User talk:EEng/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

The GA aspiration

We'll get there in our collective efforts in this article, EEng. Regards and kudos. Kieron S.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I never aspirate GA, as doing so can "irritate the nose and throat causing coughing and wheezing". EEng 02:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Stephen West kept getting sent home from school by his math teacher for incorrectly stating in his class that there were 6 feet in a yard.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice he misspelled "patois." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit at the Skintern DYK nom

In the future, when you make edits like this, i.e. quoting extensively from the prose of an article written by someone else, followed or preceded by sweeping, judgmental exegeses like "classic OR", it is generally a good idea to let the editor in question know so they have an opportunity to respond. In this case, you didn't, and I feel somewhat blindsided.

In the same vein, disparaging the votes that are going against you in an AfD isn't a particularly good idea, either. There is a lot more to them than just "passes GNG".

That said, in the case of some of the excerpts you posted I am amenable to making changes. However this will have wait till later next week when I have returned from Mexico, where I'm at Wikimania right now. I just don't have the time or the resources right now. The DYK nom is being held open pending the resolution of the AfD, which I don't think will have happened by then, so there's no rush. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know you should keep your own DYK nominations watchlisted. The term is nothing more than a neologism for an age-old phenomenon that does not itself merit an article: young people who don't know how to dress at work. The OR is extensive, the article a kind of coatrack for stories of mis-attired young people who happen to work, specifically, in Congress. EEng (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. No apology whatsoever, no consideration given to the idea that I might have had hurt feelings, not even transparently insincere lip service. Instead, a lecture (which you should not have presumed to give) on how you think I'm supposed to handle my workload (something not even the Eric Corbetts of the world would have done), and a clear demonstration of your congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach ).

I knew I was right not to check back here.

Keep up like this, and one of these days you're going to be sitting in front of the ArbCom, nervously twitching as they decide whether you will have any future at the project to speak of. When that day comes, count on me not being among those pleading on your behalf. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want transparently insincere lip service?

• There's nothing to apologize for, and I have no idea what you mean about a "lecture". As Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article says, "Make sure the nomination page is on your watchlist, so you can follow the review discussion."
• Should I ever end up at Arbcom (and it happens to the best of us) I'll just stand on my record, thanks very much. Being blocked for calling someone‍—‌the blocking admin himself, in fact!‍—‌a "self-satisfied roving enforcer" is hardly a badge of shame [1], especially when an admin such as yourself feels free to refer to another editor's "congenital inability to drop the proverbial stick (but perhaps ... like far too many other Harvard legacy admits, you've got it too far up your ass to reach)."
• Anyway, sorry to disappoint you but my parents were the first in their (working-class) families to attend college‍—‌state schools, by the way‍—‌so no legacy I. Scholarship, too‍—‌does that fill you with even more resentment and anger?

EEng (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I'm sorry for your hurt feelings. It must be upsetting to have your article criticized so comprehensively.

Even so, I wonder if you'd like to strike any of your comment. It's probably not the place of a relatively new user like myself to remind you to comment on content, not contributors, but I'm saddened to see an oversighter resort to an ad hominem vulgarity over an AfD. WP consensus on the limits of civility may have its vagaries, but one's interlocutors' anuses are generally not discussed IRL. FourViolas (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the less oversight of interlocutory anuses, the better, though of course this isn't real life. EEng (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I think you may be confusing ad hominem arguments with ad homonym arguments. That happens a lot since they sound alike. (I've made that joke before but I like to trot it out now and then.)

"An elderly man taking his songbird out for a walk ..."

Sorry if this puzzled you; in retrospect I can see that to a reader not familiar with China it might need some explanation.

It's not unheard of, even today, for older men in China to keep caged songbirds as pets. In mornings they actually take them out, usually in the cages but sometimes (less so now) letting them fly around the city (they eventually return). That's what was happening there.

I'd love to be able to link that to the right article, or section, as a way of explaining it better. If I could but find it ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest just saying the man was out for a walk, period. The songbird can only confuse. EEng 07:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Modest

Great to see your Talk page now trimmed to a modest 287 288 threads. I guess you're constantly busy over at MoS these days. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Enabler! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A real honor to be such a part of history. It's such a privilege. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The page is bigger than WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War combined. And has more combatants involved  :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's not half of it. Although a shame it's less fun. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

For your attention

"The Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry (SHAC) is a society devoted to the history of alchemy and chemistry. The Society was founded as the Society for the Study of Alchemy and Early Chemistry in 1935." Perhaps it is useful for your page and could use a copy edit Legacypac (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, though I can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I'm still in The Mysterious East so can you ping me again late next week? EEng 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, we really are full of Eastern promise, aren't we? Can we expect a right pong in return? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yippee! EEng is away, so we can vandalize his talk page! And let's nominate him for deletion again! Oh, and EEng, while you are over there, could you pick up a knock-off sow's ear purse for me? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is Mysterious Eastern Chicago, yes? enjoy!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans, you are so gangsta! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Deffolicious, dude.... gettin' Trypty Wit It. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• I took a quick swipe at the article and made use of its disjecta membra [2]. EEng 13:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Writing class 101

Sorry to bother you and your talk page stalkers EEng but I have a predicament I thought you could solve. Some background: I am working on an expansion for the Edith Roosevelt article; obviously, her husband is a significant part of her biography and will be mentioned more than a handful of times. How do I appropriately address Edith? First name or last name? If I use her last name, do I call Theodore by his first name to avoid confusion? Any help is appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Voila! EEng 02:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, just wanted to be sure you saw the link before I archive this thread. EEng 08:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I did. Sorry, I was terrible with replying in late January, but I saw the link and I appreciate the fast response.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Great and Powerful Oz is gratified you found his link helpful. EEng 12:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

B-tree

In reply to: This is exactly the sort of thing I was afraid you were gonna go around doing when you posted at Talk:MOS. I'd like to hear a consensus of math-minded editors on this kind of thing before we go around systematically changing them.

Well, I'm a computer scientist and I think ⌈ and ⌉ are far easier to read than ⌈ and ⌉. These HTML entities are used extremely rarely - I wasn't sure they weren't misspelled and they only showed up in one article in my database scan. They appear lots and lots of times as ⌈ and ⌉, so it seems to me that there's already a clear consensus among mathy article editors, whether or not there's anything in the Manual of Style that says so.

I'm not currently making systematic changes to HTML entities that appear lots of times, like references to Greek letters. I'm waiting for the Manual of Style update before I put in a lot of work that might need to be reversed. Right now I'm going through a list of HTML entities that appear rarely, most of which are misspellings that cause breakage visible to readers. I don't think it's a good idea to revert edits on the theory that some other editor might disagree with them; if someone actually disagrees, let them speak for themselves. That's actually part of the point of what I'm doing in changing some rarely-used references to the characters themselves - a relatively small set of edits to see if there is actually any objection from the community. So far I haven't gotten any complaints. -- Beland (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

FTR, ⌈ appears as a raw character at least 163 times in article text and titles, as of April 2018. -- Beland (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you've got a complaint now. I'm on the fence about how to handle math markup, because I don't edit math-related articles much, so I can't speak from experience, though outside WP I've written more in TeX than you can imagine so I'm quite comfortable with html-like ways of expressing mathematics. But your idea of resolving such questions via a test crusade to make 98% into 100%, and seeing who objects, is not a good one. As A Fellow Editor once said, "When technically minded folk with a penchant for order, consistency, and control get caught up in the zeal of a systematization crusade, un­pleas­ant­ness can result." Make your case in the MOS discussion. EEng 09:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Archiver failed

Your one-click archiver thing failed badly at WT:MOSPN; it didn't archive the threads, but just nuked them. May want to re-check our other uses of that. Something's going wrong with it. If it's not your work, should probably make a bug report. I checked both archive pages and teh threads did not appear there, nor was an /Archive 3 created. With the archive bot turned on at that page, the old stuff should archive soon enough anyway, I would think.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

If you look at my contributions today [3] you'll see that it archived the threads to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 1. Why it did that I have no idea. The developer, Technical_13, is indef blocked unfortunately, but I'll leave a note there in case someone else is taking over for him/her. EEng 21:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I looked into this a bit, because that's one of the scripts I was thinking of adopting. It seems that this is by design: if I had "User talk:X/Y/Z", the script assumes archived threads would go to "User talk:X/Archive 1" or something. Another archival script that doesn't have this problem is User:Σ/Testing facility/Archiver, which sidesteps the problem by making you type in the exact name of the archive page each time. Let me know if a version of Technical 13's script without this behavior would be useful. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Enterprisey, I hope that by "adopting" you mean you intend to take over maintenance of this script, because it's really the best thing since sliced bread. As to the question of how it should behave with subpages and so on, I'd open a discussion at WP:VPT. SMcCandlish, I'm sure you'll want to participate in that. EEng 05:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is a discussion at VPT, I think it would be great fun to archive it right away. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and Enterprisey: Indeed! We don't need to have a big discussion to conclude that it's a bug (or "misfeature") and should be fixed since the result is severely unhelpful. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 1079.2 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Roxy likes leaping up and down! --Tryptofish (talk)
....the drinks are on EEng.

