Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this user asks you to take precautions: 1. Maintain social distancing by starting new posts in new sections, to avoid contaminating other users. 2. Follow the one-way system by putting new posts at the bottom. 3. Sign your comments to facilitatecontact tracing.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

(a/o February 2, 2016: 131 stalkers, 81/89 "active"[6])

• [7] fromDave Allen (comedian) -- about whom, I am sorry to say, I knew until today. Well worth your 2m45s.EEng
• [8]

From Pacific Gas & Electric Company's"Power Quality Bulletin No. 2: Stray voltage":

Have you ever been shocked near a swimming pool when you touched a metal fixture, or even in your home, when you touched the showerhead fixture? And for dairy farmers, have you noticed a reduction in milk production?

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

Surely you don't imagine I'd pose a shibboleth you can look up on Google. I'd like to give him a day or two to show off his knowledge[9] before I open the secret envelope. For some reason these poseurs often think they can get away with an MIT imposture (this one was a "professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing" who had"armies of grad students and PhD candidates who work in my labs" – "I'm a computer lawyer" seems to be a common fantasy) but rarely, for some reason, Harvard. You can always tell a Harvard man, I guess.EEng05:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoarding all of the juicy secret information that I hold close to the vest, known only to the select few who attended theCity College of San Francisco,San Francisco State Universityand the gloriousUniversity of San Francisco. These Cambridge nerds like my brother-in-law must be put in their places.Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it06:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to think I'm making this up, butUCSF's Laurel Heights Campus is build over the cemetery where ol'Phineas Gage was originally buried. Cross my heart.EEng06:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As avery young man (after high school but before college), I worked at Kaiser Hospital on Geary Boulevard, where they were digging up Gold Rush era graves during relentless medical center expansions. Mind you, I was not there during the actual Gold Rush. But they needed to create a special city,Colma, California, to accommodate all of the exhumed graves.Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it08:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Colma has 1800 living residents and 1.5 million dead; the town's (unofficial?) motto is "It's great to be alive in Colma!" For the full story see the source cited here[10], and there's a nice map of the four cemeteries that used to surround Lone Mountain here[11]; Gage was buried in "Laurel Hill Cemetery" (which was itself called simply "Lone Mountain Cemetery" until its name was changed in the mid-1860s).EEng18:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Attention,Isaidnoway...) Our ex-lecturer–lawyer having demurred to respond, here are the answers to the four posers posed atWP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive999#Personal_attacks_by_User:BostonBowTie:

• • (1) Immediately as you leave MIT for Harvard there's a sign that famously provides an unintentional pun when seen from just the right vantage. What is it?Answer: Themetropolitan storage warehouse — fire proof next to the railroad tracks, which if you stand in the right place readsrage warehouse — ire proof.
  • (2) According to tradition, one MIT president had some famous last words. What were they?Answer: "Bituminous coal", according to legend the last words of MIT founderWilliam Barton Rogers before he dropped dead on the commencement dais. See[12].
  • (3) What MIT library makes you go around in circles?Answer: Barker Library, inside theGreat Dome; see the map here[13].
  • (4) What was kept overnight in a car trunk during the Apollo 13 emergency?Answer: MIT's copy of the Apollo guidance system's gyros, to verify their performance at very low temperatures. Search "trunk" in[14]. (If you like that sort of thing at all then this book[15] is outstanding.)

EEng20:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(5) What's long as hell, has threads from five years ago on it, and would be trivially easy to archive, despite its owner refusing to do so for no apparent reason?jp×g🗯️06:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:User talk:Tryptofish.EEng03:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you. --Tryptofish (talk)00:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to say^[FBDB]. At least I hope you forgot.EEng00:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so sure. --Tryptofish (talk)00:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For striking a balance between humor and insight, and for having the only page on Wikipedia visible from spacecymru.lass (talk •contribs)19:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just editingList of accordionists (as one does) and suddenly thought I aboutyou, forsome reason.Martinevans123 (talk)22:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That video is hilarious.EEng13:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

👏👏👏 --Tryptofish (talk)22:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that list be compressed.EEng23:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is when it is compressed, then expanded, then compressed again, and then expanded again. --Tryptofish (talk)23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Donald's got a squeeze box, Melania never sleeps at night":[16]Martinevans123 (talk)23:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"And now a word from our sponsor,A Stable Genius."Martinevans123 (talk)19:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Took a stab at it.EEng16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stab? --Tryptofish (talk)22:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In all honestly the unfortunate background meaning did occur to me as I typed, but I was too lazy to backspace.EEng22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. We all appreciate your cutting sense of humor. --Tryptofish (talk)00:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scrolling throughWP:DRAMABOARD, appreciatedthis.SITH(talk)17:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I had to thank that edit just for the sheer absurdity of it.Only in death does duty end (talk)16:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he did become chairman the caption could read "Guy Standing in the chair".EEng16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Guy Standing in the "Stand Up..." chair.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's outrageous. I wouldn't take an edit like thatsitting down, if I were you!Martinevans123 (talk)16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but will he leave the post in good standing?∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss17:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding.Martinevans123 (talk)17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of brevity...Standing, he rose to the occasion. (I shudder to think where this might lead us).^{Atsme✍🏻📧}18:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Custer's Last Stand (allegedly).Martinevans123 (talk)18:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Perhaps you're looking forWP:ONEGOODGOOFDESERVESANOTHER. As for a classification system, you mean like the Library of Congress system, something like

  AA - Sarcasm, personal

  AB - Sarcasm, topical

  AT - Sarcasm, theory and techniques

  AZ - Sarcasm not otherwise classified

  BA - Beatdowns, ANI

  BB - Beatdowns, they were begging for it

  BE - Beatdowns, editsummary

  BT - Beatdowns, talkpage

--? Or were you thinking of something more like an index in a book?EEng01:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing complex. Just easy to remember keywords - example above would have keywords like errors, mistakes, blunders, humiliation, ridicule, etc. The keywords would fit in the 1st line under the section title. That would allow for a "find" operation.^{Atsme✍🏻📧}01:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realize this page was such a resource for others. Well, let's think about it. BTW you'll see some anchors if you open in edit mode.EEng01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I confused what you guys talking about? Subliminal metaphor about a wikipedia topic. Atsme approached argument different than I did. More than one way to get the right answer.Brian Everlasting (talk)22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling through your talk page discussions, I was wondering why has everyone left only section headings on your talk page – and then I realised that was just the toc :D Has anyone asked you ever to consider archiving your table of contents because they took a long time scrolling to the bott? (No, I'm not asking you to do that) :DLourdes01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First time anyone's mentioned it. ;P BTW, there's a "JUMP TO BOTTOM" button at the top of the page.EEng01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One time I accidentally clicked on EEng's talk page on my mobile. Luckily I was able to throw the phone a safe distance before it exploded.Leviv ich02:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's only 1941 kB of pure fun.^Atsme📣📧03:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, archive your talk page! It's reaching ridiculous DGG-lengths.Liz^Read!Talk!04:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No notLuke's dad. I wanted to make you aware of this threadWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility from EEng since the person who started it failed to do so.MarnetteD|Talk03:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard regarding incivility atWikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:GENDERID_and_death. The thread isIncivility_from_EEng. .

I don't know what the history is there, but you're not being constructive in that discussion.Nblund^talk03:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Roger, Roger.EEng10:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please send my your address so I can have you strangled. Thank you for your cooperation.EEng21:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thefeedback request service is asking for participation inthis request for comment onTalk:The NeuroGenderings Network.Legobot (talk)04:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have an unerring instinct for starting trouble, Legobot.EEng09:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ivanvector - the source you cited is also an excellent example forStreisand effect per:@DevinCow has jumped from having around 1,000 followers when the suit was filed to over 134,000 since the time of this writing.^Atsme_Talk📧14:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DevinCow must be over the moon about that.EEng18:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey,User:Ivanvector, I heard you're a miracle treatment for Covid. Is that true?EEng15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[17]. I did chuckle a little. --Jayron3213:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. Coy circumlocutions for boomerangs are verboten. You're right on the edge.EEng13:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I crossed the edge years ago. If you're only getting to the edge now, you've got some catching up to do. --Jayron3214:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage.108.26.206.64 (talk)00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that a lot.EEng00:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for all you do here on Wikipedia!ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Thegooduser, I appreciate it!EEng14:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I LOVE about your page and talk page, is that it kills my 2.4G network, and I need to use 5G network in order to avoid kills to my wifi :-P --ThegooduserLife Begins With a Smile :)🍁00:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^(Buttinsky) I just read "kills my 2.4G" and it reminded me that I forgot to sharethis link with you, EEng - it's the companion to "clean underwear" in theMuseum of I Shouldn't Laugh but I Did.^Atsme_Talk📧21:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 2.4G some sort of bra size?Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thank you for your ideas and attitudeWhispyhistory (talk)22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I live to serve.EEng22:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Surely you mean "humor to tasteless"?EEng16:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank goodnesssomeone still has a sense of humor.[18]EEng04:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic.^Atsme_Talk📧11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again ~ mitch ~Mitchellhobbs (talk)15:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This undeserved praise regards this modest edit[19].EEng02:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink -- see the image.EEng04:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tu sais ~ Je pense que je me souviens de toi quand le monde a été créé ~~mitch~ (talk)01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? (= "What the French?")EEng02:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ~ you had me scared ~~~mitch~ (talk)03:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Niceshirt, though.Martinevans123 (talk)18:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby dub thee Sir Less-filling-with-no-taste.18:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byDlohcierekim (talk •contribs)

