User talk:Nagualdesign/Archive 6

Colors

Empirical distribution function

Hi nagual, I linked to a new version of the Empirical distribution function graff in Loraof talkpage. He wants more vivid colors, since those involve taste, can you see what you can do with it? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, is it me or the date of the pic you added is 29 January 2012. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops! Well spotted. nagualdesign 15:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

lol, I saw your message in MjolnirPants talkpage, I didn't know you were dead serious. :) Wouldn't it be easier to set a calendar, with a bot that switch versions? More simple, and it can be used for different versions of articles too.

We can for instance choose 6 pics... and the bot alternate between them. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm deadly serious! I've just been playing around with a few ideas in Photoshop. I'm thinking that I could make a number of small images (250×250px, where the graph itself is 201×201px), perhaps several dozen, and pick them at random using MjolnirPants' code. If you don't mind I'd appreciate you making me a list of, say, 100 groups of 20 samples, without any cherry picking. nagualdesign 20:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean this code? [1]

The idea is great, it can be used across Wikipedia, but if you set it at 100, there is no way you will be getting consensus to use it Wikipedia-wide. Not only because of the required time spent, but I don't know if it will run flawlessly managing 100 pics samples. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the number of images would be an issue. They'd all be variations on a theme, with the only difference being the step function. And how better to demonstrate randomness while avoiding any bias than to do it randomly, right? nagualdesign 21:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how feasible it is to set something that would be usable for both texts and images. Regarding the lists, do you mean you want the numerical values only or the pics? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like you to provide me with a bunch of numbers, which I can then use to create a bunch of images, and then MjolnirPants can make a simple module that randomly displays one of those images. nagualdesign 21:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It would help me a lot if, instead of numbers between -4 to +4 with lots of digits after the decimal point, you could give me integers between -100 and +100. nagualdesign 21:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, if you're reading this... nagualdesign 21:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have a 100 set now. Do you mean you want some sort of conversion where 4 = 100 and -4 = -100. Don't tell me you're asking this because you will use Photoshop grid, all individually, manually? Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes please. And yes, unless you can think of an easier way? You supplying me with the numbers makes things easier to start with, and I can just keep making images until I've had enough (or I reach 100). If I only make a dozen or so and we implement it, I could easily make a dozen more later, and alter the code to pick from the larger set. We can do this! nagualdesign 22:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have tried finding another way, there's the excel sheet copy pasting, but I personally have no time for it. Here is the file [2] it's an xml sheet. The original values are there... the conversions are -3 = -100, 3 = 100. There is nothing beyond 3 and -3... in all samples. Have fun. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't download, wait, seems the site corrupted it. I'll send you another link. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this one works. [3] Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

100 ECDF graphs

@Yaḥyā: Thank you for that, but I can't actually open XML files on my laptop! In the end I decided that it would be easier to use JavaScript than doing everything by hand, so I incorporated a random number generator into the code. I just hope it's kosher. Take a look at MjolnirPants' talk page for more details. Cheers. nagualdesign 11:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great. I won't have time to contribute here for the couple of weeks. But when I come back, I was just wondering, MjolnirPants wouldn't be having any problem if I barrow his code, right? (the original one) I would try it for something else... in my soapbox sandbox first. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You could ask him yourself, but I'm pretty sure that everything that everyone contributes here is given freely, although it's always good to give credit where it's due. I appreciate your help on this, and I hope you got something out of it too. Much more productive than chatting away on talk pages, right? All the best, nagualdesign 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC) PS. Stick to your sandbox and keep away from your soapbox.

