explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

2871: Definitely

2024-01-03T12:35:32Z

172.70.85.81: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2871
| date = December 22, 2023
| title = Definitely
| image = definitely_2x.png
| imagesize = 463x461px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = A really mean prank you can play on someone who's picky about words is to add a 'definitely->definitively' autocorrect rule to their keyboard.
}}

==Explanation==
The word "''{{wiktionary|definitely}}''" is commonly {{wiktionary|misspelt}}{{Actual citation needed}} because the {{w|vowel}}s in the middle syllables are reduced to unstressed {{w|centralized vowel}}s that [https://youtu.be/qu4zyRqILYM?t=111 can be spelled with any vowel letter], or are omitted completely. (The Wiktionary link gives three pronunciations, /ˈdɛf.ɪ.nɪt.li/, /ˈdɛf.ə.nɪt.li/, /ˈdɛf.nɪt.li/, which are just some of the differences you might encounter.) Remembering that it ultimately has a common root with "finite", and thus has the two 'i's, might not help if you also/instead perhaps link it in your head to "''define''" (which might erroneously lead to "''defin'''e'''tely''") and not "definition").

The comic gives twelve 'words' that the subtitle claims are all real, and gives their definitions, whereas in reality only the first (the definitely definitive spelling of "''definitely''") and the last (defying the trend by being the actual word "''{{wiktionary|defiantly}}''") are indeed so.

{| class="wikitable"
! Word
! Meaning
! Notes
|-
| Definitely
| Definitely
| This is a real word.
|-
| Definetly
| ''Almost'' definitely
| This "word" has a Wiktionary entry that indicates it is a common misspelling of "definitely."
|-
| Definately
| Probably
| This "word" has a Wiktionary entry that indicates it is a common misspelling of "definitely." This word has also been used previously in [[1238: Enlightenment]].
|-
| Definatly
| Probably not
| This "word" has a Wiktionary entry that indicates it is a common misspelling of "definitely."
|-
| Defenitely
| Not telling (it's a surprise)
|
|-
| Defintely
| Per the prophecy
|
|-
| Definetely
| Definitely, maybe
| This is a reference to the romantic-comedy film {{w|Definitely, Maybe}}.
|-
| Definantly
| To be decided by coin toss
|
|-
| Defanitely
| In one universe out of 14 million
| This references the film "{{w|Avengers: Infinity War}}". In this movie, Doctor Strange looks into the future and sees 14 million possible outcomes, but only one of them is favorable.
|-
| Defineatly
| Only the gods know
|
|-
| Definitly
| Unless someone cute shows up
|
|-
| Defiantly
| Defiantly
| This is a real word.{{citation needed}} However, "defiantly" may also be such a common misspelling because of spellcheck. Other mistakes are caught and can be corrected, but the substitution of a different real word is harder to identify as wrong, especially when the correction mechanism jumped the 'wrong way' in rendering a correct spelling. e.g., the misspelling "definatly" (with both substitution and omission errors separating it from the intended word) may be deemed incorrectly correctable to "defiantly" (a single transposition away from what was typed).
|}

The first three alternate 'words' listed do have Wiktionary entries that indicate they are common mis-spellings of the first, and the last has a secondary 'meaning' of possibly being such an error, but (as of the publication of this comic/edit) the words "''defenitely''", "''defintely''", "''definetely''", "''definantly''", "''defanitely''", "''defineatly''" and "''definitly''" are ''so'' wrong that they don't even have a corrective article created for them. Some of them don't even look like they'd even be sufficiently homophonic substitutes, though the actions of accent and dialect may indeed be capable of creating compatible (mis)elocutions for each.

The title text adds to the word confusion by suggesting the real word "''{{wiktionary|definitively}}''" (for which Wiktionary has a 'See also' link to "definitely") be made to be used (against the will of a word-wise individual) as a substitution for the original definitely definitive spelling. In certain contexts it even fulfils the same basic sense as the original and so may survive proofreading by a third party. Or even the author glancing through their own work, and the brain not twigging the increased number of riser-rich characters but mentally voicing the intended word anyway... Even if it is noticed, it may be considered more a "''{{wiktionary|thinko}}''" than a "''{{wiktionary|typo}}''" as it keeps happening, at least until the afflicted typist starts to pay close and distracting attention to their output.

This kind of [[:Category:Substitutions|substitution]] is a recurring subject on xkcd, with one of the more famous ones being [[1031: s/keyboard/leopard/]], where "''keyboard''" is replaced by "''leopard''" in the text.

==Transcript==
:[A list of 12 words with their meanings. The lines between the words and their meaning are aligned, with the words to the left being right-aligned. Above the 12 rows of words there are underlined captions:]
:Word   Meaning

:Definitely - Definitely
:Definetly - ''Almost'' definitely
:Definately - Probably
:Definatly - Probably not
:Defenitely - Not telling (it's a surprise)
:Defintely - Per the prophecy
:Definetely - Definitely, maybe
:Definantly - To be decided by coin toss
:Defanitely - In one universe out of 14 million
:Defineatly - Only the gods know
:Definitly - Unless someone cute shows up
:Defiantly - Defiantly

:[Caption below the panel:]
:People think the word "definitely" is often misspelled, but it's actually just several words with different meanings.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Substitutions]]

Talk:2875: 2024

2024-01-03T01:06:31Z

172.70.85.81:

It [[wikipedia:List of presidents of the United States by age|appears]] that only three US presidents so far have lived for over 30 years since their last election: Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and (technically) George H.W. Bush. One other (John Adams) had made it to 29. In addition, Gerald Ford had lived for over 29 years after the end of his presidency (and over 30 years after its start) but had technically never been elected. Of course none of those five were two-term presidents so they in any case would not have been restricted from further election by the 22nd amendment (and John Adams additionally wasn't affected by it due to having died prior to its ratification). --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.134|172.70.200.134]] 22:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think he's suggesting that 30 years is enough -- that's only when half the tooth cells have been replaced. So we have to resort to dentistry and replace all the teeth. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 00:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just made some "content and flow" edits to bring the Explanation up to a reasonable spec of explanatoriaciousness (which I fully expect to be buffed up and/or trimmed by others). I didn't ''directly'' explain that SCOTUS has nine (or more!) voting members, but there's the link(s) I added where this gets fairly well qualified for the person who might need to know this, and I refrained from suggestion reasons why one or both of the more recent Presidents might be best 'forgotten' (depending upon a person's own considerations on each matter), etc... I actually think that if all nine SCOTUSii all decided in one direction on the issues of Obama's teeth then it would be because of ideologically opposing views lining up by pure accident (e.g. some see/do not see pulling teeth as a valid way of becoming President for a third term, the rest see/do not see the pulling of teeth from Obama as laudible but would expect the next step to fail to happen for entirely separate reasons). And if someone definitely knows if FDR wore dentures (or not), particularly in his last five or so years, then that can surely be inserted as a valid (counter-)justifying fact. Anyway, probably done with my own polishing. For the moment, certainly. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.243|172.69.194.243]] 03:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:According to the book [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Party_Politics_in_the_Age_of_Roosevelt/NttsEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22franklin+d+roosevelt%22+dentures&pg=PA148&printsec=frontcover Party Politics in the Age of Roosevelt] by Michael P. Riccards and Cheryl A. Flagg, FDR did have a ''partial'' denture to replace two of his front teeth, but that wouldn't satisfy Ponytail's plan. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.40|172.70.127.40]] 04:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the reference to there being only 8 justices on the Supreme Court ... As far as I can tell, on January 1 2024 there are 9, unless I'm missing something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States [[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 11:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:What reference? It says 9 - [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.153|172.70.130.153]] 19:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::It said 8 in some previous versions, like [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2875:_2024&oldid=331841 this one] [[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 20:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Ponytail is being inconsistent? She wants Obama to be considered a new person due to cellular replacement, so he can be elected ... because she likes him, and recognizes the "new" Obama as still being the President she liked. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]])
:Tell you what it also blows out of the water, though..? Any hint of 'birther' complaints. (Also might well be how Arnie had become a POTUS, in the future-history of Demolition Man!) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.226|172.69.194.226]] 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:It's not really inconsistent. What she liked about him weren't his cells, but the way he governed. And just as the Ship of Theseus sails just as well after you replace all its planks, Obama will behave similarly after replacing his cells and teeth. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 20:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow! a vandal! fun! [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:Persistent. I just reverted again. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::who on earth vandalizes a comic wiki [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 17:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Your username makes it look like you're answering your own question lol [[Special:Contributions/172.69.70.70|172.69.70.70]] 21:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, as Trump didn't win the popular vote, one might argue he was ''made'' president, but not "elected to the office" as stated per the 22nd. If he keeps this up he could re-run indefinitely. I expect his lawyers to make this exact argument in 2028. We need to call forth the laws of gerontology to stop him! ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.135.52|172.70.135.52]] 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
:Presidents aren't elected by the people, they're elected by the electors (as was Trump). The electors each may have to adhere to one degree of other (depends upon a whole stack of other rules) of faithfulness to the people they represent. But, even if they are ''entirely'' faithful, their combined votes may not truly represent the combined votes of all the people whose votes influence the electors.
:i.e. he was elected to office, despite the majority will of those who contributed to tue result. For technical issues, though, many of those who cast a vote never even had a slither of an influence in the result (they just propped up either the winning ''or'' losing end-totals in ways that can soak up plenty of possible defections, non-participation or reversals of apathy).
:And, even if it was shown that massive disenfrachisement occured (e.g. Bush 2's Florida-moment, from getting them to give up on counting/etc), that just potentially invalidates the basis of the Electoral College votes, not that the EC votes were indeed cast.
:...and all this because the fledgling US decided that it just couldn't organise direct elections nationwide/across all states so worked out its own way to fudge it. (I mean, direct-election FPTP is also problematic, leaving a huge chunk of people deciding they might as well not bother, but FPTP-by-proxy and other problematic issues that arise alongside it add further reasons to be dissilusioned (or excessively entitled, whenever the result happens to swing the way you're more content with, justified or not). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.81|172.70.85.81]] 01:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

explain xkcd:Community portal/Admin requests

2024-01-02T18:16:36Z

172.70.85.81: stop deleting my free speech, disgusting kike.