No usurpers, please...LessHeard vanU (talk)12:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there's a good pun onusurpers in there somewhere, but it's just not coming. Below is the best I could do.EEng12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not justtasteless-filling-with-no-Sirloin, then. Thanks.Martinevans123 (talk)19:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E-e-e-e-w-w-w-w! Dlohcierekim (talk)16:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Brit, but that canned meat pie looks like low-grade dog food. Woof.Jip Orlando (talk)13:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Women In Red, fill your boots":enjoy.Martinevans123 (talk)14:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I apologize for posting the ANI message first and this message second. It would have been better form to do it the other way around.Haukur (talk)18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have lifted the block as per the ANI thread. Looks like you were right that this would not fly and I apologize.Haukur (talk)18:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, and you are to be commended for not digging in your heels. I will be commenting gently (relatively gently, anyway) at ANI in a bit.EEng19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record:WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#Block_of_User:EEng.EEng13:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been within policy to do it the other way round?Martinevans123 (talk)18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I thought we would have a little break :P -FlightTime(open channel)19:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn from me too. I log out for a few hours to do some errands, and I miss all the fun! Go clean out your garage. --Tryptofish (talk)20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ugh ` hmm ~ ugh ~ ugh ~ never mind ~~mitch~ (talk)17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	You've been around the WTF block
	Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Now that you'rea mature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters, and they're not only stackable, they're collectable. How many more to equal the height of theEmpire State Bldg?AtsmeTalk📧20:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I would like to believe you're talking about

• Phineas Gage or
• Lionel_de_Jersey_Harvard or
• Widener_Library or
• Sacred_Cod or
• John_Harvard_(statue),

but I fear you're actually talking aboutcasting of aspersions. See below.EEng02:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's puzzle: What could this mean???

Unhide for answer
Casting of ass persians

• I was wondering, "How did he find a picture of a butt anyway?" So I looked, and,of course Commons has ac:Category:Female buttocks in sculpture, one of several sub-categories ofc:Category:Female buttocks in art, which in turn is a sub-category ofc:Category:Female buttocks, which–of course–has hundreds of examples. Behold: the sum of human knowledge.–Levivich02:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've beenwhacked with a wet trout.

I certainly appreciate your brand of humor (puns and all), butSpecial:Diff/913428905 was a bit much (especially putting it in the closure box)creffett (talk)01:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beyond a reasonable trout" -- that's brilliant.EEng01:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.foxnews.com/health/pressure-cooker-whistle-skull

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

Contains the intriguing phrasecould not hear the whistle over the hay cutter.EEng06:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Python Procurer Level 3
	For your continued and apt use ofMonty Python sketches in a wide array of discussions, wherein such sketches diffuse the general tension, and provide to the assembled members of the Wiki-pedia a quaint and pleasant respite from their toils, you are hereby recognized as, if nay promoted to, a third level Python Procurer.Captain EekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓22:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For those playing along at home, our honored guest refers to[20],[21], and[22].EEng00:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procurer?[23] --Tryptofish (talk)18:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When anold hooker like myself reaches a certain age, procurement is an attractive career transition.EEng20:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, you don't look a day above sixty. But when you find thePythons getting less attractive, you can always switch to being aBoa Conscriptor. --Tryptofish (talk)21:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pleasekeep casting your pearls. We are not all swine.Phil Bridger (talk)10:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You kind words fill me with joy. To openly plagiarizeTom Lehrer, while at the same time partially changing his words without making clear where or how:

EEng11:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which one? I've been unkind to so many people lately. However, if you mean this[24] it sounds like you've already figured out[25] that I was parodying the unkindness of someone else.EEng13:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, lol...actually, you seem in general like a very kind person. :) Yes, I know you were reflecting back what someone else was putting out there, only with humor, and I certainly understood the impulse. I just this morning rewrote or deleted multiple responses to the thread. :)--valereee (talk)13:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then what was the unkind remark you want me to strike? Or perhaps you meant there's some unkind person you want me to strike? I'm rarely violent but for you I'd do it, and right now there are several people I'd be inclined to strike anyway.EEng14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we are dancing on the head of a pin with this; EEng, strike the belittling remark to do with RexxS's RfA and in your edit summary, apologise. Also, quit with the violence jokes. Aside from the jovial air in which you are doing this, Valereee, I do appreciate your efforts to finish someone else's dirty work.Cassianto^Talk14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS is exhibiting precisely the poor temperament that participants at his RfA were concerned about, and when Valereee explained how confusing a certain template's usage was he called her "inept" (and not in a joking way) so I stand by my post. And your affected hand-wringing about "violence jokes" strikes me as a low blow. Maybe sleep deprivation has made you punchy? Don't be so pugnacious. Let's all just knuckle down and get back to editing. I could give you a backhanded compliment if you want.EEng15:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements welcome. –Levivich ^{[dubious –discuss]}15:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🤯🤯🤯🤯Burma-shave

I provided an explodingpalindome instead.^Atsme_Talk📧13:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FromLibrary of Congress Living Legend:By 2019, without new membership, a majority of the Living Legends had died.Levivich ^{[dubious –discuss]}22:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, most of the French Academy's "Immortals"[26] are dead -- seeList_of_members_of_the_Académie_française.EEng06:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. --DeepfriedokraUser talk:Deepfriedokra09:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just... can't stop staring at the pageview graph of Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators. So many questions come to mind. and also that picture should garner more accolades imo --Mvbaron (talk)14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody or other's birthday. -Roxythe elfin dog.wooF14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the picture at right depicting such a dilator? It seems somewhat... aggressive, and I'm worried about the purpose of the serrated-teeth structures of the lower part. --A D Monroe III^(talk)01:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Following your interest in this and other anatomical topics, you may be interested inthis one, too. This would be an academic interest, of course – no offence intended.Andrew🐉(talk)10:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)^{[Confused editor?]}[reply]

  Blow it out your ass!EEng13:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you missed an opportunity to try to havebaby mama andbaby daddy endorsed as encyclopedic terms in the context of nobility.pburka (talk)00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You refer, of course, to[27]. Well there're certainlyplenty of places such terminology would come in handy.EEng02:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd always assumed AmEng was used in MOS, simply because it was the first to appear when the page was initially under construction.Tony(talk)05:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, MOS (and thereforeMOS:ARTCON) doesn't apply to MOS, indeed doesn't apply to anything outside article space. (Exception: ACCESSIBILITY, though nominally a MOS subpage, applies everywhere.) It's probably a good idea that each individual essay or policy be self-consistent, but MOS is so sprawling that's probably impossible anyway, and its internal variety is a fun reminder of the Wikipediasalad bowl.EEng13:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me, or does "Engvar and Mos" sound like an early 20th century detective drama series? "I say, Engvar old chap, bit of a sticky wicket over here." "Yes, I can see what happened there Mos, bit of a top-ho there."Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a law firm, likeDewey, Cheatem & Howe orSolitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish & Short.EEng15:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American English, British English, it is all English! One of the things thatDS-MOS uses.Aasim06:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly,this andthis appear to be fakes.

This, however is 100% kosher.

Can I interest you in aNSFW genuine photo of an Irish police horse on duty?Narky Blert (talk)20:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J Prod Anal?Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]}05:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its penetrating investigations are complemented by in-depth reporting. Harvard's catalog adds candidly – AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP –Frequency note: Irregular[28].EEng14:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume"Just a reminder that Arbcom has authorized escalating blocks for editors employing coy circumlocutions forboomerang is a joke, right? I don't keep up with ArbCom. -Alexis Jazz12:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. I was completely serious. Really. Absolutely. No kidding.EEng17:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should of used the{{FBDB}} template...PackMecEng (talk)18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's "should HAVE used the{{FBDB}} template", you illiterate.^[FBDB]EEng22:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)And stop calling me illiterate. My mom and dad have been married for 75 years![reply]

I am going to have to play theESL card on that one!PackMecEng (talk)23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty foreigner.^[FBDB]EEng23:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing that discussion, I don't think it's proper that Guy should be blocking the OP of a thread about Guy.--P-K3 (talk)18:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)^{[Confused editor?]}[reply]

Some Guys are not to be messed with.Levivich ^{[dubious –discuss]}19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it might be a heavily overused joke that everyone got really sick of or something. While I figured it had to be a joke, I wasn't 100% sure.. So you got me. Of course I may get you back some day. -Alexis Jazz04:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the big leagues now, kid, so prepare yourself.EEng23:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Run.—valereee (talk)00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's settle this once and for all. Which is better?