And you just made it longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I love the way this page leaps up and down when it is loading. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 17:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I rushed over here to see what all the fuss was about. But while waiting for your page to leap up and down, I now seem to have lost a 1997 album by Ben Harper. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Martin, you just said that the drinks are on EEng. Please bring him a dry shirt. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps something more suitable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

In the olden days, one just put on Tubular Bells and enjoyed 25 minutes of side one. Nowadays, we get impatient with the 25 seconds it takes to scroll to the bottom of this talk page. Kids these days just haven't got any patience, bah. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The gates at Hugomont

And Lt.-Gen. Holland Smith, 200 years later there is still a British Army

Just so you have some background information. Although it is not relevant to the discussion as it is only an example, I thought you might find it interesting.

It is the gates as a symbol that are significant (not Sous-lieutenant Legros -- although he was one of several the major actors in the drama). Wellington picked the closing of the gates the most crucial act of any small group of Allied soldiers towards securing the Coalition victory. It is the closing of the gates that 200 years later are the subject of the new monument at Waterloo commemorating the Coalition victory. (Closing the gates at Hougoumont 1815, Battle of Waterloo memorial unveiled by Prince Charles).

-- PBS (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, but I don't get the relevance of the image. EEng 15:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

symbolism. The closing of the gates is a similar symbolic moment in the final defeat of Napoleon. -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, but then couldn't any "action" military tableau be thereby said to be related to Napolean's defeat? EEng 18:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Think of what most of Europe (including many in France) thought when Napoleon escaped from Elbe at the start of the Hundred Days, it was something like Brecht said about another dictator "Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard ..." Of course there are many turning points in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and they are celebrated by the victors, eg the royal Navy has Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square, and the toast "to the immortal memory"; and the 1812 Overture celebrates the retreat from Moscow in 1812. However Waterloo ended 25 years of near continuous war (there was a brief peace in 1804) and the general (Wellington), who commanded the final military defeat of Napoleon, considered this the closing of the door a defining moment. Like the Second World War there are many events that can be considered turning points, but those that nations select as symbols, like statue on the right or the voice recording of MacArthur "These proceedings are closed." to symbolise the victory (or in the case of the poppy to commemorate the carnage) are few; and the British Army has long since seen the closing of the gates at Hougoumont as such a symbol. The unavailing of the new monument on the 200th anniversary had brought that to a larger audience. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

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

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EENG has unilaterally enthroned themself as God-King and President For Life of WP:ANI without adequate discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus for this. Singular "they" fan58 (Singular "they" fan58 talk) 10:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha this notice is the only thing that made me look at that thread, even though it's been popping up on my watchlist for hours. Softlavender (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I have edited the user message to more properly indicate the seriousness (or lack thereof) of this incident. Shirt58 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Delta Dawn

The deputy thinking Delta Dawn was his daughter is trivia but you can probably imagine his fear and terror that night that DD was his daughter. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can, to be honest, but in any event it tells the reader nothing about the actual subject. It's true crime–type gee-whiz-wow sidelight. EEng 23:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:DICK

If you don't understand the grammar, don't try to "improve" if you can't. There's no need for such a dickish edit summary either, which just compounds the show of ignorance. – SchroCat (talk)

You don't often see constructions of the form $\neg A\to (\neg B\gets \neg C)$; I'll add it to my treasury of especially clear writing exemplars. Also, it's a shame you corrected [4] your original post, because now my droll observation—

"There's boned for such a dickish edit summary"‍—‌what a curious way you have of expressing yourself!

—loses much of what modest punch it had in the first place.

Anyway, it's not always easy to guess which pretentious shibboleth you're harping on, but this time I'm guessing you hair's on fire about the shocking false title introduced here [5]. You realize, do you not, that denunciations from angry editor SchroCat (or should I say, "the angry editor SchroCat") are practically a badge of honor among the community at large? EEng 17:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have the intelligence to understand the difference in variants, then there's little I can do to lift you from the slough of ignorance you choose to inhabit. – SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that in Wiltshire? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are withering. EEng 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooh, this place! Like a period drama sometimes! Between maid 123 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Period drama. EEng 22:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"groan" Almost as rivetting as a legal drama. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of whether that's actually what's going on, indeed you'd be the last person I'd nominate to lift someone from a slough of ignorance (you're so cute with those quaint expressions‍—‌you're like Maugham, except of course not really at all) so no disappointment there. But if that fantasy helps you sleep at night, by all means cherish it.

Sustained rounds of sputtering denunciation from you being particularly prized, can you please keep it up? And can you upload a photo of yourself turning various shades of red? I've added a placeholder at right. EEng 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC) You forgot to tell me whether the dread "false title" was the pretentious shibboleth troubling you.

• No further entertainment was forthcoming, unfortunately. But nothing like a good dustup to draw a crowd [6]. EEng 01:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

You're not allowed to revert edits because of a topic ban if the edits occurred BEFORE the ban. Please follow policy.--Sailor Haumea (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't reverting because of your topic ban -- that was just additional information so other editors would know what we're dealing with here. There's absolutely zero patience for more of this longevity/GNG nonsense. EEng 00:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I plan on appealing my topic ban and proposing a topic ban against you, Legacypac, and DerbyCountyInNZ. Tag-teaming like you're doing is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, if all else fails, I'll be getting in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation about the behavior you've shown. --Sailor Haumea (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please hurry, as it will speed the day you're indefinitely blocked along with your fellow longevity zealots, so the rest of us can go back to working in peace. Catch you on the rebound! EEng 01:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, how was it you were able to recreate word-for-word an article deleted five years ago? EEng 01:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, archives exist. Secondly, you'll be the one indefinitely blocked. Have a nice weekend...until the hammer comes down on you! Sailor Haumea (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Sailor Haumea has been indeffed as a sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horrifico. clpo13_(talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Whew! Because for a minute there I was really afraid that he/she/it/they might get me blocked. That was a close one! Charmed life, it seems. EEng 02:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

COI

Thanks for pointing that out. I was remembering from my days on OTRS, fielding demands from academics to cite their own work. It's pretty clear that self-citation is a bad idea, and wide-scale self-citation doubly so. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can't agree it's always a bad idea. I've done it myself. EEng 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The greatness of the Galbraiths

Funny you should mention; I've been dealing with a lot of great things someone wrote about his second son. FourViolas (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"Lord St. Simon"

Regarding the query in your edit summary on The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, the Baring-Gould commentary to NOBL describes "Lord St. Simon" as a "solecism," because St. Simon was a second son. But if that is so, it is a solecism that was perpetrated by Conan Doyle (or should I say Dr. Watson?) himself, and so we probably should feel comfortable leaving it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I remembered that B-G had said something about this, but I'm at that age where I'm sometimes too lazy to get out of my chair to go find out exactly what. Thanks for taking the time. But who's this Conan Doyle? EEng (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

He reportedly had some ill-defined role in relaying Watson's accounts of the Adventures to the editors of The Strand. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Zenobia

This is not Zenobia

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Neither is this

I just added Zenobia (bird) to the DYK stats page, and that reminded me that I wanted to thank you for your work on the article. Hooks/articles that I encounter among the nominations which I actually find interesting are, unfortunately, about as rare as those poor birds, so I was really glad that we were able to salvage this one for DYK. Sorry that your desired hook couldn't be used, but the one that made it to the Main Page got over eight thousand hits. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. Imagine the clicks, though, if we'd been able to use Ibis/ISIS! Call on me any time. EEng (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You did the same thing I did years ago, when I created a userbox with the image File:MagrittePipe.jpg and a caption "This is not a userbox." Here I managed to beat the bot before it could drop by to unceremoniously remove the non-free image, and have instead replaced it with a crude substitute. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sum Ying Fung

• Barred from the US in 18xx because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, she was later smuggled into the US by...

...Where did you get the idea of "the US" from? Deryck C. 09:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Canada a wholly owned subsidiary of the US? EEng (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

*Watches the Canadian Parliament write up the EEng Exclusion Act 2015* Well, someone just got barred for life. Now, for the smugglers. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Big deal. Who wants to visit that frozen wasteland anyway? EEng (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A Kitaen for you!

Here. For all your fine work on Wikipedia. Keep it up! Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this. EEng (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Validation of advisories...

Well, I noticed you received some very nice compliments from some members of Proj Med for doing something commendable, and because of that, I figured it elevated you to a level that I could trust your input regarding some warnings issued over a highly utilized cure for bashfulness. I thought it best to ask you directly rather than bother more important editors like Tryptofish and Doc James with such trivia, especially if there was no cause for alarm. Please watch the following video and let me know if you think there is any need for me to be concerned. [7]. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There you have it, EEng. I am officially more important than you are. But of course we all knew that all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course the true power is behind the throne. Oh but look, Your Majesty -- you have an important state dinner to attend just now. Don't worry, I'll mind the store. EEng 19:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tea, tequila, Tryptofish: all so nicely alliterative (even if I am being a pain in the assonance)! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Proj Med kudos are misleading, being based (most likely) on edit counts; I'm probably in the top N because of my 2000+ (no kidding) to a single article, Phineas Gage. Interestingly for your query, the remedy you're asking about has effects not entirely unlike those of the treatment Mr. Gage received i.e. an iron bar through the front of the brain, those effects including (to an extent not entirely clear) becoming a difficult person who can't make up his mind and stick to a plan. On the whole I think the "T" treatment is probably a better choice than that received by Mr. Gage.