<noinclude>{{Community links}}

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

{|-
|valign="top" width="100%"|[[File:Mop.svg|left|120px]] <big><big>Admin requests</big></big>

 Welcome to your mother's basement! Problems requiring assistance from an [[explain xkcd:Administrators|admin]]. User problems, changes to protected pages, more user rights etc. {{AddNewSection|Page=Explain XKCD:Community portal/Admin requests|Text=(+post)}}
|}
'''List of Admins:''' 
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
{{Special:ListUsers/sysop}}
</div>

= Discussion Area =
</noinclude>

== Convert to real X-Forwarded-For IP addresses? ==

Can you admins do the https://serverfault.com/a/526551 thing so you can block by real IP addresses and ranges? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.134|172.70.211.134]] 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
:That is out of my league. But maybe some of the other clever admins may know what if that can be used? [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 17:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

==Install anti-spam programs==
I think it’s time to install some sort of automated anti-spam programs that can catch these spammers fast.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.91|172.70.130.91]] 06:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to be disrespectful, but it seems that the current set of admins lacks the collective time or ability to upgrade Mediawiki/MySQL and install widely available anti-vandalism and anti-spam measures. But you have perhaps the most technically inclined, supportive, and motivated audience you could hope for here. Why not use the main page top banner to ask for expert Mediawiki volunteers or if that doesn't work, funds to hire such a consultant to upgrade blocking and filtering tools or a new hosting solution if needed? I believe you'd be surprised with the extent of community support you can muster, and manually chasing vandalism is becoming tiresome. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.90|172.70.211.90]] 07:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
:I've been chasing jeff for months now because he's the only one with access to the server. I know he's alive and still active online, but he clammed up partway through the previous wave of heavy spam and the email chain is just 20 of my own emails, I'll get through eventually. '''[[User:Davidy22|y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 18:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
::[https://twitter.com/jeff_underscore @jeff_underscore] tweeted four days ago. Would it help if we launched a Twitter campaign to get him on board with a server update fundraiser, or something? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.43|172.70.214.43]] 03:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
::: Anyone with the skills and experience should tweet him to take him up on [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff&diff=211706&oldid=211700 his offer,] IMHO. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.118.39|162.158.118.39]] 04:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

== Basic punctuation standards ==
Can we please have some agreement that <code>."</code> is better than <code>".</code>? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.150.29|172.71.150.29]] 07:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
:That would depend.
When asked "How do you deal with endquote punctuation in quoted speech?" he answered "Yes," with a definite nod of his head, "I would always try to put the punctuation before the quote."
:...that is how I was taught to do it, <mumble>fumphty-fumph</mumble> years ago, and when it is clear quoted speech (with 66s, 99s) then that's probably best. Except when it might confuse, but then a rewrite (or clearly indicated paraphrase/part-quote) might be useful. You'll note I example-quote 'wrongly' in some places below, to accomodate other factors. Like an exclamation point as a feature of the holding sentence that makes no sense at all to be translated to within the quoted sentence(-fragmant).
On the other hand providing "a set of words", with no clear quotation to them, ellicits no such compunction.
:...it gets a bit hazy, because a partial quote of a real full sentence (or an incomplete/incompleted quote) could go either way. But I would not consider "a set of words," to be sensible.
If you give a "list", "spread" or "set" of singular terms then no, or even compounded ones if they are ultimately the "be-all" and "end-all".
:...noting that I might personally single-quote in this case (I know not why I have adopted this principle, exactly), though I've often seen such things changed by others and it may be more contested than even the terminator punctuation. I might say that the 'true' difference is whether it is a definite "literal", insofar as meaning, or somewhat 'ad hoc', 'foreignish' or just plain constructed.
:But this is just my opinion. And, regardless of my preference to quote-punctuation ordering, I've seen several recent occasions where paren-punctuation ordering was totally off (IMO). Either "...at the end of a sentence (an aside.)", which should have been "... (an aside)." instead, or "(As a whole aside of its own)." for which it ''must'' surely be "(As ... of its own.)"
:Now, obviously too much ()ing is awkward, especially if nested, but I prefer the clearer in/out indication than other methods — like the mdash — which seem to be the favoured method by some editors — and, even more confusingly, often without spacing both sides. (Like "...by some editors—and, even more confusingly..."! Looks more like a hyphen, despite "—” and "–”-users changing hyphens-used-as-dashes to one or other of the dashes to try to differentiate them.)
:Ultimately, though, the people here will have learnt (or redeveloped) their own typographical standards over a wide range of educational eras (or under teachers/mentors whose own learnt-preferences might themselves be several decades passed into history) and with additional localisation/localization complications as well. I tend to agree with you (with caveats as mentioned) but it won't be universally acceptable. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.13|172.70.85.13]] 21:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
: Better? No. Correct (at least in American English)? Yes. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

== Propose block of (an?) IP user(s?) and suppression of their edits ==

I don't mind being insulted but I think it's clear they're bad for the community:

* https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:NotaBene&diff=296485&oldid=203158
* https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:NotaBene&diff=296486&oldid=296485

--[[User:NotaBene|NotaBene]] ([[User talk:NotaBene|talk]]) 14:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

: As the IP who subsequently reverted those back out of existence (wasn't sure you'd seen it, but was clear to me it wasn't a useful/good-faith commentary, and now I find that you had and had certainly ignored it in-situ) I have mixed opinions. I could not have done my (good faith) edit if somehow restricted, in a way someone had previously gotten around. Bearing in mind the idiotic vandal(s) we have had before, and always ended up dealing with through sheer force of the more righteous and honest userbase, I think that drastic actions aren't necessary. But I can think of a few minor tweaks that maybe the current adminship can still hold in reserve and occasionally employ, without preventing the likes of me (long time contributor, but not yet decided to make it 'official') occasionally poking registered users' Talk pages with genuine queries or comments under most circumstances that may actually warrant it.
: That said, we have indeed had a spate of vandalism, recently, which I'm inclined to believe is 'our old friend' who probably decided he(?) was bored again. A few novel tricks (nonsense 'cat on keyboard' edits with no clear pattern to the nonsense or what it replaces) but in association with some of the old ones (global word replacements throughout an article). Quickly recorrected in all cases, SFAICT, so not a big problem.
: The above insertion (...insertions... seeming to care about punctuation typos!) I might have left for you to blue-pen out of your own Talk page (whatever the intent behind it) except for my spidey-sense saying it really was ''just'' trolling and that you had no reason to even consider a dismissive reply, never mind argue your defence against such an accusation. (But could always restore and reply to it if you really wanted to!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 17:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

:: To be clear, I'm not proposing a site-wide restriction of all IP users, just those specific addresses. --[[User:NotaBene|NotaBene]] ([[User talk:NotaBene|talk]]) 18:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

::: Understood, but that'd mean inconveniencing even legitimate readers routing through the same Cloudflare gateways. Which are in bunches, such that any given region of the world is served by not necessarily contiguous IP ranges, thus false-positives and false-negatives. Until you blanket-ban enough to just make for a whole lotta false-positive blocking for a segment of real users once the instigator of the mess just moves on (or enjoys the mess he made, if self-aware enough of it).
::: I won't even know, until I submit this, if I'm this time listed even in the same IP/8-block as the above (172.71.178.137), but if it turns out that I'm a 141.* this time (or maybe 142.*, I forget what I occasionally show up as) then obviously had you reason to IP-block me because of my own actions then you'd have accomplished little by even banning the whole 16-/24-block of my original. And that's without any conscious intent to bypass the default allocation system...
::: So, not that you should take my own opinion as gospel, just thought I'd mention this. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.3|172.70.90.3]] 20:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

== Hey ==

I cleaned everything up. You should probably restore the newest 3 topics.

:It could definitely do with a cleanup (not the only page like this!), but in a positive and considered manner, not just wiping and expecting unwarrented deletions to be restored after your removal. Archival sub-pages (restricted/fully-protected) should be involved, perhaps, for reference/history (on top of the History view itself).
:Not just wiping by an unisigned contributor, as you did. I'm a hairbreadth from just reverting it all back again, on principle, and maybe someone else will do that anyway.
:But defering to known named users (esp. the admins) and their decision on how to procede. (Please do delete this contribution if you see fit to do any restoration and make my opinions moot.) [[Special:Contributions/172.68.138.79|172.68.138.79]] 20:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
::I agree that it needed cleanup, and also agree that wiping everything was not the best way to go about doing it. I've moved most of the deleted content to the "talk"/archive page, and put back some discussions. [[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 23:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

== Complaint transcluded from [[user:ArthurGreenham]] ==
:(Ok, so, the above transclusion is subject to change at any time, as proven by While False going in there and 'wikilinking' everything since I first saw the transclusion inserted here, so perhaps a little less ephemeral explanation is needed..?)
:Point the first: I have no issues with While False, in general. Seems to be a good editor in general. As I recall, did a lot to counter that particularly recurring bad-faith editor who the current expanded admin set will recall. And regular editing from you, mate..? As good as anyone else, I would say. No bad-faith detected in you at all.
:Point the second: You do seem to be a bit too gung-ho with new pages, and similar experiments with markup. Just because you can, it seems. If those with the power to remove pages choose not to, then I'm not complaining, but I still think it's a bit... self-indulgant. Not that a mere IP like me can rightfully complain.
:Point the third: Clearly, among the mass of newly registered users (who never then contribute) there is a large cohort generated by some external script(s) for the intention of SEO/propogation of linky-links. I suspect that they're set to do this on any wiki that they can create accounts upon, mindlessly and with the initiating 'intelligence' not bothered how well they do it (economies of scale, as per spamming/etc) because some will do it and fulfil whatever purpose.
:Point the fourth: But, back a long time ago, our chief admin here (and his then current peers/etc?) set it up so that new users just did not so easily create brand new pages. Without overly restricting the spamming of user-registration (or, more importantly, legitimately interested actual contributors) it stymied the scripts that were creating users that then could not create (and write their spam upon) the pages they were programmed to create.
:Point the fifth: But if someone who is an autoconfirmed user looks at the accounts created (I'm guessing here, so corrects me if I'm wrong) and decides to make the pages that new and heretofor uncontriutive users ''cannot'' create for themselves, there are times (at least two, that I know of) that the mindless spam-script has not given up and moved on from putting their random link-spam upon RandomNewname's user page. And as RandomNewname ''has'' a page, it does its preprogrammed stuff.
:...and the world does not stop turning, if that happens. But it does just marginally increase the benefits vs costs of the spam-engine technique (which are probably already breaking even and more, across all speculative spam-destinationa) and I'd suggest we shouldn't be helping with that any more than we already have to.
:Maybe theusaf could add to their own bot some sort of detection of a suspicious level of linkspamming upon a user's own pages (to neuter these that leak through, like the ones that it deals with in other circumstances), but that'd be difficult without having false-positives upon genuine new users with (once they can) a genuine reason to populate their userspace with various external links.
:Instead, perhaps hold back upon feeding the spambots the fresh ground that they seem to like to make use of. Perhaps a page for "please create my userspace!" if we want genuine users (or at least ones that can find and read instructions) to get a userspace more quickly than the normal limits apply, so any established (named) editor can give them their Welcome-templated editspace.
:We can't so easily protect against conscious bad-faith editors (we will just have to deal with them, as we have done), but we seem to have sufficient anti-bot defences. If misguided editing doesn't open up cracks in the walls.
:...Ok, that looks like a rant, but was just intended to cover (much of) the issue as I saw it in a way that explained my accumulated thinking on the matter. And I clearly think too much. This is not a diatribe against anybody (except the spambot originators), just a plea for action (or, rather, inaction) in a key way. And perhaps some moderator-level cleanup, so that the above transclusion is now effectively red-linked (then delete/archive this horribly overblown entry). Leaving it up to you lot. Have fun! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.3|172.70.90.3]] 10:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

==2696: Accuracy and precision==
This is my first edit/post here. Could someone please include the Wikipedia link to "Accuracy and precision" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision], which is a separate article from 'accuracy' and 'precision'? Thanks! unsigned ip|172.71.98.97|16:04, 9 November 2022}}
:If someone else hasn't done already, it's trivial enough to do yourself in a similar way to how you edited here, in any one of a number of ways.
:*By bare URL (shows the URL, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision but not really suitable here)
:*As you did it above, with [] around the URL, giving a 'reference'-like link. Occaisionally useful, but a little impersonal in most cases.
:**Or use URL and alternate text in the []s (space-separated) <nowiki>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision like this]</nowiki>, which looks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision like this] and is most useful for non-wiki links that you can describe well, or associate into the flow of text.
:*An internal wiki link is defined like <nowiki>[[2696: Precision vs Accuracy]]</nowiki> and renders as [[2696: Precision vs Accuracy]], which is common site practice (you could alse link to [[2696]] or [[Precision vs Accuracy]], in most cases, which are redirects) but doesn't help in the above link's case.
:**If you wanted to internally link with [[2696: Precision vs Accuracy|other text]] then using <nowiki>[[2696: Accuracy and precision|other text]]</nowiki> is the way to do it (use the pipe delimiter).
:*When it comes to wikipedia links, though, we have a nice template for it. By using <nowiki>Accuracy and precision}}</nowiki> (or with the underscored version of the title, if you wish) you get a link to {Accuracy and precision}}, with the nicer aesthetic. '''Probably what you wanted.''' You can lowercase the "A" and it will still link (usually... always good to check) and linking to something like a w|noun}} can generally be written as <nowiki>|noun}}s</nowiki> should you wish the flow of text to seemlessly render the link as being for multiple noun}}s, thanks to a little more background trickery.
:**If you want to use more <nowiki>Accuracy_and_precision|replaced text}}</nowiki> then you get aAccuracy_and_precision|replaced text}} rendering. '''Another possibility for what you'd wish to use, here.'''
:**Similar templates exist for linking the likes of emplate|wiktionary}} and evenemplate|tvtropes}}, should you need them.
:**...noting that the latter needs the NoSpacesVersion of the title and because tropes|TVTropesWillRuinYourLife|TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life}}, it has a slightly more forboding format, even though it isn't really ''that'' much worse than [[214: The Problem with Wikipedia]]. ;)
:In case that's of any use to you, or anybody else. There are a few more tips and tricks, but this covers a lot of the usage-cases.
:Also, in discussion pages and ones like this, it's useful to sign your contribution with the four tildes. But it's easy to forget and there are templates to mark unsigned contribution. As I did above. Don't worry about it. It just lets you datestamp and demarkate elements of conversation in a useful manner. As a first edit, you can be forgiven, but just so you know for future! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.57|172.70.91.57]] 18:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

