User talk:Yfmcpxpj

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

Store products[edit]

Hi Y.... Replied to you message here: User_talk:Kynde#New_category_-_comics_with_store_products --Kynde (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Done with the renaming. Moved one comic to the new name. The rest is up to you :-) See full reply in my talk. --Kynde (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

153: Cryptography[edit]

I have chimed in and removed the section that was also on TED Talk. --Kynde (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! 👍 Looks like you and User:Lupo are the most active and experienced editors here, so I'm happy with whatever the two of you decide to include. -- Yfmcpxpj (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call myself experienced, but that is why I thought of asking Kynde ;). You are also quite active lately, and making good contributions. I like that. --Lupo (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Accidental deletion[edit]

Oops -- I apologize for deleting your item about collecting the helpful tools; that was an accident. I like your new "2x" button. BunsenH (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, no worries – I'm guessing it happened because we were editing the page at the same time. Anyway, thanks for pointing out that those double-resolution images on even exist at all – I wish I had known about those long ago! – Yfmcpxpj (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You've clearly been hanging around this place far longer than I have. Would it be appropriate to re-open the issue of "It's 'cause you're dumb", and if so, how? It's a comment that I think is both offensive/inappropriate and incorrect. One may be ignorant, and in need of an explanation, without being stupid, and that's not even getting into the problematic history of the word "dumb". The subject has been brought up before, but with little discussion that I can see, and no action. BunsenH (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out to me about it! Things have gotten a bit busier than usual with work this week, but I'll try to give you a proper response to that this weekend... – Yfmcpxpj (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I found the main discussion, which took place in February 2016 with a few comments appended later. I'm a bit disappointed by its results. Not sure if trying to reopen the issue is a good idea; I know that that kind of thing rarely makes people happy even after a few years. "That was settled! Why are you trying to restart the argument?" BunsenH (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)