User talk:Kynde

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, please do not remove the Cueball references here. He is a standard character. The category Category:Comics featuring Cueball gives just an overview about all comics showing this stick figure. And just one is him, not defined by Randall but by us. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

But who should define who Cueball is? You? I could see him as both here. And somebody did. You have just corrected back so that the Cueball in the explain is switched to the other charachter in the transcript. At least one of these should then be changed to match the other. It is thus also clear that people have different views of what Cueball stands for. Is he the one trolling, or is he the one who knows which movie Blade Runner is? Kynde (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
By the way - I did not remove the reference to the chategory - but only in the text as described above. Kynde (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, a minor concern, but please be more sparing in your use of "minor" tags on edits. Addition of 1200 characters (e.g. . . m Talk:1496: Art Project‎; 20:04 . . (+1,240)‎ . . ‎Kynde, or . . m 1497: New Products‎; 19:12 . . (-419)‎ . . ‎Kynde →‎Explanation: It does not fit into category four! See new test. I also deleted a lot of text, that already was written below, and was basically the same as the one stille) is NOT minor. Djbrasier (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

When adding a new comment to the talk page I newer see this as a major change. This i a discussion not a change to the explanation!. I do not believe it was a big change removing the text you wrote, when all of it basically was written below. Try and read your version, and see that it was more or less double. Also I had already once removed the reference to the fourth category. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. --Kynde (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I like what you did at 1402: Harpoons. Thank you.

Your welcome - I did it based on you comment Kynde (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Cueball & Rob

You seem to have changed some comics in which formerly more than one cueball appeared to make it such that none were called cueball (e.g. Orb Hammer). But many persist, see transcripts in:

We should probably seek broader consensus before rewriting all these transcripts. There seems to me to be a general trend to name one "Cueball" and call the others "Friend" or somesuch in these cases and I'm concerned that you seem to want to singlehandedly rewrite all that convention. Djbrasier (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is typically the first who writes the transcript who decides who of the Cueballs (or Megans) he feel represents the real Cueball. However, there is no real behavior of Cueball. So who should decide. I could also change these transcripts so it becomes the other character who becomes Cueball, because I think the first transcripter did it wrong. This was exactly what happened with the two Megan-like comics. First it was Megan and Danish. Then unidentified girl and Megan. Then Megan and unidentified girl, then two Megan like girls with short and long hair and finally you reverted it to my first ide: Unidentified girl and Megan. So thanks for showing me these six double Cueball comics. I will change asap. And as I answered your comment on 1496: Art Project Rob is already listed as part of the category for Comics featuring Cueball: and this is listed as the first entry when going to the page for Category:Comics featuring Cueball: Thus he should not be merged--Kynde (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you please add this discussion here [1]. I have refrained from making these sort of substantial changes and want to seek a broader consensus. Please use the community forum to seek such consensus before making major unilateral changes like that. Djbrasier (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Done with interests --Kynde (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
there are dozens of multiple-Cueball comments. Please don't change them to "man 1", "man 2" until we can reach a braoder consensus. I will not be changing them to "Rob" without consensus. This is not something to be done all at once and making that many changes will prompt me to request that an admin freeze your account. Djbrasier (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I was about to write this before your comment no. two. So this was a reply to your previous comment: "I can post it there, but these changes has been underway a long time for almost a year. But it is hard to find these comics as I do not go through them just to find incidences. How long have you been active in xkcd. I can see your page has been created today, but maybe you were active long before that?"--Kynde (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a comment to your next comment: "It is very hard to threaten someone like that already. I have been making these changes before, and by the way never to man 1 or man 2. I have been one of the top contributers for more than a year. I hope this is not just because I reverted one of your contributions to Mondays comic? --Kynde (talk21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't want to threaten. I think consistent style is important, and general style I see is in multi-Cueball comics, one is ID'd as Cueball and others are "Friend", etc. Anyone unilaterally changing an established style should seek consensus first.
Additionally, I think your undo on my edit actually improved the explanation.
Finally, if you know how to solicit more opinions on the matter at hand, please let me know (or do it). Thanks! Djbrasier (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks on the edit appraisal. As I wrote on the talk page, yours was also much better phrased the second time. I do not know how to get anyone to go read your comment except by giving them the message like you did with me. Or putting a link to it from the talk page of the double Megan comic, and maybe on some of the double Cueball comics too. I did not understand the "solicit more opinions" at first (why I wrote that last part in my comment below "how many will read"). So you do realize, I can see now, that not many will. By the way I'm Danish... That is, I'm neither a mean girl or a pastry cake, but from Denmark. And although I'm, really good at English for everyday use, it is not by far a language I can understand everything. But suddenly I got your message.--Kynde (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My only point is we need to wait until consensus is reached before undoing years of precedent in Cueball naming. Djbrasier (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well as I have made fairly clear there is no consensus. Because it is up to the first one who writes the transcript to decide who is the friend. And this often leads to discussion or changes forth and back (like we just saw with two Megans) since people have different opinion on how Cueball should behave, since they do not know that Cueball can behave anyway Randall needs him to. Often he reflects Randall's intelligence, but just as often he is a prick behaving horribly towards girls etc. So if there are two, one good and one bad, you cannot say the good one is Cueball. And how many do you think reads your post? --Kynde (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at the comics you have listed. Here are my comments:

  • 1405:_Meteor
    • Here I would have changed - since it is believed that Cueball often represents Randall's version of himself - especially when it is his hobby. Of course it is then Randall who is pedantic, and thus Cueball. So I would change the Cueball reference. So here we could have a stupid editing war, instead of writing something else.
  • 525:_I_Know_You're_Listening
    • Here there is only one Cueball speaking. And the other is listening in. So here I would no object so much. Maybe I would mention that the other looks like Cueball.
  • 192:_Working_for_Google
    • Here I would have changed - since I would think that Cueball should have the most interesting story, and also that this Cueball is Randall as it is known that Randall has an interest in Google and has also been cheated by their aptitude test (so much that he did the famous 356: Nerd Sniping). So also here I would change the Cueball reference. So again stupid editing war, instead of writing something else.
  • 187:_The_Familiar
    • Here I would have changed - since I would thing that Cueball should be the one always interested in computers. Not the other way. I know there are other comics where he enjoys nature. But Also a lot where he enjoys computers out of hand and math etc. So again I would have changed the Cueball reference. So again stupid editing war, instead of writing something else.
  • 79:_Iambic_Pentameter
    • Here I agree with the Cueball = Randall - it's Randall my hobby and thus the one with the Hobby is Cueball. But I would still prefer they are not named. some might argue against me on the hobby, saying the Cueball with the hobby is "Randall" so the other Cueball is "Cueball". Thus once more editing war. But I would not start it. But still probably mention that the Cueball with a hobby is Randall.
  • 65:_Banter
    • What can I say. The first is called Cueball the other is not. They have the same amount of text, and they are obviously both gay and missing out. I would definitely loose the Cueball reference here.

That is my ten cents about these six examples. Maybe we should create a category called multiple Cueballs. --Kynde (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have not changed any of these... yet. But maybe I should revert those three I think is plain wrong, so the Cueball and friend is changed. Then we can see if anyone changes back? ;-) --Kynde (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I advise waiting. If you want to enact 4, go for it, but then put in the discussion a link to our discussion for all the changes you make so hopefully someone besides you and me goes to that page and weighs in.

To answer your question, I've read xkcd for years (I started reading regularly around the time there were ~500 total comics), lurked on explainxkcd and made anonymous minor edits for most of that time. I set up an account in July 2013, when I began making more regular edits.

I recognize that the issue has a large amount of inertia. My point is precisely that there are 9 "Rob" comics and countless Cueball. But, as I stated on the page, there is ample evidence that the same character (Black Hat's friend/roommate, Megan's boyfriend) is named Rob. I haven't done a count, but I suspect that "Megan" is named in the comic fewer than 9 times, but characters of her appearance are all called "Megan".

Yes, multiple Megans triggered the idea that's been brewing in my mind since someone (not me) made an anonymous comment on a relatively recent Rob comic [1168: tar]. Since I read that it's been sitting in my mind, but I haven't wanted to make an issue. However, the asymmetry between Megan/Cutie and Rob/Cueball grates for me and I want to urge the community here to evaluate critically whether it is the right thing or an inappropriate historical artifact. Years ago, [Cutie] was abolished (redirects now to [Megan]), I think it's objectively appropriate to make a symmetrical arrangement for Rob/Cueball (hence my options 2 & 3 in the public discussion thread).

For now, if you want to go changing all those comics go ahead. I won't argue or revert, but I request that you put the following (or something close to it) in the discussion of all the comics you change "I've removed the name 'Cueball' from this and several other comics that have multiple Cueball's in them as per my position on the issue currently under discussion at if you support this change or disagree with it, please weigh in on that discussion thread."

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from more users. Djbrasier (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Djbrasier
(By the way my name is Kynde - that is both my nick and my middle name).
Thanks for this very open talk. I like you much better now ;-)
If I do change any of these I will do as you ask. It is not like I have forever to do these changes, although I for sure use too much time already on explain... I think I will add the category:Comics with multiple Cueballs. What do you think of the name if I do (and if I do then maybe also make one with Category:Comics where Megan is named Megan. Please tell me you can think of a better name for that one ;-) I only know of the three now mentioned on Megans page.
As you can see om my page, I have only used explain xkcd since late 2013. So you have been member longer than me by some months. I did not read xkcd before that - became fascinated with the What if section on xkcd and when I finished with those I turned to the comic. But found that I failed to understand quite a few, and thus searched and found this page. I have read them as they come out since then, and then also began reading from no. 1. But since I always look in this page for the explanation and like to contribute I only progress very slowly. Recently I have reached 540: Base System where I have made several improvements additions and corrections. And that is as far as I have reached reading straight fro no. 1. But I have of course used the cross referencing and thus read many in between that and those from October 2013.
Regards Kynde --Kynde (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Happy to have the discussion and to get to wiki-know you. I definitely see your points. I added a few comments and links to our public discussion in the hopes that, over time, it will attract more users to the community portal discussion. I suspect it will take some months for enough users to weigh in that we have a reasonable consensus. I think that if you remove "Cueball" from some of the comics you mentioned above and put a link to the portal page in the discussion block of those comments, that will prompt community input.
DJ Djbrasier (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I also added incomplete tags to a few comics in which I think a strong argument can be made that "Cueball" is really Rob, despite his name not showing up (Boombox & Cover-up) Djbrasier (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I disagree again. See the talk pages. But then it is out for discussion.--Kynde (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have changed several of the Multiple Cueballs comics as you said was OK with you. See the new caregory. --Kynde (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools


It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal or Bitcoin?