** "'it's trivial enough to do yourself in a similar way to how you edited here'" Those options do not seem to be open to me if I do not set up an account; I'm not ready to take that step, so it looks like I can only edit behind-the-scenes pages, not comic pages. Thanks for the advice! I do enjoy the site when I check in! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.17|172.71.182.17]] 18:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
** Never mind. I found the option. I didn't realize the new comic page was separate from the main page. I was trying to edit the main page. Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.17|172.71.182.17]] 18:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:...I must say, I never thought about that, or I might have not concentrated on the link-formatting stuff (which I hope was just as useful, in its own way).
:As you see, I'm also not 'ready' to set up an account. But I rarely go via the main page, which is locked against trivial vandalism, plus know that the useful editing occurs only in the transcluded source page anyway. And now so do you, happily.
:I don't know if that confusion catches out many potential editors, but at least now you know yourself. And, from one IP to another, Welcome! I hope you now find yourself productively editing away in the future, if you have anything else useful to include. No obligation, of course, except to play nice if you do. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.11|172.70.86.11]] 19:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

==There's a lot of vandalism going on==

See the page history of any recent comic page. Not sure what to do about it. [[User:Equites|Equites]] ([[User talk:Equites|talk]]) 00:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

:Ban 162.158.107.56 and 172.71.150.83, they seem to be the perpetuators. [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 02:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As of the 22nd, the users ChuddyCobson and CobsonTheGemson are responsible for a large amount of attacks and image vandalism, most of them NSFW (inappropiate and/or gore). Can something be done about them? [[User:Gyozaplanet|Gyozaplanet]]

I noticed the image for 1460 has been vandalized. But, in looking at the history it shows an old vandalism that was fixed. But following the link in the alleged fix gets the vandalized image. I'm out of my depth for fixing this, but couldn't find a better place to report it. It's getting too late and I'm far too tired to do more... (As an aside to what I came here for, are the above two things vandalism here? That's a rathole I'm not continuing down.) [[User:MAP|MAP]] ([[User talk:MAP|talk]]) 09:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

A few hours ago I decided to visit this wiki, and got quite the surprise on the front page, in that it was heavily vandalized. Decided to make an account after looking at recent changes and saw how much there was.

The accounts involved seem to be these;
* CobsonTheGemson
* ChuddyCobson
* Cobson
* Stinkycobbypoopoo
* Chud
* GotTheJakkyDoe

Kinda confused since they don't seem to be bots but I assume they're using a script or something to automate their vandalism. As far as I know, A few other people and I reverted more or less everything those accounts have done but it's possible some stuff fell through the cracks.

Also some of the gifs I reverted (most notably the gif for 381) seem to still have the same image so I'm hoping that's just a cache thing that'll sort itself out in time.

I left the above weirdness since I don't know the etiquette for deleting stuff in this section and it would remove some context to the above person's post. Hope I didn't break anything while cleaning up. [[User:Neerti|Neerti]] ([[User talk:Neerti|talk]]) 10:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

:Cleaned up some accounts '''[[User:Davidy22|Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 16:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

== Opening Certain Pages causes mediawiki errors ==

For example [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals Proposals] and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/User:Dgbrt this user page] [[User:Starstar|Starstar]] ([[User talk:Starstar|talk]]) 02:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

== Apparent abuse of multiple accounts ==
For a few weeks (mostly the last few days) 51 accounts with the same soon-current name [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=User%3ASadSanta&pattern=1&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= have been created]. To me it looks like preparation for abuse of multiple accounts. —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&printable=yes printable version] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&action=info page information] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:While_False what links there] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&days=30&from=&target=User%3AWhile_False related changes] | [https://www.google.com Google search] | current time: CURRENTTIME}}) 11:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
:Now, they’re 195. —[[User:While False|While False]] ([[User:While False/explain xkcd museum|'''museum''']] | [[User talk:While False|talk]] | [[special:Contributions/While_False|contributions]] | [[special:Log/While_False|logs]] | [[Special:UserRights/While_False|rights]] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&printable=yes printable version] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:While_False&action=info page information] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:While_False what links there] | [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:RecentChangesLinked&days=30&from=&target=User%3AWhile_False related changes] | a late contribution | current time: CURRENTTIME}}) 17:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
::With the exception of being 'topical', these are quite typical of numerous other "<commonroot><randomchars>" sets of never-ever-used usernames. It is good to be aware of them, but I think this 'common root' was just randomly grabbed by the algorithm (or its master) without any particular view to be used any more effectively than before.
::I leave it to those who can actually do something to decide ''whether'' to actually do something, but I'm currently not so concerned. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.127|172.70.91.127]] 01:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
::Addendum - alongside "SadSanta...", we're getting a lot of [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=User%3ANatasha&pattern=1&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= "Natasha"s], while around this time last year (as the first time glanced back at) we had [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=User%3APellGync&pattern=1&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= "PellGync"] and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=newusers&user=&page=User%3ASnawlrab&pattern=1&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= "Snawlrab"] as the common roots concerned. Which ultimately came of nought.
::I get the impression that the limited-success script (as being used to create spam-accounts, but overwhelmingly failing to then exploit them) is set up to randomly apply two such common roots at a time (or else there's two copies of the code running, wherever, each switching out 'exhausted' roots for the next enqueued one in their own list ...as and when necessary). A quick poke into other 'recent' historic points in the Account Creation log highly supports this, but it could do with a far more rigorous analysis to be more definite. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.118|172.71.242.118]] 01:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

There also used to be a lot of eight-letter usernames. Too many usernames are being created every day. --[[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 22:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

== Current troll(s) ==
There's trolls posting extremely obscene stuff on the homepage, and frankly I'm appalled. The Admins need to take several steps to lock down the main page so that it's not possible for readers to view such obscene content (for example, why are arbitrary images that don't come from xkcd.com allowed???) Why are random users allowed to post arbitrary images that are not filtered/scanned in any way? ([[User:bkayes|bkayes]])
: It's been like this forever. It's rare enough that the admins leave things fairly open, but lengthy stretches lead to the lockdowns you're asking for, usually for about a week which is usually sufficient. Mixed feelings. There are a lot of tools that could help a lot, but we can't get [[User:Jeff]] to upgrade because his hosting deal depends on some ad stuff that won't port to newer versions. :( [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 04:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
:: Image uploads being open is usually nicer for everyone, except in the scenario while children decide to use it as an avenue for vandalism. I got enough on my hands already to be dealing with but this probably demands some attention '''[[User:Davidy22|Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 16:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
::: (Rerationalised under a new header, as a different issue, though also related to a prior section's 'insertion/revival' in response to the idiot concerned, too.) Appreciated, David. Noting that the inability for me to correct the account-led vandalism, last night, is the one factor that might eventually push me to establish a non-IP presence. But we had other volunteer accounts reacting fairly well to the trouble, and I knew we'd settle down soon enough. Anyhoo, Merry Christmas to you and the others on the side of stability, while I'm here and chatting away. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.136|172.71.178.136]] 17:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

::: I find it unfortunate that "rarity" is any sort of excuse for allowing this to happen. XKCD is a fantastic source of quality STEM entertainment, and thus is a great resource to get younger audiences interested in such fields through humor. Many high school age and younger people regularly view xkcd content. However, some of the comics are quite obscure or contain a lot of depth, which is why explainxkcd has been such a great resource for everyone to learn things that are outside of their depth (including younger audiences). The knowledge that someone can open explainxkcd and have the slightest chance that they see extreme gore/porn is absolutely absurd and unacceptable for a wiki that is serving solely family friendly science content. I can no longer recommend explainxkcd to people I know (and especially not younger people) because of the lack of modern anti-trolling tooling, and that really sucks. I understand the issues surrounding locking down the text explanations, but the images should be a trivially solvable problem. Compare a checksum between the image found at *.xkcd.com and the image uploaded and reject an image that doesn't match, or better yet *use the official xkcd RSS feed* (https://xkcd.com/rss.xml) to download the images directly, and don't allow any user edits of the images. Then you can deal with vandalization of the text some other time, locking down the images is really the highest priority here I think. ([[User:bkayes|bkayes]]) 04:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

== [[2659: Unreliable Connection]] ==

Could probably do with some page protection here. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.231|162.158.34.231]] 23:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
:If you mean for the thing that [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2659:_Unreliable_Connection&diff=prev&oldid=303665 gets reverted very quickly], I think that's already dealt with quite nicely. And it isn't the only page that is targetted, so where do you stop? Whole-site lockdown, when the occasonal automated spam is equally automatically reverted? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.21|162.158.74.21]] 00:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
::Over the past couple of weeks, the edit history of this particular page has consisted of nothing but vandalism and it's subsequent reversion. The vandal doesn't seem to be targeting (m)any other pages, so protection should make them go away. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.158|172.69.79.158]] 21:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
:::Nonetheless, the same tactic has been seen (and reverted, promptly) on other comics, like #976. ''edit: ...and #2503 suffered this vandalism/reversion, again, on 15 Jan 2023.'' Block 2659 and 976 from editing and someone may easily change the config for the script and hit any othe page they please, not really reducing the ultimate change/revert frequency, just where it is happening.
:::I'll accept gradual locking down of progressively more and more of the site, if it happens, but I'm not sure it'd be of any real benefit to do so. Not my call, so just giving my POV... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.74|162.158.34.74]] 23:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Someone pointed out that the spams are more likely to occur on pages with "Connect" in their titles. [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 10:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The user talk page with the same name got spammed. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.242|172.69.134.242]] 06:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

== Announcement: online chat with Randall January 31 ==

Admins: would you please consider adding this blurb to the end of the [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] just for this month?

: [https://libraryc.org/mountainviewlibrary/22032 Register to attend an online chat] with [[Randall Munroe]] January 31 at 11am Pacific.

Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 06:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
:Done —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::Thank you! I'm very much looking forward to the well-attended zoom chat, let alone what should come from the large pool of questions from international fans. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.16|172.69.134.16]] 14:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Archive of livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAEutGwIQ9c [[Special:Contributions/162.158.166.173|162.158.166.173]] 19:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

==All community portal==
Would you mind semi-protecting [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/All|this]] and [[explain_xkcd_talk:Community_portal/All|that]] page? They don't seem to need edits. --[[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 17:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

== Brief(?) and limited spate of vandalism. ==

It may be a flash in a pan, but there's some [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2293:_RIP_John_Conway&action=history misuse of multiple accounts] going on here as of this timestamp (with ColourfulGalaxy having mostly had to correct matters on their own, so far). FYI, on their behalf. With any luck the idiot involved will get bored soon, if not already, but making a note anyway. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.124|162.158.159.124]] 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

: He edited my user page just now. --[[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 20:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

: I tried to help them, but failed. I had to turn to you for help. [[User:ChristmasGospel|ChristmasGospel]] ([[User talk:ChristmasGospel|talk]]) 20:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

: EDIT: By the way, don't call him "idiot", or he may be angry.