1. "Address the edit, not the editor"
2. "Comment on the content, not the contributor"Levivich ^{[dubious –discuss]}18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Be pedantic, not a pedant.—valereee (talk)18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, Valereee, Levivich may have met his match. I'll just note that all of the above are good starts for{{Burma-shave}}s.EEng13:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for bringing a civil and engaging comment in the article's talk page. At least you read something about Pedro II, instead of basing yourself in guesswork or a simple dislike about something in the text. That's refreshing. I might have a couple of issues with your opinion, but they have a foundation. --Lecen (talk)00:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about your recent edithere. What makes this a "shock statistic", other than that some may be shocked to learn that it is a statistic? How would you like it to be contextualized?Gumshoe2 (talk)16:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statistic which was obtained by shocking scientists until they gave the answer we wanted.GeneralNotability (talk)16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For starters (in no particular order):[29][30][31][32].EEng18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the context you want was already provided by the previous sentence on the page. The sentence I added to the page was simply-stated and factual information. Of course various people may disagree about whether it is a positive or a negative fact. So why shouldn't it be included?Gumshoe2 (talk)19:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the history of a 400-year-old institution should include this year's percentage of A's?EEng21:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we continue this at the harvard talk pageGumshoe2 (talk)23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just taking a stroll by fawiki (to remove some cross-wiki spam), when I tripped their abuse filter. Apparently Google translate thinks that their phrase for "abuse filter" is more properly translated as "sabotage factory" (see, for example,w:fa:ویکی‌پدیا:پالایه_ویرایش. I vote we call the edit filter the sabotage factory from now on.GeneralNotability (talk)17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also fawiki has a user group called "Eliminators" (admin-light, I think). Maybe I should just move to fawiki...GeneralNotability (talk)17:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a f-f-s-wiki?Martinevans123 (talk)17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like something from a novel about the dystopian future. There'd be "Lawgivers", "Eliminators", a "Sabotage Factory" (for some reason) and so on.

Actually, I figured out the factory. My translator's givingSabotage refinery where I think you're gettingSabotage factory. So I think it goesmw:Extension:AbuseFilter ->refinement:sabotage ->sabotage refinery ->sabotage factory. No idea where eliminators came from, but whatever they are we should have them here for sure.

I see also thatregular expressions comes out (after a round trip into Farsi)regular phrases, and this gives me an excuse to tell a story. When my advisor – who for 50 years almost single-handedly created and nurtured the computer science program at <name of breathtakingly prestigious institution of higher learning redacted> – finally announced that he would retire someday (though he didn't say when exactly) there was a big celebration. I mean, not a celebration because people were happy he was retiring, but a celebration of CS at <prestigious institution> in honor of him.

Somehow I got the responsibility of creating a <my advisor>-themed crossword puzzle for the program booklet – you know, something fun. I really got into it, and even if I do say so myself it was terrific. Much of it was lofty and inspirational. For example, one answer was the name of his wife, who happened to be the director of undergraduate admissions; the clue was"She supplies the fires to be lit". But other items were, shall we say, more earthy; for the answer "RE" (which in computer geekery means "regular expression") the clue was "Visage of those who get enough roughage". Whether my advisor ever worked this puzzle I do not know.EEng23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly honored! Thank you, EEng! --Bsherr (talk)20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is I who am honored to work with so many easily confused editors.EEng03:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isPersonal attack by EEng. Thank you.Guy Macon (talk)14:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I missed the dramah because I was busy working on articles (specifically rescuing a draft so it wouldn't be nuked) .... typicalRitchie333^(talk)(cont)10:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Ritchie333: Sucha set of priorities. What is Wikipedia coming to? You'd think we were here to write an encyclopedia. 😜 --Deepfriedokra(talk)10:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)^[FBDB] Personally I think the idea about WMF handing out meds hasdefinitely got legs.Martinevans123 (talk)11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This was terrible editing advice, though. Where does E think haiku closes and burma-shaves come from?Lev!vich16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A warped imagination, of course.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)17:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly! They come fromTurbo Mind Warp and similar varieties.Lev!vich17:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So rude! That EEng's areal skunk, bro.Martinevans123 (talk)17:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Calling EEng a "real skunk" is not a personal attack. But calling him a "fake skunk" would be. And if you smoke too much, you might call him a "skank funk". And think that it's funny. Anyway, EEng, there's deodorant for that, bro. And better to stick with edibles. --Tryptofish (talk)19:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, Trypy. Yourscience-based explanations are alwaysimmaculate!Martinevans123 (talk)19:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)....and how your fans reallysee you...[reply]

  Trippy, indeed. The guy in that video was my PhD thesis advisor. --Tryptofish (talk)19:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole civil issue is one that needs to be TNT'ed and rebuilt because it is the policy that is wholly dependent on the whims of the corrupt administration. While I agree with the outcome of the ANI here, that saying "your edit is X" is not the same thing as saying "you are X." I was blocked for saying, "Your edit is X" because an admin said, "if you say an edit is X, that means the person is X" and I was blocked for a personal attack.Sir Joseph^(talk)21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Phew! What a relief that you never moved on toOs![33]Martinevans123 (talk)21:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: "You know that's how the story goes" --Deepfriedokra(talk)23:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Well AFAICS you were blocked once forJimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project[34] and once forSo in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel[35]. Those are personal attacks -- not the worst by far, but still personal attacks. And context matters.EEng21:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And context matters. Amen. --Tryptofish (talk)23:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't referring to that one. I was referring to a block by El_C. And, I am also TBANNED right now for calling out an edit, not an editor, yet the discussion didn't make that distinction. And with El_C, the distinction wasn't made at all, because if I say, "your post is idiotic" then that means you're an idiot for posting an idiotic post. Which I think is incorrect, because even smart people can post an idiotic post once in a while.Sir Joseph^(talk)23:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned earlier, context matters.EEng03:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EEng, I came across this carving while visiting a church in Derbyshire recently. Wondered if you could help me to work out what's going on in it, I can't quite make it out. CheersGirthSummit _(blether)11:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blowed if I know....Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)14:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well,that sucks! --Tryptofish (talk)20:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, yes, it's frustrating isn't it? I just can't get my head around it. They say two heads are better than one - if only someone would be willing to donate theirs to help solve this conundrum, it might give me some relief.GirthSummit _(blether)20:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That sort of thing can be very hard to swallow. --Tryptofish (talk)20:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't one of you post that image over atmeta:Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#The_problem_of_the_"untouchable"_'jester' to show those killjoys what clean, harmless fun we have here at enwp?EEng20:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Because he jest shouldn't be touching him that way. --Tryptofish (talk)21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

any help? --Gerda Arendt (talk)21:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, I'm afraid not - you've got the right church, but the carvings aren't mentioned in the listing. I've checked Pevsner, but he doesn't shed any light either. If I go there again, I might see whether I can gather any oral accounts to satisfy my curiosity, but of course that would be OR for our purposes.GirthSummit _(blether)00:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not many can handle hardwood with such mastery; clearly, a devotional work. I can't quite make out what's happening on the backside though.Lev!vich00:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this has a pic, perhaps a trace?Ceoil perhaps?Peter? --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you posted here looking for help but I'd say it's at the church itself that you'll find the succor you need.EEng01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks anyway. In an entirely unrelated note, I was thinking about creating a list of all ofZeus's mortal lovers. I started out with high spirits, but I'm afraid that my enthusiasm rather fell atio. Such is the nature of editing here I suppose. CheersGirthSummit _(blether)01:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has mortal lovers?EEng02:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like it's a bishop blessing someone, possibly a Confirmation. Not sure about the person behind, but bishops usually have a companion of some sort. --Peter I. Vardy (talk)08:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I'm sure you're right, thanks. Some nice pics thereGerda Arendt, you have a knack for finding interesting stuff.GirthSummit _(blether)10:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a companionof some sort.EEng18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the words of the deathlessTom Lehrer[36]:

When correctly viewed
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz—
There's a dirty old man!

EEng18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey - when you said deathless, I thought you meant 'will be remembered forever'. I hadn't realised he was still alive, that's cheering. His Irish ballad was was always my favourite, my dad used to sing it to us in the car, thirty plus years ago now...GirthSummit _(blether)14:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friendAndrew Gleason (himself gone now – and we will not see his like again, I'm afraid) told me many stories about him. Apparently he's as fun in person as you might imagine. See[37][38][39].EEng16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we haveWP:CURLY andWP:MOE but notWP:LARRY?Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)15:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you put "Template:Larry" into the search box, and let it offer suggestions, there are a bunch of them, for persons with that first name. --Tryptofish (talk)20:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize the insult toShemp you have placed on the most watched page in Wikipedia?O3000 (talk)01:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, someone write a page calledWikipedia:Let admins readily revert you.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One)12:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(cough)Wikipedia:LARRY --Deepfriedokra(talk)14:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Surreal Barnstar
		If you do not like his postsJust what bothers you the most?If you do like, drink a toast,To the jokester with the most!Burma-shave --Deepfriedokra(talk)05:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... —David Eppstein (talk)19:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Spock was our first clue back inthe day:"May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with Humans? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant."^Atsme_Talk📧23:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm --Deepfriedokra(talk)03:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was reading through ANI and was a bit baffled bythis edit you made... was it supposed to be a gag on the weird images they had uploaded?MrAureliusR_Talk!03:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Funny thing, there was a time that someone or other would step in to say we're supposed to give Trump the benefit of the doubt because, oh, maybe he's justpretending to be a deranged sociopath. People seem to have gotten over that.