Thank you indeed for bringing this matter to my attention. It will likely end up in one of the Museums in due course. EEng 22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Talk page stalkers are encouraged to click the link in the OP.

I got your ping (which for reasons I cannot explain seems to me to be vaguely related to validations of advisories) at that DYK discussion. I've gotta say, my first reaction was confoundment that WP didn't until just recently have a page about that, then I realized it was because of promotion to GA, then I began to feel like it was April 1, and then I figured April 1 is over so I would not comment there and would instead come here. Anyway, I wish you and the other editors a fertile discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fertile discussion -- and I suppose you think that's funny? EEng 21:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, maybe I'm just full of fertilizer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

💩💩💩💩💩💩💩 <---- fertile discussion? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King. EEng 02:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"And a monk expressed his displeasure at an abbot. In the margins of a guide to moral conduct. Because of course." The Queen of Atsmepediatree has disembarked this jester's court. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

W61.62

Hey, that's no laughing matter -- it happened to me! I was on a long bike ride and there was this string of ducklings (or goslings? who cares, they're all the same) lined up on the bike trail. I shooed them away and all of a sudden Big Mama Duck/Goose/Thing comes swooping down and pecks at my helmet. Scared me a little but it wasn't fatal as far as I remember. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Y92.482 Bicycle path as place of occurrence
• V10.3 Person boarding or alighting a pedal cycle injured in collision with pedestrian or animal
• W61.59 Other contact with goose

EEng 03:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No fowl, no harm. I suspect that bird just wanted some compensation, so you could have put it on her bill. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Good one. You know it's funny, we've got WP:DUCK, WP:HORSE, WP:TROUT, WP:BEAR, WP:CAMEL, WP:GOOSE and who knows what else (plus WP:BIKE, of course). I think we should have Category: Wikipedia project page shortcuts named for animals. Also WP:NOFOWLNOHARM. I'll work all this into the Museums in due course, but right now I've got a big project on the stove [8]. EEng 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy cooking – looks good! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Time to load up tha' old trusty Kentucky Fried Cannon, folks!" Col S. A. Unders123 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Someday someone's gonna cook your goose, ME123. EEng 20:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, see a bumpy road ahead. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding to the menagerie: Jonah was swallowed by a whale.^{[Cetacean needed]} I stole this joke from Opabinia regalis, but that's OK – it's covered by the Sea-Sea-by-SA license. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

For WP:BALANCE: The traditional account, that Jonah made his home in a fish's abdomen, has been publicly criticized by revisionist scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourViolas (talk • contribs) 21:39, June 13, 2016‎

Hmm, sounds kinda fringey to me... burps suspiciously --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You scintillate tonight. EEng 02:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Bioluminescence, actually. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just glad Trypto got the opportunaty to reuse it! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Now, I'll clam up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, WP:DOGS redirects to one of the Wikiprojects, and not to Wikipedia:Let sleeping dogs lie, so it doesn't fit. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wondered why my ears, floppy, were burning. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 23:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have the weirdest, weirdest stalkers. It's you, the many stalkettes gathered here from all walks of life, each making his or her little dysfunction- or neurosis-revealing contribution, who make this talkpage what it is (whatever unspeakable thing that may be). EEng 00:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

EEng's talkpage—the secret scroll of toilet paper made of...beard fibers!? Find out in the next unspeakable episode! Eman235/talk 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Not forgetting, your favourite ... WP:JACKASS. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Is not - Is too

Hello,

I apologize for reverting your edit over at "What Wikipedia is not" (diff [9]). I am an experienced editor, but forays into policy and guideline pages are new to me - so I admit I was being rigid. Having looked over your user page and talk page I see that you are a very experienced editor and that you know what you are doing. So, in the future I think I will do the same for any editor who edits guideline and policy pages - before I revert with an intention to save the Universe and Wikipedia.

I also noticed that you are immersed in humor; so I hope you like the title of this section. As an aside, perhaps editors should ask why is there no guideline page that describes "What Wikipedia is too!" (as an argument that counters "is not"). OK. I know that sounds a little nonsensical. Regards ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You have nothing to apologize for at all. I don't always know what I'm doing, and your edit, following my edit, stimulated me to think things through afresh and make an even better edit. That's the way it's supposed to work, and Wikipedia at its best. Keep up the good work.

As for being immersed in humor: I'm drowning in it, actually, and none of my worthless talk page stalkers seems inclined to throw me a lifeline. EEng 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:What Wikipedia is too could redirect to WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, as WP:What Wikipedia is does. Although WP:WABBITSEASON seems to be closely related. FourViolas (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll show you contrite!

Didn't I unfriend you for missing my talk? EEng 04:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, so how did the talk go? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was a little apprehensive because of the amount of new material I'd developed, but I think it went well, other than the fact that my laptop crashed 2/3 of the way through so that I had to ad lib while it rebooted. The evening as a whole (i.e. including the other speakers) was certainly wonderful from my perspective. We ran maybe 75 minutes over and almost everyone stayed to the end, if that means anything.

The big announcement of the evening, and the unstated (until that night) reason for the whole thing, was that the very nice couple who had the daguerreotype all those years (without realizing it) have donated it to Harvard, so that it's now part of the Warren Museum collection along with the skull, tamping iron, life mask, etc. It's an amazing story -- what's the probability of that thing not only surviving all these years, but being identified? The mind boggles. EEng 21:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Good! (So your laptop crashed – was that because it tried to load your user talk page?) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a WW2 army-surplus laptop which overheats every now and then. That problem seemed to have gone away after I upgraded to Windows 10 but -- just my luck -- it chose that moment to reassert itself. In a way it may have made for a better session, since we had Q&A during the reboot, and a lot of good questions were asked. EEng 22:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You got me! For a moment, I was actually wondering to myself how there could have been laptops during WW2. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ERA

EEng to the rescue! I saw what you just did, and I thank you for your support. I have been very remiss in not communicating with you, and hope to remedy that very soon. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:POLEMIC

I just looked at your page for the first time. The Trump stuff. Hilarious? Not really. It's childish and irresponsible. This is not the place to do this. Try to imagine doing the same thing, but with Hillary Clinton on your page. Doc talk 09:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Doc9871, I'm fairly certain that there quite a few in there disparaging Clinton (and Obama) as well. Just not nearly as many as there are for Trump. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a limit, in size and scope, when it comes to user pages. It's a little out of hand. I'm not running to report it, just noting it. Doc talk 10:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Everything on my user page is there either to increase other editors' pleasure in contributing (by providing modest amusement they can enjoy during breaks from editing) or to assist them in becoming more effective editors (by illustrating various aspects of Wikipedia as a social environment e.g. [10]). Democratic figures are featured as well as Republican (e.g. [11]) though unfortunately those opportunities don't arise very often, because e.g. Clinton and Obama just aren't as amusing. EEng 10:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That's cute! There's no question that you have a good sense of humor. For me, the thing is really this: why put your politics on display here? What purpose does it actually serve? Who really gives a crap if you're a liberal or a conservative? It's an allegedly unbiased encyclopedia. We should try to strive for neutrality. You're just showing your hand. I would take any edit you make in the political realm with a grain of salt as biased, based on your user page. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 10:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Granting for a moment, for the sake of argument, that I am indeed "showing my hand" via my user page, then I guess that would act as a sort of COI disclosure should I edit any political articles (which I don't). Editors aren't personally required to have a neutral point of view‍—‌only articles are. EEng 10:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. What I'm really getting at, in a roundabout way, is that you can't use your user page to store a ton of... "funny stuff" that is really not related to Wikipedia. That's what private webpages are for. MySpace, etc. The servers are not here to host comedy pages. Doc talk 10:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, as seen numerous places on my talk page (e.g. here), many editors find my userpage a refreshing place to take a break from editing or (e.g. here) to find "medicine against chronic wikidespair". Certainly that's good for the project. Thank you for the complement on my sense of humor, though not everyone agrees with you on that (image at right). EEng 11:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC) I'm afraid I have to go back to bed now -- midnight snack -- but please visit The Museums frequently.