::Given that someone [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:ColorfulGalaxy&curid=25508&diff=304689&oldid=303399 seems to be stalking you], and even snuck in some activity before ''my'' post, above, I'm starting to suspect something more. I leave it to those who can do things to sort it out. As an IP, I don't think I have any say in the matter, but I'll let others consider the possibilities. (You've got to be an idiot to clearly log in with the wrong account, though, and then fail to pick up the changes with the 'right' one. And I knew While False wasn't truly finished trying to do stupid things to the site... You're not impressing anybody, WF.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.201|172.70.85.201]] 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
:::That’s not typical WF behaviour at all. —[[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.198|162.158.222.198]] 19:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

== The online chat s over ==

Please revert https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=304122&oldid=239894 [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.92|172.70.211.92]] 18:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

== Users involved in spamming. ==

There are at least three 'people' involved here, using trivial character differences/substitutions:
* https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/ElisabethPacheco
* https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/EIisabethPacheco
* https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/EIizabethPacheco
(...in case not obvious, especially in sans-serif, the second two use capital-I (i) instead of small-l (L), and the s/z difference should be obvious. No obvious signs of anything like using cyrillic look-alike characters, yet.)

There may be others, or will be, but these ones have just recently popped up in spamming (and then obfuscating? ...hoping to be reverted back into the spam version?) the redirect pages [[Drama‎‎]] and [[Google Maps]] (see [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Drama&action=history here] and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Google_Maps&action=history here]), though they are currently fully reverted. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.35|172.70.90.35]] 04:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:One of these also interacted with a differently named suspicious-looking/acting account:
:* https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Special:Contributions/CipherGuide
:Could be a coincidence, but... For reference. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.190|172.71.242.190]] 13:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:And now [[User:ElisabethPacheco (do not ban me)]]. [[User:AndroidTheLucario|AndroidTheLucario]] ([[User talk:AndroidTheLucario|talk]]) 03:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone block [[User:Email Trial 1]]? They're repeatedly adding comments on spamming other people's emails. Thanks! ~ [[user:megan|Megan]] she/her [[user talk:megan|talk]]/[[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 16:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

== Ongoing image vandalism ==

by [[User:Troonjak|this user]] ([[Special:Contributions/Troonjak|contributions]]). ~ [[user:megan|Megan]] she/her [[user talk:megan|talk]]/[[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 02:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we raise the threshold for image uploads. After all, there's no reason for most editors to upload images. ~ [[user:megan|Megan]] she/her [[user talk:megan|talk]]/[[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 03:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

== Fix obnoxious typo on the Editor FAQ ==

This page contains a typo and I can't edit it out: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/explain_xkcd:Editor_FAQ

It's highlighted in this sentence:

"You can use the Math markup <nowiki><math>...</math></nowiki>. The other known code from Wikipedia <nowiki><chem>...</chem></nowiki> is not supported yet. It's based on LaTeX syntax and a general overview can be found at '''''it's''''' Wikipedia help page. Don't use it unless you actually understand what you are doing." Edit: Whoops, forgot to sign: [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

== Update MediaWiki ==

The current MediaWiki version is 1.30.0 which ended support mid-2019, please upgrade to 1.39.x or something due to security concerns. Instructions here https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Upgrading [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 20:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Make sure to upgrade to 1.35 first, from the Check Requirements section.
Actually, 1.31 then 1.35 then 1.39 for the smoothest transition. [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that this is still an issue. I don't know a better way to bring this to admin attention. [[User:Cam1170|Cam1170]] ([[User talk:Cam1170|talk]]) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

== user edits someone else's comment ==

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2760:_Paleontology_Museum&diff=309970&oldid=309964 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.87.65|162.158.87.65]] 09:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
::That word is not spelled "Ye". It's "Þe". [[User:Omg Oriental Music Group|Omg Oriental Music Group]] ([[User talk:Omg Oriental Music Group|talk]]) 00:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
:::That would depend. We all (FCVO 'all') get your point, but is spelt (or, if you wish, "spelled", but I would like to use the other form) that way by the original commentator. And it was a signed Talk post, not an Explanation page that needs to be standardised(/standardized) by success revisions.
:::Can you also say for definite that it was not intended by the original author to be the second-person plural personal pronoun (nominative), correctly or otherwise, rather than the definite article (under a standard reduced typeset)? No reason to change it, not even if an actual tyop. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.207|172.71.178.207]] 11:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah, bad practice, except where correcting clear mistakes or otherwise sanitising something best not left up in the open (for whatever good reason). Like if I'd misapplied a style "colour" tag, by accident, but not if I'd openly written "colour" in a Talk entry.
:But not necessary in this case of language-geek hyperconnection. I think a revert/re-edit to restore the original would be not an issue, but I won't do it myself.
:The best way to look smart with the "thorn" character would have been to say "You have 'Ye Olde blah-de-blah', but I hink you meant... [etc]" and own the joke and the smugness rather than try to 'improve' on the original in-situ. As one who has made typos (but also said exactly what I wanted to, perhaps deciding not to over-egg the pudding) I would prefer even a snarky "did you mean.." reply over an invisible 'improvement' that may not even be properly focused any more. Each to their own, but my suggestion, if the editor wants to revise their edit. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.65|172.71.178.65]] 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

== Deletion of wrongly-titled pages ==
Could you please delete [[:Category:Comics with small caps|this redirect]]? [[User:Memo Spike Connector|2503: Memo Spike Connector]] ([[User talk:Memo Spike Connector|talk]]) 06:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you delete [[:Category;Comics featuring real people|this page]]? [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 03:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

[[Usertalk:Billstz]] turned into a redirect. It should have been deleted. [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 21:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

== Repeated spam in user talk page ==
The page [[User talk:ClassicalGames]] got repeatedly spammed. Could you semiprotect it? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.134.242|172.69.134.242]] 02:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

:Hmmmmm, I think he really deserves the spam. He spammed in [[User:ColorfulGalaxy/Sandbox|someone else's user page]] without permission. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.228|172.71.154.228]] 03:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

:Easily reverted, to restore legitimate conversation. (Perhaps more such attention should go to where some people are [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2293:_RIP_John_Conway&curid=22901&diff=312913&oldid=312626 repeatedly making entirely useless and gratuitous edits]...) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.86|172.71.242.86]] 08:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
::Those spammers probably knew the CG rules, and appeared to have welcomed every CG group member with a spam. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.33|172.69.23.33]] 09:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

== The relevant xkcd comic from not xkcd ==

https://thomaspark.co/2017/01/relevant-xkcd/ This comic. A reference to xkcd, in the style of xkcd, about xkcd.

Can I make a page about it? Please? :)

== What's a "comic incarnate"? ==

[[User:Memo Spike Connector]] seems to have a friend group of users with the names of various comics. E's been changing their user pages ''and signatures'' to match the comic pages and titles. Is this some sort of cult? It sounds fun! Where do I sign up? --[[User:AndroidTheLucario|Your favorite aura doggo]] ([[User talk:AndroidTheLucario|talk]]) 03:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
:To answer the title, "incarnate"=="made flesh". Reincarnation is when you're given a new body, again, incarnation can therefore be taken as when the 'spirit' first assumes a tangible (or visible) form.
:To ponder on this fad of creating comic-related user accounts... pretty much unnecessary and has no reason to be encouraged, I suppose. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.62|172.70.162.62]] 03:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
::How do I join? I wanna be cool like them! --[[User:AndroidTheLucario|Your favorite aura doggo]] ([[User talk:AndroidTheLucario|talk]]) 03:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
:I think this needs to be taken more seriously now. [[User:Memo Spike Connector]] has had their page added to the *category* of Cursed Connectors, despite not being an official comic. It's starting to feel like a very unusual case of vandalism, but I'm not sure. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa|talk]]) 19:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
:: Addendum, [[User:Unreliable Connection]] has their page added to the Internet and Social Interactions categories. Everything else I said before still stands. [[User:Tsumikiminiwa|Tsumikiminiwa]] ([[User talk:Tsumikiminiwa|talk]]) 19:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

== Main page in phones category ==

The [[Main Page]] is now in the [[:Category:Phones]] category. [[User:ClassicalGames|ClassicalGames]] ([[User talk:ClassicalGames|talk]]) 03:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
:Surely because [[2789: Making Plans]], currently transcluded there, is legitimately given that category. I'd be more surprised if it wasn't. (Until Wednesday's new comic release changes this, if it does.) What's the problem, and how is it related to 'your' issue, above? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.146|172.71.178.146]] 10:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
::I moved this to its own section, but you can change the section title if you want. --[[User:AndroidTheLucario|Your favorite aura doggo]] ([[User talk:AndroidTheLucario|talk]]) 19:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

== please block u|Vandal (and many more)==

cf. [[Special:Contributions/Vandal]] 11 page blankings today. Thanks. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 21:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, looking at [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Log/newusers&limit=500&type=newusers&user= Special:Log/newusers] is pretty ominous. Nearly all of the last 500 (within the past 4 days), and also the next few thousand, are suspicious. The CAPTCHA probably needs to be replaced with something more difficult that is perhaps not as trivially automatable? And all those users blocked? Not sure. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 22:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
:As a regular checker of such things, I know for a fact that you get hundreds of 'suspicious' accounts created every day, and most of them 'go nowhere'. The account creation speedblocks may not be very good. Or, possibly, tens of thousands of accounts are ''tried'' to be created, with 'just' a small percentage of them getting past the CAPTCHA/etc to get noticed by us - the actual top-level site admins will have access to the 'failed to register fully' logs. ''But'', the actual page vandalism is very rarely any of these 'mechanised spam accounts'. I presume because the CAPTCHAs throttle down the 'lucky' accounts' abilities to do anything they were programmed to do ''once'' registered. And, no, the accounts aren't blocked (i.e. disabled accounts, except on very ''rare'' occasions when an Admin gets annoyed with a conspicuously used spam-login), if the actual Block Log is to be believed, but so many get created and ''never'' used so it looks like the "new user early posts" precautionary checks do a very good job.
:We're also getting that idiot (I presume the same idiot as we've had for a year or two now) who manually creates accounts, such as you have been dealing with (and me, and others) over the last 24 hours or so. As a stupid human rather than a 'smart' bot, the CAPTCHA is no block to him/her/them. And the occasional IP gets used in that way, too (and I mostly successfully revert vandalism as only an IP; usefully, I hope) which might just be lazy vandalism, on top of the baseline stupidity. But the precautions against them are different. As with the 'Eric's ("Hi, I see your website needs improving - Eric"-types of message), which also seem to be handled by the community (and/or our automated blocking/reverting).
:I don't see increasing the severity of the CAPTCHA to be a solution to much, honestly. Not from my perspective, certainly, though I know there's no reason to take my own unattributable word on that.
:Instead, we should keep on keeping on. The community handles these things as they need to be. The admins know the 'hidden fight' going on in the background, but won't (and shouldn't) reveal too much about the extent of the first-line defences against bad faith 'automated' edits and the rest. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.140|172.70.90.140]] 08:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism appeared again in [[2800]]. [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 20:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

== Ban fake IP ==

Could you ban [[User:172.68.102.XXX]]? His edits sound suspicious, and he seems to be fighting against us. [[User:ColorfulGalaxy|ColorfulGalaxy]] ([[User talk:ColorfulGalaxy|talk]]) 19:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

== Vandalism by 172.69.214.158 ==

Large number of extreme vandalism, which ThatoneU is valiantly yet inefficaciously fighting:

example from https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1193:_Externalities&action=history

<pre>
(cur | prev) 01:04, 24 July 2023‎ 172.69.214.158 (talk)‎ . . (6,765 bytes) (-15,000)‎ . . (Undo revision 318344 by ThatoneU (talk)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:47, 24 July 2023‎ ThatoneU (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (21,765 bytes) (+15,000)‎ . . (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:46, 24 July 2023‎ 172.69.214.158 (talk)‎ . . (6,765 bytes) (-15,000)‎ . . (undo)
</pre>

== Vandalism on page 2805 ==

The latest comic page (2805) is currently being vandalized. Can an admin please look into it?

