class opening among her and Arjun's family, while furthermore hunting her mirages". You couldn't make this up.

Another example, documented here, had "follows a group of dancers in a University as they find themselves thrust into a world where every move is a test" being TAed into "follows a gaggle of dancers in a University as they discover themselves thrust right into a world the place each transfer is a take a look at".

Today, I came across this. Here the thesaurus abuse isn't onwiki, instead there is someone copypasting articles from various online publications, re-publishing them as "his own" through various self-publishing platforms, and selling them on Amazon with titles that have to be seen to be believed. I had to restrain myself from wasting the entire afternoon on tracking down the originals, but this (which should point straight to a preview of the kindle book at amazon.in) comes from here and here, while this comes from here.

How could anyone think this is a good idea? --bonadea contributions talk 15:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What a bunch of class holes! (Reminds me, sort of, of the time when a student admissions essay I read said "I would like to attend your extinguished university.") --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I searched for "avoid plagiarism", picked a paraphrasing tool at random, fed it text from one of your examples and received

"Do you keep in mind having a super enjoy at a eating place and afterward tweeting approximately it? This is, essentially, phrase of mouth marketing (WOMM)."

WP:PARAPHRASE now seems oddly silent on the perils of automated thesaurus abuse. NebY (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but we have a word for this at en.wikinews: "scuffing up". And it always sounds like this. The best are the obscure synonyms one knows the writer looked up, or slang/idioms. Heavy Water (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm winning

It's like golf; I think I'm winning. Levivich (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I like that one result under "Trump is right" is Trump is right that excess mortality studies [etc etc]. Right. Like Donald Trump can even spell "excess" or "mortality" or "studies". E Eng 04:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

But he can probably pronounce it right. I mean, like, people all over the world tell me all the time how much they like the way he pronounces those words. Really, beautiful pronunciation. Levivich (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The pronunciation was ... PERFECT. Like the phone call and the letter. E Eng 05:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Those hits are fake results. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Tryptofish is right": 22 hits. There's no shame in 2nd place. Levivich (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish is always right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm always right. See User:EEng#correct: EEng is correct. There are not many exceptions to this nearly universal rule. E Eng 20:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

We're both always right. But I'm always right more often than you are. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Tryptofish is always right": 2 hits
"EEng is always right": 2 hits
"Levivich is always right": 0 hits
I'm still winning. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I searched Atsme is always right: 2,337

Atsme 💬 📧 19:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure golf is analogous? Because I suspect my score is 0, too. Valereee (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me!? None of you guys are right – you're all left. Atsme 💬 📧 16:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Il n'y a point de gens qui ont plus souvent tort que ceux qui ne peuvent souffrir d'en avoir." --la Rochefoucauld (But, I could be wrong about this.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Like we're gonna give the time of ~~date~~ day to an accomplished French moralist of the era of French Classical literature. E Eng 19:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And all this time, I thought it was "the time of day" not date. Oh, and I never met François, so I have no opinion there.

Atsme 💬 📧 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Day, date, whatever. Jeesh. E Eng 20:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Awwww...I promise...I was not being critical of you being right. I thought, for all intensive purposes, that I might have been wrong using "day" all this time. "Atsme is wrong": 1 hit. Oh, the irony. Atsme 💬 📧 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It's so annoying that everyone was named the same back then. François de La Rochefoucauld just seems like it shouldn't have to be disambiguated. And don't get me started on the Williams and Marys. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. And La Rochefoucauld is such a distinctive cheese. (Or dis stinky cheese?) See: I've just reduced Tryptofish is always right by at least one! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

They have it here: [21]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit upset as my world just turned topsy-turvy. All my life, I was trained, indeed destined, to become an accomplished French moralist of the era of French Classical literature. And now, the moralist of Wikipedia, has suggested that this has no meaning. I now have to retreat to the comfort of Nietzsche. If you believe in nothing -- you can never be wrong. You can't be right either; but I can live with that, as can Atsme. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Coords and OR

I didn't want to get into it on Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols, because trolls, but one can put coordinates in articles without secondary sources, and it isn't WP:OR. This is because it falls under WP:Routine calculations. In the case of Killing of Tyre Nichols, primary sources reveal that the beating occurred at the intersection of Castlegate Lane and Bear Creek Cove. Then, Google Maps can be used to show where that is. Right-clicking on the map allows their coordinates to be copied to Wikipedia, then rounded to an appropriate level of precision. Given that he die not die there, it is probably fine that the article does not display coordinates. Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you're describing is nothing like a routine calculation, and is classic OR. Sources tell us the street names at the intersection, so we report that. If they later supply some kind of map, we might present that too (if the licensing is right). But we don't take the street names and convert them to coordinates, even if a tool does that for us. If the coordinates were important, a source would be reporting them. E Eng 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I put the intersection into the text in the case of this article. So that won't be a worry. But in something like half a million articles, the coordinates got there by editors like me are grabbing coordinates from Google in the way I described, or from OSM's "Query features" function, and rounding those numbers according to WP:OPCOORD. As an example, I just did this with UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The university's website gives an address and a building, and Google and OSM show the building and give exacting coordinates for it, so all that remains is proper rounding and formatting. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Most or all of those other articles contain OR, then. And you've picked a particularly bad example for your cause. "The university's website" (at https://caes.ucdavis.edu/, the very URL given in the infobox) does indeed give an address: 150 Mrak Hall. It also gives another address: 1 Shields Avenue, which is far away from Mrak across campus -- apparently a general address for the campus as a whole? The infobox gives the Shields Avenue address, but you seem to have used Mrak Hall to use as the base for the coordinates. Thus the infobox gives two conflicting pieces of information. And all for what? Davis' College of Ag and E isn't a place anyway; it's an institutional entity. It's faculty, offices, classrooms, labs, and administrative apparatus are undoubtedly diffused all over the Davis campus in general. Just because they gave an address for, I dunno, admission inquiries doesn't mean you should be putting a pin on the map showing readers, based on what is (I hope you see now) indubitably your own OR, "where it is" -- which it isn't. E Eng 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry EEng but I gotta go with Abductive on the original question of "Is it OR or otherwise unacceptable to add coordinates for a specific street location?" As long as there is no question about the location (e.g., there aren't multiple streets with the same name(s)) and the coordinates are specified with an appropriate level of precision, this does seem like a routine calculation that doesn't fall afoul of OR. I won't opine whether it's DUE as I don't have any specific interest in that topic or experience in editing that article or others like it but of course this information must pass that bar, too.

I don't recall the specific issue with UMass Boston; I edit a *lot* of college and university articles! In general, we don't include street addresses simply because most of those institutions occupy multiple physical addresses. I don't know how that does or should impact coordinates; I simply haven't ever paid much attention to them so I haven't given them any thought. I do not know the common geographic practices, either among geographers broadly construed or within Wikipedia, for specifying the coordinates for one or more oddly shaped parcels of land that may be geographically dispersed (center of mass or the geographic equivalent, maybe?).