This is not a host for you to defame BLP subjects.[12] Don't restore that material. Doc talk 11:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Doc, you're out of line. While I'm not necessarily a fan of the user's talk page, you've gone too far. First, you're being contradictory when you say you're not running to report the user's page - then you unilaterally choose to censor it? Second, you're also being hypocritical, as one of your own userboxes identifies you as a Republican. Why is it fine for you to "show your hand" but not this user? As for your claims of "defamation?" No wikilawyering please. Parody is protected speech. Per CENSOR, even on this project. So if there is a COI here, it's in your removal of content on another user's page. You know better. You need to self-revert - and if you don't, the user would be justified in reporting you. As the line goes, if it offends you - don't look. X4n6 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Images for Trump's family are listed on the pages they are used on Wikipedia. We don't use those images on a user's page under "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers". It's completely against BLP. Doc talk 11:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• First, personal pages are not BLPs. So I'm not seeing any validity to that argument. Second, again, parody is protected speech. Third, you're editing another user's page. Since you can spout policy vios, you're well aware of the many that violates, so don't make me list them. Fourth, you have a COI, so you're really not in the best position to complain. You just look like a pov pusher yourself. But again, if you are offended - or just humor challenged - I'd suggest you just not engage further with this user or his page. But if you are too vexed, vigilantism is still not the answer. It all too often boomerangs. Take it to the proper forum. Where - as you probably already now - you'll likely get told exactly what I've already said. And risk possible sanctions yourself for vandalizing a user's personal page. But the choice is yours. X4n6 (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, you two, thank you for your comments. In the morning I'll adjust the content to address Doc's concerns. After all, the kids (though they've chosen to put themselves into the spotlight) can't help who their father is, and the wife probably didn't know what she was getting herself into. Now, may I get back to sleep, please? EEng 12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Ya know, if you put a little effort into it instead of just straight-up deriding, it could actually be amusingly clever and inoffensive. Think SNL humor. "Gallery of Creepy, Fawning Enablers" is desperate. Work on the material and get back to me. Doc talk 12:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And to all a goodnight! X4n6 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

POLEMIC? I didn't know one could use polecats? Hmm, "childish and irresponsible"... which politician immediately springs to mind there? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that if we start prohibiting editors from expressing their political opinions on their user pages, there are an awful lot of user boxes that will have to be removed. And as for the dividing line between acceptable commentary, and commentary that "goes too far", there is no practical way to establish a consensus as to where that line would be. A user page is not an article for our readers. If one does not like a particular user page, then don't look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

... or else just put up a good sturdy fence? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What's the problem with Pole Mics?

I don't understand - what's all the fuss about Pole Mics? They are very useful for recording the sounds of silly hats, silly skirts, and scottish monster shepherds, and all from a safe distance.

This one's even got a nice, furry spoffle (the microphone, not the shepherd). Robevans123 (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, Miss Litella, I believe that's... —Steve Summit (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

What was that?

Never mind. Bitch (sotto voce). Robevans123 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

On a side note...

This thread (or maybe this liquor) has gotten me thinking: what's going to happen to the content of EEng's userpage on November 9, the day after election day? If Trump loses, it will be irrelevant; if Trump wins, we'll have bigger things to worry about. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If Trump wins, I have little doubt that most of the participants on this page won't be worrying, or even thinking, about anything much longer anyway. EEng 23:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And when I hear people say "If Trump wins", I laugh. There's a fine line between comedy and tragedy, isn't there? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolute stupidity to equate Trump with Nazism. The Nazis actually murdered millions of people!!! Alarmist types that equate a potential Trump presidency to Nazism?! Sheer lunacy. Doc talk 08:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nonetheless, if you read a good history covering the rise of Hitler during the period 1930-1933 (e.g., Ian Kershaw's two-volume bio) there are some very interesting parallels. I don't think Trump is plotting mass extermination. But the electoral tactics and the appeal of authoritarianism to disaffected segments of the populace, "restore our former glory" type rhetoric, laying the blame for national decline on certain ethnic groups and the like are strikingly similar. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to Hitler I don't recall that he was plotting mass extermination when he first came to power either. In the present case, time will tell. EEng 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolute fucking nonsense. Talk about "fear-mongering"?! Just pathetic. Doc talk 15:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a well-reasoned reply: Godwin's Law. Read the last sentence in the paragraph. Doc talk 16:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't seem to have read Godwin's recent article [13] cited by the very sentence you link, nor the Peter Bergen piece (cited with approval, in turn, by Godwin in that same article) which concludes that Trump is indeed a fascist, with only the exception that he's not (yet) openly calling for violence. Godwin's Law warns against glib comparisons to fascism, not all such comparisons.

That otherwise seemingly intelligent persons continue to deny what is so obviously going on here is the reason I opened my very first post on Trump with Huxley: "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach."

Now, if I may, I would like to exercise the Museum Curator's privilege by asking that this debate be halted. It's not in keeping with the spirit of fun I like to promote here. EEng 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, Trump's campaign has made explicit (but dog-whistle, so plausibly deniable) call-outs to actual neo-nazis. Or did you miss the significance of the 88 in his "88 generals" endorsement? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop that. Stop it. Will you stop that. Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even... and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say "Trump is a fascist." EEng 17:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

And with that, EEng gets the trains running on time again. Now if he could only archive his fucking talk page.... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, surely Colonel Wilhelm Klink would be in a position to know. EEng 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hogannnn!!! Doc talk 08:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Dis-missed! Hmmph! But anyway, sidestepping the somewhat dubious origins of my username, perhaps it's time to bring this conversation to a close, no? Nothing constructive can come out of it at this point. Que sera sera, Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hostilities resume

At 0028 hours local time, I mentioned [14] that "My user page is meant to be a source of amusement for editors taking a break from the humdrum workaday cares of editing. But I don't want debate on non-Wiki partisan matters breaking out, because that too often leaves editors with high blood pressure instead of a feeling of relaxation and refreshment." Within hours...

...the following post was transferred here from another page... I really didn’t see your "final answer"[15] until today. I was amused, but not in a good way. You’ve been here since 2006, and yet you claim to know more than me about several things. Here’s a few where you’re totally dead wrong: WP:BLP, very first sentence: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.” Any page actually applies to what you deem to be “personal pages”. Parody is protected speech… by whom? Wikipedia? This is a private website, not a government. BLP policy is normally strictly enforced here over "parody". Editing another user’s page does not violate "many" policies. I don’t even know what that means. What policies? Meh... You have zero evidence of me having a COI on anything. On what are you basing that accusation? It’s one of several personal attacks you used to dismiss legitimate concerns. I'm also a “POV pusher”, “vigilante”, and a “vandal”. The vandalism charge is just truly ignorant of policy. Very sad for an editor of your tenure. Why did EEng not consider it vandalism? Because... it wasn't! Amazing... So, this is really not an insult; please don’t take it as one. In the future: know what the hell you’re talking about before you chastise an editor who’s been around as long as me. I predict that you'll just erase this thread with a nasty edit summary and not even take any consideration to what I wrote. Doc talk 06:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC) ...and the fireworks began... As you can see, Doc, I've moved your post above from my talk page, where you saw fit to leave it - a full ten days after this was discussed - to where it belongs. Here. If anywhere. Beyond that, my own responses will be of appropriate length, even though, so many days later, I truly care less than a tinker's damn. But first, an admonition: kindly stay the hell off my talk page with this kind of crap. Any need you had for a 10 day old rebuttal belonged here. Or just screamed at the top of your lungs inside your bathroom. As someone who has "been around as long as me" - you really should know that. However, it must also be noted that, the only likely reason you posted on my talk, was so other editors, like Patient Zero, who reverted you; or Tryptofish, whose advice, similar to mine, you also ignored; or Martinevans123 and Robevans123, who were amused by your woeful misuse of polemic; or Colonel Wilhelm Klink, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and David Eppstein, who challenged your pov, as well as your grasp of logic. But so much for all that now. Oops. Still, since frankly, I can't resist a point-by-point refutation of your polemic: 1) This project grants "considerable leeway" on userpages, per WP:USERPAGE. Also, your cherry-picked, yet painful misinterpretation of WP:BLP is pretty transparently wrong - as the very next sentence following your quote is: "We must get the article right. You've "been around" long enough to know that userpages are not articles. 2) As I tried to explain to you, parody is not only protected speech, but it also does not form the basis for a defamation tort. Your response was "by whom? Wikipedia? This is a private website, not a government.". The subjects of the parody are also public figures. So I'll just direct you to the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruling can be read at Opinion of the Court. In brief: ""At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. ...Here it is clear that respondent Falwell is a "public figure" for purposes of First Amendment law. The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding. Respondent is thus relegated to his claim for damages awarded by the jury for the intentional infliction of emotional distress by "outrageous" conduct. But for reasons heretofore stated this claim cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages when the conduct in question is the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody involved here."[16] So, put both politely and succinctly: your claims of injury, defamation, or any other potential liability to this project, from the clearly intended parody posted on a userpage - are all crap. With that, I'll also advise you - perhaps preemptively - that the Wikimedia Foundation is an American non-profit organization; and as such, is subject to all the applicable laws of the United States. 3) You also wrote "Editing another user’s page does not violate "many" policies...". While I note the irony that you named your section: "On Policy", as you don't appear to understand any. So again, maybe study up on WP:USERPAGE, particularly WP:UP#OWN, WP:NOBAN, WP:USERTALKBLOG, WP:UP#DELETE, then WP:DISC and WP:UNCENSORED. The procedure is clear. As I said, you could have reported a userpage that you felt violated policy. Instead, you got on your high horse and tried to unilaterally impose your will. Like Wyatt Earp. Or Barney Fife. 4) "You have zero evidence of me having a COI on anything." Really? Besides your strident responses here, here, here, here and even when politely asked to stop, your response here, before finally relenting here. But no... this edit, was a purely non-partisan edit and in now way a COI, coming from a totally non-pov pushing user whose own political biases are impossible to read - except for the years that you've felt the need to self identify as a Republican on your userpage. Or the comments you've made here. So tell me again the one about the "zero evidence" I have. Also, as to your claim that: "The vandalism charge is just truly ignorant of policy. Very sad for an editor of your tenure. Why did EEng not consider it vandalism? Because... it wasn't! Amazing... Tell ya what: while you're bringing yourself up to speed on all the other WP links I've already given you, add this one to your homework. From the policy on WP:VANDALISM, the section "User and user talk page vandalism": "Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism." It was. And I did. Finally, as regards this little passive-aggressive gem: "So, this is really not an insult; please don’t take it as one. In the future: know what the hell you’re talking about before you chastise an editor who’s been around as long as me." Here's my response in summary: a) Stay the hell off my talk page with this waste of my time. Especially when I was right; b) In the future, know what the hell you're talking about; c) Stop pov pushing anywhere on this project; and d) Before you try to throw weight around that you don't have - you should know that someone who really had "been around", would have been smart enough to check the Users list first - to know with whom they were talking. So you've been "around" over "eight years?" Want a cookie? I've been around over ten. One more thing: I responded. So much for that last prediction: "I predict that you'll just erase this thread with a nasty edit summary and not even take any consideration to what I wrote." Seems your predictions are as empty as your other claims. But careful what you ask for, huh? But hey, feel free to come up with whatever tortured little allegedly clever defense/harangue/riposte/screed you'd like, okay? Yawn. While I, out of respect for both EEng's talk page; as well as my own natural inclination in this case, will blissfully return to caring less than a fraction of a damn. X4n6 (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Your WP:LASTWORD smarm can go suck an egg. The disussion was already way over! I wrote that on your page... 3 days ago. We've moved on. You're certainly not convincing me, or anyone else, of anything with your addition. Piss. Off. Doc talk 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Wow. Is it OK come to somone else's Talk Page, to edit war and tell a third party to piss off? Or does the careful use of that piss period mean it's not a real insult? I guess it's pretty much up to EEng what he wants on his Talk Page. Much like his User Page, really. By the way, I was fully convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. sorry if I've "trumped" your WP:LASTWORD last word.