== Problem with new accounts and IPs ==

So I'm sure many of you are well aware of the vandalism happening recently. But what concerns me the most is that all the edits were done by many, many different IPs, meaning that we can't just block one, and this site could get overrun by systematic IP vandalism. Also, the new accounts being created seem very suspicious. For such a small community, there's no way that there can be around 100 new users each day. The actual usernames of the users seem to follow a very repetitive pattern (generic first name + generic last name + random number). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.209|172.70.42.209]] 18:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
:As a fellow IP (and not a vandal myself, at least by intent) I find that the advantages of being able to leap in and correct (often 'named') damage outweigh the relatively small amount of IP-led vandalism. And the details of how the IPs represent the (limited, but geographically distributed) Cloudflare gateways has been noted before a number of times, together with what can be done about/with them.
:About the new accounts... Look back for ''years'', and you'll see the same (or similar) patterns. Almost all the truly rogue (presumably automated generation/'registering') then do nothing else as the site blocks the (still automated) attempts to do something with them.
:The worst danger this site is threatened by is the actual manually-posting individuals who (IPed or named) can do what they like so long as (like us legitimate editors) they are prepared to be sat at the keyboard and spend/waste the time in navigating the initial CAPTCHAs/etc to set down their changes. And there's not much more anybody can do about them without ruining everyone else's experience to a similar degree. Perhaps there's some adjustments possible, but none seem necesary to address the account-spam and other precautions are intercepting/reverting the lion's share of the edit-spam (with or without accounts).
:Not up to me, but I trust in those who it is up to. To continue with what is happening right now or to respond in new ways to anything that needs a new approach. Not saying that I don't have ideas of my own, for if I were able to intervene, but I doubt it'd be useful to voice them. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.158|172.70.162.158]] 21:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

== Large amounts of vandalism involving disturbing imagery. ==

Page 2805 has a huge vandalism problem. Vandals (it seems to be the same few people over and over, or maybe one person with multiple addresses) keep covering the page with weird, disturbing photos and way-too-bright colors.
A few people have been valiantly fighting back but that doesn't mean this isn't a problem.
I would like to please request that the page be locked to prevent further vandalism, and that you please ban all the people that have vandalized it in this way before (and/or take some other action to prevent future vandals) . Thank you very much! [[User:(insert name here)|(insert name here)]] ([[User talk:(insert name here)|talk]]) 01:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There also seems to be a parser problem where instead of vandals replacing the page source, the vandalism is appended to the end, even though it isn't in the source. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.230|172.71.174.230]] 03:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The optimal way to go would be to add bots that automatically replace questionable content like divs and detect image/word spam (like the one in Wikipedia). They would always be on so the vandals would get overwhelmed. Similarly I'd suggest monitoring the constant stream of IP addresses and created accounts. Most editors are IP addresses though, so you might want to watch out for that. Does ExplainXKCD have semiprotection capabilities? You would definitely want to do that, especially the important articles like [[xkcd]], [[Randall Munroe]], [[Cueball]], [[1:_Barrel_-_Part_1]], and ALL of the templates (the vandals were targeting those the most). [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 11:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

: I agree that the important pages (primary pages, plus all templates) need to be protected somehow so that this can't happen again. It's nice to have a low threshold to editing; it's nicer having a resource that can be depended on and doesn't require random volunteers jumping in to save. (Let's be honest; the images the vandal posted could have been much, much worse.) -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 12:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

:: What the heck is 'Explain XKCD Administrator' doing? He seems to also be doing some weird div BS, making it so that it's impossible to scroll or click on templates or some comics. Blocking would be heavily advised. [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 12:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

== Becoming an admin? ==

Hi. I've been contributing occasionally for eight years now, and I think I've been helpful. But, almost half of the edits were last night in that wave of vandalism. It was very frustrating knowing that I had the same tools as the (14-year-old?) vandal, and the only end-point to the fun would be one of us throwing in the towel, and it was probably going to me (bedtime).

I don't have the time and/or commitment to do regular moderation work, but I (think I) am a reasonable person, who deals with conflicts rationally and could help out in a pinch. Is there a chance I could be given some more powers to help out if (when) such a crap-storm happens again? Thanks for your consideration... -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 11:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

:I saw your efforts, early on in my own day, definitely looked to be amongst the helpful editors. I later picked up several cases (might have missed a couple, that others IDed before me) after I got online, and undid that latest form of vandalism in both templates (agree with above, they probably should be semi-protected) and pages. A simple Undo even at my level was sufficient to revert practically everything. What might have been handy was one of the top-moderators being around to use the mass-revert tools to streamline that, and keep on top of the account (or account''s'', as the problematic one would definitely open new accounts - we've seen them do this before) deserving to be blocked and banished. Unfortunately, the freedom of a wiki (which I value) doesn't really work well with over-administration. But that's a discussion to be had by those already at the top levels. I don't envy them. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.164|172.70.90.164]] 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

:: Well, the 14-year-old is back. I'm losing interest in fighting this mud-fest without real admin tools. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::: We really need to stop this wave of persistent vandalism with protection. When will the admins notice our suffering? [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 20:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::: I feel your pain. I caught (and had to recatch) a few of them as he turned up whilst I was browsing/considering proper edits. nd then I noticed you had appeared and were also retroing them, just as I thought I was barely keeping pace. But he's slackened off, so maybe you arriving here has made the difference. (And I'm fed up with pictures of fire hydrants!) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.214|172.70.91.214]] 20:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Me too... I'm coming to help. Hopefully we can fight that manchild off. Also I call death and destruction to Captcha. [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 20:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:::: It's frustrating to watch the same few IP addresses wreak all this havoc. Being able to ban them would be a joy; why can't we have that power? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 20:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
::::: OK: 2/3 of my contributions have been in the last 24 hours fighting Bozo-Man in all his flamboyant IP addresses. Without further powers, I'm done, because (unlike Bozo-Man) I have better things to do. Sorry... -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 22:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::: What powers do you need? --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]])
::::::: I'm not looking for Super Duper Guru™ powers, just something that would even the battle a bit. No, that's not true: I'm looking for something that would make the battle ''unfair'' by making it easier to clean things up than it is to vandalize them. For instance, of the 123 vandalisms I reverted over the pat 24 hours, a third of them were from the top four IP addresses, and two thirds were from the top ten. If you only look at the first three quads of the IP addresses, half came from just two subnets. Block a few IP addresses, and the moderation load would go way down. (And that ignores the work the other users did.)
::::::: It makes sense that you wouldn't want to be handing out Thor's Hammer indiscriminately, but (IMO) something needs to change. If MediaWiki's moderation permissions aren't selective enough for your tastes, I'd be happy to follow your guidance (e.g. no blocking people for more than 24 hours). -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 01:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::: Congrats, you are promoted, thanks for helping out. See me in a week if you still want the powers. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]])
::::::::: Thank you. Any guidance for the newbie admin? Or should I just "moderate moderately"? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 01:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::: Block and move... block and move. Great power / great responsibility and all that. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]])

== Preventation of vandalism ==

I'll bet the entire budget of the Death Star II that the vandalizer is going to strike again in a few hours. We should be more prepared - I've already cut links to templates, and we should be vigilant about the pages they are going to attack: the current comic, templates, important pages. [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 00:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
: What do you need to help? Let me know. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]])
:: Semiprotect all the templates. [[User:84596Gamma|84596Gamma]] ([[User talk:84596Gamma|talk]]) 00:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

== Username request ==

It looks like an impersonator registered an account under my name. Is it possible for me to get that username? [[User:Randall Munroe 2|Randall Munroe 2]] ([[User talk:Randall Munroe 2|talk]]) 04:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:: To ask an obvious question: who are you? And, if you say you are the Randall Munroe of XKCD fame, how can we be sure? -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 12:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
::''May I have your attention, please?''
::''May I have your attention, please?''
::''Will the real Randall Munroe please stand up?''
::''I repeat''
::''Will the real Randall Munroe please stand up?''
::''We're gonna have a problem here...''
::(...but, in my assessmemt, Randall would have actual more direct ways of introducing himself to; if he suddenly decided to muddy the water by descending to our level when his interactions even with the forum were minimal; if he hasn't already been here/there/wherever all along, incognito and with/without the administrators knowing this. But Randall's technical and connected enough to not need to ask the above the way it was asked.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.181|172.70.162.181]] 15:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

== user page ==

how do i put stuff in my profile? others have done it but for mine it says that i don't have permission to create that page [[User:An user who has no account yet|An user who has no account yet]] ([[User talk:An user who has no account yet|talk]]) 16:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
: Don't know why you couldn't, but I now have created your user and talk pages; let us know if you now can't edit them. [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 16:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
:: There appears to be a rather restrictive page creation policy (it may be dialled up fairly high to age of account, possibly more so than any mere contributions-count), at least in regard to User-typed namespaces. Many account-creators have noted this, and had to be helped out. I suspect it's just their making that An User was ever prevented from. After all, even I can add things to User (and, more correctly and politely, User Talk) pages. And I'm not even a usernamed person. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.230|172.70.85.230]] 20:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

== Unable to edit ==
For the last two months, I was unable to make any edits. Is my account secretly locked? Also, I couldn't even post tweets. Did I offend you? [[User:ConlangGuide|ConlangGuide]] ([[User talk:ConlangGuide|talk]]) 23:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

:Also, I tried to post on ClassicalGames's talk page but it was messy. [[User:ConlangGuide|ConlangGuide]] ([[User talk:ConlangGuide|talk]]) 23:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

== cannot create user page ==

Like all the other instances of this, it just says "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs, but you do not have permission to create this page." At least it isn't just me [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]] ([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk]]) 16:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

: Created your user and talk page with placeholder text (".") -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

:: much thanks! now to wait until i can make my own custom css page [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]] ([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk]]) 19:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

== Small css-related changes to two templates ==

I've explained what changes I want made in the talk pages for [[Template:Comic]] and [[Template:Comic discussion]] already, but I think I might need to mention them here too. Changing the templates shouldn't cause any adverse effects, and allow for more versatility for users who create their own CSS. [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]])

: You should sign your comments with "-- ~~~~", which will insert your username. And, there's a very low chance that anyone with the power to change the CSS to wander by; we've been on our own for a while. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 22:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

: Added the class names. —[[User:Theusaf|theusaf]] ([[User talk:Theusaf|talk]]) 15:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:: THANK YOU!!! The face of pure shock and excitement i felt when seeing this was beyond my wildest dreams ˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶ [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

== Math Module breaks all pages with it ==

[[2070]] and [[2034]] appear to be broken for some reason. They wont load at all with the following reason:

<code>
MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [ZUPRak3GkbeSokPCcKIp8AAAAJI] 2023-11-02 16:42:18: Fatal exception of type "MWException"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.</code>

[[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 16:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:: [[2295]] also broken. Must be related to the Math module. [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 16:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
:: Full list of broken pages:
::* [[128: dPain over dt]]
::* [[687: Dimensional Analysis]]
::* [[849: Complex Conjugate]]
::* [[899: Number Line]]
::* [[969: Delta-P]]
::* [[1047: Approximations]]
::* [[2028: Complex Numbers]]
::* [[2034: Equations]]
::* [[2048: Curve-Fitting]]
::* [[2059: Modified Bayes' Theorem]]
::* [[2070: Trig Identities]]
::* [[2117: Differentiation and Integration]]
::* [[2295: Garbage Math]]
::* Possibly more [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 00:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:::On further analysis, it seems to be related to the MathML setting. [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

== Way to contact the site hosters? ==

I have tried posting at Jeff's talk page to no avail. Maybe yáll admins have a red phone hotline to Jeff? See reasons at [[explain xkcd:Community portal/Technical#Way to contact the site hosters?]]. [[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu|talk]]) 01:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

== Escape speed is no longer incomplete ==

Can you delete the text at the top that says ''"We still need to complete some explanations like this one: 2765: Escape Speed. All incomplete explanations are here."''? Escape speed is no longer incomplete, so that is wrong.[[User:B_for_brain|B for brain]] ([[User_talk:B_for_brain|talk]]) ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg4bo-hj-mDyOOUp_Yp0pug youtube channel] [https://bforbrain.weebly.com/ wobsite (supposed to be a blag)] 14:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

== Vandal Issue ==

we've got vandals all over [[2875: 2024]], and they're getting persistent [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 16:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
:At least one vandalism per minute. Even with Someoene and I both reverting, it's showing the racist message most of the time. Can Explainxkcd protect a page? [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 17:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not putting a racist message in the vandalism, it's just a guy fisting himself. I'll be speaking to my several hundreds large army of lawyers about this defamation.