ehm, tks, fixed that. :) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

HTML/JavaScript code

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <script> function gaussian() { // Generate a random number, mean=0, standard deviation=1 return Math.sqrt(-2*Math.log(Math.random()))*Math.cos((2*Math.PI)*Math.random()); } function run() { // Set number of graphs, samples per graph, number of columns var graphs=100, samples=20, columns=10, content='', s=new Array; for (set=0; set<graphs; set++) { // Generate a set of samples, scaled from -100 to +100 s[set]=new Array; for (sample=0; sample<samples; sample++) s[set][sample]=Math.round(gaussian()*25); // Sort samples into ascending order s[set].sort(function(a, b){return a-b}); // Display blank graph var offsetX=(set-(columns*Math.floor(set/columns)))*250, offsetY=Math.floor(set/columns)*250; content+='<img src="ECDF-0.png" style="position:absolute; top:'+offsetY+'px; left:'+offsetX+'px; z-index:-1;">'; for (sample=0; sample<samples; sample++) { // Step function 'treads' content+='<img src="blue.png" width="'+(1+Math.abs(s[set][sample-1]-s[set][sample]))+'px" height="1px" '; content+='style="position:absolute; top:'+(210+offsetY-((200/samples)*sample))+'px; left:'+(s[set][sample-1]+139+offsetX)+'px;">'; // Step function 'risers' content+='<img src="blue.png" width="1px" height="'+(200/samples)+'px" '; content+='style="position:absolute; top:'+(211+offsetY-((200/samples)*(sample+1)))+'px; left:'+(s[set][sample]+139+offsetX)+'px;">'; // Display samples content+='<img src="grey.png" width="1px" height="9px" '; content+='style="position:absolute; top:'+(201+offsetY)+'px; left:'+(s[set][sample]+139+offsetX)+'px;">'; } } document.body.innerHTML=content; } </script> </head> <body onLoad="run();"> </body> </html>

<div style="position: relative; top: -px; left: -px; width: 2500px">

The blue step function graph shows an empirical distribution function. The grey bars represent the observations in the sample corresponding to the sample’s empirical distribution function, and the green curve, which asymptotically approaches a height of 1 without reaching it, is the true cumulative distribution function. ()

Nagualdesign, since your 100 graphs tend not to show many crossings of the blue and green curves, I wonder if that is due to the small number of sampled data points (20). I’d be interested in seeing a table showing the average number of crossings (averaged over 100 runs) as a function of the number of data points. Loraof (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. All of the graphs show crossings of the blue and green curves. Do you mean that not many graphs show multiple crossings? I don't think that that's dependent on sample size. I'm not certain, but I think that even with a hundred or more samples the step curve would tend to waver. I could probably do a run to make sure. nagualdesign 19:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Loraof: I've adapted the code so that I can adjust the sample size. As the sample size is increased it tends to stick closer to the green curve, since each step is smaller. However, if a few samples push the step function 'off course' as it were then it's unlikely that it will return, so even with a large number of samples the step function wavers and doesn't tend to cross the curve many times. It just does so more closely to the green curve. With a sample size of 1000s the step function becomes almost indistinguishable from the curve. nagualdesign 19:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Loraof: I've been playing around with the graphs a bit "for shits and giggles". Mostly because it gives me an interesting insight into the memory limits of JavaScript, but also because the question you asked was interesting. I wanted to share some examples to give you a feel for things, but I've done so many different combinations I wasn't sure which to show you. In the end I made a single sheet of 100 samples where each row uses a sample size that's 10 more than the previous row, so there's ten graphs with 10 samples each, ten graphs with 20 samples and so on, with the bottom row having 100 samples each. I didn't want to spam Commons with lots of unnecessary images so I uploaded it to imgbb. One really interesting bit (if you're a grade-A nerd, like me) is the graph on the sixth row, second from the left. It shows a sample greater than 4. It's only the third time I've spotted one and I've literally generated somewhere in the order of half a million to a million samples so far. Something to pin on your wall. nagualdesign 10:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just spotted a minor error! The first graph in each row has the same number of samples as the previous row, but you get the idea. nagualdesign 10:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting! Can your program calculate the number of crossings in each image and hence compute the average number of crossings for each sample size? Loraof (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought about it, but I can't work out how to program a test. You'd have to test each tread and each riser of the step function. The key to it would be working out which side of the curve any particular coordinate is. For example [1,0.9] lies to the left of the curve, which you easily can tell by looking, but how would you get the computer to calculate that? If you can work that out I'm sure I could program it. nagualdesign 19:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

By the info bar in the lead of Normal distribution, the height of the green curve (the cdf of the standard normal distribution) is

cdf = ${\tfrac {1}{2}}\left[1+\operatorname {erf} \left({\frac {x-\mu }{\sigma {\sqrt {2}}}}\right)\right]$

with mu = 0 and sigma = 1. I presume that whatever programming package you’re using would have the erf function built in. Then just find, for each sample value, whether the cumulative of all sample values up to and including this one is greater than or less than the above formula for the height of the green curve. Loraof (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's really helpful. While there's no native ERF function in JavaScript I did a little googling and came up with the following scripts:

    function erf(x) {
      var m=1, s=1, sum=x;
      for(var i=1; i<50; i++) {
        m*=i;
        s*=-1;
        sum+=(s*Math.pow(x,2*i+1))/(m*(2*i+1));
      }  
      return 2*sum/Math.sqrt(Math.PI);
    }

    function cdf(x) {
      return 0.5*(1+erf(x/(Math.sqrt(2))));
    }

I assume that running the for loop a number of times increases the accuracy, and 50 times will be accurate to several decimal places.