Only the lonely

I just learned that we have a page on Radiometric dating. It strikes me as a less-than-ideal way to meet romantic partners. (Although, come to think of it, one might meet someone who is hot.) The curator could perhaps do something with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cryptofish [17]. EEng 05:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

But are there any hot particles in hot pockets? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That should be Cryptofish, or if there is a pair, Cryptofishs! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You'll never find me! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rico Harris

Sorry about that. As you can see from the article history, I started reviewing the article at 21:03 UTC, but when I tried to post my review 20 minutes later, you had just started yours. Hope I didn't cause you to lose too much time over it. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Sweet Yoninah, I was just kidding. EEng 22:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A song for you

I dare you to help me get FDT (song) through DYK.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Challenge accepted, chump. I'll nominate in due course. How about:

... that rapper YG claimed that the US Secret Service tried to block release of his song "FDT (Fuck Donald Trump)"?

EEng 11:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Could we not get "a ape in heels" in here somehow: [18]? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
• Well, Ritchie333, you certainly made this suggestion at just the right moment. But now that the excitement's over, let's go ahead. I supplied the hook, so you make the nomination; I don't want to tempt fate. EEng 03:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't long enough yet. Let me see if I can ferret out a review of the single - that should do it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I decided to "play it safe" and throw up a conversation at WT:DYK#FDT first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, you guys. Poor Donald. You make me sick. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, Ritchie333, looks like I win again. EEng 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, Wikipedia is not about winning. Now go back to Old Kent Road. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Tucker

Well, it looks like we could have printed any hook and still gotten tens of thousands of hits; I think it was the picture that you posted that did the trick! Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, imagine if we'd called him a cross-dresser! EEng 15:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Or even a Welsh dresser? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. "YGM", "'ere, EEngie mate, leave it aht,will ya?": [19]

Leave it to you to inject something dirty into wholesome kids' entertainment. BTW, did you know we're part of a gay-bashing lynch mob [20]? EEng 23:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Leave it arht, me ol' china!! Just keep your marf shut, okay?? .. or me and Billy will 'ave to send the boys rahnd. In all clubs you get the occasional drunk and they 'ave to be slung arht. I intend to get married as soon as possible and Billy just wants to be left alone." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

[21], of course. EEng 02:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

FirstLast-ever close

If one editor is warned not to insult and the other trouted for reverting, how was that a content dispute? And I am being nice here to you... Debresser (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, this concerns my close at [22]. Don't do me any favors. ANI is for serious stuff, not someone calling you a bad name. You got your warning and your trout, so go back to improving articles. EEng 06:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not much fun improving articles, when other editors can obstruct you from doing that and can call you names for trying too. I have been along for over 8 years, and believe me that I have seen drama. This was not a content issue but a behavioral one, for which the other editor was rightfully warned, so you made the wrong call calling this a content issue. Now you can play the lofty admin who per definition is right, but just that you should know, you weren't, and it won't be the first or the last time. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Who made EEng an admin? I demand they return their tools - the ones they don't have - right now. In all seriousness, the warning and trout I handed out were most probably the best scenario outcome. I don't think a block or PBAN were on the cards. Hell, if I hadn't handed out the warning myself, they mightn't even received one. Furthermore, the editor - who's name is too convoluted for me to spell from memory (Nomoskedacity I think?) - remains in denial that their comment constitutes an NPA violation and at least a few of the editors were far less concerned with the incivility then they were with their interpretation of the equal representation issue on the article. Where's the equal representation of women at Nazism? there's women nazi's as well and right now that article is 100% dominated by men. The injustice of it all. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comes to mind. Besides, unless they cross the line further, a warning for a first offence is what is expected anyway. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem necessarily with the closing of the ANI, but the warning, and possibly trout, should have been mentioned in the close. It was not JUST a content dispute, as you mentioned there was an NPA issue and that is what brought the case to ANI. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 14:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... fair enough actually. If EEng wants to they can put "content dispute if I ever saw one with PA's and EW - for which warnings have been administered - to boot". If that would more accuaretly summarize the thread. That's up to EEng though. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about righting great wrongs, but I think that should stay on the talk page, until it gets to be a big disruption. If I weren't involved, I would have closed it with the mention of a warning, so that it can be seen in the future should it be needed and that is why closing statements are important. I would also use the NAC template which is what is usually required for a non-admin closure. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Now I see why admins are all so cranky. [23] EEng 17:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL I have to admit, that you have a sense of humor. I say that regarding your section header. Okay, so you f-ed up your first close. No big deal. Go forth and be fruitful. :) Debresser (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, watch it with the gay jokes! EEng 12:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Go forth and sin no more than strictly necessary... Kleuske (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• I hope you've learned a valuable lesson about closing discussions in good faith! AlexEng^(TALK) 06:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that lesson is: don't close discussions. Pardon me, but are we related? EEng 06:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've learned that lesson as well. We might be related. Does the "Eng" stand for "Engineering?" It does for me. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

It does, but I wouldn't read too much into that. EEng 06:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Too late. I've told everyone I know. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Luckily that's you and your imaginary friend, you engineering nerd. EEng 06:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Excuse you. I remind you of Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. I can take it, but Baxter is sensitive. Stand by for ANI. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Alex's friend Baxter

Transmit to Baxter my apologies. EEng 07:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please sign

I totally agree with your ANI closure. But please sign it, as is the custom. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

That's it, no more closing. Too much pressure! EEng 00:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

People afraid to call Nazis what they are

You're being mentioned, indirectly, here, where another editor is calling you "surreptitious" for calling Nazis Nazis. (Actual Nazis, not the modern ersatz ones.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you're unaware of the general circus Lava Baron is putting on at WT:DYK. EEng 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) I said "disingenuous" (not straightforward or candid). If it's in the hook, why can't it be in the article? (The article is what looks disingenuous to me.) Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary to explain that WW2 Germany was a (the) Nazi state any more than it's necessary to explain that the "American president" is the "President of the United States". EEng 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Navy Seals

Ahem, you do know about this, right? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not! You may collect your gratuity at the usual time and place, using the usual callsign. EEng 18:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I would be remiss...

... if I were to refrain from raising my beverage vessel to you in appreciation of your efforts at Fred West on the quest we would be forced to pursue of eliminating unnecessary usage (which would not be inaccurately described as "virtually all usage") of the "Forensic Files" past prospective tense. Children who grew up watching half-hour crime reconstructions on cable would grow up to become writers who apparently believe it would make them sound like hard-hitting professional journalists, and even reasonably reputable print organs would begin to use the pointless affectation as liberally as the peanuts a Dairy Queen employee would dollop generously onto a sundae he would have doused immediately prior with hot fudge. Reasonable minds would consider a public awareness campaign if there weren't arguably bigger fish that would require frying. Hoping you will go on to have a happy 2017! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to fully rise to this haughty and aloof ludicrosity (although I could should I wish to do so) beyond saying that not only do some of us prepare ourselves with exhaustive hours spent (beyond watching and reading crime fanzines which you seem to believe I solely do so to leave - in your mind - a charlatan legacy), to create and populate articles with reputable/verifiable references for the ULTIMATE benefit of the global community and NOT myself, but that we do NOT devote similar energy to dismiss others' effort. In the 8 years I've been doing this your comment takes the cake. User EEng please don't think I am even slightly lassoing yourself in here to this reply. User:Julietdeltalima, I'll take you WAY beyond Wikipedia crime-wise if you like to attest to what I can detach myself to (I was tempted to add an ultimate, non-Wikipedia link but won't do so but ask me on my talk page and I'll do so). Do what I do, to the extent to which I do, with the capabilities of retaining your emotions and sanity, then come back to me and ridicule me. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Peace, brothers and sisters! Remember, Kieronoldham, I wasn't able to resist making some fun of your style myself. You forgave me, so please forgive Julietdeltalima. J.d.l., be nice to Kieron from now on. EEng 03:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, EEng. (it Up! Break it Up!) I just checked your page to see if there were any observations of the article thus far and read that for the 1st time. I know it's retrospective to a degree. Just had to let my thoughts known. No disrespect intended to any individual. Sicko signs out. ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Regards.