Meanwhile, in other news (since we're on the subject), the more severely mentally challenged of the stable genius's two older sons turns out not to know what a vaccine is[40]. Now to be fair, a lot of people don't know what a vaccine is, but most would have the sense not to go on network TV blabbing about it without at least looking in a dictionary first. Of course for that you need to be able to recite the letters of the the alphabetin the right order.EEng06:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I demand that you stop violatingWP:BLP. Wikipedia is about venerability, not truth.--WaltCip-(talk)14:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure venereal ability is in there somewhere among the sur-reality . --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've beenwhacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

--Izno (talk)21:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izno is too kind to link to my psychotic outburst at[41].EEng21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly understandable, and nothing that a good drink cannot ameliorate. And, of course,all discerning editors have a liking for fish. --Tryptofish (talk)22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You ever try mixing cold wet fishand hot dry fire? Disgusting! Some psychotic discerners swear it's better that way, though.InedibleHulk (talk)13:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when I get all justifiably righteous and it turns out I'm neither justifiable nor right.—valereee (talk)14:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WMF'smeta:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review provides:

In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without distinction based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field.Nor will we distinguish based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement.

(Bold boldly emboldened.)(talk page stalker)s are encouraged to join a discussion of that last bit:meta:Talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#Nor_will_we_distinguish_based_on_standing,_skills_or_accomplishments_in_the_Wikimedia_projects_or_movement.EEng14:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping my nose out of that discussion, but a shout-out toProcrastinatingReader andTryptofish for excellent posts.EEng02:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But of course fish are actually superior to some other animals. --Tryptofish (talk)18:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, you can tune a filesystem but you can't tune a, well, you know the rest.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)21:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted because the inclusion of 'skills' seemed very weird. I certainly don't think we should give people a by because they're skilled, but this possibly could be interpreted to say that we can't ding them because they'reunskilled. Am I being obtuse?—valereee (talk)13:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally I think I deserve a by. I've had plenty of gays and it's time for a change.EEng00:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I was pinged. I'm not bi. Although there was that one time in college.—valereee (talk)09:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying it either.

Bold boldly emboldened the range

Inclusion of 'skills' does seem strange.

So if you can't ding them

Neither should you ping them.

While with your nose out

You can still give a shout-out.

(No you are not obtuse

On the filesystem use.)

And EEng deserves a sex change.

--Tryptofish (talk)17:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know what to say.EEng20:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are difficult times. --Tryptofish (talk)20:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested atTalk:Pit bull on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list ofFeedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time byremoving your name.

Message delivered to you with love byYapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contactmy bot operator. | Sent at16:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope there's been noWP:HOUNDING orWP:BITEY behavior going on in that discussion.^[1]EEng16:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you forfinally shortening the United States Senate section on theJoe Biden article.Username6892(Peer Review)01:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well aren't you sweet! There's more to do but I pooped out.EEng01:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've wanted to ask this for a while now. But...Special:Diff/987768637. And your various other edits where you pick a time in an obscure 4,000 view video or a two-sentence quote from page 386 in some text. Is there some special bookmarking app I don't know about, or some memory pill, or what's going on here?ProcrastinatingReader (talk)03:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean stuff like this[42]? Believe it or not I carry it all around in my head (see right); when I was in college the dean said I was a "coal mine of information". It all started after I was struck by lightning at 5 years old. Modern science has failed to explain it. But don't worry – I am sworn to use it only for good, never for evil.EEng06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well,that certainly brings a whole new meaning to "electrical engineering"! Somehow, I envision that it hurt the lightning bolt far worse than it hurt you. (The dean, however, may have been thinking about black lung.) --Tryptofish (talk)19:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Further evidence for the prosecution:[43],[44].EEng

I want to thank you more emphatically than with just a one-click "thanks" for bringing up Jarndyce and Jarndyce on ANI.[45] It made me very happy.Bishonen |tålk15:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Glad to oblige, though I was ensnared in just such a case so my feelings are more mixed.EEng20:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Two years ago, I came to EEng's userpage to steal memes and replace them with pictures ofNed Kelly. Over time I realized this user is a vanguard and upholder of our most important value here:the common man's right to defy figures of authority by throwing banoffee pies at their portraits. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia sane and free.Double Plus Ungood (talk)06:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I, in turn, want to say thank you for the opportunity to learn, for the first time, ofbanofee pies! --Tryptofish (talk)21:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you have relatively high visibility, at least where Wikipedia subject matter is politically sensitive. Because every change here is more or less permanent, the ship has already sailed, but I urge you to consider the fact that Wikipedia is somehow the most reliable source of consolidated information on the Internet. I get the jokes, the cynicism, the memes, all that, but you are providing an extremely transparent, highly visible profile of personal bias. The best practices for information sourcing on Wikipedia provide some protection, but they're not bulletproof. An explicitly partisan affectation by the editors undermines the mission of objective truth, and aggravates the environment in which objective truth is a matter of partisan contention.IRSpeshul (talk)05:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^(Buttinsky) ... butyour special user page also has explicitly partisan affectations:I like Firefly, classical music, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, hookah tobacco, good liquor, guns, and math.Levivich ^harass/_hound05:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

grr, mathsProcrastinatingReader (talk)07:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See that's the problem with these extremely transparent, highly visible profiles of personal bias: look how aggravated the environment is getting. I'm not one to get into an argument about mathism with a mathist (or, as I believe they prefer to be called, "mathematician"), but we have a lot of articles about math, and we don't want to give the impression that we tilt pro-mathian or are some kind of math-wing website.Levivich ^harass/_hound07:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just going to keep calling PR mathist when they've clearly expressed a preference for mathsist?—valereee (talk)12:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woe to anyone with a lisp. --Tryptofish (talk)19:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree 100%. Everyone has biases. Neutral editing means putting your biases aside when editing (when editing content, anyway), not pretending you don't have any.EEng06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the original comment comes off as being much like the people who say "I don't have an accent, it's only those people in [other country/other part of same country/other side of tracks in same city] who have accents". Which is to say, un-self-aware. —David Eppstein (talk)22:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm automatically against anyone who implies I have biases. --A D Monroe III^(talk)03:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased against them? —David Eppstein (talk)05:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Dragonslayer Barnstar
		I am pleased to award this barnstar to you in recognition of your glorious dragonslaying efforts. Although I actually constructed this for you years ago, I didn't award it to you at the time because I felt that it may not have been appropriate. But, ina world gone mad, I ultimately decided to followthe advice of the eminent scientist E. Lathrop Brown. Please consider this a testimonial in appreciation of your commitment to bring a bit of light and laughter to this dreary place.MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM01:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) As long as he's just slaying dragons and notfire-breathing lizards we are okay. If you do, 'zilla may sic asushi on you.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)02:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people think it's spelledsick so maybe you should writesic [sic].EEng02:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make someone not not laugh, saydo not laugh. I didn't not laugh, but I didrevert the change - it ispossible that the editor dug up the old newspaper article and expanded the section using it, but given the context, I am suspicious.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)14:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How the guinch stole Christmas?EEng14:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! I really feel like it belongs in an exhibit of some sort. I instantly thought of you.

File:จอมพลป. พิบูลสงคราม ในปี 2484.jpg

Field MarshalPlaek Phibunsongkhram, the longest serving Prime Minister of Thailand

All the best,Double Plus Ungood (talk)02:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Double Plus Ungood, you refer, of course, to the fact that the compound adjectivelongest-serving is missingit's hyphen. Shocking.EEng03:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No u. Ur a compound adjective,EEngI actually didn't even notice the mistake. wow.Double Plus Ungood (talk)03:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That photog should get a Pulitzer for snapping the shot just a split-second before the sniper pulled the trigger.EEng03:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		TheSignpost Barnstar
		forDr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia.Smallbones(smalltalk)18:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC) ]])[reply]

I am sad to write that today when asked by an uninvolved editor to review this dispute, I unfortunately noticed some problematic comments onTalk:Joe_Biden/Archive_14#Infobox.

So, do you actually believe that it's not possible to find a published reliable source for Biden's chairmanships and so on, or are you just being difficult? EEng 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In attacking the personal motivation of another editor, this does notassume good faith, which is required of all editors. Surtsicna challenged unreferenced material in the infobox, and the sources provided by other editors in the discussion did not verify the challenged material.WP:UNSOURCED says that the burden of adding sources is on editors who want material added. Surtsicna has no obligation to lift a finger to find a reliable source, and whether they believe that task will be easy, hard, or impossible, the requirement for editors who want the material added to provide sources remains. These dates are not obvious or well-known facts, and this type of information often needs correcting by fact checkers, so that challenge is completely legitimate, even if that editor would also prefer the material be removed for other reasons. The above response only serves to antagonize the other editor, making them less likely to contribute to the project in the future, less likely to be agreeable to your suggestions, less likely to help you, more likely to respond in an negative and unproductive way, less able to think clearly, and more likely to prolong your dispute. More productive responses in this context include:

• Providing the requested sources, which you actually did the next day after another go-round.
• Agreeing that the challenged material should be removed.
• Asking for more time to find the requested sources; Surtsicna was willing to leave the material in place with citation-needed tags in the meantime.
• Proposing that different text be added.
• Saying nothing, which would be far better than responding with a personal attack.