Sorry for not being much help! ElKevbo (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:University_of_Massachusetts_Boston#Street_address, wherein you make a powerful argument for why we shouldn't even be giving street addresses for colleges and stuff, and (by extension) no coordiates either. E Eng 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Universities tend to have central quads, intersecting axes, large fountains, main administration buildings, main libraries, student unions, visitor's centers (rarely), and other targets, and the coords usually point to one of those. Abductive (reasoning) 00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

With a sorry from me for being even less help, here is my take on it. Adding coordinates based on a street address, as the location of that address, is not OR. It's a routine calculation. On the other hand, treating the location identified by those coordinates as the location of a page subject may very well run afoul of OR and/or DUE, for the kinds of reasons described by EEng. A mailing address may differ from a physical address, and may not accurately or meaningfully reflect the location of something that is not a mathematical point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as my example goes, it's not the general method that is in question, but my (in)ability to interpret the source. If anyone were to change the coordinates, I wouldn't argue. Abductive (reasoning) 00:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinterpreting one piece of primary data, then turning it into something else which isn't obviously based on that mistaken data, is part of the reason we don't allow OR. E Eng 01:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:COORDS links to Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates which condones this practice of putting the location into Google Maps. CharredShorthand.talk; 02:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, looks like I'm a voice in the wilderness. E Eng 02:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
And a revenant. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello, EEng! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think my main man Levivich is the right guy for this. EEng 06:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- These essays are too specific. Ping me when someone writes WP:NOMORONS. Levivich (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, we collaborated well the other day on the Miracle of Lanciano article. It was about massive influence and distortion of content by religious POV. I would like to bring to your attention a slanted discussion: I reported a religious user and the editors see it as a violation of Wikipedia rules on my page. Maybe you can participate in the relevant discussion. Greetings

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rafaelosornio_reverting_permanently_my_secular_editing_of_the_article_on_Padre_Pio

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Mind WP:CANVASS CharredShorthand (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EEng!

Happy New Year!

EEng,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

My 2023 will be happiest of all if you restrain yourself from closing discussions prematurely ;P . E Eng 23:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a prosperous new Year. Best regards RV (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

hi

hello — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, hello sailor! E Eng 21:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Mucking about?

I reverted my edits to the original approved hooks! SL93 (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You said that this corrected nothing, but now you want it as "called"? I can't even revert my own edits without making people upset I guess. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

What I said in the discussion at WT:DYK (where you said that you had "corrected multiple hooks") is that this [22] was not any kind of correction, since there was nothing to correct and all you did is substitute one synonym for another. Attracted by your post, I went and did a general touchup on that hook set. But then you came in and just reverted everything back to where it was in the beginning. Clobbering changes made by others after your changes is not reverting your own edits. E Eng 01:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I reverted everything back to how it was in the beginning which you then reverted with the edit summary "For heaven's sake, will you stop mucking about?". I'm not referring to anything after that. I didn't notice your touch-up which happened later. I reverted it back to how it was because of the comments from you and theleekycauldron. SL93 (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You reverted me after I already changed it back to how it was before either of us touched it. You can look at this version if you don't believe me. I honestly don't care about changing your touch-up because I changed it to how it was before the complaints. It is not "mucking about" to backtrack to how a version was before complaints no matter the circumstances. I will end this discussion here. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You've got the timeline mixed up [23]. I understand you were trying to help, but when multiple editors are involved you need to look carefully before blanket reverting. E Eng 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy summer/winter

		Sunshine!
		Hello EEng! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding `{{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}}` to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I live on Jupiter. E Eng 22:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I'm afraid Jupiter doesn't have a solid surface you can land on. Perhaps you live on one of Jupiter's moons. Interstellarity (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

OMG - I'll just say this - my granddaughter named my cell phone after Uranus. Here's the kind of notices my phone sends me: Would you like to download the software to Uranus? The end. ^{uh oh, the close!} Atsme 💬 📧 22:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a gaseous atmosphere around Uranus?--Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Trypto, you belong in the doghouse. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm already in the tank. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"He hitchhiked all the way from Burbank. Now, he's ended up in the drunk tank" Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And I'm in the shark tank. But you know me...if I ever strike it rich, you can rest assured that nobody around me will be poor...and that's a promise!!! I will move to a rich neighborhood. Atsme 💬 📧 22:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Summer in the northern hemisphere and winter in the southern hemisphere GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Your IP is full of cats

User:Dudhhr/CatBlock ^{[April Fools!]} dudhhr_Contribs 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

But still, takes some skill, don'tcha think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes. You can't beat a good bit of mindless dogging, can you. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Social distancing

Are you missing us, yet? We'll even wear masks when assembled. Atsme 💬 📧 19:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How difficult is LUA programming

@Buidhe, I love for your input as well, please just hard is lua programming? Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know it myself, but I've heard that it's not the easiest programming language, but not the hardest either. (t · c) buidhe 23:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no experience with it. E Eng 00:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're headed to a luau party, make sure you stop by the ATM machine on the way, or you may find it difficult to get lei'd when you arrive! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Trimming

If you have time, mind taking a look at Columbine High School massacre? Filled with superflorous details, with some poor structural choices as well. I planned to make some trimmings and reorderings myself anyway, but figured I'd bother you as well since you're faster at identifying those things and trimming them out than I. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm still fighting an IRL deadline, but since it's you I'll give it a whirl. I can't promise to give it the full treatment, though. E Eng 07:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, having looked at it now it's way beyond anything I can even try to get my mind around now, especially when you factor in the parallel, and substantially duplicative article, on Harris and Klebold (which should probably be merged in). I can see why you want help -- it's grotesquely overdetailed, and as you say the structure is off kilter in many ways (e.g. there's a sectioned headed "The boy in the window"). I know this will seem like a cop-out, but can you ask me again in early February? I can't attend to this without guilt about what I really need to be doing. E Eng 07:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, want to be user you saw the above. E Eng 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now; I really do need to clear out my watchlist a bit. I used to use it as a way of bookmarking / a "read later" list, since my browser bookmarks are too clogged up to be useful, so now my watchlist is mostly filled with random edits on random pages and overall it's a mess to filter through.

No worries. I can't attend to this without guilt about what I really need to be doing. -- know that feeling all too well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ATTENTION STALKERS! Your leader has been intending to bring this to your attention for some time: Go to Preferences > Watchlist and check the box, "Add direct unwatch/watch markers (×/+) to watched pages with changes". Best thing since sliced bread. When some old article pops up, I take a second to see ... do I want to look at that article again, and do more? Do I care? If not, a single click drops it off my watchlist. Goodbye! E Eng 19:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

From one of your stalkers (with a stalk perhaps worth trimming), two bits of info:

Of no utility whatsoever, when I first saw this section header, I thought incorrectly that it was yet another complaint about this talk page. Fortunately, I was incorrect for the first time in my life.

Of perhaps a little utility, I recently found User:Ahecht/Scripts/watchlistcleaner. You can remove watchlist entries of specific types, and put them in a backup in case you want to restore any particular ones. (I also found User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/CopyvioChecker. You have to subst: it, even though it doesn't say so. I haven't used it yet, but it looks interesting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Had this one left over, just trying to finish the packet.....

		Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda
		So here's some Jingle Wings and some Jingle Navidad Cubana and some Bryn and some Crickmore:Crewe just for you!! Very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 E. MarnetteD\|Talk 03:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, The Roches. E Eng 03:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

They are a treat. That whole Xmas album is a great disc to sing along with while driving around viewing Xmas lights. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 05:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Threats on ANI page, in re "White supremacist" thread

EEng,

Don't bother making threats toward me or counting down the hours. It is unworthy behavior. Just do what you're going to do and don't telegraph the punch. Don't even phone it in. Dynasteria (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. Telegraph. Phone it in. Is that supposed to be some kind of whitebread flyting?^[1] So clever! Get a clue, will you? [24]. E Eng 13:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Is that like flytipping but with rhymes? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's like cow tipping but with more bullshit. Levivich 15:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

omg 😂. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC) (I never give more than 10%, even for a tight Jersey... )

Had he taken even the briefest glance at this page he'd know nothing's unworthy of me. E Eng 15:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng will not replace us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Linked since you probably don't know what that is.