No personal offense intended to Julia; I suspect she didn't know it was largely a solo effort to the then-date of construction. Maybe this is a gripe to a degree, but generally on Wiki. I see no shortage of reference etc. tagging but not a degree of effort from those asking for citations etc. to populate the web themselves. Julia don't take it personally. With 4 or 5 exceptions I've encountered on Wiki. over the years, people can't detach themselves to do this type o' topic. That's actually one of the reasons I devote attention largely to this topic. Off-topic to a degree, but I work with data. All the best to yous both.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

One hopes you aren't too detached... --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, no ("Gaah!"). Now.... have a Rumbley's pie--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Fred West

I'm just trying my best to populate an article most could not surmount their nervous system to evolve to how it could be (and in my way is albeit with slightly meandering sentence structure). Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Kieronoldham: And you've done a good job -- took a lot of research. I apologize again if I hurt your feelings, though sometimes I can't resist highlighting awkward turns of the phrase. I hope you feel the article is improved by the tightening, which is mostly done without loss of information, though there will be places where I'll eliminate what I see as overdetail. Feel free to push back. EEng 03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sorry if I sounded slightly abrasive. You didn't hurt any feelings; I just sensed - probably wrongly - you were being dismissive. I just find these challenges rewarding and do them ultimately for the benefit of others' reading. I am aware I can add a little too much (superfluous?) detail from time to time. You've tightened and trimmed it quite well. Have a good Christmas.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

No, no, your reaction was an understandable one when someone arrives out of nowhere not only taking a hatchet to your hard work, but with some, er, unkind things to say along the way. I hadn't realized the article was mostly one person's work -- usually masses like that are the work of many over a long period. I'm not sure I have the energy to continue, though, at least right now. Maybe I'll drop in from time to time. EEng 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Okays. I'll be trimming the article a little myself over the coming days. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"No peace"

With your permission, I'd like to explain "no peace": I used to help out at union protests and "no peace" was a frequently-chanted slogan. Though, using "no peace" does not advocate in any way for any actions that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. I hope I've cleared the confusion that I've unknowingly caused. Cédric ^{HATES TPP.} 23:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm from a working-class background so I don't need any pointers on picket-line slogans, thanks. If you think your explanations at ANI are helping your case, you're very much mistaken. I suggest you withdraw your demands for an apology, and try to demonstrate to the community that you understand why everyone is so pissed off at you. If you fail to do this you're very likely to get blocked, possibly indefinitely. EEng 02:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

MOS your way

EEng, you've been given tons of slack to rewrite the MOS your way, though it's not clear what your point is. So when someone (like me) pushes back on one or more of your edits, don't you think it's incumbent on you to discuss before pushing your way in an edit war? Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about this [24]. I don't need any slack, thanks. You may not see the point (reduce distracting overdetail on technical points and general flab and bloat, improve layout, bring related points together...) but from the Thank-Yous I've received apparently others do; there are many eyes on the page and no doubt any changes not perceived as improvements would be rapidly reverted.

As to the matter at hand... You removed an example I had added, stating a concern. I reinserted the example, with an edit summary explaining why I thought your concern was misplaced. You removed again, and I reinserted again, this time in a modified form I thought would address your concern, overfussy though I think it is. That's not an "edit war". EEng 03:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the changed version didn't help, so I took it out again; I'm hoping that's the end of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Big surprise, Dicky. We're all happy to see you get the thrill of "winning" once in a while. EEng 05:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What's that point of that uncivil rejoinder? Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

What uncivil? What rejoinder? All I said is everyone should feel like they're a winner once in a while, so we're all happy for you! But while we're on the subject, I might ask what the point is of your uncivil section header (though please understand that I am not, in fact, asking). EEng 06:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the personality issue, this wave of mass edits to MoS has to stop. I'm liable to revert the entire mess back to the last stable version. Please do not do this sort of thing, EEng. I'm pretty sure that you know that "MoS is unstable, so it's not really a guideline and thus we should ignore it" is among the top 2 or 3 anti-MoS (usually false) rationales of people who would delete or gut the guideline. Stop making it true for them, I beg you. I'm pretty sure you also know that minor clarifying changes often turn out to be controversial, because they subtly shift meaning (or can be misinterpreted as doing so) in ways that affect large numbers of articles. I think you should self-revert that mess, then make a couple of copyediting changes, and let that sit for a week. Give people time to assess whether they actually change anything. Then make a few more.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I don't think "mess" is an appropriate term. You know how careful I am, and it doesn't sound like you've actually looked yet. Please do. In particular I'd like you, with your mercilessly critical eye, to review these: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33].

I did look, and saw reasons to object immediately, though only here and there. I am not doing a mass-revert (I oppose those generally, and was hyperbolically indicating frustration). I'm poring over it all now. I agree many of the changes are positive, but some are not. I'm trying to massage back in what needs to be restored without doing violence to your cleanup intent. That said, please don't use guideline pages as sandboxes to experiment with templates and wikimarkup. If you are not "markup master", just ask on the talk page for someone to deal with the matter, like closing up example spacing in a way that doesn't just introduce new problems. I'm about 1/5 done going through it all (including intervening edits by others). I've taken a very hands-off approach to MoS for months and stopped watchlisting it, but I don't think that was a good idea. Now that I'm looking again, many (especially drive-by) edits to the page do not appear to be helpful. (Again, I think many of yours were, it was just the shotgun approach I mostly had an issue with, and I think it's what has alarmed Dicklyon, and I think Tony1 raised a concern, too).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't expect to do so much at once, but you know how one gets into a groove. But don't worry, I've certainly scratched my itch for now. EEng 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. It's just that getting in that fugue state on a guideline can lead to a lot of disputes. Anyway, I just spent several hours poring over all that (and I didn't mean "mess" in a pointed way; where I'm from, "all that mess" is an colloquialism that's equivalent to "all that stuff, which I don't want to think about / deal with / explain right now"), with an eye not just to what I care about but what anyone else is likely to object to. Hopefully we can let it lie for now. PS: I don't care about the exact wording here, just a) there's more than one way (MoS's own lead makes the point "rewrite around dispute when you can", and I like to reinforce this throughout MoS), b) "stilted" is just an opinion, not an MoS "finding of fact". Honestly, I think everyone on earth will just DGaF about making that sentence a tiny bit shorter, so unless you really object to it in some way .... I was tempted to put back a handful of other things but I recognized that they were not really necessary, and had been added as "what if someone stupid thinks it means ..." WP:CREEP and/or that I'd added it myself and was feeling defensive about my word-sprouts; you were right to delete them. Anyway, I would expect some later editors to tweak what you did and what I did after some more, including some possible reversions to the older text. I would suggest we take them to the talk page as line-items to discuss and not edit the page directly. The fact that it's been so stable for most of this year is a major selling point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Caption competition

When Tezza met Trump. Sadly, the file isn't CC-BY-SA and "copying to EEng's talk" probably isn't good enough fair use. I'm sure you can come up with something. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Hey, I asked for someone hot!" --Tryptofish (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch out, Tfish, or some idiot will haul you to ANI for a wanton BLP violation. EEng 04:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• For this slightly different image [34]: "I'd grab her pussy but she's probably wearing iron bloomers." EEng 04:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch out, EEng, or some idiot will haul you to ANI for a wanton BLP violation. EEng 04:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"See her? I got her to pee for me!" Note to self: watch out. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• For this image [35] of Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos: "Prepare yourself, girls. Mr. Trump's about to join you on stage."

• Great to see The Donald "stepping out" with our Tezza: [36] Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• She: "They forget so soon". He: "Capitol Hill is aliiiive, with the sound of mules think..." Randy Kryn 18:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

And here I thought that bathmophobia meant fear of showers! Note to self: watch out. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha no, lol. You're thinking of an irrational fear of Brazilian electronic music: [37] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• He: When I come to the UK I'm going to wear a very pale suit to match your fake non-tan. Robevans123 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Modern politics

I know that Mr Obama isn't so hot with plumbing, but now it seems he couldn't even manage to fit a tap for that funny orange guy in the sky-scraper condo on Fifth Avenue? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Better watch out or Coffee might threaten to block you. EEng 23:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, unhelpful banter. Trump in drag is not something I would personally relish. But in the age of the executive order, you can expect to get a good roasting for even thinking about it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I clicked that link, and I think I saw the end of the world as we know it. Now we actually have red state and blue state coffees. Unbelievable. Or at least, not my cup of tea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:WHINE

Just read it. Very amusing. Kudos!