To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article. Seriously. Did you even try? [35] EEng 05:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that the sources provided by another editor failed to verify the challenged material, a reasonable inference is that it might be hard to find such a source. (Though that did not turn out to be true in the end.) As I pointed out earlier, Surtsicna had no obligation to try to find such a source, and it is unfair to conclude that failing to identify the requested sources when that burden does not fall on this editor is a demonstration that this editor lacks the skill to do so. There isn't even a requirement that editors who do the useful work of challenging unreferenced, unobvious material have any familiarity with sources relevant to a topic. Attacking the competence or intelligence of another editor in this way is unacceptable. Productive responses to errors by other editors include fixing partial errors, reverting large errors, politely pointing out mistakes on talk pages, and allowing that even the most brilliant people make mistakes sometimes. If an editor is chronically and grossly incompetent, eventually it will be worth discussing that as a problem, but not until these more productive responses have not worked, and not in an uncivil fashion. Verbal abuse is not a productive way to notify volunteers about their mistakes, and verbally abusing a volunteer over a mistake they haven't even made, which is what happened here, is even more demoralizing.

I'm considering pinning a little box to the top of this page: "It has been X hours since Surtsicna falsely claimed that everything in an infobox needs to be in the article as well." EEng 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This is another unacceptable comment which is snarkily attacking another editor. Assuming good faith on the part of two editors who have completely opposite interpretations of a guideline leads me to conclude that either one has made an honest error, the guideline is unclear, or there is some other complexity yet to be uncovered. A productive, AGF response might be to quote the part of the policy you are relying on, explain your logic, and ask the other editor if you are missing anything. Another AGF response might be to ask the other editor to quote the part of the policy they are relying on, or to clarify their reasoning if they have already quoted. In this case, if you had done either, I think you would have found thatWikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has two sections which say different things about the disputed question.MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that infoboxes shouldnot have any facts which are not in the text of the article, andWP:INFOBOXREF (which you quoted) encourages that but implies that there will also be some cases where editorsdo legitimately decide to include facts in the infobox but not the article. Instead of identifying this contradiction and bringing it to the attention of other editors for resolution, your response instead demoralized an editor who is being productive and trying to build consensus and improve the reader experience, whether or not you or I agree with that editor's suggestions.

(added) I should also note that one of your comments citesWP:CIR, which specifically says inWP:CIRNOT not to label someone as incompetent, as this is a personal attack.

I hope that in the future instead of tearing into other editors, you can express disagreement in a more productive and civil manner. I hope that you will use the "assume good faith" guideline as a reason to stop and calmly consider the possible legitimate reasons for an editor's actions, including miscommunication and that you yourself might not have a complete picture. I usually find the latter is true for myself. You are clearly a smart person and like the rest of the community of volunteers I'm trying to keep motivated, have many valuable contributions yet to make. Thanks for reading,Beland (talk)07:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have popcorn, will share. -Roxythe grumpy dog.wooF07:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mmm... Salty. Thanks, Roxy.nagualdesign09:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Think of your blood pressure.EEng17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear. All of those examples lookrelatively polite for EEng. Poor Surtsicna, must feelcrushed?Martinevans123 (talk)10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Beland, I'm sad you wrote too. Mostly TLDR, but in passing:
  • I think you would have found that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has two sections which say different things about the disputed question – No, actually,I would not have found that, as you yourself discovered after posting here (see[46]), although you strangely omitted to return here to post the traditionalOops! My bad! Maybe next time you should more carefully consider thatyou yourself might not have a complete picture.
  • Surtsicna was told over and over and over and over and over, with links to the guideline and/or quoting it, thatnot everything in an infobox needs to be in the article. Nonetheless he or she stubbornly insisted on repeating that idea. And repeating it. And repeating it (in multiple threads, as I recall). AGF doesn't require us to close our eyes to what is obviously either a CIR failure or just plain willful blindness.
  • My comments about the chairmanships weren't about whether sources werein the article, but rather whether they exist at all. Surtsicna saidI do seriously believe it isnot possible to find published reliable sources about all these people preceding or succeeding Joe Biden in the given date ranges, and I said (yes)To be blunt, seriously believing that there aren't complete and definitive sources for the chairmanships of Senate committees brings into serious question your competence to edit this article, because that's true. And, frankly, ifyou can't see how absurd it is to imagine that there aren't definitive sources for Senate chairmanships, thenyou aren't competent to be sticking your nose into this matter. Really.
  • specifically says in WP:CIRNOT not to label someone as incompetent – No, it says it'sgenerally inadvisable to call a person incompetent. I applied my judgment. And look! It worked:[47]! Too bad S., like you, was unable to bring himself/herself to come out and say, "Oh, now I see. I guess you were right. Sorry I didn't read more carefully."

Surticna's wasted a lot of editor time. You're on your way to doing the same.EEng17:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a"CIR failure" once. But it turned out I had just beenpigging out on salty popcorn.Martinevans123 (talk)18:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the world do you get this stuff????

I find anencyclopaedia always comes in handy.Little Brown (Jug) 123 (talk)11:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I misreadMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE; perhaps Surtsicna and I made the same mistake. I didn't mention that here because I wanted to read your response first. As you can see, Bondegezou used a productive technique to resolve the disagreement over the interpretation of that section, by quoting the part that I had missed. This resulted in two improvements to the section; I clarified the sentence I had been relying on, and RexxS noticed that one of the examples was outdated and updated it. The suggestions I made above include conversational techniques that I hope would have helped you and Surtsicna resolve your disagreement more quickly, if you are concerned about not wasting time, and would have entirely avoided this one. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the editor time we are losing when editors are uncivil to each other and some of them stop editing entirely. My concern is not about who is right or wrong, as you were clearly correct in your interpretation of this guideline, for example. I am much more concerned with your language and your treatment of other editors. In response to this complaint, you might have said nothing, or you might have defended the correctness of your position without implicating matters of civility, or you might have apologized for your words and promised to be more civil in the future. Instead, you have demonstrated that you aren't interested in adopting more productive conflict-resolution techniques, especially when you defended your behavior as having been effective, and labelled yet another editor as incompetent. Given your continued incivility, and because you have been blocked for disruptive editing before, you are blocked from editing for one week. Please reconsider your commitment to civil discourse. --Beland (talk)19:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the dumbest decision I've seen for a while. Shame on you,Beland. Feel free to block me too. I've had quite enough popcorn for the time being.nagualdesign21:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purely punitive. Tsk. Blocking user should be admonished.The Rambling Man(Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!)21:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I've just advocated against this block at Beland's talk page and at AN. Now I'm going to say to you: please be nicer to people who are being dimwitted, as the person at the Biden talkpage was being. --Tryptofish (talk)21:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are, yet again, the recipient of aWTF Block‼️⁉️

Remember how much fun you had playing with blocks as a kid? Well, now that you'remature an adult, you can collect blocks with adult letters. They're not only stackable, they're reusable. I swar!! Can't I leave you alone even for a minute without you getting in trouble with the Wiki police!? Memories of our past replaced by decades of, uhm... misunderstandings? Atsme💬📧03:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Disclaimer: Intended as humor. Pure pun-ishment.[48][reply]

"Blocked Talk Page?? Easy.... just callDynoProd!"Martinevans123 (talk)12:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isIntent to unblock. Thank you.TonyBallioni (talk)21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EEng, I’ve unblocked you per the thread linked above. Hope you have a good week ahead.TonyBallioni (talk)22:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Common sense prevails.nagualdesign22:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Shucks. Anyone need any of this8 pounds of popcorn I gotleftover??Enjoy, pop-(corn)-pickers!!.Martinevans123 (talk)23:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record the AN discussion is here[49]. The closing summary reads, in part:EEng has been unblocked by overwhelming consensus,Beland is reminded of the dangers and standards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks. Whether that admonishment sank in is open to question, though[50]. The alert reader, on encountering an admin who deletes uncomplimentary messages without archiving them[51], might wonder what else is being hidden.EEng08:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I do accept the unblock and the reason for it. I have always deleted all my incoming user talk page messages without archiving when I'm done with them, except for the compliments. So you might say everything is being hidden, or nothing...as it used to say there, if anyone cares they can look in the page history. --Beland (talk)02:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The question isn't whether youaccept the unblock and the reason for it; you don't have a choice since the score at AN wasEndorse block – 0, Overturn egregiously wrongheaded block and severely trout the admin who imposed it – 20. The question is whether you'll be able to adhere to thestandards of adminship as well as the nature of blocks in the future; time will tell, I guess.

  As for not archiving your talk page, well,I have always deleted all my incoming user talk page messages without archiving when I'm done with them,except for the compliments (italcis added) is nothing likeeverything is being hidden, or nothing – rather, it'sI feature the good stuff and hide the bad. One of the reasons I delay archiving is to dramatize that I fear no scrutiny. You are, of course, joking in your implication thatlook in the page history is any kind of effective way to find and review past threads.EEng02:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and I also "hide" the neutral and the boring. The compliments are mostly for myself, to keep motivated when I'm having a bad day. I was inspired by the famous line, "Keep your old love letters, throw away your old bank statements", which used to be quoted on my user talk page. Back in the day before pings, I would actually move conversations to the talk page of the other person so all of it would be in one place and they would get notified about my reply. That would leave nothing on my talk page to archive in some cases. I guess looking through the page history is more annoying than reading archives, but when I started doing it I didn't imagine anyone would actually care about old messages about article updates and bots and Wikiprojects and editing mistakes. If you're saying distant-past-me was planning ahead so if someone said something bad about my rarely used admin powers in ten years I'd be able to delete it and make it harder to find, OK. If I'm making myself look better by doing this, then well, great. Who doesn't like to look better. It sounds like you're angry at me, and I can see why you would want to try to trash the reputation of someone who makes you angry. I applaud your embrace of transparency, though personally I find this page unmanageably long.