So with that I can work out whether any particular coordinate is above or below the CDF (not, as I was imagining, to the left or right of the CDF). I just need to write a bit of code to convert the samples into a series of coordinates, check each of those against the CDF, then check whether the result changes from one coordinate to the next (and also tot up the number of crossings and append the result to each graph). Watch this space... nagualdesign 22:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Loraof: Well, that was easier said than done! It took me quite a while to work out the code and iron out all of the bugs, then I began running into memory issues. I've uploaded 2 images for you. The first was pretty straightforward – a page of 100 graphs the same as before, where each row uses a sample size that's 10 more than the previous row (the graphs on the bottom row use 100 samples each). Link The number of crossings is shown at the top left of each graph. The second image was more difficult, and had to be made in batches that I pieced together. The bottom half I had to make one row at a time, otherwise the browser just gave up! This time the graphs on the top row use 100 samples each, the second row uses 200 samples and so on, with the bottom row using 1000 samples each. Link That's pretty much the limit.

As you'll see, once you start using hundreds of samples the step function doesn't usually stray far from the curve since each step is very small, so the number of crossings does become much larger. With 20 samples the maximum possible number of crossings is 39, whereas 1000 samples can obviously cross many more times (up to 1999). Although there's one graph with 700 samples but only 9 crossings. It all depends on whether the step function veers off course. The only thing that's a certainty is that the number of crossing will be an odd number. I could probably write some more code that performs some sort of statistical analysis, but I think you'll gain more insight by just looking at the graphs. So there you have it. nagualdesign 00:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

From just browsing through the graphs with 100, ..., 1000 data points, I got the impression that the average graph shows a number of crossings about 1/10 of the sample size. Loraof (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Continuing empirical distribution function discussion

Getting back to the graph for the article Empirical distribution function, there is an appearance problem with it: it shows the horizontal and vertical sections of the blue part as closed line segments; but the vertical parts should not be there, and the right-most point on each horizontal part should be a small hollow circle to show that the right-most point is not on the cdf. See for instance Normal distribution#Properties, top graph. Could you revise the blue cdf step function in this way? Loraof (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why the vertical parts of the step function (the risers) shouldn't be there, since they represent the actual samples. The horizontal parts (the treads) are just there to join one riser to the next. There is no graph at Normal distribution#Properties. nagualdesign 01:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say the top graph at Cumulative distribution function#Properties. Loraof (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• The cdf is a function, and functions have only one value (height) for each x-value. E.g., if the first horizontal step is at cdf = 1/4 for x running from say –2 to –1, and the second horizontal step is at cdf = 1/2 for x running from –1 to 0, then the function is telling us that the value of the cdf at x = –1 is 1/2; the cumulative probability takes into account all x values up and including x = –1. So the value of the cdf at x = –1 is 1/2, and no other point at x = –1 has any meaning. Loraof (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so we're not talking at cross purposes here, the cumulative distribution function (green) is indeed a function of the type y=... but the empirical distribution function (blue) isn't that sort of function. It's more of a plot than a function – a means of displaying the sample values (vertical lines) so that the resulting horizontal lines can be used, along with the CDF, to draw inferences such as the KS test. If you search online for ecdf step function, ecdf function or just ecdf you get a multitude of graphs of the type used on Wikipedia. Matlab use similar plots, as does WolframAlpha. The important thing is that the reader understands us, and I don't think that adding little circles, especially on such a small graph, is going to clarify anything. The main thrust of all this is the mathematical concept of an ECDF, not any particular conventions of how you might plot one, what colours you use, etc. nagualdesign 02:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If the sources used in the article use a particular style of plot, and other editors agree that we should adopt a certain style, I will of course be happy to oblige. It might be worth bringing this up at WT:MATH if you feel strongly about it. nagualdesign 02:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This is just standard material that anyone familiar with cdf’s knows. The link I gave you explains it thoroughly, both verbally and with a graph. The green function is a continuous function, while the blue one, modified as I mentioned, is a discontinuous function. Both are functions, and so each has no more than one point above any specific x value. The corrected blue function is not just a way of displaying data; it’s a cdf and as such it conveys information in a way that can be utilized in a variety of contexts. The vertical connectors do not display values, although I suppose there might be some websites that muddy the waters by superimposing data values on the same graph as the cdf. Just because someone else is sloppy doesn’t mean that we should be too, and of course there are plenty of people out there who don’t superimpose them. You say that the important thing is that readers understand us — that’s right, and they have a chance of getting confused if we claim visually (as we do now) that at any given x there is more than one value of the cdf. And adding the little circles does clarify things, by turning a wrong cdf graph into a correct one. Loraof (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Loraof: You're teaching your grandmother to suck eggs again! You already made the assumption that I didn't really know what I was talking about on your talk page, and I corrected you. I would have thought that all the proceeding discussions we've had, along with all the computation involved, would have demonstrated that I am indeed somewhat familiar with mathematical functions. Your argument from authority is wasted here, and if it's "just standard material that anyone familiar with cdf's knows" then there's no need to make a point of mentioning it.