Slip of the tongue

Hey EEng, I just noticed now, and I'm sure it's just a slip of the tongue, but your misspelling of that user's name here is rather unfortunate, and you might want to correct that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It's very sweet of you to bring this unfortunate error to my attention, Aspartame. E Eng 08:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What ever would Sigismund have said? A. P. Orgasma 123 (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably something about my mother. Mother's Panties Tell me about your childhood fantasies... 13:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that EEng can do all manner of things with his tongue. And

is the least of it. --Sweetiefish (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to have sweetened your tongue, EEng! If ever you need any artificial sugarcoating, you know you can count on me. C₁₄H₁₈N₂O₅ Aspartame (talk 🍬) 21:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng, your slips are sweet (as sweet as candy), but honey... Sweet Bono 123 (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It's time for me to lay down the law, before anyone gets hyperglycemia. --Sugar glider (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

One lump or two? -- Sugar me sideways 123 (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

One is plenty, especially if it is laced with LSD. --Lumpy Gravy (sweet talk) 19:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Now just hang on there, you old lumpersucker. I don't want to split hairs... but I think you'll find those are MY wiki lumps!! -- L. Ron Lumpenburger III (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to hang on, old suckermouth. --Lumphead cichlid (Sweet Talk and Good Lies) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess you can't teach an old lump new lumpy tricks -- Weird Al Lumpovic (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC): [25]

You can teach her to sit alone in a boggy marsh though. She's in my head She might be dead... 22:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining Weird Al. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And I thought we were just discussing desserts. But it's become a pain in the aspartame. Too Much Sugar 22:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Talking about me behind my crack, are you now? C₁₄H₁₈N₂O₅ Aspartame (talk 🍬) 23:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Christchurch

But you must see things from my perspective, your name was uttered, I expected nothing. Then a whirlwind of destruction was brought upon the page. I feared that you would go too far and could not be stopped. I wondered if I could call your name when I was in need, I feared that one day you would be called against me. I laughed at your jokes, then cringed at how I would feel if they were directed at me. I read some of your talk page. This world was not meant for me. I shall return to my corner of Wikipedia and hope you never find me. Thank you for your recent work.Dushan Jugum (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You're, um, welcome. I think. Verily and forsooth. E Eng 12:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You don't like WP:LISTGAP fixes? Why?

Hi, EEng. You undid my fixes to the mangled section at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. My intention (as stated in my ES) was to correct WP:LISTGAP errors and to fix the threads that Catchpoke had garbled.

Then, seeing as how your complaint was do not rearrange others' posts like that, I reapplied the fixes to the WP:LISTGAP problem, without doing any rearranging, just correcting the reply/indentation levels (I really just deleted two separate colons). Your response was to tell me to "Cut it out".

Can you elaborate? What do you have against this kind of corrections? WP:TPO specifically enumerates fixing indentation levels ... fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance)... under "Fixing format errors". Please let me know what you don't like about my attempts to make the discussions easier to parse. Thanks,— JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 17:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The extra indent level you removed (in your link above) is one many editors like to use when there are multiple responses to one post. Instead of all responses at the same indent level (which makes it hard to tell how many responses there are and where one editor's response ends and the next begins -- and indeed often causes the reader to miss the first signature buried inside and mistakenly think all the paragraphs were posted by the editor whose sig comes last), the responses "cascade backwards", the first most to the right, the next one indent level less, etc., making it obvious what's going on.

For years we were browbeaten about how irregularities in indenting causes screen readers to "close one list and open another" because some screen reader is trapped in the 1990s. And then came the day I was told by an actual user of a screenreader that it reads our talk pages just fine if only you bother to set certain options right (basically, telling the reader to be less verbose and just read what a sighted user sees). So I've little sympathy for this kind of gnoming, which makes it harder to follow the conversation for a spurious reason. E Eng 17:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an issue that I don't understand on a technical level, but am interested in from the perspective of being helpful to other users. It's something that I previously discussed with Isaacl ([26]), and I would be interested to know what isaacl thinks of the discussion here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate some editors think their response is more directly related to a comment than the immediately following reply, and so choose to interject their response in between, sometimes with extra nesting to make it look different. Yes, it causes extra list start/end announcements (as I recall, Graham87 has confirmed this before), which does correspond to what a sighted user sees, since they see the extra left margin space (which was the point). Thus the interjected reply will have greater prominence to both sets of users. Whether or not interjecting a comment is a desirable talk page practice is a community practice matter, and not technical. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with giving more prominence (though it could be used for that, I suppose), but rather for the reasons I gave above. The technique can be used when putting your response either above or below an existing response. I do sometimes put my response above an existing one where my response is in the manner of a one-off not likely to lead to more back-and-forth, and where the existing post has already led, or is likely to lead, to further discussion. E Eng 19:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to use extra indenting in order to top-post etc. during a discussion. (Although I'm also participating right now in a discussion in which it has reached the level of absurdity: [27].) But I also think that it serves a useful purpose, and really doesn't impose on anyone, to use consistent formatting in terms of ::: or *::, or the like. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you open a thread somewhere, "LISTGAP meets GENDERGAP". E Eng 22:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fall into the gap... --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Falling into the gap is certainl better than succumbing to an affliction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"Prominence" was just a shorthand way of referring to your statement that you wanted to avoid readers "miss[ing] the first signature buried inside and mistakenly think all the paragraphs were posted by the editor whose sig comes last..." isaacl (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - OK. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. I once had someone accuse me of top-posting because I thought my contribution was more important (or, more precisely, he accused my of treating his contribution as less important). E Eng 22:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not everything is a joke!

Woof! El_C 00:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm more confused than ever. E Eng 00:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Puppy paradox? El_C 00:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone call the POLICE! E Eng 00:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I called the canine unit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Advice for dog lovers: don't search YouTube for "dog, spinning, Bulgarians". End of safety announcement. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't search Wikipedia, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

But can be fun, it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thought you might appreciate this recent edit... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

At least Owen doesn't want everyone call him "tree"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC) omg, sorry, I'm such a non-woke binary bitch.

April 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

«I've seen some utterly stupid, moronic, idiotic, and indescribably knuckleheadly vapid images in my time, but this one takes the cake»

High praise! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, when I think back on all the utterly stupid, moronic, idiotic, and indescribably knuckleheadly vapid images I've seen in my time, my head literally spins. For those wondering, we're talking about the image below, which I found in our article on truancy. E Eng 03:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Psiĥedelisto, I didn't know it was you. But COME ON, MAN! What in the world does the reader learn from a photo of a car? If they used a donkey cart to return truants to school, THAT would be worth a picture. E Eng 03:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, clearly, the kids will be more compelled to go to school or the truancy police will grab them forcibly! Hooray for education! This'll really get them paying attention at school. NCLBA or bust... — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) (contribs) 03:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the donkey cart is guarded by a line of policemen, coincidentally all sporting beards (that was originally the first image in the gallery). Heavy Water (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know we had that image there, but I must have been skipping class that day. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The truancy enforcement vehicle returns truant students? Well, I never. If the vehicle was returning hot coffee and bagels for the truancy officer meeting, THAT would be worth mentioning. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Returning hot coffee and bagels? Did the truant students abscond (or, perhaps, absconed) with them? Heavy Water (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Charles III

I don't understand--and would therefore ask for clarification--why the subsection I created on Premiership of Liz Truss was deleted. The stated reason was "Honestly, this has nothing to do with Charles" with no further explanation provided. It is very hard for me to understand how a meeting at which Charles was present somehow has "nothing to do with Charles" and would ask for clarification as to what you mean. Moreover, handling the relationship with the prime minister--especially during times of transition like is presently occurring--is one of the core duties of a constitutional monarch such as Charles and is one of the key reasons why the UK retains a monarch. Far from "having nothing to do with Charles", the King's audience with Truss represents a core example of the King performing one of his key constitutional duties. It is also especially notable because it is the first major example of the King's reign of his performing such duties. I welcome discussion on this, but in the absence of strong clarification of why this content was deleted, I intend to reinstate it in 24 hours. Usually I wait a week, but this change seems so especially egregiously in error that a shorter time frame is called for. If I'm missing something please let me know. Dash77 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Charles_III#Premiership_of_Liz_Truss, and of course my glittering array of talk page stalkers are invited to participate. E Eng 18:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Scotty, engage the tractor beam!