  You previously wrote:even when the truth is rubbed in your face over and over, and even after a score of editors vociferously denounce your judgment as completely out of calibration, you're either incapable of absorbing it or just can't bring yourself to acknowledge it. You seem to have been expecting a personal message from me saying "oh hey, I messed up, sorry" or something. It's not something that's really required to resolve this case; the block has been reversed and admonishment has been delivered to everyone that needed one, including me. I do see why the overturn was in line with Wikipedia policy, though there also seems to be consensus that the existing system has not resulted in a culture of satisfactory civility. Not saying my solution is better. Though I've never seen the district judge apologize to a defendant when an appeals court overturns a sentence, sure, here in a less formal setting someone might do that anyway just to be friendly. With due respect, in this case, your past hurtful insults and continued insulting tone make it extremely difficult to feel a desire to be friendly and go out of my way to say nice things, though I remain committed to being civil and not unfriendly. Though I don't expect much more than to be insulted for having said even this, I bring it up in the hope that in the future it will help you more accurately understand interactions with other people, and as an example of how gratuitous incivility has negative consequences. --Beland (talk)04:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Do younever post anything under 1000 words?

  • If you're saying distant-past-me was planning ahead so if someone said something bad about my rarely used admin powers in ten years I'd be able to delete it and make it harder to find, OK – No, I'm saying today-you doesn't care about transparency, whether in your administrative work or general editing.
  • admonishment has been delivered to everyone that needed one, including me – Actuallyonly you.
  • It sounds like you're angry at me – Not in the slightest. You've provided amusement to the masses while contributing a beautiful illustration of my longstanding thesis that 97% of admins do important work in return for little recognition, while the other 3% are simply bossy, preachy, hypocritical, and/or just plain out of their depth. It is interesting to note how densely my block log (which – I guess I need to point out since you seem unable to read a block log – consists largely of overturned blocks and a joke block) is studded with the names of admins who are no longer admins – something you might want to think about.
  • You seem to have been expecting a personal message from me saying "oh hey, I messed up, sorry" or something. It's not something that's really required to resolve this case – And therein lies the difference between us. When someone else is screwing up, I try to tell them so in terms matched to where they're coming from, the history of their receptiveness, and so on; and whenI screw up – if I've caused trouble or inconvenience – I apologize.That's civility far more than your prissy parsing of posts for forbidden words and phrases. You, on the other hand, are so committed to your empty, formal civility that you can't even bring yourself to hurt your own feelings by acknowledging your mistakes.
  • help you more accurately understand interactions with other people – I require no advice from you on how to win friends and influence people. You stick to gnoming character codes and let us adults police our own interactions.

  EEng17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  how to win friends and influence people A reference tothe book?ProcrastinatingReader (talk)17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah. Anotherwork of art, surely.Martinevans123 (talk)17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by[52]. With enough material an amusing essay may be possible.

"Theblather control aisle – so embarrassing! If you're a Wikipedia editor struggling with incompetence issues, now there's a better way. We home-deliver blather control products directly to you in plain, unmarked boxes ..."

...directly to your user page in plain unmarked mboxes...davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)04:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit! Butmboxes might be too hackerish. Maybeplain unmarked userboxes?EEng05:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The blather control aisle – so embarrassing! If you're a Wikipedia editor struggling with incompetence issues, now there's a better way. We home-deliver blather control products directly to you in plain, unmarked userboxes. Or, if other editors complain you're full of hot air ..."

See also the discussion of "piss off",below. --Tryptofish (talk)18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"You are not alone. This problem has a name:WikiLeaks. Minor leaks can be controlled by using appropriategarments, andpadding can be added as needed. Normally, this kind of output is directed to theWP:CESSPIT. However, someWP:DICKS have leaked all over the internet, causing the internet to blow up. Should this happen to you, please call for aWP:MOP." --Tryptofish (talk)20:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"But now there's help:WP:Authority control." --Tryptofish (talk)20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• <rubs hands gleefully> Now we're really getting somewhere. And to think I worried this might just poop out. Perhaps we're moving in the direction of something likeUser:EEng#Computer porn.EEng22:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I just couldn't control myself. --Tryptofish (talk)21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, just remember:Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.EEng03:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, I'll admit to feeling a bit drained. --Tryptofish (talk)16:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Although... that probably depends. --Tryptofish (talk)22:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In breaking news,WP:Wikipedia is being flooded. Further information atWP:WASTE. --Tryptofish (talk)19:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (CourtesyMartinevans123) Related potential ad:Tripe Advisor.EEng21:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: holy shit the page loaded in under ten seconds! All right! :-D

But more importantly, you'll recall the ANI haikus of years past. Today, I learned that there's a bot on reddit called "haikusbot" that goes arounddetecting haikus in other people's comments and pointing them out. I was reading this /r/madden thread (don't judge)[53] and someone wrote:

Did they fix this game, or is it the same trash they shit out every year?

...and the bot posted:

Did they fix this game,
Or is it the same trash they
Shit out every year?
- haterrage
I detect haikus. Sometimes, successfully.Learn more about me

What a brilliant use of technology! Wikipedia needs this. ANI needs this.Levivich ^harass/_hound16:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary note: The Curator offers this quotation (from the NYT via our colleagueCrossroads) as the key to understanding the events in this thread:

Mr. Pegler [a trans man] specified that his beef is not with gender-neutral neopronouns. He felt like elevating objects and animals to human pronoun levels was dismissive. "I couldn’t stomach why anyone would want to identify as an object?" Mr. Pegler wrote in an Instagram direct message. "They dehumanize us as trans people," he added. "We are people! Not objects or animals. So that’s why I stated that they are out of hand, because they make us look like a bit of a joke."

(So far no outrage from animal rights activists condemning Mr. Pegler for his vicous and hateful speciesism.)EEng14:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, that's justbeefism pure and simple!Martinevans123 (talk)14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This, too. --Tryptofish (talk)22:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns. I understand that you don't like the pronoun, nor believe it is a genuine preference, but this is becoming cruel.GorillaWarfare (talk)01:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our visitor, an otherwise very sensible and respected admin and former arb, refers to a discussion of the idea thattree is a pronoun -- links below.

I'm not denigrating anyone. Iam trying to give a short, sharp shock to editors somehow unable to see through the fey pretension of[54] --(talk page stalker)s may enjoy reviewingWT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#When_the_preferred_pronoun_is_not_a_pronoun and[55],EEng06:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think someone who so constantly is having to defend that everyone else work around their Comedic Interjections into discussions they personally find dull and demanding idiosyncratic exceptions be made for them (I had more than enough time to add a couple five dollar words here when scrolling to the bottom of your internet replication of aHoarders episode here) would have the self awareness to not describe anyone else as having "fey pretensions," but life is, as always, a true surprise.Parabolist (talk)06:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well,Parabolist, as I live and breathe! How the hell are you? I'm not against fey pretension; I'm against people refusing to recognize it for what it is and insisting articles be based on it.EEng07:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this has become a little more stressful and strenuous, what with the Troubles below, but I'd like to set all that aside and respond honestly to you here, man. Despite going in on you a bit last night, I want you to know this comes from a place within spitting distance of the heart, and all. But whenever someone comes to me and says, in whatever fun or polite they want to, 'hey, stop being an asshole,' I've learned to just...stop being an asshole.Even when I absolutely wasn't being one. Doubling down when you should be cashing out is the way into the gutter, and all. And so, what struck me last night into saying something was seeing someone come to you in the most polite fashion, asking you to just cool your jets, and getting a full blast of unleaded kerosene in return. Putting your comment back in the way you did, with the edits you did, I find it hard to believe you didn't know you were being kind of an asshole. Which, whatever, who isn't sometimes? But come by it honestly, I think. Anyway, sorry if this hits you in a bad mood, as you might rightfully be in one. Being blocked is never fun. Just sleep on it.Parabolist (talk)07:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I missed this until now. I appreciate that you took the time.EEng04:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This, and my attempts to deescalate atTalk:Keiynan Lonsdale, were my attempts to avoid ANI. But since you haveinsisted: There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isEEng ridiculing a BLP who uses neopronouns. Thank you.GorillaWarfare (talk)14:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Do you have any reliable sources indicating that the BLP has used neopronouns outside of that one statement in 2018? (The one where he said, "At the end of the day, everyone’s a tree. I want to call my friends 'tree' and me 'tree' and everyone 'tree.'") If not, you may be on the wrong side of BLP yourself in stating that the BLP "uses neopronous" (present tense) as you did in that AN/I header.~Awilley(talk)22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 source is the most recent I'm aware of where Lonsdale has discussed pronouns. I can add "may" to the header if you're concerned.GorillaWarfare (talk)22:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems prudent. I had thought of doing something like that myself, but didn't want to cause drama. I was thinking of the bad press Wikipedia could get if we were the ones falsely stating that someone uses alternate pronouns when they don't. (And looking at some of the sources people are bringing at AN/I that seems likely.)~Awilley(talk)22:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which appears to be exactly what EEng meant by "Scenario 4".sigh...nagualdesign23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for a week in relation tothis ANI thread. While the point you are making may have some validity, making it by insulting and denigrating the subject of a BLP is not acceptable. You have been around long enough to know this. Restoring such comments after they were removed by an admin as BLP violations, and after you were (very politely, I might add) asked to stop is doubly unacceptable and that in particular is the reason for this block. The duration takes into account your familiarity with the relevant polices and your previous block log. You may of course appeal this action by using the{{unblock}} template or by asking for your comments to be copied over to ANI. Regards,HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?14:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