As I've already explained, there's a difference between the mathematical concept of an empirical distribution function and the specific conventions used when creating a plot. Despite how you might feel about it there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I'd hardly describe Matlab and others as "sloppy". As you should already know, MathWorks, the makers of Matlab, is one of the leaders in their field.

Having said all that I did do a preliminary test in order to indulge your preference. There were 2 problems. First, when using the step function conventions you described it's necessary to increase the height of the graph so that y=1 isn't at the top, otherwise the topmost step is lost in the border of the graph. Normally this would require a dotted or dashed line to represent the top of the plot below the top of the graph. The other problem is the width. In order to see the step function clearly you'd need to change the aspect ratio of the graph. That would mean increasing the width, which creates problems with MOS:IMAGESIZE, and also increasing the size, and therefore the filesize, of File:ECDF-100.png (currently 143 KB) or reducing the number of graphs. All of these changes would require more than simply updating the image, which is a lot of unnecessary work to make a graph that isn't any clearer. Also, I don't think the edit you made to the caption at Empirical distribution function makes things any clearer either. I think it makes things less clear. You don't seem to credit our readers with any capacity to comprehend the obvious. I suggest you change it to something far less verbose. Regards, nagualdesign 11:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I, for one, in my lectures, always treat both functions as functions, and so, make pictures according to Loraof. But these are intended to math students (unlike wikipedia); in this sense I understand nausaldesign's position. As for me, both styles are acceptable here; and in either case a short clarification may help the reader and prevent protests. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've amended the layout and uploaded a sample. (I wasn't sure whether the topmost step should extend to the right side of the graph.) IMHO it's less clear. On a larger graph it might work, but on this scale, as you can see, there are few actual steps. nagualdesign 01:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I realize I've made a mistake here, and the leftmost point of the steps should have solid circles, with the rightmost point having hollow circles (if they were visible). Placing circles on both ends of a bar that's less than 3 or 4 pixels wide will be even more problematic. nagualdesign 02:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The graph you linked will look nice if you put hollow circles (if possible, more clearly hollow — these openings are kind of small) on the right ends. The left ends should either have nothing or a solid circle — either would be correct, but I aesthetically prefer to have no circle there, and that would probably be easier for you.

The blue at a height of 1 should extend indefinitely to the right (till you run out of space), and the blue at a height of 0 should extend indefinitely to the left.

If modified in this way and used in the article, it would allow a briefer caption. Thanks for your work on this! Loraof (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Loraof: I've created a new sheet of graphs for you, which are wider and shorter than the previous ones, and uploaded it here. It's taken considerable effort to rewrite the code in order to accommodate your specifications and if you want any major revisions, particularly to the dimensions, I'm not sure if I have the patience. If you want to use the new graphs you'll still have to upload the new image over the current one and ask MjolnirPants to amend his code. Even having made the graphs 50 pixels wider I still think they're less clear than the original plots, even if they're technically more correct (or at least more in accordance with academic standards), but I'll leave it to you and Boris to make the final decision. Please do bear in mind though that aesthetic considerations are important. It's no good showing a graph that people who already understand them can appreciate, while those who are new to this are left bamboozled. nagualdesign 20:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts, Nagualdesign. These are not easy to read, so I think it’s better to go with the one that’s on the article’s page, with the steps connected. Loraof (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. And it wasn't all a wasted effort as I got to practice coding and you got to see what I was envisaging. I've got a very good visual imagination, hence me being a designer, but I'm used to other people not quite being able to picture what I had in mind until they see it with their own eyes. I've done more mock-ups, knowing that they would be rejected, than I have finished designs. If people only knew how much hard work it takes! Nobody asks an architect to build several houses before deciding which one they like best, but when it comes to website design and graphic design they think the more the merrier – one of the disadvantages of the job. nagualdesign 22:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Loraof: Looking at ECDF crossings 10s.png, do you think it's worth increasing the sample size to 30 or 40 (3rd and 4th rows)? Ignoring the number of crossings and looking at the step functions compared to the 2nd row, do you think they might be clearer? nagualdesign 23:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the individual steps need to be visually clear, so the n=20 case is probably best for the purpose of the first graph in the article. (Fewer sample points gives greater visual clarity for the width of the steps.) But it would also be nice to add another one, with n=40, to show convergence of the empirical cdf to the population cdf. This graph could be placed in the section Empirical distribution function#Asymptotic properties. Loraof (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Drop me a message on my talk if I need to ammend the code. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User: Verdy p