Or maybe it's the gravity of your talk page it's self that keep pulling me back in. BlueNoise (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

DePiep claims he's being personally attacked (47)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Template talk:Convert. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. As you have been informed, you have repeatedly made personal attacks towards me. I explicitly note that this behaviour does also degrade Talkpage's effectiveness, in other words: WP:NOTHERE. DePiep (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, our benighted visitor refers to [28]

I'm tempted to ask how long you think it will be before you realize how completely clueless you are, but then you wouldn't be completely clueless anymore and that would deprive the community of a source of periodic amusement. E Eng 14:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The lesson is to never grasp a stick that has been stuck into a rabbit hole. (Unless you're into that sort of thing.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting that according to WP:RESTRICT#DePiep, DePiep is subject to immediate blocks for assumptions of bad faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Oswald Reference

I found the same story in The Clarion-Ledger and Tampa Bay Times and fixed the reference.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/181149591/?terms=%22morris%20bishop%22%20%22oswald%22&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/319063642/?terms=%22morris%20bishop%22%20%22oswald%22&match=1

Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Kennedy assassination is one of the most scrutinized events in human history. Find a high-quality scholarly source or forget it. E Eng 06:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence submitted at Conduct in deletion-related editing

An editor has submitted one or more edits that were made by you or relate to you as evidence in an ongoing arbitration case. Please note that the editor is not requesting that the Committee add you to the case as a party. You may review the evidence submission at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

[29]. E Eng 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm

I never thought I'd see the day that my UTP would get more pageviews than yours, and that scares me...seriously...sorta. Atsme 💬 📧 16:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you and I are really the same person it's a zero-sum competition. E Eng 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if that's the case - make an appointment for a mani-pedi tomorrow at 10 am. It's long overdue. Atsme 💬 📧 18:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I know that you are not both the same person, because one of you is much prettier than the other. Also, is Mani-Pedia a new WMF project? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the looks because I already know where that might go; however, I will say mani-pedia just might work as a new project! Send the link to my cell phone and we'll see where it ends up (read the planet post below). Atsme 💬 📧 22:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

June music

Thank you for reading my mind, DYK? - Ukrainian peace music was "on" yesterday, with the conductor! + today, another conductor. - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a rich harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've always thought that your long years of work on music-related topics is a great example of a particular area of coverage being steadily improved by an interested and knowledgeable volunteer. E Eng 16:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you, and also for being my voice against pettiness - a word mentioned on top of precious, for a reason. For background: as you may feel we have a history. This nom didn't even mention "created", but was refused for other reasons. "created" was debated no end for previous hooks. The saddest thing was a great singer who performed - with the composer's knowledge, so extra bonus - in the last opera by Camille Saint-Saëns, and instead of saying that we proclaimed that she performed Carmen 3000 times, - pure quantity. (I deleted my credit in the nom, didn't want to take "credit" for that.) I work for quality articles, not quantity. /rant and thanks for helping with that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Richard_Keen,_Baron_Keen_of_Elie, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Brattice (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Always amusing when someone with 86 edits invites someone with 86,000 edits to check out the welcome page. E Eng 16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, this sort of thing is viewed very differently on this side of the pond, compared to the land where they arm bears. It does reflect very badly on his Lordship. It seems that it is considered trivial in Merkia. If somebody broke into his Lordships residence and stole the shotgun, terrible things could happen. If the miscreant could get hold of ammo, for which they'd need a home office licence I believe, and all sorts of Police clearances. I think the deleted section could well be WP:DUE. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Or could well not be. From the sources, it appears this old gent goes shooting weekly in season, and seems this one time to have forgotten to secure his gun before going off on holiday. Now, that's an irresponsible thing to do, and a £1,000 smack on the bot-bot [30] is well deserved to teach him never to do that again. But the article text, with its overspecific talk of contravening (contravening – like he did it on purpose or something) section two of the Firearms Act 1968 (oooh! – section two – 'cause that's, like, the very worst section to contravene) and being fined the sum of £1,000 (which sounds way worse than simply being fined £1,000) makes him out to be Lord Lucan or something. He's a government official so naturally such news was duly reported by the BBC as a matter of record, but whether this apparently isolated incident belongs in his WP bio is a different matter. E Eng 16:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm flummoxed now, I so rarely make any comments here, let alone semi-serious ones. Boris' (note apostrophe usage) entitled priveliged govt here are doing just exactly what we expect of them, and they dont appear dislodgeable. They'll continue with the behind closed doors do what I say not what I do stuff until long after I'm gone. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

What???? E Eng 20:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ignore me, I'm venting. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word "contravene" is standard British English for legal topics. Just like shooting things is a standard Scottish hobby for Lord Keen of Elie and other such "big knobs in their kilts". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Gratuitous sesquipedalianism

Gratuitous Episcopalianism

Gratuitous bacchanalianism ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear that we Americans do not have a monopoly on gratuitous sesquipedalianism. Why not just say "broke the law" rather than "contravened" it? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the reason is that saying "contravened", just like saying "gratuitous sesquipedalianism", makes one sound smarter. (I can, at least, pronounce "contravened".) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, I actually think it's because it makes the offense sound worse -- see Talk:Richard_Keen,_Baron_Keen_of_Elie#Criminal_Conviction. E Eng 01:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The edit was constructive in my opinion, with very clear reasoning in the edit summary. If you disagree with the reasoning, just revert it or start a discussion on the article talk page. This is not the correct forum to discuss it. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ezlev: Nice. See (or maybe rather listen to) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p50lX-O17mQ —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If this TP fizzles out, then I know for sure WP has gone to hell

File:Desenho Alunos - Estúdio França.jpg

A tart drawer --Tartofish

Our options...(1) bring back the round table – hardworking Wikipeedians deserve it, OR (2) let the chips fall where they may, but make sure you're wearing clean underwear before you leave the house, OR...(3) re-tire the humor van...and finally (4) take a number. Feel free to add more options if you think it will do any good. Atsme 💬 📧 21:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

At last, something I can agree with Betty about. This page used to go up and down my watchlist like a tarts drawer's. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Between the apostrophe being absent and me being an American, it took a few seconds for me to get the reference there.

– definitely not pastry. Atsme 💬 📧 10:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Better? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Unlike many other organisms, apostrophes don't often survive long in a tart's drawers. But then this is the EEng Talk page. Feel free to substitute a bride's nightie. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm late, but it's my first break in a while. I will begin by saying that Martin's reference to "other organisms" gave me pause. At first glance I failed to see the letters ni, be it inadvertent or otherwise. I attribute that anomaly to something similar to hearing loss, in that with aging we tend to lose "sight of things" (go ahead, run with it). That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Atsme 💬 📧 22:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"May 12 at 12pm, EDT"

Serious question: "I've just been invited to a webinar at the stated time. Should I join at 00:00 on 12 May, 12:00 on 12 May, or 00:00 on 13 May? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Well let's just hope it's a real blast. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
12pm on 12 May is noon that day. Sometimes people get this mixed up and think it's midnight (which, correctly, is 12am), and it's to avoid confusion along those lines that labor strikes usually start at e.g. 12:01am, since no one's unsure when that is. Unless it's a webinar for vampires, I think you can log in at noon with confidence. E Eng 05:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can 12pm correspond to noon when noon is neither before nor after noon? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
In the 1880s the meridian was moved very slightly to the left, so that its workers could more easily take industrial action. Simples. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Knauss

Given that Knauss no longer occupies the second place on the list of people who staved off death the longest, and the AfD last time was no consensus, any thoughts on another AfD? I'd give it a few weeks, right now passions are high among the longevity fanboys (though Tanaka and Randon are genuinely interesting people, about who there's at least something to work with), but if anything the arguments are stronger than last time around. It also helps that a few of the more disruptive elements from that AfD are now blocked, which should reduce the amount of noise. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

She almost made 120 years old and is the oldest known US citizen ever (third in the world overall). As notable as the day (and her life) is long (she was found to be part tortoise). Maybe consider just leaving her memory, and page, be. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought she summed it up well herself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to this (I've been AWOL a while) but I think this is one we can afford to leave be. The article itself needs a machete taken to it, however. E Eng 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A Widener back story

Hello EEng. "The book that sank on the Titanic and burned in the Blitz" from the BBC mentions Harry Elkins Widener.