And in case it was needed, I remind you that BLP applies regardless of the namespace.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?14:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, might as well also add:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.It doesnot imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules calleddiscretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may imposesanctions on editors who do not strictly followWikipedia's policies, or thepage-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see theguidance on discretionary sanctions and theArbitration Committee's decisionhere. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GorillaWarfare (talk)14:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the bit aboutIt does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date is kind of hard to take at face value when delivered immediately following a block.^{SubjectiveNotability}_{aGN franchise} (talk to the boss)14:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen silly blocks, but taking the piss out of a bloke who wants to be called "tree" seems spot on. Well done, I lolled a lot. -Roxythe grumpy dog.wooF15:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens. Some of my best friends aretrees.Martinevans123 (talk)15:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a tree.video. -Roxythe sycamore.wooF15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is conifer erasure!EvergreenFir(talk)16:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Roxy! No!. This is just getting worse. Taking the piss out of other editors was more than bad enough. Taking it out of a BLP subject is just too muc. And there is no way to accept or condone it. --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But yes. Taking the piss out of somebody that wants to be called tree is fine. Good grief. He's a bloke. -Roxythe sycamore.wooF15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever one may think about such a person, we all are still required to adhere to BLP policy.Paul August☎15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No,Roxy, taking the piss out of the real, living subject of a Wikipedia article, on the talk page of the article, is not fine. It's not what Wikipedia is about and it risks bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. Feel free to take the piss out ofideas, ingeneral terms, so far as is within the project scope, or out of whatever you like on some other corner of the Internet.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excepttaking the piss out of the real, living subject of a Wikipedia article, on the talk page of the article is not what I was doing, and your comment shows you didn't actually read the discussion on the article's talk page and the earlier ones linked from it.What I was doing was taking the piss out of the people whoactually believe Lonsdale wants to be calledtree, when (as is perfectly obvious) he has no such desire; I point out for the millionth time that Lonsdale's own PR firm continues to refer to him ashe[56].Floquenbeam has it spot on:

treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark. IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block.

There's definitely a place (though not on WP) for discussion about whether there's liberation value in a thoughtful campaign to get people to understand and usexe/xem/xyr – very much like the movement to bringMs. into common use 50 years ago. Such a consciousness-raising campaign around a considered addition to the language iscompletely different from random individuals picking random words to be their "pronouns". If people want to do that, that's not my business. If other people want to invest their mental energy in referring to their friends by tree or bunny pronouns[57], that's also not my business. But when people show up at Wikipedia insisting that articles refer to people that way, thatis my business, and I'm going to say something about it.

I wasn't denigrating Lonsdale for any choice of pronouns, because it's patently obvious that he made no such choice; my disdain is for those who keep insisting that we actually refer to Lonsdale astree in his article when (as linked at the start of this post)Lonsdale himself doesn't do that. But we have editors so focused on falling all over themselves in the RIGHTGREATWRONGS department that they can't see the forest for the, um, trees.

EEng16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, Sorry, not today. You don't get to use terms like "lunacy" on a BLP talk page, then restore it after you were asked not to (the problem with it having been pointed out), then pretend you weren't talking about the LP. Had you not restored it after GW removed it, I would have just chalked it up to silliness but you tipped it over into malice, or at leastmaking a point at the subject's expense.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?16:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, I care little about being blocked, as most people know, since it's one of the hazards of the job. But Ido care about having my words and actions misrepresented, and I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of your continuing to say that my, er, criticism was directed at the subject of the article. As now repeatedly requested, pleaseread the thread at[58] get back to me. And I guess it wasn't obvious, but yes please to copy my post above to the ANI thread.EEng19:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied it. --Tryptofish (talk)20:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell, I'm going to play devil's advocate here a little bit, and draw your attention toUser:Ritchie333/Userbox Boris, where I call a living person a "complete nincompoop". What's the difference? If BoJo complained onTalk:Boris Johnson about the criticism in his article, would we have to carefully respect his views, or tell him to take a hike and readWP:COI?Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I'm disappointed in the comparison. Johnson is a household name and a national politician whose policies have been widely criticised, and who has got to the position he holds by playing the "court jester". While calling him a "nincompoop" on Wikipedia is not entirely appropriate, nobody is likely to be offended by it. It's a lot milder than how I might describe him in the pub when those finally reopen. Describing the way somebody refers to themselves as "lunacy" on a BLP talk page is clearly inappropriate and liable to cause unnecessary offence. EEng knows this. Restoring it after this is pointed out to them is doubly inappropriate. EEng knows this as well. The block is lenient with all things considered, and for just about any other editor would the inevitable consequence of restoring a BLP violation after being asked to stop. He's lucky I didn't spend more than a couple of minutes looking for evidence of "awareness" or this would be a discretionary sanction, probably accompanied by a topic ban.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?16:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the heart of the issue here is not so much that the comment was restored onTalk:Keiynan Lonsdale, as tohow it was done, with inflammatory commentsfaux struck-out and replaced, as opposed to just rewriting the comment to be less disruptive. To me, that reads in the same manner as a child being asked to apologise and doing so in a sarcastic manner eg: "You called her stupid. Apologise." / "I'm sorry you're so stupid". That's justasking for trouble and I can't really criticise the block here if it was done for that reason.Ritchie333^(talk)(cont)18:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Since one important issue here seems to be whether EEng's criticism was directed at the subject of the article, and so possibly a BLP violation, something EEng specifically denies above, are there diffs that, in your view, show that he did? Thanks,Paul August☎20:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There being no respionse by HJM, nor by GW (who is obviously following here), I'd like some kind person to post the following just below the ANI post by HJM seen inthis link:

*:I realize you're dancing as fast as you can, but that's nothing but handwaving until you answer the challenge -- issued to you twice now[59][60], and twice ignored by you even as you were posting the above exercise in alternative reality -- to provide actual, specific diffs for my alleged BLP violation. Or maybeGorilla Warfare can help you out with that?EEng01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Donenagualdesign01:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no space in my username so if you ping me with that I don't get it, just as a heads up. I do have your page temporarily watchlisted, but was away from my computer this evening. I see someone else has already gotten to posting it. If you are asking me to provide the specific BLP violations, I linked them in the first ANI post. 04:35, 23 March 2021 and 00:57, 25 March 2021 are the two I would consider the actual violations, most of the other stuff was just rude.GorillaWarfare (talk)02:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From our second-favorite unreliable source:

Wikipedia Editor Temporarily Banned for Criticizing Use of 'Tree' as Pronoun --Breitbart

(URL: www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/03/26/wikipedia-editor-temporarily-banned-for-criticizing-use-of-tree-as-pronoun/ )

Also featured on today'sDrudge Report and onReddit.[61]

Related:'Love, Simon' Actor Keiynan Lonsdale Talks About Preferred Pronouns: 'I Just Want to Go by Tree' --Billboard

--Guy Macon (talk)22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha heart out,Barbara!!Martinevans123 (talk)22:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta love it! EEng is now a hero to the QAnon crowd! And the image at right is part of the War on Christmas! --Tryptofish (talk)00:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy unintended consequences, Batman!

I can hardly bring my fingers to type these words, but... by the standards of typical in-the-moment coverage of this kind of thing, the Breitbart piece is actually a pretty good summary. And they did note that I think Trump's a sociopathic-narcissist-racist criminal moron, so I don't feel entirely misrepresented. The one significant fact which I suspect they'd have included, had they known it, is that I'm gay too; I feel it's a bit unfair that I get implicitly cast as the big bad straight-by-default guy vs. queer-speaking-truth-to-power Gorilla Warfare. (Of course, I'm awhite male cisgendered gay, so that imposes a 50% discount on my victimhood credit, presumed wokeness, and authority to lecture from the moral high ground.) And I want to correct a definite error – the assertion that Idid express support for using other pronouns, including "xe/xem/xyr" pronouns. No, what I said isthere's a place ... fordiscussion about whether there's liberation value in a thoughtful campaign to get people to understand and usexe/xem/xyr (underlining added).

EEng01:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still undecided whether you're actually a straight, homophobic, right-wing asshole masquerading as a gay, left-wing intellectual for reasons unknown.^[FBDB]nagualdesign01:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it should be obvious that it's the other way around.EEng01:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's confusing me.nagualdesign02:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a very good summary.T. D. Adler gets in a lot of details, all the right order. It must be very boring for most Breitbart readers? But really... that caption for Melania saying "C'mon Donald, light my fire!" Is that the "worst" insult he could find on your page?Martinevans123 (talk)12:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. seems we all now have tocall you"Mr Capone".Martinevans123 (talk)12:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I have a bunch of things to say. First, for purposes of this talk page sectiononly, my preferred pronoun is "lawnmower". Second, I am never going to let you live this down. If you'd like, I'll see if I can set up a date for you with Lindsay Graham. I think the two of you would make a cute couple. (Anyone who thinks I just violated BLP can kiss my lawnmower.)