2875: 2024

2024-01-02T15:15:01Z

172.70.85.81: Undo revision 331851 by 172.70.90.191 (talk)

== Headline text ==
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg]]
<noinclude>:''This page refers to the comic named "2024". For comic #2024, see [[2024: Light Hacks]].''</noinclude>
{{comic
| number = 2875
| date = January 1, 2024
| title = 2024
| image = 2024_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x553px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It wasn't originally constitutionally required, but presidents who served two terms have traditionally followed George Washington's example and gotten false teeth.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by OBAMA'S TEETH - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
[[File:Self Fisting.jpg]]
In what starts off almost like a "[[:Category:Comics to make one feel old|doesn't time fly?]]" scene, the unstoppable progression of the calendar is observed, as [[Ponytail]] points out that it's now 2024. [[Cueball]], in response, notes that it is an election year, in this context a {{w|President of the United States#Election|US ''Presidential'' election}} year, which occurs every four years and has (in one form or other) since 1788. Ponytail then replies in some form of exasperated tone that they "keep on happening", which is true but (normally) unsurprising, even/especially with other major elections happening every two years, presumably not compared to how [https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/youre-joking-not-another-one/ some other democracies] might be less predictable/more frequent.

On top of this, Ponytail seems to have not been aware (or maybe has chosen to forget) the passing of two whole election cycles (and two newer incumbents) as the discussion focuses upon {{w|Barack Obama}}, the ''former'' US President. Ponytail seems to be quite behind the times as she asks if Obama is still president (he left office January 20th, 2017, which was 7 (!) years ago, a fact that Cueball cannot quite believe Ponytail is ignorant of). Ponytail states that she liked him, and wonders if he'll be up for taking on the position again. But Cueball states that he ''can't'' be made President again, having already served two terms, which Ponytail confirms by checking for herself the details of the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution}}.

The humor in the comic comes in the second half; Cueball and Ponytail discuss whether Obama is the same person (like the mythical {{w|Ship of Theseus}}, most of his constituent cells are frequently replaced), with Ponytail looking into the possibility of Obama's re-election based upon philosophical/biological technicalities (as applied to the Constitution's words), rather than as legal/political convention might normally suggest. But when even that approach is seen to be wanting, requiring a wait significantly exceeding 30 years, Ponytail suggests negating that issue by having all of Obama's teeth removed and replaced with false teeth.

In order to facilitate the latter goal, Ponytail announces her intention to consult a dentist and (for exact reasons that can only be guessed at) a lawyer. Seeing where her current misplaced, and {{w|Dunning–Kruger effect|less than informed}}, zeal might be leading her, Cueball gives his prediction that the probable {{w|Supreme Court of the United States|ultimate legal arbiters}} of her plan might be unanimous in rejecting its validity (if not dissuading its attempt). SCOTUS being unanimous on an issue is now a [https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/ comparatively rare event].

The title text references {{w|George Washington's teeth|George Washington's (in)famous 'false teeth'}}. Washington's dentures are often falsely claimed to be made of wood; in truth they were ''real'' teeth procured from other sources. Regardless, this would have likely resolved the rather specific problems established in the philosophical conundrum, and the title text claims that other presidents used this plan to get around the Constitutional limitations concerned in case they wanted to serve more than two terms.

However, no one has yet even ''needed'' to carry out this plan. Only one President has exceeded the limit; {{w|Franklin D. Roosevelt}} died in office during his ''fourth'' term, but he served prior to the 22nd Amendment and was thus unaffected by the rule, which was enacted six years after his death. (FDR did have a partial denture, but given that he retained some of his natural teeth, he did not engage in Ponytail's proposed scheme.) Presidents since then have definitely tried various schemes aimed at securing a second term, with both successes and failures, but nobody has yet planned ''this particular plan'' to achieve a third or beyond. Or at least one can assume that those that perhaps did (including, as noted, all those who were not yet 'required' to go to these lengths) failed to attain their goals for entirely different reasons.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Ponytail and Cueball are walking.]
:Ponytail: So this is 2024.
:Cueball: Yup. Guess it's an election year now.
:Ponytail: Again? Man, those just keep happening, huh?

:[Ponytail and Cueball now standing.]
:Ponytail: Who's the president these days, anyway? Is it still Obama?
:Cueball: What? No? He hasn't been... How do you not...

:[Ponytail and Cueball still standing.]
:Ponytail: Darn, I liked him. Is he running this time?
:Cueball: No, he's not allowed to.
:Ponytail: He's not? Why?
:Cueball: Constitution.

:[Ponytail checks her smartphone.]
:Phone: ''Amendment 22''
:Phone: No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice
:Ponytail: What?? C'mon...

:[Ponytail talking to Cueball.]
:Ponytail: Don't all your cells get replaced every seven years, Ship of Theseus-style? Is he even the same person?
:Ponytail: Maybe "no person shall be elected more than twice" isn't a prohibition, it's more of an observation, like "you can't step in the same river twice."

:[Zoom in on Cueball.]
:Cueball: Isn't the cell thing a myth?
:Cueball: I think tooth enamel has a turnover half-life of 30+ years. His teeth molecules are probably the same.

:[Ponytail heads off with a finger raised.]
:Ponytail: So if Obama just gets false teeth, he can run again! I need to talk to a dentist and a lawyer!
:Cueball: The Supreme Court is about to vote 9-0 to block your number.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Biology]]

1116: Traffic Lights

2023-12-18T16:39:31Z

172.70.85.81: /* Frame by frame breakdown */ Started to make a few changes, in this conversationally-slanted addition, sometimes pandering to the tone it was written with. I think it needs a proper patient rewrite, though.

{{comic
| number = 1116
| date = October 3, 2012
| title = Traffic Lights
| image = traffic_lights.gif
| titletext = There's an intersection I drive through sometimes that has a forward green arrow, a red light, and a 'no turns' sign all on one pole. I honestly have no idea what it's telling me to do.
}}

==Explanation==

This comic is an {{w|animated gif}} which features an array of {{w|traffic light}}s which are lighted signals posted at intersections to control vehicular traffic. The standard North American traffic light has three solid lights: red, yellow and green (meaning, in simplistic terms, "stop", "stop if you can, otherwise exit the intersection" and "go if it is safe" respectively). More complicated lights sometimes have additional signals such as arrows indicating go or stop for a specific direction such as left or right turns.

However, as in the strip, sometimes an intersection has multiple lights with certain of them designated to apply solely to a specific lane or specific direction of travel. A common one is a left-turn light that allows the lights to stop or allow left-turn traffic independent of the rest of the traffic. Another common example is a light that applies only to public transit like streetcars that run on tracks on the city streets.

There are also other rules and features that tend to be unique to different localities as noted in the Wikipedia article for {{w|Traffic-light signalling and operation}}.

In this comic, [[Randall]] is commenting on the confusion that can be caused by having too many lights with multiple rules attached by creating an exaggerated example.

In this strip, the right light has a sign indicating that the light and the right lane are for ''left'' turners, while the 3rd-from-left is a straight or ''right'' turn lane and the 2nd from left is ''right'' turn only. In normal course, right turns would be permitted from the right lane and left turns from the left lanes. The system in this comic would have turning traffic crossing each other, as well as the straight-ahead traffic and would cause chaos (and require very complicated traffic light phases to control). The left-most light on the post has a sign indicating that left, right and straight travel are all prohibited, which is even more confusing.

The comic, as an animated gif, cycles through various phases, at first appearing somewhat normal, but then adding unusual phases. The animated gif takes about 90 seconds to cycle through the 32 discrete panels before repeating. The left post light has (unusually) left ''and'' right arrows, later becoming up and down arrows. At times the light completely shuts off, and at other times, has conflicting signals.

The third-from-left light has red ''and'' yellow, and later all three lights come on at the same time, then all three lights go yellow, and then reverse with green at top and red at bottom. The bottom light then becomes an arrow.

The fourth-from-left traffic light switches from a green light to a purple light at times.

The right light only lights red in each position.

The second-from-left light and second-from-right lights do not appear to have any quirks other than changing phases in unusual patterns.

At frames 21 and 22 (see below) the colors of the latter five lights correspond to the color sequence of the letters in the Google logo. Only the first letter of the logo, which is blue, is not reproduced on the first traffic light.

===Title Text===
The title text mentions a straightforward intersection that allows going forward but not turning. Even though Randall is confused, in some places, a red light and a forward green arrow permits going forward but disallows turns.

==Frame by frame breakdown==

[[File:traffic lights list.png]]