The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon
Turns Ashes — or it prospers; and anon,
Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face,
Lighting a little hour or two — is gone.

(the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translated by Edward FitzGerald from q:Omar Khayyám) -- Mirokado (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your bringing this to my attention, but it's certainly nothing more than speculation. Harry Widener apparently did bring a volume of Bacon, which he'd just purchased in London, with him on the voyage, and this has led to the silly story that he missed the lifeboat because he ran back to his cabin for the book. Now, just supposing that he had this ruby-encrusted treasure in his possession as well, one would certainly think the story would be that he went back for it. Even the BBC's text tell us the story is speculation: "Mr Shepherd considers it likely the book was in the safekeeping of bibliophile Harry Elkins Widener ... 'The duty on the book would have been enormous, so he could have been asked to carry it on under his arm,' according to Mr Maggs." E Eng 00:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 885.4 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by You have placed a chill in my heart (talk • contribs) You have placed a chill in my heart (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good luck with that. You need a nice pair of slippers to go with those socks. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And You have placed a cold lasagne on EEng's hearthrug. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Post Hawk

Didn't think it was really appropriate for me to put this at ANI, so here will have to do. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's a wine jug. Thought it was something else. Atsme 💬 📧 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No good reason why it can't be both - reduce, reuse, recycle... Girth Summit _(blether) 12:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't yet had time to find a suitable picture of a propter hawk. Levivich 00:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Improper hawk? [31] E Eng 02:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The Latin phrase originates from a Roman law forbidding the sale of waffles while drunk: post hock Eggo improper hawk. Levivich 03:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1

This may be of interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem there is (in Conan Doyle's phrasing) that mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself. Her website's down now, but Teresa Nielsen Hayden once called the article "Wikipedia as art: a deft, beautiful, possibly even perfect entry"; but of course WP:MISSSNODGRASS knows better.

You and Johnbod are doing a crackerjack job. E Eng 07:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not going to believe this, but he's now forum-shopping this to various noticeboards: [32], [33]. I guess I'll lend a hand:

Feedback request

Editors are invited to comment on the article "Sacred Cod"'s use of style at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sacred Cod/1. ɱ (talk) 8:19 pm, Today (UTC−4)

E Eng 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Following up the above, editors are invited to comment on certain inpopcult items at Talk:Massachusetts State House#Inpopcult trivia. E Eng 07:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi EEng. I just closed the reassessment discussion of Sacred Cod. I must say I wasn't too impressed with the tone of the discussion, and your role in that. You have enough experience to know to focus on content, rather than contributor. And I believe you've got enough of a sense of humor to diffuse tense situations. If you're annoyed a contributor does not know what a euphemism is, why not explain rather than expressing annoyance? And a phrase like "can you not count to 1" was also not called for. All of our energy is better spent improving articles. Femke (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I believe I can say, in all modesty, that I did indeed do as you suggest, that is, use humor to diffuse the conflict. In an ideal world there's hope for some Dunning-Krugers, but this one's beyond help, as you'll have already seen in his response to your post on his talk page [34]. He's still convinced that he's right and everyone else is wrong. E Eng 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
My take on it, is that humor only made the situation worse here (for instance, the joke about "I'll wire the money to the usual numbered account." may have given the impression of an in-crowd), and that invoking Dunning-Krugers in particular borderlines a personal attack. Femke (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Again, I appreciate your taking the time, but I have a feeling you didn't click on the link in my post just above, which I'll repeat here more explicitly: WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. There was no making the situation better or worse, because Mr. or Ms. MJ's humorless rigidity of mind made educating him impossible. (You're probably unaware of the several rounds of interaction prior to his opening the GAR. And even after the GAR was all over but the shouting, he was POINTily restoring trivia I'd removed from another article, apparently thinking that it was somehow equivalent to the material he objected to in Sacred Cod.) E Eng 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As someone who participated and endorsed "keep", I will remind my friend the humorist of WP:2WRONGS. (Splendid essay, because I wrote it, and if the shoe fits... ) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed a splendid essay, but as described just above, I'd given up trying to make anything right so I figured we may as well all have some fun along the way -- those of us capable of it, anyway. E Eng 20:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Disease and desist (1800s)

Nash the Ogden Slash --ME123

Slash the Smash but not Nash--Tryptofish

I Can See Clearly Now

Slash Pine Seedworm Moth (no Nash) --ME123

Off-topic for this section, but in the general spirit of having fun along the way (no, I'm not encouraging you, but, whatever), I found this recent diff to be priceless: [35]. Those long diseases! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean Decease and desist. E Eng 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that's what the person in that diff meant. I suppose being long-deceased is the ultimate long-disease. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

A mighty creature is the germ,

Though smaller than the pachyderm.

His customary dwelling place

Is deep within the human race.

His childish pride he often pleases

By giving people strange diseases.

Do you, my popet, feel infirm?

You probably contain a germ.

.... Ogden Rash (ME123)

This page definitely doesn't have enough Ogden Nash. Thanks for doing your part! E Eng 22:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

But don't be rash. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I find among the poems of Schiller

No mention of the caterpillar,

Nor can I find one anywhere

In Petrarch or in Baudelaire,

So here I sit in extra session

To give my personal impression.

The caterpillar, as it is called,

Is often hairy, seldom bald;

It looks as if it never shaves;

When as it walks, it walks in waves;

And from the cradle to the chrysalis

Is utterly speechless, songless, whistless.

.... Ogden baby slash pine seedworm moth (Tfish)

It appears that this section of EEng's talkpage is located in Nashville. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Outreach

I teach history to a Year 5 class - that's 9-10 year olds. We're doing the Ancient Greeks, and they were working on informational posters about the Olympian gods. Having exhausted the meagre pickings that our textbooks afforded, I encouraged them to find interesting facts to add on Wikipedia. One of the girls said "My dad says that you shouldn't trust Wikipedia, it's full of rubbish." I told her that, while people can come along and change things, there are lots of people who keep an eye on it and make sure that the information is correct, and that I do a lot of writing there myself. She thought about that for a bit, and then asked, innocently and seriously, "So, are you the one who makes up all the rubbish?" Girth Summit _(blether) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, are you??? E Eng 22:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, yes, obviously, but how would she know? I think they're onto us... Girth Summit _(blether) 23:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I added a carefully-crafted beautiful origami crane only this morning, see bottom right. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, let's be very clear: I'm the one who makes up most of the rubbish. The rest of you junkyard dogs are mere pretenders. And that crane is a real whopper! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If I'm being honest with myself, I spend so much time at SPI now that I can claim very little credit for the addition of new rubbish. My main contribution is preventing people from recycling rubbish, which I don't suppose is looked on favourably these days. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Looky here: [36]! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In response to your comments at the MoS

I will respond here because of WP:NOTFORUM, but only briefly. My point is simply that written and spoken language serve separate purposes, and that written language can and often does have a separate, independent existence from spoken language, to the point where its ability to be spoken is irrelevant. Furthermore, I wanted to clearly indicate that spoken language is not inherently dominant over or primary to written language (i.e. the 'base' to writing's 'superstructure'). I was thinking of Classical Chinese, and more specifically, Kanbun. Certainly, Kanbun can be read out as it is written, but no one will understand what it means if that is done. It will simply be a bunch of random, incomprehensible sounds, which is what one hears when one listens to something like a monk reciting the Heart Sutra. That can hardly be considered 'spoken language', if 'language' is defined as something that conveys meaning. Kanbun can only have meaning when one reads the specific characters displayed, and deciphers their meaning through their association with ideas, irrespective of sound. If one looks at the unaltered text of the Heart Sutra, it is possible to decipher it in a way that is not possible from hearing it spoken. It functions solely as a written text, rather than a spoken text. Furthermore, Kanbun offers a mode of translation, called kundoku, which can 'translate' Classical Chinese into a version of Japanese that can be spoken and understood. This is a complicated process, but it is only possible because the text is capable of existing independent of sound and spoken language, through the use of Chinese characters. I don't care to write more here, but if you read Japanese, you might consider reading Fukuda Tsuneari's Watakushi no Kokugo Kyoushitsu for more information. RGloucester — ☎ 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Our royal visitor refers to [37].