And now that I've had my requisite fun, I want to say something serious. In my opinion, my dear friendBishonen did the wrong thing, although it's clearly a matter of opinion in which fish, lizards, and lawnmowers can have legitimate differences of opinion. As I said at ANI, I believe that you ridiculed other editors, and that you were wrong to have done so. I'm aware that you went to some high falutin' university like Yale or something, which makes you smarter than the average person hit by lightening. In my experience, you are very frequently correct in your evaluations of editorial judgements here. But the fact that you are right and someone else is wrong does not entitle you to show off what a smarty-pants you are by making fun of them. It's really ugly. I mean it. Stop doing it. Bish wasn't wrong in terms of enacting consensus, but she was wrong in making it psychologically easier for you to figure that you were vindicated. She did you, personally, no favor. Andyou really, really need to get the message that you have every right to explain why you are correct about something, but no right to ridicule other editors who are wrong. --Tryptofish (talk)17:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I heard you went to Yale."

"Yah. I Yust got out."

Please use as my personal pronoun any 11-digit prime number. Any other term -- and this specifically includes rewriting your sentences so that they contain no personal pronouns at all -- will be dealt withaccording to the customs of our tribe. --Guy Macon (talk)20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought T. D. Adler's summary was good. But the Yale joke is the funniest I've seen all year.Martinevans123 (talk)21:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Official Govt. Warning: Note: the value ofbitcoin pronouns may go down as well as up.[reply]

And Guy Macon's link is required viewing for everyone watching here. (Did you seeme in it?) --Tryptofish (talk)22:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried tolook away.Martinevans123 (talk)22:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, that was the ultimate illustration ofWP:TROUTing! --Tryptofish (talk)22:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked.Bishonen |tålk03:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

In the wise words of Contrapoints (as Justine),

"Hasn't it occurred to you that being shamed and berated for being a 'trender' during your exploration year might not have been the most helpful thing?...The stigma you perpetuate against gender confusion and experimentation keeps trans people in the closet and delays transition. It alienates 'baby trans' from the community that should be welcoming them instead of publicly humiliating them."[62]

Kolya Butternut (talk)03:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng—for the avoidance of doubt—you should know that, although I don't think you violated BLP policy, and I argued strongly for a reduction of your block, or unblock, I hardly think you are blameless in all this. You have such talent, I really wish you would use your superpowers only for good.Paul August☎12:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps I'm partly to blame also, since I seem to have fallen down on my chosen task of being your Socratic gadfly, I will hope to be a better scold in the future.[reply]

"Current" travails:[63] –EEng

That video made me notice the resemblance betweenBuster Keaton andJustin Long. --Tryptofish (talk)20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure,whatevs...Martinevans123 (talk)21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, those jackets, in the image to the right, are definitely not straight. --Tryptofish (talk)21:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of "straight".Martinevans123 (talk)22:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this thread reminded me of a novel that I read a few years ago written by John Kennedy Toole, and the provenace of its title.Phil Bridger (talk)19:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, surely you don't think I picked that phrase by accident? From the lead of therelevant article:Its central character, Ignatius J. Reilly, is an educated but slothful 30-year-old man living with his mother ... eccentric, idealistic, and creative, sometimes to the point of delusion. (Note, however, that I do not live with my mother. Nor am I 30 years old. Nor is my name Ignatius J. Reilly, though if I could do it all over again that'd be a great Wikipeda handle.)EEng03:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn?Randy Kryn (talk)19:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[64]. --Tryptofish (talk)19:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? You expect him to opine? Nah - he's more likely to bark.Atsme💬📧18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't necessarily expect him to opine, but o-maple, o-birch, o-spruce, maybe something like that. --Tryptofish (talk)18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see him sprucing up. Maple he will consider it, or more likely he'll birch about it. From little nuts big oaks grow...or something like that...so there's hope, even for coneheads like me. We're at the age when we can no longer bear fruit, but some of us still have dates. Well...fig it, I'll just make like a tree and leave.Atsme💬📧18:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I o-overdid the o-orchard.O-O-O-O-Oleander! --Tryptofish (talk)20:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hot dog, anyone? 🌭nagualdesign20:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I keep hearing about this "EEng Brigand". Where do I apply? I have a lot of experience as a minion and as a henchman and want to move up. --Guy Macon (talk)03:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In all seriousness, GM, what I love about your post is that you yourself had me at ANI about a year ago:WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Personal attack by EEng. So you see, with repeated exposure everyone comes around to the dark side eventually; it's just a matter of time.

  And as it happens, that very thread was directly on point to the central issue in the most recent dustup;(talk page stalker)s are encouraged to take a look.EEng04:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So much for putting the past behind us and trying to be friendly. I won't make that mistake again. Unwatching this page. --Guy Macon (talk)13:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, no, Guy, you misunderstand – really and truly! What I was saying is that I'm glad we're still friends despite a past misunderstanding (i.e. you've "come around to the dark side" – you know, because some people think I'm Darth Vader or Emperor Palpatine) and bear you no ill will. Please tell me I've cleared that up and you'll un-unwatch; I can't bear to think there will be no more ofthis kind of thing.EEng13:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (Back because of notice on my talk page.) OK, it looks like I completely misread the intent of the above. And for the record, I misjudged the consensus on civility. Turns out that "but what you just said is idiotic" is perfectly OK, but not "you are an idiot". (I am still unsure whether I can write "OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are an idiot.") Rewatching page, unstriking comments, going back to trying to be friendly. Let's forget this ever happened. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpAvcGcEc0k ]. --Guy Macon (talk)14:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually think it's a good idea tonot forget, since it's a useful reminder that misunderstandings happen. Let me do you the compliment of saying that in my estimation your "trying" to be friendly has always been successful. I meant it when I said I don't begrudge you the trip to ANI; many who have dragged me there have, once the community recalibrated their naughty detector for them, become active and valued participants on this very page (another example of what the "dark side" comment referred to).

  The idiotic–idiot distinction really is important. When someone says "You're acting like an idiot", the speaker is taking extra care to show that, despite your moment of temporary idiocy, he doesn't think youare an idiot – if he wanted to say that he could do so with less trouble: "You're an idiot". As I said in the discussion I linked above:

  Everybody plays the fool sometimes, there's no exception to the rule. I personally appreciate having my own follies pointed out, because it is only in that way that wisdom can be attained (not that I'm anywhere near that point yet).

  EEng21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, for me personally, the fish-throwing link you posted was a genuine delight, and I thank you for it very much. --Tryptofish (talk)16:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry forXena. That would make a great wikiname.Martinevans123 (talk)21:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to a remake withGal Gadot. --Tryptofish (talk)21:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This potentially irrevocable misunderstanding (say if Guy had instead simply said, sotto voce, "fuck you", and walked away never to return), to me, points out the dangers of trying to be too witty/clever/subtle/nuanced, a mistake, in my view, that witty, clever, subtle, and nuanced people like EEng often make. I generally prefer to be boringly direct, at the expense of humor (as a famous philosopher once said there's a fine line between clever and stupid), or when subtlety or nuance is required (say in arguments over personal pronouns), to be painfully detailed.Paul August☎16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Witty? Yes. Clever? Probably. Subtle and nuanced? You have got to be kidding me. --Tryptofish (talk)16:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes EEng's humor is often not particularly subtle or nuanced. But—in serious discussion—he is often quite so, because subtlety and nuance are needed when discussing things that are subtle and nuanced (and all things are to a mind that thinks deeply).Paul August☎17:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Let me explain what I was thinking/feeling because human interaction is an interesting topic. First off, I am a high-functioning autistic (what they called Asperger's syndrome before the latest rejiggering of the categories). I have the typical attributes of that condition; high IQ, ability to concentrate on a problem, inability to detect emotional nuances or sarcasm, a love of wordplay, and a tendency to be overly-literal. Like many people with Asperger's I am usually able to successfully mimic someone without the condition, but it requires a conscious effort instead of coming naturally.

I am also having a lot of trouble with alt-med practitioners, mostly because ofWP:YWAB. Unrelated, but it has been stressing me a bit.

I felt that EEng was criticizing me over past events, when -- as became clear later -- that was not the intent. And yes, I seriously considered leaving silently, unwatching the page and muting notifications. Posting a goodbye message often results in abuse. I would have left silently if not for the other editors who I have been engaging with friendly bantering with on this page. --Guy Macon (talk)17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you take this as a compliment, because that is how I intend it. I would never have guessed that, because I've always been impressed with your sense of humor and use of emotional nuance. --Tryptofish (talk)17:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Have a couple of fish songs:[65][66] --Guy Macon (talk)18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holy mackerel!! The effects in that 1st video were amazing! Definitely worth a one pound fish!!Atsme💬📧18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the fish! I agree with Atsme about the CFX in the first video. (But they had freshwater and saltwater fish in the same tank. Tsk, tsk.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)I just realized: that would meantanks for all the fish! --Tryptofish (talk)20:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two goldfish were relaxing in in a tank. One goldfish turned to the other and asked "do you know how to drive this thing?"

^{Thank you folks. You have been a great audience. I will be here all week. Tell your friends. --Guy Macon (talk)00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

^{Those would besoldier fish, or maybefusiliers. --Tryptofish (talk)17:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you so much Guy, for that short but punchy essay on "Wikipediadisciplinary procedure and how it works for me".Martinevans123 (talk)13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]