* 1. All traffic lights are on red, likely because the perpendicular road crossing our road has some of its lights on green. At a traffic light-managed junction, cars typically cannot cross or merge into roads that are in use from a different direction.
* 2. The traffic light of undefined purpose (pole light) switches from red to yellow. This is highly unusual, as yellow is typically used as an intermediary phase when going from green to red (in the US, it may be {{w|Traffic light#Meanings of signals|usual/expected}} elsewhere, in various contexts). Yellow is usually a warning light to inform drivers that the light will switch to red soon.
* 3. In switching to green, the pole light surprisingly reveals itself to point to the left. Some conventions require that all three lights in a stack have the same symbol on them, so drivers cannot be surprised by their purpose suddenly switching. This light now informs drivers they may turn left, but there is no lane that would allow them to do so. The left-most light also turned green, but it is flanked by a sign informing drivers that they may only turn to the right from here. This is a particularly contentious setup, as drivers on this lane must cross all other lanes in order to turn right.
* 4. The pole light is giving mixed messages. Maybe the red light is only relevant for cars crossing straight through? It is impossible to be sure. The fourth light also turned green, allowing people to drive straight through. The pole light and fifth light may contradict each other directly. Cars from the first lane and fifth lane would be likely to crash, unless a tunnel or bridge system is in place in the middle of this intersection.
* 5. Lane 3 and 4 are not synced. Why are they not synced? They both go straight ahead, yes?
* 6. Why did the first lane light turn off for three seconds, to then turn on again? This is not enough time for a crossing road to clear out. The fifth lane switched to amber, a distinct color in this system, although often a synonym for "yellow" (not red or green) in the context of traffic lights. People can never agree whether it's yellow or amber, so Randall helpfully differentiated the two colors. See frame 2 why it may be odd for the light to switch from red to amber. Like lane 1, lane 5 would presumably cross all the other lanes, resulting in accidents.
* 7. Oh no the first lane light is blinking between red and green. This is terrifying. The fifth lane just hangs on amber, which is probably a fair use of a warning light. The pole light is doing its own thing, better not to worry about it.
* 8. Pole light has begun blinking, light 1 continues to blink, 3 and 4 stay green, 5 continues to warn.
* 9. Light 2 joins in by turning on its yellow light. This is a common setup in Britain, to have red and yellow on simultaneously before switching to green. This allows drivers to be prepared to start driving, without yet being allowed to do so.
* 10. The pole added yellow again. Ignore it. Light 1 continues to blink. Light 2 is stuck on red-and-yellow, constantly teasing the lane 2 drivers who expect it may switch to green any moment now. Probably for the best that it won't.
* 11. Lights 3 and 4 are behaving normally, getting ready to go back to red by switching to yellow. Light 5 finally switched to the bottom light, but it's red instead of green. This is confusing.
* 12. Argh! 3 continued on to red as it should, but 3 changed its mind and switched back to green! Oh, and the pole turned off completely, which is unusual too.
* 13. The pole activates again. It should have stayed off. The arrow magically turned around, which is not possible for this type of light.
* 14. The pole continues to mess around.
* 15. The pole continues to mess around. Light 1 is still blinking, 2 is still edging, 3 still red, 4 still green, and 5 still red.
* 16. One of the arrows on the pole magically turned from green to red. A bulb near the bottom of a stack should not be red. Lane 4 switched to yellow again, maybe it will finally turn red?
* 17. Light 4 betrayed us again and switched back to green. Lane 2 now turned on its green light too, which has no meaning but it's very colorful.
* 18. Light 3 decided to join light 4 again, but now it is blue instead of green. This color is used in Japan instead of green. Light 1 stopped blinking and is now red.
* 19. Pole is still doing whatever it wants, briefly turning off its arrows.
* 20. All three bulbs of light 2 turn yellow, which I guess is a warning to us all. Light 4 teases us once again by briefly switching to yellow.
* 21. The pole is still messing around, Light 1 is still red, light 2 is completely yellow, light 3 is still blue, light 4 is back to green, and light 5 is still red.
* 22. No change at all.
* 23. The bottom bulb of light 2 turned red. This light should be green. In the sense that it should be anything at this point.
* 24. Pole is briefly off again. Light 2 reversed itself: green is on at the top now. Light 4 suddenly switched to red, now warning whatsoever!
* 25. The pole now has an "up" arrow instead of side arrows. These indicate that you can (only) go straight ahead. The center light is still <s>green</s> blue, so I suppose this is true. However, the top bulb of the pole is red too, so it's a bit of mixed messaging. Lane 2 turned off its center yellow bulb. Light 5 is back to showing amber.
* 26. Light 2 and 4 turned off completely, which is unhelpful.
* 27. The pole added an arrow "down", which is not used for traffic lights and has no defined meaning. Honestly it looks like it's outright telling the drivers to crash into eachother at this point. Light 2 is magically pointing to the right now, which I suppose is allowed because it is one of the directions that the sign flanking it allows for. Light 3 switched back to red. Light 4 is pointing left, which would probably result in crashes but is technically fine. Light 5 switched back to red. The bird, up until this point very still, moved a little bit.
* 28. Small change on the pole. 1 is red, 2 is green-right, 3 is red, 4 is green-left, and 5 is red.
* 29. Light 1, 2, and 4 are all on red. Light 3 turned itself off suddenly. Light 5 turns all three of its lights on: red, amber, and red.
* 30. The pole finally switches off for this loop. Possibly, cross-traffic can go again, with most lines either red or off. Lamp 5 is back to amber, however, which looks a bit like red.
* 31. No change from last frame.
* 32. Light 4 turns itself off too, and light 5 returns to red.

After phase 32, all lights turn back on to their top-red position. All these phases then repeat.

==Closeups on the Lights==
The following is a closeup on the lights, and the bird. The lights from left to right are here shown top to bottom. Time advances to the right.

[[File:traffic lights closeups revised.png]]

Originally, the second light had a couple frames near the start that were different. The closeup of this was as follows:

[[File:traffic lights closeups.png]]


[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Comics with animation]]
[[Category:Traffic light]]
[[Category:Dynamic comics]]

Talk:197: Ninja Turtles

2023-02-08T17:33:28Z

172.70.85.81:

Regarding the William Tell Overture's popular re-imagining, it has been said that "An intellectual is someone who can listen to <nowiki>[it]</nowiki> without thinking of the Lone Ranger," or very similar. (Wikipedia currently has a reference note about this that chiefly attributes it "... to Jack Guin writing in the Denver Post in 1962. (Brooklyn Barrister (1962), Volume 14, p. 107).", but it was an very well known anonymous pithy (and snobby?) statement a decade or two later, as I recall.)

------
The explain is wrong! This comic refers to this: {{w|Multi-Purpose Logistics Module}}. NASA did name that modules by real scientists and after that it was matched to this: {{w|Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 19:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

: I dispute that. The MPLM was named after the TMNTs, and thus would contribute to their notoriety as such. There are no ''direct'' references to the MPLM, however, so the passage about them is at best overkill (at worse, useless). The main point is that the modern popular culture "hijacks" classical figures. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 05:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
::Randall did work at NASA in the past, if he wouldn't have the MPLM's in his mind while drawing this comic he must suffer on short term memory loss. He is joking about this coincidence.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

::: Again, I dispute the relevance of MPLM to an explanation of this comic. To someone who doesn't know who the TMNT are and haven't heard of Donatello or Raphael, it seems overkill to have to introduce them and then pile on the MPLM layer. The title text refers to similar pop-culture characters, neither of whom have anything to do with NASA, and while the readers of xkcd tend to have a science-y bent, the MPLM is a very specific, technical thing that very few are likely to know about. Furthermore, this comic came out in December 2006, months after the previous MPLM mission. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 04:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::::"There were 34 Space Shuttle missions to the ISS. MPLMs were flown twelve times". The first mission was Leonardo on March 8, 2001 at STS 102. The joke is just about the coincidence of the Ninja Turtles and the MPLM program.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::::: Which joke? The joke in the comic or the joke in the comments? The comic makes absolutely no hint of any reference to NASA, the ISS, or the MPLMs. The joke is that the TMNTs hijacked the importance of the four Renaissance artists. I see no reason (apart from Trivia, which can be its own section) for including MPLM into an explanation. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::: It's ''possible'' that Randall as inspired to some degree by the phenomenon of the MPLM. The modules named after the artists/turtles were built by the Italian space agency, and named by them for great Italian artists. When NASA received them, it seems that the folks at NASA identified with those names as much as or more as the names of Ninja Turtles than as the names of Renaissance artists, to the degree that the mission badge featured a Ninja Turtle. Still, this whole MPLM topic is more a "possible/likely theory" about one aspect of the inspiration for the comic, not an "explanation" of the comic. The comic makes 100% perfect sense without any reference to the MPLM whatsoever. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.155|173.245.54.155]] 11:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in the comic that suggests it is related to the MPLM. I have removed this as it is off-topic for the explanation. If this was what the comic was about Randall would have put some sort of hint. Rocksteady and Bebop contradict this theory.

If someone wants to re-add it they should do so in a trivia section, as it is trivia not directly related to the comic. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 02:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:Oh, put it into trivia section if you like, but that names are not only some random names from Ninja Turtles. Randall is a smart guy from NASA.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
:: So what? Smart guys at NASA only care about NASA stuff? What about the Bebop and Rocksteady, then? The whole point is that NASA ''went along with'' the hijacking of the four artists' names into pop culture by the TMNT. They came before the modules, and were immensely popular. They probably influenced his childhood more than the MPLM influenced his life. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 02:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The comic compares the notoriety as a "Renaissance artist" or "Ninja turtle", but the MPLM is missing. Because I do not know much about the Ninja Turtles this was the first on my mind when I read this comic for the first time. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only space flight fan. Officially the MPLMs are named after the Italian artists, but we can speculate if it were the Ninja Turtles in the beginning. NASA used comics in the past for naming their vehicles: Peanuts for Apollo 10, the launch patch for mars rover Spirit, featuring Marvin the Martian, and the launch patch for Opportunity, featuring Duck Dodgers (Daffy Duck). There are probably more. Why the hell this issue is banned here?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:MPLM is mentioned nowhere in the comic. It's a reference to TMNT, which does not necessarily mean that further references to the cartoon are also references to MPLM. This comic is not a reference to a NASA program. Give it a rest. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 03:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole MPLM thing is unrelated to the comic. To be part of the explaination there would need to be some sort of reference to it in the comic, any reference. Rocksteady and Bebop are not missions so the whole theory falls flat on its face. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.117|108.162.246.117]] 06:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, when I get a chance I'll make a version with the percentage notoriety taken up by MPLM. However as a spaceflight fan and engineer who grew up in the 80s who has never heard of the MPLM, the percentage will be quite small :). '''Forgen'''@[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.64|199.27.128.64]] 00:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'm really curious how he came up with the breakdown of public awareness between artists and turtles. When you ask a random person who Leonardo was, I'd have to imagine that the most typical answer would be the turtle, as the artist is typically used either exclusively as Da Vinci or as Leonardo Da Vinci. Leonardo by itself would most often lead to the turtle. Michelangelo I could see being a tossup as the artist was known mainly by that name. Raphael and Donatello would almost be exclusively recognized as turtles. People may recognize Raphael's cupids, but I would hazard a guess that they're unlikely to know the artist who created the style. I took Art History, and even I'm having a hard time recalling something explicitly by Donatello. :lol [[User:Donny2112|Donny2112]] ([[User talk:Donny2112|talk]]) 05:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like a third, small section on the Leonardo pie chart to say "90s AC Milan footballer"

2734: Electron Color

2023-02-08T00:44:36Z

172.70.85.81: /* Explanation */ Better punctuation, better dismissal of the idea.

{{comic
| number = 2734
| date = February 6, 2023
| title = Electron Color
| image = electron_color_2x.png
| imagesize = 568x256px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = There's quark color, but that's not really color--it's just an admission by 20th century physicists that numbers are boring.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by A SUPER-INTELLIGENT SHADE OF THE COLOUR BLUE - Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic [[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching a school physics class. One of her students asks what the color of electrons is.

This is a relevant question for a kid to ask since on many scientific diagrams of atoms, the subatomic particles have been assigned colors to identify them for the reader. Neutrons are generally red, green, or gray; protons red or green and electrons might be blue or yellow. But there is no accepted rule for coloring such diagrams, so the kid may be confused. Additionally, some scientific diagrams use color coding rather than actually representative colors, and the kid may be wondering what color quarks actually are.

In completely off character style, Miss Lenhart actually gives a correct explanation and states that, unlike the diagrams, which are colored for convenience, the particles are not colored. She even gives the correct explanation for this fact: ''They're too small to interact with visible light, so "color" isn't even defined for them.'' For a more typical Miss Lenhart see for instance [[1519: Venus]].

Of course she then continues by saying that electrons are definitely yellow. It isn't clear if she means they should be yellow on diagrams, because she feels that is to correct way to depict them in drawings of atoms, or if she is just teasing her young pupils. But her off-panel pupils take her word for it. One of the kids says "I knew it", to the "fact" that electrons are yellow, and likewise the other pupils completely ignore what Miss Lenhart just told them. The debate then starts as one pupil claims ''and protons are red?'', and another chimes in, with a ''No, they're gray!'' This only makes sense in a debate of how to draw atoms, not regarding their actual color, as Miss Lenhart just explained.

The opinions over the colors are probably based on what kind of diagrams people were initially exposed to, leading to a predisposition to think that those colors are 'correct'.

Although individual electrons do not have a color, it's possible to produce a solution of {{w|Solvated_electron|so-called 'solvated' electrons}}. In ammonia and amines, in certain concentrations, the solution color is blue, and in higher concentrations metallic gold to bronze.

The title text refers to the {{w|color charge}} property of quarks, a property which is part of {{w|quantum chromodynamics}}. As mentioned by [[Randall]], these have nothing to do with color as we know it, but is just a way to represent interactions between quarks in a sufficiently analogous fashion that avoids inventing entirely new words to describe a particular threefold quality of the necessary {{w|color confinement|inter-quark groupings}}. And he jokingly says that the 20th century physicists that came up with the three color system did this as as admission that numbers are boring. They could just have called the color charges "1", "2" and "3", though this may imply an unwarranted hierarchy, progression or other standard mathematical relationship that does not actually apply.