All you're telling me is that either (a) Kanbun never was the writing system of a natural language (and my comments explicitly restricted themselves to natural languages), or (b) whatever spoken form or forms it once had are no longer in use, and therefore incomprehensible to listeners today. By your reasoning, Egyptian hieroglyphic doesn't represent spoken language.

If you read English, you might consider reading John Wilkins's An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language for more information. (Though in many ways completely wrong, it's still full of insight and very pleasurable to read). E Eng 17:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to look, but does MOS currently discourage using the apostrophe as in Jesus' or Sisyphus'? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It's true, you really are lazy. WP:Manual_of_Style#Singular_nouns. E Eng 18:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

That from someone who had to point out that he is not a moron, because otherwise it would have not been clear: [38]. By the way, I have no opinion either way in the argument you are having here, because arguing about MOS is like counting angels on the head of a pin. I mean, really, why have a rule about Sisyphus's but not Sisyphus', and then make an exception only for sake? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

My anxiety to state the obvious stemmed from uncertainty about perspicacity of my interlocutor (see, for example, his post below) not the objective facts. E Eng 02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You did not clearly limit your comments to so-called 'natural languages' (and I would dispute the validity of that term anyway). I was responding to your proclamation that 'writing is fundamentally a visual embodiment of speech'. If you cannot see that this is not the case, I do not know what to tell you. Kanbun is a written language that works by conveying ideas, rather than sound. The ideas can be related to a comprehensible sound after the fact through a complex system of translation, but ideas are its primary mode of function. But as I say, I yield. I should not've expected much understanding for this cause in this, a place of 功利主義( utilitarianism). RGloucester — ☎ 20:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

You did not clearly limit your comments to so-called 'natural languages' – What part of That writing (in natural languages, anyway) represents that which can be spoken is a bedrock axiom [39] escaped your comprehension?
and I would dispute the validity of that term anyway – Chomsky would disagree with you [40] but maybe you know better. If you like I can get you on the phone with one one of his students so you can make your case.

You call this a place of utilitarianism like it's a bad thing! E Eng 02:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You might consider the chronology of your remarks, and see that, at the time I took issue with your proclamation, you had yet to make any such specification. You might take note that I attempted to demonstrate my point above. Anyone that understands Chinese characters can understand the meaning of the above, irrespective of sound. Ruby characters can be added to indicate sound, but this is a secondary consideration. Even English can easily be written in Chinese characters, primarily because the characters function primarily in the realm of ideas, rather than that of sound. But I yield, I yield! For in this, the world of today, language has been reduced to a mechanical, machine-readable mode of industrial communication. Ambiguity is despised, interpretation unnecessary. In such a world, it is no surprise that the phoneticists reign supreme. If only I were as learned as the great Mr EEng, I wonder what my life might have been. Alas, I have been condemned to the domain of the folderol, for I am so impudent as to seek the treasures hidden in the land of things immaterial. Farewell, RGloucester — ☎ 13:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I yield, I yield! – And yet like a moth to the flame you keep returning for more.
at the time I took issue with your proclamation, you had yet to make any such specification – You continued taking issue long after I "made the specification" i.e. spelled out for you that which is taken for granted by anyone who knows the first thing about the subject, and even now the Dunning-Kruger effect blinds you to what a fool you continue making of yourself – as usual.
If only I were as learned as the great Mr EEng – Let's take things in achievable steps – maybe start by being as learned as you imagine yourself to be.
Ambiguity is despised, interpretation unnecessary ... I am so impudent as to seek the treasures hidden in the land of things immaterial – Oh poor you, stranded in your mountaintop cave gazing into your navel, alone and unwanted, with nary a single visit from supplicants seeking enlightenment for lo these many years now. I'm a published author in computer science and the history of medicine and a major literary journal so if you're casting around for technocrats reducing language to a mechanical, machine-readable mode of industrial communication, aim your Mr. Magoo blunderbuss elsewhere please. Maybe you find yourself siloed off in some intellectual backwater, but I am not.
Farewell! – If only it were so, O Honourable Member for the 15th century.

E Eng 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. Still no word from your nephews? Between you and me I'm beginning to worry something's happened to them.

You are verily irascible, Mr EEng, and yet, I am left no choice but to prostrate myself before you. For what it is worth, I am also a published author. Regrettably, I am relegated to the inconsequential field of Japanese studies. I also reckon that I am quite green in comparison to you, Mr EEng. Perhaps with the benefit of age, I shall come to understand the nature of your opinions on this matter, and indeed, your greatness in the general sense. In the meantime, I do hope you might consider that you may well be a victim of the very phenomenon you cite, and that there may be alternative viewpoints on this subject that allow for the acknowledgement of the intangible value pregnant in a language of ideas, independent from the realm of the spoken. In any case, I hope I have not engendered in you any sort of hostility. Forgive me, Mr EEng. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You are verily irascible – I'm not angry or upset in the slightest.
I am also a published author – I raised the point only because you counted me (and please don't deny it) among those reducing language to a mechanical, machine-readable blah blah blah blah blah.
you might consider that you may well be a victim of the very phenomenon you cite – Not likely. I really know this stuff.
alternative viewpoints – Unfortunately you reject basic definitions of linguistics, so there's no common ground from which to discuss whatever it is you keep trying to say.
I hope I have not engendered in you any sort of hostility – All are welcome. Just please try to read carefully what the others are saying, and respond to that instead of something you're imagining theysaid.

E Eng 20:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Both you guys sure is erudite! Hot diggity! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Be quiet or Gloucester and I will have you murdered in the Tower. E Eng 20:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm simply trying to figure this out. You're concerned about the perspiration of your interrogator, and he's got a green prostate. And I still don't know what's so special about saké. And now there's a test? Involving Mordor? (When the moon hits your eye like a big piece of pie, that's a moron! That's a moron!) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, I think you'll find it's actually a moray: [41]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC) And hey, EEng, hands off our favourite Honourable Plonker for the 18th century!! p.s. "Like a gay tarantella... Lucky fella..."

Oh, I know that! It's a particularly popular joke in the aquarium hobby. And besides, I'm no moron. (For that matter, it isn't a big piece of pie, either, paisan.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a BLP!

[42], in case the curator is amused. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My boyfriend was just in India and he assures me that they definitely do not need more stray dogs there. E Eng 23:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'm inclined to think that we don't need that page either; I've had it on my watchlist for a long time because I feel like it could perhaps be an AfD candidate, but I just haven't felt motivated to act on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I demand justice

I demand satisfaction! #BringBackDuellingOnWiki CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓

You can't get satisfaction! #YouCan'tHandleItEither --Tryptofish

If I were to do something like this I would be disowned by every administrator on Wikipedia. If only I've been around as long as you have... Panini!^🥪 18:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and the Lilliputians would have disowned you, too. Or it that the same thing? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You're right, and EEng has been disowned by every administrator on Wikipedia. It's the standard RFA acceptance: "I have no other accounts, have not edited for pay, and disown EEng." Levivich 19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Not just admins. It comes with getting autoconfirmed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

In all modesty I thought it was one of my more inspired ones. Mute eloquence and so on. EEng 17:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Quite so. I put it on mute. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- DYK.... that Jimbo Gulliver, was "First an Adult Content Surgeon, and then a Seller of non-Fungible Tokens"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  - Did you know ... that a porn magnate started a porn magnet and then sold a fraud magnet? (It's a matter of sorrow to me that "did you know Wikipedia was founded by an Objectivist and a QAnon believer" would be vetoed on sight even if I could line up the GAs on time.) Vaticidalprophet 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    - Better than being a ""business magnet", I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      - Or a refrigerator magnet. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
        Or a gamer magnet. Aasim (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
        
        Or these annoying things. Panini!^🥪 13:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you know...