That said, any admin who encourages consumption of strong German beer to cool down after excessive whine should probably have their mop revoked. That's a frickin' terrible idea. In fact in a manner of speaking, I have it to blame for this edit summary. :P

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bullets and thumbnails

Hi EEng. Just wondered whether you could lend me a hand in trying to fix a layout error, on a particular article. You see, I'm having trouble formatting the layout at Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, with respect to the positing of a bulleted list adjacent to a thumbnail. The section concerned is here. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 20:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:IMGLOC -- this is a known problem. Great work on these articles, BTW. EEng 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Charles Whitman

Hi, EEng. In reference to one of your edit summaries on the Charles Whitman page. The articles were diverged into two separate ones around December or January. If you look at this version of the Whitman article dating from when the entirety was on one page, there is a casualty table. I removed this article from my watchlist and have only recently re-added it. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Kieronoldham, good to run into you again. The current textual presentation of "hits" is numbing, and very hard to absorb. The table in the version you linked is better, but what would really do it right would be a conventional sortable table, with columns something like: Order#, Name, M/F, Age, killed-vs-injured, occupation/role (maybe), Notes/comments/narrative. Where two victims have a common story they could share a spanned cell in the last column. I actually began to do this yesterday but realized it's just too much work given my low interest level in the subject. However, if you're interested I could set up the technical stuff for the table and you can do the grunt work, with me dropping in now and then to criticize what you're doing and run roughshod over it. Deal? ;)

I should also mention that I'm not sure the articles should have been split. I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just not sure. Maybe. Maybe not. Yes. No. Um... EEng 22:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a discussion on validity of splitting the article which you can find on the talk page of either the Whitman article or the user (whose name I forget) who started the splitting work on the spree page itself. To my mind the rationale is justified even though personally I think they should remain as one article. This article dropped off my radar and I just chose to re-add it a few weeks ago. As for sortable tables, I'll be happy to do it if I get consensus (I know how to create them). I only get a limited amount of talk page engagement myself - which I can understand - even though I just stab at articles until I get the temperature right i.e. - to my mind - eminent.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Start the discussion and I'll participate. EEng 23:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

EEng, okays.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Praying mantis

It's happy hour, and I was refreshing my memory for intelligent jokes on your user page. Why? I dunno because most of them travel way beyond the thought processes of my happy hour companions (I drink alone)...BUT I came across the image of the green praying mantis WP:NPP, and paused for a moment of introspective...several seconds, in fact...and here I am. I cannot personally relate to the role of the green praying mantis....BUT...my concern is that I may inadvertently be one. My OCD would never allow forgiveness...so I'm here to consult (what I perceive to be) an expert in math and possibly even economics (which may be a stretch) - all the while not knowing how on earth I came to such a conclusion. I would normally indulge in a little hero worship by consulting Tryptofish, who may not know everything, but does an excellent job making me believe he does. However, your brilliant wit and user name won out in this instance (and probably invoked a sigh of relief from Tryp). Regardless, whatever you share with me - positive or negative - it is understood that your input is limited to that of an observer which affords me the opportunity to contemplate and hopefully make a proper decision so that I don't ever become a green praying mantis. A-CEEI_mechanism. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's not a delete -- I think the only question is whether it should be merged to the CE article. Paging my go-to guy on applied math, David Eppstein. (BTW, D.E., I suppose you've run into Harry Lewis at some point. He's just decided to retire. <sniff>) EEng 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Tryptofish does not know everything – just more than EEng does. Harry Lewis? He goes back to when I was a student (circa ancient history). I'm amazed he hadn't retired earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you know? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)^{I see it was Tryp who responded. 22:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)}

I know everything. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you're both WP:EWI. EEng 23:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Aw, I dunno. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I know who Lewis is, of course (I seem to have first edited his article in 2009), but I can't recall whether we've ever actually met. My strongest connection on the Harvard faculty is to Michael Mitzenmacher (three-time co-author). A larger number of my co-authors are at that other school in Cambridge... —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What other school is there in Cambridge? EEng 04:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, one possibility would be Lesley, except that I don't think they have a computer science program... —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• So, this violist is coming home from a gig (that's not the joke). He stops to get some groceries, and as he's standing in the checkout line he realizes, to his horror, that he parked under a streetlight and left his viola on the back seat in plain view! He drops his bags and sprints outside, but it's too late: somebody has already smashed the back window and thrown in three more violas. FourViolas (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

That joke works surprisingly well. EEng 03:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Be Polite

Please dont do this and stop making a fool of yourself its not clever, it would be better to educate us as you appear to know the small print of the MoS and explain why we cant add United States to places in the United States in aircraft accident infoboxes. Do you have any suggestions as to where the best place is to mention the United States, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no best place. Articles don't refer to New York City as New York City, United States, and this has nothing to do with this being what you sardonically call "Usapedia", because we also don't tell our readers that London is in England, Moscow in Russia, or Tokyo in Japan. I explained this twice [38][39], the second time linking the two controlling guidelines –

• Articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled [[Placename, State]]... Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named [[City]]
• Places should generally be referred to consistently by the same name as in the title of their article

– which you apparently didn't read, because you once again changed the article to read Washington State, United States and New York City, United States.

You're an admin so I shouldn't have to tell you all this. If you're responsible for the opening of various articles explaining (for example) that Heathrow Airport is in "Hillingdon, London, England, United Kingdom", then you've got a lot of cleanup to do. I might be gentler if you'd omitted the Usapedia crack, which you should probably reserve for when you know what you're talking about. EEng 16:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just wondering -- why would we need to know that the US Airways flight was coming from the United States? :/

Also, MilborneOne, I hate to say this sort of thing, but as an administrator you should at least get your punctuation straight! Eman235/talk 21:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way we could stop the United States being mentioned anywhere? It would be much simpler all round. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Just wait until the new President is sworn in. (POV-pushing and spam alert: I'm proudly wearing my "Don't blame me. I voted for Hillary." button, that can be obtained from Amazon. Really, I'm actually wearing that button!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eman: I didn’t know that was one of the job requirements of being an administrator. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 14:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• MilborneOne, to my astonishment I just stumbled [40] on the fact that you and I already interacted on this issue once, so I really don't understand why we're going over it again. EEng 01:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Worry

Thank you in advance for the new Museum. I do worry and thank heavens am not alone. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely

Just wanted to clarify that, even within the collapsed echo-chamber, it was getting increasingly annoying for at least one of the participants as well as for anyone else who might have been trying to read it. I was honestly hoping someone would (again) come along and tell us to shut up so that I would have an excuse to stop replying and not have it look like I was deliberately ignoring him just to be antagonistic (believe it or not that actually happened before). I will try to take your advice, and I hope he does too.

Anyhow, my main reason for posting this here is just to clarify that the "thank you" I just gave you was not meant ironically. Believe it or, not, that is also something that has happened on at least two occasions (I was the one receiving the ironic thanks; I don't know if my thanks have been interpreted ironically).

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Glad to be of service. EEng 01:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

да товарищ

Your edits [41] [42] had a great response in Russia [43]. Nice work! --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I fear I lack the grey matter to fully appreciate what's on offer here. (talk page stalker)s? EEng 05:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Transliterated: "Da Tsvarisch" or "Yes, Comrade". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my high school Russian got me that far. It's the video I'm unclear on. EEng 06:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Anyway, didn't the Tsarevich come to an unhappy end?

I have no answers for that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

When I clicked the link, I got taken to a disgusting compilation of Russians puking after drinking too much booze. As I understand it, there is a tremendous amount of vodka consumption there, so vodka drinking is something of a cliché. EEng Vodka, anyone? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Then again, it could be Americans puking after the election. So that was Putin's plan! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobby's

Nuts are popular at Christmastime, I seem to recall ..... I don't know why I thought of "Nibble Nobby's Nuts" just now, but I did. After discovering a man was arrested for hiding a bag of nuts next to his ... well, nuts, I thought "this has got to be worth a DYK". It needs 2.7K prose to count as a 5x expansion, which should be possible just by grabbing the basic corporate history (it was founded in Australia in the early 80s, went global c. 2005, now a large conglomerate, comes in several flavors) - are you nutty enough to help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

EEng, I'd caution strongly against grabbing anything. This could all end up very badly. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I find it curious that when Ritchie333 saw the words "Nobby's Nuts", he responded by commenting here - is there a correlation? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... now who was it, in the news, who boasted about, as a celebrity, grabbing down there? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please forgive Threesie's quaint slip.... He put "Nobby's" when he meant "Noddy's" - that well-known ball-breaking lead singer of Slade. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't the Brits use "nobby" as a slang word for an aspect of that area of anatomy? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Only when we're talking about "soccer" players like old "Golden Balls" Beckham. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I was thinking of "knob", with "nobby" as the, um, diminutive. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Seems as if I've stumbled into the men's locker room. I'm looking for of the same kind of humor for the next episode of the Signpost. I need snide remarks, comedic insight and as much other ridiculousness as you want to contribute. We've got lots of time so let it stew and edit in the similar fashion I found in this discussion. Here is the next draft. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 23:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

You have no idea the extent to which you've come to the right place. My talk page is the Harvard of pee-pee jokes. EEng 01:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

But Princeton has the P-rade. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I am way out of line here but - isn't there enough information and interest to start a whole 'nother Wikipedia related to bathroom humor, phallic phasination, and third grade humour having to do with bodily secretions? Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 16:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't miss all the piss-related fun below!! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your mind works the right way…

…see if you can see an appropriate DYK for Anti urination devices in Norwich. I normally treat DYK with the disdain it deserves, but this one seems tailor-made for it. In return, I humbly suggest "he was said to have "the biggest bollocks in show business" and he became renowned for a rarely performed but vividly unforgettable act in which he would use his own spectacles atop his genitals to create a unique visual impression of French President Charles de Gaulle with his testicles representing the politician's cheeks" for the Museums. ‑ Iridescent 20:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

My mind obviously works the wrong way, but that's quite a topic! Did Norwich have a particular problem with this? And those devices seem to me to be rather ineffective: something with electricity could deliver the requisite shock. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, electricity was in its infancy (the closed-core transformer, which made alternating current viable, was only invented in 1885). Besides, a live wire permanently exposed to the weather would probably have sent the city up in flames—it would only have taken a single instance of arcing—quite aside from the issue that it's generally frowned upon for a church to electrocute its parishioners.