Hello, To inform you I have initiated a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents regarding the edit warring and lack of WP:CIVIL and WP:Assume good faith on the Rockall article. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't even spot the "Assume god faith"! nagualdesign 18:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems like there ought to be an essay in there, WP:ASSUMEGODFAITH. EEng 19:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely! nagualdesign 19:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: You know, I started writing an essay in Notepad recently but I didn't get very far. I kept getting distracted from the intended topic and ended up deleting a lot of my additions. If you're up for a bit of a laugh I'll upload it as is and you can see what you make of it. It can always be deleted if necessary. nagualdesign 19:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not put it in your sandbox? That way you can just blank it, yet it's always there in the history if you want it back. EEng 19:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad idea I suppose, but I've just boldly created it instead at Wikipedia:Butterfly effect (and created a shortcut: WP:BFE). nagualdesign 19:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the butterfly/shitstorm idea. I'm kind of preoccupied for a while (days/weeks) so I've added it to my watchlist so maybe later activity will draw me to it. Or ping me if you get a brainstorm/shitstorm. EEng 20:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Given all of the brouhahas I've been embroiled in recently, especially from WP:Rouge admins, I thought it would be a good idea to make light of it all (while making a few very serious points). I think it's got legs, and it would be great to have some input from yourself and other editors. To anyone reading this, please have at it! And now that it's online I might find a little more inspiration myself. It should go without saying that there are many good admins out there, and what I'd like to do is help separate the wheat from the chaff, not tar them all with the same brush. nagualdesign 20:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Good essay: I like it! One thing that occurred to me, but I'm not sure how or whether to address it, is that a surprisingly large number of users are on the spectrum, at the high-functioning end of it. They are very bad at recognizing humor and very easily upset by unexpected changes, but they have good intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: So I guess BFE and BFF are very nearly opposites! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as we don't take the piss out of people for something they have little or no control of I can't see a problem with mentioning it. It might actually be helpful for people to bear in mind that we don't all tick the same way. Some very careful wording would obviously be in order.

Yes, BFE and BFF are almost exact opposites! nagualdesign 20:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Unrelated: As a special favor, can I ask you to get behind 6A? I really want the focus a final discussion on policy compliance, not a rehash of "which hook is best?", and I do think that (map pictured) is even more unassailably even-a-fool-can't-fail-to-notice-this than just (pictured) alone. EEng 20:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Reported for WP:Canvassing! nagualdesign 20:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm having you kicked out of the secret society. EEng 20:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Shit. Now we have to change the door locks on the clubhouse and come up with a new secret handshake... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No, not if you're a policeman. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

My friend's father was quite high up in the Freemasons and I can confirm that they do indeed use special handshakes. Looks like a normal handshake to all intents and purposes but there's something to do with how much pressure you exert with certain fingers. (Ooh-err!) No, really. nagualdesign 00:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I re-pinged you unnecessarily

You already commented. But while I've got you, what do you think about running a companion hook:

... that Hillary's face is now being printed on $5 bills?

Hee, hee. EEng 19:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

What a rascal. That kind of dodgy hook will get you a bad name. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I say go for it. I want to see the chain emails and fake news stories it spawns. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hehe.. Definitely! If it were entirely up to me I'd write the hook for April Fools' Day as:

Did you know... that Trump is directly connected to Russia, and Hillary's face is now being printed on $5 bills!?