...that this link can get even the best article to suck? Primergrey (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never understood why people talk about sucking like it's a bad thing. E Eng 06:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Or about blowing like it's a good thing. Primergrey (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I can go on record saying I've never done that (either giving or receiving) and never want to. Yuck. It's one of the reasons I miss Flyer22, who could explain topics like that that just go completely over my head. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Oi, Threesie. Are you just blowing hot and cold over this? Kevin Suckpants 123 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that the British just prefer something else Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ooh yes, pass the cucumber sandwiches, would you, good chap? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Whereas here in America, we have the giant sucking sound. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

How very appropriate that "Fred Clintstone, supported NAFTA". We have still plenty of giant sucking over here in the UK. But it's mostly the sound of the Moggfather and the Disco Animal sucking up to Boris. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard many times that Boris sucks. I looked at the lead image of the Disco Animal, and it's the quintessential face of a Disco Animal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You might say that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

John Lindsay budget table

Thank you for bringing up turning the budget section into a table. I don't know of any good tables to use for it since the only time I use them is for election stuff. I put the information into that dump just to hold it for the future if I found a good table. Do you have any suggestions? Give me one and I will transfer it into that. Jon698 (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "a good table to use" -- you can make your own table with whatever formats you want; there are tables in lots of articles so click Edit to see how they work. But don't lose sight of my other point: does the reader benefit from all these details, regardless of the form of presentation? E Eng 03:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Biden - the oldest first-term U.S. president

If you think the fact that Biden is the oldest president in US history is "idiocy" and "trivia", why don't you remove the same fact from the article about Donald Trump? I think consistency should be one of our goals here. Felix558 (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Felix558, it belongs in the article somewhere (and without looking, I'm confident it's there); the idiocy consists in thinking it belongs in the already-very-overburdened lead. I encourage you to get it removed from the lead of the Trump article as well. E Eng 03:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

EEng#s While you are obviously entitled to discuss this matter, you are not entitled to make unilateral changed, especially when you see that most users disagree with you. You seem to be in the minority and most users think that the media coverage and discussion about him being the oldest is such that it merits inclusion. Please discuss before you unilaterally remove it again. I not, I will have to report you to the edit-warring pageEccekevin (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Eccekevin, report away. The longstanding lead (at least back to late November [43] -- I didn't check further than that) does not include this, and you're attempting to force it in because you misunderstand the nature of the Wikipedia consensus process. E Eng 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What does it matter what the lede was in November? He's only been president since yesterday.Eccekevin (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

He was on track to the be the oldest president since the moment he was elected; the fact that he took office yesterday doesn't make this suddenly some new and amazing fact no one thought of before. E Eng 20:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

'on track' means nothing. Yesterday, he became the oldest sitting president in the 230 year history of the United States. Clearly, most users think it deserves a mention, especially given the media and online overage around his age (as a reminder, Wikipedia is based on sources, not opinions).Eccekevin (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is about reasons, not headcounts. And as demonstrated at the article talk, if we used a count of sources as the criterion then we'd be putting the rescue dogs in the lead as well. E Eng 00:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, the rescue dogs aren't in the lead? OMG, he broke his foot on one of them! Possibly while naked! Clearly that's lead territory. —valereee (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) —valereee (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, in many jurisdictions dogs are required to be on the lead. While you're here, V, you might pop over and have a talk with Eccekevin about BRD. E Eng 01:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) P.S. And don't think I forgot about you-know-what. Right now I'm working on User:Levivich/Seussipedia

FWIW, Biden is getting older, while ya'll argue here & at the Biden page. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, we're all getting older. As for arguing, I'm still waiting for any actual arguments over on the talk page. E Eng 01:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that he is the oldest has specifically made headlines across national and international publications is an excellent reason.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]Eccekevin (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Same for Biden's dogs [44]. E Eng 01:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a false parallelism. People.com, CNN, and Countryliving(UK) are not really the same standard as all the national and international newspapers listed above. Please find a better argument.Eccekevin (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Somehow you missed WSJ, Reuters, NBC News, NPR, USA Today, and CBS News -- and those are just from the first two pages of results. Any more objections? E Eng 03:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Those are in the 'Entertainment'. 'Celebrities' and "Animals' sections, not politics. Very different tone and importance. Not all sources are equal. But if you want to argue for its inclusion, don't let me step in your way. That is not what this discussion is about, this seems like whataboutism. Eccekevin (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources are reliable, which is what matters, and you've got a couple of "Style" section links in there yourself. And you misunderstand WP:WHATABOUTism. E Eng 03:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In the midst of this? I just discovered that my country's governor general has resigned. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
My deepest condolences, GoodDay. But while you're here... should the lead of her article say she's the oldest governor general ever? E Eng 04:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

In Payette's case, the "crankiest governor general ever". GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So in what passes for a constitutional crisis in Canada, Richard Wagner gets to stand in as the person who does nothing until a proper replacement can be found? I'm jealous. If only US politics could be so boring. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Canadian media tries to make it sound like a constitutional crisis, but it's quite a non-event within Canada. I in favour of the abolishing of the office. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Peter, Josh. "Joe Biden will become the oldest president in American history, a title previously held by Ronald Reagan". USA TODAY. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Happy birthday, Joe: 78-year-old Biden will be oldest US president to enter office". the Guardian. 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Birthday time: Biden turns 78, will be oldest U.S. president". AP NEWS. 20 November 2020.
^ Zak, Dan. "Joe Biden, 78, will lead an American gerontocracy". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ Diaz, Johnny (18 January 2021). "Biden Is the Oldest President to Take the Oath". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.
^ "Biden to Become Oldest President Ever at Inauguration". Bloomberg.com. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

I joined the 300+ club and all I got was...

Sorry, EEng, forgot a shout out back in August when I, myself, reached that milestone (diff). Felt like it was a bit of a pyrrhic victory (the 300 Spartans, to be specific), but I know you're not one to be weighed by earthly things... Anyway, how about I image macro you, for once! El_C 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, usage of Template:External media noted for further spammage! El_C 15:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

In all sincerity, what's the 300+ club? I haven't got that many blocks yet. E Eng 00:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking seriously the "in all sincerity" part, so just in case you were actually asking, he means the number of talk page sections. And if you actually knew that all along, never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The inquiry was sincere, and thanks to you I am now unriddled. E Eng 03:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, maybe someday, I'll be unriddled too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I do hope so. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That's okay, I can help make that happen for you! El_C 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ahem. I think you'll find they were actually Epirotes not Spartans, as such. Plutarchivans123 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin, you're a true classic! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Undesysoppables"

Having managed to provide evidence that led to a desysop, I'm not sure "undesyoppables" is really a thing. Of course I think the recent block was heavy-handed and ill advised, but it didn't last very long and was swiftly overturned. It's not like anyone's running around blocking "content creators" left, right and centre, is it? (Or is it?) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing closed discussions

Hi there. I recently reverted one of your edits to that closed discussion at WP:AN and Levivich reverted me back, saying it was not a rule. Would you mind moving that file to outside the archive box? It would be really appreciated, thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No I won't, because the external media box can't perform its function except in the place I put it. What's the big deal? Leave it alone. E Eng 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I must admit I found that (somewhat appropriate) 12-second clip quite hilarious. But let's face it EEng, that thread... is worse than that, it's dead, Jim! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Will you two shut up! People are trying to sleep! El_C 18:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

"Some of us have civility standards, you know!!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish throws a temper tantrum

You've been subjected to a certain amount of... whatever, over the past day or so. So I figured I'd tell you about something ridiculous that I encountered on-wiki today, in the hope that it will bring a smile to everyone here. (I'm not looking to give the guilty party a hard time. Just let it pass.) But (as Atsme will well remember), a little while back I created a fake "user warning" template that is based upon The Wikipedia Pissoff Award^TM, which everyone can feast their eyes upon here. Clearly this is very serious bizness.