Norwich had a particular problem as its medieval core wasn't redeveloped in the 19th century so it had a lot of twisting narrow alleys ideal for peeing in, its historic wealth meant that there were lots of architecturally sensitive buildings so urine damage couldn't just be ignored, while because so much of the city centre was in private hands it was difficult to find suitable places to put public toilets. You see these things in other cities as well where the same issues existed, such as Oxford, Bath and the unbombed parts of the City of London. (In places like Amsterdam's red light district, where huge crowds of drunks are still a serious issue, they're still installing modern variants; Cologne and San Francisco are experimenting with ultra-hydrophobic paint, but at over $100/m² I doubt it will catch on.) Unfortunately, while there are lots of "hey, look at these things!" blogs from elsewhere, I can't find a reliable source discussing them in any context other than Norwich, thus we have an article about them in one particular city but not as an architectural element as a whole. (What I will say, is that now you're aware such things exist, whenever you walk through an area which mixes important civic buildings and either drunk college kids or a problem with homelessness you will start noticing them.) ‑ Iridescent 10:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the very informative and erudite reply. (It would be perfect if there were one of these on Gropecunt Lane.) Yes, I didn't really think that electricity would be a good mechanism, but given the ability of, um, aqueous liquids to conduct electricity, the image it evokes is one I find amusing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Number 147 EEng 01:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There it is! But I thought this was just a matter of Number 1 and Number 2. I guess the tide is rising. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Trypto, perhaps we can tempt you to a bit of traditional Norfolk wassailing... [44]? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Har. I've seen these kinds of shapes in street corners in other cities and always wondered what they were for. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble coming up with anything really good. Best I've got so far is

... that the city of Norwich used curved metal bars studded with spikes as a way of encouraging men to piss off?

As for Hardee, I actually think the best bit is: "In 1967, he escaped from Gaynes Hall Borstal dressed as a monk." EEng 13:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Piss away"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I think there's some subtle meaning there I don't understand. I used piss off in the sense of "go away, get out of here". To me, piss away means to squander something -- "he pissed away his inheritance". But I welcome any help with this. EEng 19:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Encouraging men to piss away could also be taken literally, to mean telling them that the spiky metal bars are a signal that this is a good place for them to urinate. (The exact opposite of the intended meaning.) Instead, "piss off" can only be read as a rude way to say "go away". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I feel totally pissed off (but not pissed, of course). -- Spike 123 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Many people are saying that this guy likes both.

–EEng

Spike 123 - it's always better to be pissed off than pissed on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OMG...that's a WP article... ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• {U|Iridescent}}, has a nomination been made on this article? EEng 01:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• No, I couldn't think of anything interesting enough to justify it. While I'm aware I'm a voice in the wilderness, I strongly believe that nothing should be at DYK unless it's something readers actually would think "hey, that looks interesting"; the "Did you know that a pencil sharpener is a device for sharpening a pencil's point by shaving the end of the pencil?" problem isn't one I want to add to. ‑ Iridescent 10:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, I thought my "metal bars studded with spikes" suggestion would attract readers like flies. EEng 10:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Commensal

A traditional mousing horse, tutored by a working cat, pouncing silently at its prey.

Someone who eats at the same table is really the first, as in oldest, meaning, because that is just what the Latin words mean. In ancient Rome, a commensal was simply a dining-room guest. The so-called first meaning, which is the second in terms of age, is the biological meaning, which is a species that lives off the table scraps of another species. A non-working pet animal is a commensal in the latter sense as in living off your table scraps or off the table you set for them. A working animal, such as your watchdog or mousing cat or horse, is a mutual or cooperator, because the benefit is mutual. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know horses were used for catching mice! TIL.

I thought they were afraid of mice like elephants are said to be. EEng 16:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I meant your plough horse, and I didn't bother to mention your bear that catches rodents. If the bear causes collateral damage in catching rodents, that complicates whether he is a cooperator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And if the bear does run amok I guess you send in a gorilla, like they did with the Bolivian tree lizards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.174.128 (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your assistance, please?

John Selden - See my bold text for the issue in Attribution below the list of References: This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Selden, John". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFChisholm1911. I don't know how to fix it and thought maybe you could based on your experience considering it's a "Harv warning"...either because of the "Harv" part or the "warning" part. 😆 ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

^{I love asking for help on your TP because within a half-hour, an admin answers the call. It's probably the same on my TP as long as it's not me doing the asking. Funny how that works, huh? 🙃 Atsme📞📧 18:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)}

It's time to liven things up...

...the holidays are upon us and I noticed a lull in WP's level of fun activity, so I thought about ways to get us into the holiday spirit. Lo and behold I found the perfect elixir - simply open a discussion about WP:BATTLEGROUND to lighten-up our spirits and get everyone in the mood of giving rather than taking. I'll start with the philosophy of taking, as so many of us see it. I liken it to BOHICA but our PAGs describe it more along the line of: If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind.^BOHICA Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments,^BOHICA or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently^BOHICA that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others.^BOHICA According to WP's give and take philosophy, we shouldn't be taking from anyone...we should be giving...so this discussion is open to all the different ways we can give back. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

You need to transform your ^BOHICA into more of a ^BOUDICA?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Martin, no. But hey, 5 days have passed and you and I are the only ones standing. WTH? Has everybody gone on Wikibreak? And what exactly are they breaking? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Our skulls on our steering wheels as traffic sits in place for…no reason! L3X1 (distænt write) 16:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't want anybody to go hungry.

One can only admire your mission to become the grit in life's Vaseline... MapReader (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

All right, that's going too far even for my talk page! EEng 17:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

^{My humor post or the vaseline comment? If my post, please archive it ASAP. I never intended for it to go too far as it probably relates more to me in recent days than anyone else. Atsme📞📧 17:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)}

Could be worse: Vaseline in the grits, y'all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one, when growing, who thought grits were a luxury food that we got only got to eat once a month? We could have cream of wheat or Quaker Oats any day every day, but grits were rare. And not because we didn't like them. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Call them polenta instead, and you can charge top dollar in a restaurant. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No, L3X1, you're not alone. My first 6 years as a child growing up in New England, that was indeed the case. Family moved to Texas and it became a staple in our diet. As an adult, I discovered that instant grits didn't have near the lumps and they taste even better - now that's what I call "true grits". ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, although my US location and ethnic background are quite far removed from traditional grits country, I also like grits very much. And now, I'm getting hungry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks very tasty- for a last meal :D >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 06:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how grits would go with Old Bay? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

When being crabby is ok.
^{Atsme📞📧} 19:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Corned beef & cabbage, shrimp & crabs with red sauce boiled with Old Bay...yummy...but with grits? Nope. ^{On 2nd thought, if you try it Rick, let me know how it tastes.} I've put homemade spaghetti sauce over grits like I do cream of wheat but grits still taste best with real butter and a sprinkle of salt & pepper. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Shrimp and crabs with red sauce? Oh no, we just steam that with Old Bay. No sauce needed ever. Gimme a dozen blue crabs steamed in beer and a generous amount of Old Bay...then again REAL Marylanders know Old Bay is better used as a seasoning, and you got to use J.O. #2 for the best steamed crabs. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether it counts as a sauce or not, but we've always put Old Bay in apple cider vinegar to dip the crabs in. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec)That on fresh cut french fries is amazing too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I can recommend some very effective ointment for crabs, if anyone is interested. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC) ... mine cleared up after only a week, although I did have to wear square pants

I think we're onto something - WikiRecipes - the encyclorecipes anyone can eat! I just spotted this image, and now I'm hungry!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this my cue to request a reliable sauce? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Honest IPs

diff though you nearly didn't get the link, because I'm too lazy to cite :). L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Um, I don't see what you're getting at. (Could be lack of coffee.) EEng 16:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP left an edit summary of "added regulation for oceanic countries but was too lazy to cite. Although what i have added is true to the best of my knowledge". L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 17:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Hi,

Great edits on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article!

Since you have a good grasp of things, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#List of sources and post any updates, etc. that you see fit. I'm about to go through and replace the less desirable sources and your input would be helpful, if you have the time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I think I better restrict myself to strictly stylistic copyedits, staying away from anything substantive. If you check out my user page you'll see why. EEng 05:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I missed this, but we got there pretty quickly!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, I just wanted to thank you for your hard work on the article, and encourage you to keep it up despite the obvious difficulties. It's important. EEng 03:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, That is so very nice of you! Your second comment is lovely and very much appreciated! I do get frustrated sometimes, but mostly I think it's a really good group working on the article, and the individual efforts come together in a lovely synergistic way. It's so nice to see how many editors, like you, make great edits and keep the article in great shape! (I hope that makes sense, I'm getting a little punchy!)--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)