Including the emoji and without any map, but that's a big ol' can of worms! nagualdesign 00:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Combining them is an interesting idea, though it might upset the applecart more than would just adding Hillary as a second hook. Let me ask some of the "skeptics" about the Trump hook what they think. EEng 02:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Never mind the applecart, they're gonna go bananas! nagualdesign 02:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Used one of your photos

Artist's impression of ʻOumuamua

I used one of your brilliant photos for my Teahouse profile - hope you don't mind! Stormy clouds (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, don't tell anybody but I didn't actually take that photo. nagualdesign 22:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that an Interstella Polish sausage? .... and does it come with a Tesla Roadster?? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's what happens when they flush the toilet on the International Space Station. nagualdesign 22:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, "space poop" is a suggested search term in google. Apparently, our faith in humanity is sadly misplaced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pew, phew! Stormy clouds (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

When ya gotta go, ya gotta go. nagualdesign 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

there's klingons on the starboard bow! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a blast from the past. Incredibly, Star Trekkin' was at number 1 for two weeks! nagualdesign 23:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Take a walk, Trekkie. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oi! Nobody bad mouths Star Trek on my talk page! nagualdesign 23:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Oi vay!"? But how wonderful. Alfred Matthew one of the wittiest musical performers of the last 40 years. A national treasure, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) [4]

Goddamn it, Jim, he's a musician, not a miracle worker! Stormy clouds (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you out of your Vulcan mind? nagualdesign 23:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your insinuation of my insanity is most illogical. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I present the convergence. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL! I think I'm going to adopt this as my new theme song. I just have to work out a bit of JavaScript so that it plays automatically whenever you visit my talk page... nagualdesign 00:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

... I may be wearing Swiss Cheese, or maybe covered with bees ... Martinevans123 (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I never realized that "Weird Al" Yankovic had such a cracking figure! I think I must be on the turn. nagualdesign 00:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, get you, dearie. I'm sorry, but I think he's really entertaining and genuinely funny! Martinevans123 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. And as a White & Nerdy I'm pretty impressed by how they made that video. The wonders of modern technology! nagualdesign 00:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That video is just so clever. The precious head movements are just so accurate. I think that guy's a genius. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I just figured I'd leave this here for your enjoyment... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

... nagualdesign 01:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the part where the geisha girl gets f**ked to death by the baby-faced anthropomorphic strap-on was a little over the top. But then there's this, which helps a bit. Japanese Metal: Not always disgusting, but 'always made with a healthy dose of 100% pure, uncut whattheeverlovingshitballs?!?!. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't wait for Weird Al's take on Fifty Shades of kei. I do hope we can get some Japanese Death metal where it matters. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was one of Dir En Grey's earlier videos. Since then, they've gone a more visual kei route, so they're all pretty now and their music kinda sucks from being too pop-ish. But I'd love to see Babymetal in the Euro contest. (Yes, I recognize the irony, as Babymetal is way more pop than Dir En Grey, but Babymetal was always deliberately poppy, so they make it work far better.) But you know what would really rock the Euro contest? Math metal played on a shovel. With a clarinet solo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• I just re-read my comment up above about Japanese metal, and it comes off as a little racist. So I wanted to add that Japan doesn't have a copyright on lip flapping insanity. I mean, over here in the US, we even have a Ned Flanders-themed Screamo band who's not all that bad. And of course, we have pirate metal too, because Yaaar! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ahem, Scottish Pirate Metal I think you mean? Although, I must say, it sounds a bit more international to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh my. It was the American record label that threw me off. I'm a little embarrassed now. I don't own any of their records (though I should), I just love their videos on youtube. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it gets worse than that... I just realized that I confused their Austrian record label for an American one. I'm really off my game today... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

And even worse yet... I confused an American band for an American label that, as it turns out, isn't even exclusively American. I have no excuses. There's a trout button on my talk page; I suggest everyone reading this go ahead and use it. The only thing I have to say in my defense is that I've been a dad for going on a decade now, so I'm obviously not as much into the scene as I once was... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

*thwack!* Up your game, HammerTrousers. nagualdesign 02:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

yezzir... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pure dad joke gold

Right there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hehe... An oldie but a goldie. nagualdesign 16:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Gold? Maybe I'd give it a bronze. But then again, my favorite Olympic event is projectile vomiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's good to know. nagualdesign 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. (I'm glad that people actually read what I wrote. Just checking, and you passed the quiz.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It's good to know that other people recycle too. I can't save the planet single-handedly. nagualdesign 21:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)