So today, I made this revert: [45]. What I reverted was an editor making it look like this. Note the "documentation" at the bottom. Which made it into a "real" user warning template. Which set off a bot to "subst:" it where it occurs.

I'm picturing some earnest editor seeing the "uw" part of it and deciding that it just absolutely had to be properly set up as a user warning, with level 1, level 2, and so on. Either that, or they out-smarted me, and hoisted me by my own fishy petard by duly following the instructions, and pissing me off! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Brave. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

😂 Atsme 💬 📧 23:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I like that it had an |escalate_to= parameter. The sequence should be piss off, bugger off, fuck off ... EEng 00:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I have lighthearted stuff to relate! An astrophysicist who's fucked up pinging like ten times in various places, and it's killing me I can't say to her, "It's not rocket science." —valereee (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you know "it's not exactly brain surgery" either, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Tame assassination

Ben Franklin once wrote:

What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive when his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.

A Cornell Law professor suggests:

Franklin, recognizing that presidents might sometimes “render [themselves] obnoxious,” recommended a formal, constitutional mechanism for bringing them to justice instead of what he saw as the inevitable alternative: assassination. Or, to put it differently, impeachment was an attempt to domesticate, to tame, assassination ... I suggest that, in the context of presidential impeachment, we accept Franklin’s provocative invitation—an invitation that scholars have thus far ignored—to view impeachable offenses as (what might otherwise be) assassinable offenses ... These heretofore unexplored connections suggest that assassinability may appropriately provide the substantive criteria for impeachability. But assassination as a means of executive removal has significant drawbacks. It is politically disruptive; it carries a high risk of irreversible error; and it is, of course, violent.

Thought you'd find this amusing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

An eloquent reminder that justice does not consist in giving the guy what -- truth be told -- he richly deserves. E Eng 01:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incivility by EEng. Thank you. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 21:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Closed re Self-referential humor

Oh, for fuck's sake! PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Inexperienced closer. I'm absolutely slammed RRL, so blatantly canvassing Levivich, Tryptofish, David Eppstein, Ritchie333, and anyone else who cares about keeping the forces of darkness at bay. TO THE BARRICADES! E Eng 04:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho!

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec19b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth

Your input (as a person who understands how to write well) would be welcome at Talk:Sojourner Truth. 64.26.99.248 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but I have an extremely important IRL project for the next 6+ months which will severely limit my WP participation. E Eng 17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for responding. If you happen to think of someone else who might be able to help, I would be happy to have a suggestion (but if not that's fine, too). 185.104.139.23 (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps one among my glittering salon of talk page stalkers would be able to help. E Eng 17:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Easily distracted?

Easily distracted? Can't concentrate on that latest Wikipedia rant?? Need to bring that hopeless article to GA review in only 3 hours??? You need.... The Isolator!! Available from all good local Wiki-stores today! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if it would have protected Phineas Gage? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Might be used in conjunction with Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. EEng 23:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- Only by assholes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Avocados

⚠ Look, Hass Avocados have a very important place in the dinner table of society. For one thing, guacamole. Don't insult that legendary fruit by mentioning them in the same breath as reprehensible avvocatos, or for that matter, abogados, advogados, avocates, or avocats _{(you can see a picture of an "avocat" in the post immediately above this one)}. Of all the nerve, EEng. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll have to remember the avo-cat gag for future use. E Eng 22:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention Advocaat,

Jip Orlando (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

EEng is a reliable Harvard Advocate. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

More like a Harvard Advocate. E Eng 22:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

True story: when I was on the poetry board of the Harvard Advocate, there was someone who, today, is a fairly prominent person in conservative Republican politics (whom I won't name for BLP purposes) who was (of course) on the business board, and he showed up one day with a copy of that other Advocate and made snide and somewhat homophobic jokes about the similar magazine names. He was a jerk then, and continued to be one later in life. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I dropped by the Harvard Archives and did a little research to figure out who you're talking about. When I was in school he was a well-known closet case. And an asshole, of course. E Eng 07:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, the person I'm referring to seems unlikely to me to have been gay, closeted or not. There are so many assholes in that area of US politics, of course, that we might very well be talking about two different holes. The person I'm talking about was class of 1978 and never sought elective orifice, I mean, office. On the other hand, one of my roommates was closeted, and really a sad case of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I made all that stuff up. E Eng 02:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly, I was suspicious, because there's no such thing as the Harvard Archives (although the Harvard Advocate has archives, of a sort). But – you asshole!^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Immediately after posting that, my next stop on my watchlist led me to see the lede image at Osteopathy, and its caption. Draw your own conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I read an article in The Advocate (magazine) years ago that quoted The Advocate (Lousiana) without clarifying that they were in fact talking about a different Advocate. The only reason it didn't confuse me is I had previously learned of the Louisiana paper by typing in theadvocate.com instead of advocate.com—an ambiguity which is now reflected in the articles' hatnotes. Incidentally, today I was cutting some stats cruft from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and noticed that it claims that the (Louisiana) Advocate used to discriminate against LGBT people, while our article on the paper doesn't mention this. The cited source doesn't look great; maybe someone else here wants to get to the bottom of it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

OJ Simpson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:O._J._Simpson#How_should_we_treat_Simpson's_%E2%80%9Cculpability%E2%80%9D_in_the_murders;_neutral_or_adamant?

I have raised the discussion as to whether how we should reflect's Simpson's culpability for the "crime of the century", much like LHO is named "guilty". Discussions open here. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

My only comment is that BLP still applies for six months minimum, and I'd suggest longer in this case. E Eng 21:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The talk section is "How should we treat Simpson's “culpability” in the murders; neutral or adamant?" 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've got grading to do. E Eng 21:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hakikatco

Hi EEng, how are you? This comment [46] of yours is a suggestion to block Hakikatco, right? But the place you posted it was in the "User:Kaalakaa Disruptive editor" subsection, which is Hakikatco's counter report on me. Could you please move it up from that subsection to Hakikatco's section? Not only to avoid misunderstandings, but also to easily count the number of editors who support the block. You might also want to link "to be on the safe side" in your comment to this diff of Hakikatco's comment, to show that you quoted the phrase from him. Or if you don't want to do any of that, can you at least please specify in that comment who you're suggesting to block? Thank you. Feel free to delete this post of mine if you want, though. — Kaalakaa ^(talk) 17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I've modified my post to prevent any chance of misinterpretation. E Eng 18:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

[1] I've checked and so far as I can see, kowtow is not considered a culturally insensitive term. But maybe you know better. If you prefer I'll substitute genuflect [1]. -E Eng

[2] Darned Chinks. I'm so offended, ~~I've resigned twice.~~ I'm in self-isolation for 14 days. -Martinevans123 (talk)

[3] Cisgender people don't get a vote.

[4] Linked since you probably don't know what that is.

[5] Peter, Josh. "Joe Biden will become the oldest president in American history, a title previously held by Ronald Reagan". USA TODAY. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[6] "Happy birthday, Joe: 78-year-old Biden will be oldest US president to enter office". the Guardian. 20 November 2020. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[7] "Birthday time: Biden turns 78, will be oldest U.S. president". AP NEWS. 20 November 2020.

[8] Zak, Dan. "Joe Biden, 78, will lead an American gerontocracy". Washington Post. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[9] Diaz, Johnny (18 January 2021). "Biden Is the Oldest President to Take the Oath". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[10] "Biden to Become Oldest President Ever at Inauguration". Bloomberg.com. 19 January 2021. Retrieved 21 January 2021.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]