==Transcript==
:[Miss Lenhart is teaching a class. A boy with spiky hair sits at his desks with his hand raised asking a question. Science Girl sits in front of him looking back at him while leaning an arm on the back of her chair.]
:Miss Lenhart: You have a question?
:Boy: Yeah-What color are electrons and protons? Are they yellow? Red? Blue?

:[Zoom in on Miss Lenhart's head.]
:Miss Lenhart: Subatomic particles don't have a color.
:Miss Lenhart: They're too small to interact with visible light, so "color" isn't even defined for them.

:[Zoom back out but only showing Miss Lenhart. Three pupils reply from off-panel with speech lines coming from starburst at the right edge of the panel.]
:Miss Lenhart: That said, electrons are '''''definitely''''' yellow.
:Off-panel voice 1: I knew it!
:Off-panel voice 2: And protons are red, right?
:Off-panel voice 3: ''What?'' No! They're gray!

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Science Girl]]
[[Category:Kids]] 
[[Category:Physics]]

2733: Size Comparisons

2023-02-06T16:03:57Z

172.70.85.81: /* Explanation */ Ants from Rhode Island would be 200 times as large!

{{comic
| number = 2733
| date = February 3, 2023
| title = Size Comparisons
| image = size_comparisons_2x.png
| imagesize = 238x373px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If you shrank the Solar System to the size of Texas, the Houston metro area would be smaller than a grasshopper in Dallas.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a TEXAS-SIZED CRICKET - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Another comic in the [[:Category:My Hobby|My Hobby]] series.

[[Cueball]] attempts to emphasize to [[Ponytail]] what {{w|Texas}}'s size is (as the largest state in the {{w|contiguous US}}, although the second largest state in the whole of the {{w|US}}), by making a size comparison. He states that with Texas expanded to the size of the {{w|Solar System}}, the {{w|ant}}s in Texas will be as large as {{w|Rhode Island}} (the smallest US state). However, Cueball on purpose (according to the caption) just proves how small Texas actually is compared to the Solar System (which is a lot larger){{Citation needed}}. Additionally, the deeper truth of the original statement is inverted; if a much smaller state (Rhode Island, Delaware, etc.) were scaled up to the size of the solar system, its ants would be the size of Texas itself, over 200 times as large as the scaled up Texan ants, so the relative smallness of the Texan ants shows how big Texas is.

A common analogy for expressing a statistic (such as area/volume/population size/population density) of unfamiliar things is to compare that thing to some other reference that people are likely to already have an understanding of, if only through past comparisons. For instance, it is said that a human-sized {{w|flea}} could jump the equivalent height of the {{w|Eiffel Tower}} (if jumping ability scaled with animal size; which it does not, due to how some of the different numbers involved will scale to the square or cube of the linear factor, so such aspects as power-to-weight ratios and sheer biomechanical strengths cannot be maintained). In this case, Randall is comparing objects that are extremely different in scale (the state of Texas and a small insect), but then blowing Texas up to yet another size many orders of magnitude larger, and then comparing it with something else his addressee has no comprehension of, with the result that the comparison is of no value in understanding how big Texas is (which could be supposed to be Cueball's intended impartation), or what ants have to do with anything in the first place. The only message you get in the end is that "Texas is much bigger than an ant!

There are a lot of definitions for how large the Solar System is, but one that is used (and easily agreed upon) is based upon {{w|Neptune}}'s {{w|Apsis#Perihelion and aphelion|aphelion}} (the farthest point from Sun of the outermost planet). Using the {{w|Area of a circle|circle area equation}}, we might say that the 'area' of the solar system is 6.49×1019 square kilometers (2.506×1019 square miles), which is a lot, with Texas's area being in turn measured as 696,241 km² (268,820 mi²). The difference in size is the huge factor of 9.32×1013 (not a [[2707: Astronomy Numbers|simple number]]). Ants, unfortunately for the calculations, vary vastly in size, but Rhode Island's area is known to be 3,144 km² (1,214 mi²). We can therefore back-calculate that Randall's average "ant" would occupy 33.73 square millimeters. Roughly measured, an ant has an "aspect ratio" of 1:2 (width to length), and such an assumption leads to a length of 8.21mm, which falls easily into the range of 2–25mm for various possible species and types of ants. Therefore, Randall's calculated comparison indeed holds up as valid.

The title text refers to the opposite, with the entire Solar system being scaled down to the size of Texas. {{w|Houston}} (a city in Texas) has a {{w|Greater Houston|metropolitan area}} (an area extending a bit beyond the city itself) that, if ''shrunk'' by the same factor as before, would be smaller than a grasshopper in {{w|Dallas}}, another city in Texas. (This, of course, only works if Houston's environs are part of what is shrunk, yet the grasshopper – and perhaps at least part of its apparent hometown of Dallas – remains unchanged.) The calculations to verify this hinge upon Houston's metro area normally being considered to be 26,061 km² (10,062 mi²), and hence becoming 279.6 square millimeters. A grasshopper may be considered thinner than an ant, so we shall use the aspect ratio of 1:3 instead, to give a length of 28.96 mm, or almost 3 centimeters and approximately an inch. This falls within the range of 1–7cm range, that may be found [https://animalcorner.org/animals/grasshopper/ quoted in some places], but is significantly smaller than [https://a-z-animals.com/blog/the-10-largest-grasshoppers-in-the-world/ notably large species]. Whether the Dallas grasshopper is any particular variety (or even a native, rather than an exotic pet) is not expounded upon.

On the other hand, the comparison would be meaningful the other way around: "The Solar System is so big that if you shrink it to the size of Texas, (the shrunken) Rhode Island would now be as small as (unshrunken) ants".

==Transcript==
:[Cueball speaking to Ponytail.]
:Cueball: Texas is so big that if you expanded it to the size of the Solar System, the ants there would be as big as Rhode Island.
:Ponytail: Wow!
:Ponytail: ...Wait.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My hobby: Unhelpful size comparisons

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Ants]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Talk:2733: Size Comparisons

2023-02-04T08:51:47Z

172.70.85.81:

But Texas isn't even the largest US State. It's the ''second'' largest state, behind Alaska. Mind you, if you took Alaska and divided it into two then Texas would no longer be in second place... It would now be third! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.203|172.71.242.203]] 02:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I started an explanation. My first, so I hope it's OK. Notice how I resisted [Citation needed]. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

:... and ninjaed. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the beginning, now it says Texas is the second-largest state. [[User:WhatDoWeDoNow|WhatDoWeDoNow]] ([[User talk:WhatDoWeDoNow|talk]]) 03:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:Alaska isn't usually considered part of the "contiguous US", so Texas is indeed first there. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 03:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that if you scale Rhode Island up to the size of the Solar System, the ants would be even larger. [[User:Jordan Brown|Jordan Brown]] ([[User talk:Jordan Brown|talk]]) 06:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Trivia: In Germany we like to compare big things to the size of the Saarland, the smallest federal state that is not a city state. But since it is also the state with the least people living in it almost noone really knows how big the Saarland really is (and of the rest noone really cares to find out). This reminds me a lot of this Texas vs. Alaska discussion and I wonder if every country has something like this...? --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.160.39|172.71.160.39]] 07:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
:In the UK, at a certain range of scale our general comparison standard is (half/three times /etc) "the size of Wales". e.g. the quantity of rainforest that is doomed, at any particular time. There ''are'' a lot of people there (often, according to the Welsh themselves, too many English incomers) and it is usefully easy to identify (I think of it as the "head of the pig that the gnome is riding", but that might just be me), given its prominant appearance in the outline of Great Britain itself. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3715512.stm Usually!] [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.81|172.70.85.81]] 08:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

2731: K-Means Clustering

2023-01-30T21:36:01Z

172.70.85.81: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 2731
| date = January 30, 2023
| title = K-Means Clustering
| image = k_means_clustering_2x.png
| imagesize = 320x385px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = According to my especially unsupervised K-means clustering algorithm, there are currently about 8 billion types of people in the world.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by EITHER 8 BILLION OR 3 TYPES OF BOTS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|K-means_clustering|''k''-means clustering}} is a method of categorizing vectors into ''k'' clusters. For example, we might categorize a population by two metrics, and want to best categorize this scatter graph into the distinct populations, algorithmically drawing {{w|Voronoi cell}}s to decide the within-cluster variances.

Ponytail's determination that there are three clusters is unsurprising if she herself falls into the category of those who use K=3 as a fixed value, which will inevitably result in three data clusters regardless of actual distribution. The qualitative interpretation of the other two categories — that is, what placement in the other two categories means — is unclear as Ponytail's analysis is either using a binary criterion (whether or not one sorts data into three groups) as the basis for sorting people into three categories, or is a black box using unknown criteria and she has only been able to determine that her own group shares the tendency to group things into threes.

The title text refers to a K-means algorithm with the opposite problem, with no reduction of K value to converge any two human beings into a common cluster based on shared traits. This is humorous because it would make such a clustering useless for the purposes for which a K-Means Clustering is typically used, such as of making insurance risk pools or targets of advertisement campaigns.

Interestingly, by including the entire human population, the algorithm should be immune to bias in creating its input data. However, since every human is unique,{{cn}} the only way to have the clusters converge is to "throw out" some traits of humans as unimportant. This may be objectionable to humans who disagree with that assessment. In contrast, in a supervised algorithm, the training data is tagged with traits that the trainers seek. These traits could be applied in a manner that is socially unacceptable, and lead to AI behavior that reflects the biases of the trainers.

This comic is potentially an adaptation of the joke "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those that understand binary and those that don't"

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Ponytail is presenting on a stage, pointing a screen with a stick. The writings and possible figures on the screen are illegible.

:Ponytail: Our analysis shows that there are three kinds of people in the world: Those who use ''k''-means clustering with ''k''=3, and two other types whose qualitative interpretation is unclear.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Statistics]]

2731: K-Means Clustering

2023-01-30T21:35:27Z

172.70.85.81:

{{comic
| number = 2731
| date = January 30, 2023
| title = K-Means Clustering
| image = k_means_clustering_2x.png
| imagesize = 320x385px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = According to my especially unsupervised K-means clustering algorithm, there are currently about 8 billion types of people in the world.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by EITHER 8 BILLION OR 3 TYPES OF BOTS - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|K-means_clustering|''k''-means clustering}} is a method of categorizing vectors into ''k'' clusters. For example, we might categorize a population by two metrics, and want to best categorize this scatter graph into the distinct populations, algorithmically drawing {{w|Voronoi cell}}s to decide the within-cluster variances.

Ponytail's determination that there are three clusters is unsurprising if she herself falls into the category of those who use K=3 as a fixed value, which will inevitably result in three data clusters regardless of actual distribution. The qualitative interpretation of the other two categories — that is, what placement in the other two categories means — is unclear as Ponytail's analysis is either using a binary criterion (whether or not one sorts data into three groups) as the basis for sorting people into three categories, or is a black box using unknown criteria and she has only been able to determine that her own group shares the tendency to group things into threes.

The title text refers to a K-means algorithm with the opposite problem, with no reduction of K value to converge any two human beings into a common cluster based on shared traits. This is humorous because it would make such a clustering useless for the purposes for which a K-Means Clustering is typically used, such as of making insurance risk pools or targets of advertisement campaigns.

Interestingly, by including the entire human population, the algorithm should be immune to bias in creating its input data. However, since every human is unique,{{cn}} the only way to have the clusters converge is to "throw out" some traits of humans as unimportant. This may be objectionable to humans who disagree with that assessment. In contrast, in a supervised algorithm, the training data is tagged with traits that the trainers seek. These traits could be applied in a manner that is socially unacceptable, and lead to AI behavior that reflects the biases of the trainers.

This comic is an adaptation of the joke "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those that understand binary and those that don't"

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Ponytail is presenting on a stage, pointing a screen with a stick. The writings and possible figures on the screen are illegible.

:Ponytail: Our analysis shows that there are three kinds of people in the world: Those who use ''k''-means clustering with ''k''=3, and two other types whose qualitative interpretation is unclear.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Statistics]]