User talk:JzG/Archive 206

Archive 200

←

Archive 204

Archive 205

Archive 206

Archive 207

Archive 208

→

Archive 210

Fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck

Seen the latest news from India? I am absolutely terrified for my friends there. It's horrible.

In completely related news: my tolerance level for COVIDiots is currently running at minus ten billion. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You and me both, man. I damn near got arrested reacting to one of them late last year. Me and my immediate family have been lucky, but I've lost two aunts and two more cousins to this shit. Worth noting is that both of the cousins were, themselves, covidiots. Some friends of mine (Christian missionaries, if you can believe it) were in India early last year, staging a trip to the Philippines, but they beat feet back to the states and have been safe and sound since. One of my friends was not so fortunate; his parents are over there, and both are currently sick, though their outlook is good, so far.

My heart goes out for your friends (and everyone else) over there, right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, it's bloody awful. This is far and away the worst thing about cults: they brainwash people into killing themselves. The idea that defying a fucking virus would become an ideological purity test is something I could not have imagined before 2020. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, as we all know, if you can convince a virus that you're utterly implacable, it won't infect you, right?

...Right?

Since we're on the topic, if you want to scare the shit out of yourself, ask me what I've been doing for side work since mid January. It scares the shit out of me, even though I need the money. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, I am afraid to now. I've been working for one of the largest hospital trusts in the UK... Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it scares me, too, sometimes.

My wife works in a hospital, as well. That's been just as scary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, be interested to hear more about your experience, maybe email me if you feel so motivated? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I did just that. I really hope I didn't make you feel worse about anything. I suspect we're both at about the same level of cynicism here, so hopefully I didn't drag you down a few notches with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, wow. Just... wow. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Kinda makes you nostalgic for the days when total thermonuclear war loomed ever present over the horizon, doesn't it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev

Seems unlikely though. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Deprecated source

Template:Deprecated source has been nominated for merging with Template:Deprecated inline. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Thorn Cycles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thorn Cycles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorn Cycles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your question to RJPawan

I would have referred you to the edit summary for his first edit (to his user page), but it’s been removed. Brunton (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Think tanks

Some time ago IIRC you wrote up a good comment on the reliability of think tanks. Do you happen to know which I mean and have a link handy? I can't seem to find it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

le sigh

I don't have the patience or willpower to deal with this weird attempt at whitewashing and changing the narrative. YODADICAE👽 23:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Got to love...

...The description of a seasoned science journalist as a 'nobody'. I'm sure he will be very upset at some random on the internet describing him as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's probably because they largely are a nobody. I appreciate that you like them or whatever, but don't fool yourself into thinking I have any feelings towards them one way or the other. PackMecEng (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, only in as much as anybody is. This is someone who has broadcast factual reporting in nationally syndicated outlets on every single continent. He's run regularly scheduled broadcast slots in the US, Japan and UK concurrently. So while he might not be as loud as "cancelled" peoiple like Jordan Peterson, he is vastly more informed and respected. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion close

Hi Guy! I appreciate your close of that weirdly resurrected thread at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. Could you please sign your close statement? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Pulitzer

Hey Guy! It looks like you've come very close to breaking 3RR at the Pulitzer page. As you know, other editors have eyes on that page and can revert poorly-sourced or undue content, so you might choose to step back a bit to avoid edit warring. I hope you take this as a friendly suggestion and not a relatively inexperienced editor talking out of turn! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you might be confused, JzG appears to be at 2R at that page, and I've performed the third revert, putting me at 1R. Now, I did notice some reverts more than 24 hours before JzG's first revert in the past 24 hours, so maybe that's what you're referring to. But with more eyes on the page now, it's unlikely Guy will be reverting again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, MrOllie and MPants have stepped in, it's all good, but thanks for your concern. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this. It served to remind me, when I'm reading historical accounts, that monarchism is still alive in the modern world, and that the US is not immune from it, i.e. the impulse to make Washington king, Adams/Quincy Adams, Harrison/Harrison, Roosevelt/Roosevelt, Bush/Bush, Clinton/Clinton ... Trump/Trump (Ivanka) or Trump (Jr.)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Revert on Abby Martin

Eh, that's quite the change in tone

I don't understand. No "tone" was changed in any way. I merely restored the Good Article version due to the request for reassessment. Explain to me how and in what way any kind of "tone" was changed or altered. It sounds like you reverted for no reason to me. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the changes I made:

• restore summary in the lead section
• restore 9/11 conspiracy activism to the early life section (was never a "career")
• restored media roots founding to career section
• moved free speech lawsuit from career to views
• merge artistry into personal life
• update list of films

Let me know what you disagree with and I'll fix it. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas, OK, I'll have another look. Thanks for the ping. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Also check out Mick West's book Escaping the Rabbit Hole (2018) for details. Martin's obsession with the 9/11 conspiracy movement was part of her young adult, pre-career life, from age 17-24, broadly speaking. Her career didn't get going until one to two or even three years after that time. I have really no objection to removing the career section entirely and replacing it with second level subheadings, so that the 9/11 truth movement *does* get its own section, but this was the previous compromise I worked out. In other words, as long as it doesn't say "career", I'm open to a separate section. But with the career section in place, the 9/11 stuff belongs in early life. So what I'm saying is that I'm totally open to treating the truth movement in a separate section as long as it isn't labeled career. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Viriditas, that makes sense, put like that. Feel free to reinstate. I will read it over again, I am sure the result will be a net improvement based on what you say. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, take a look. I feel that this is a good compromise. It isn't buried in early life, yet it isn't labeled as part of her career. One could argue both positions with good evidence, so it really does seem like a compromise. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear JzG,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"First Law of Usernames"

Guy:

Any ideas on how a "Wikipedia First Law of Usernames" might be phrased? I know it would say something about usernames with "Truth" in them, and usernames which reverse-project to the editors' intended purpose -- such as MisinformationFix -- but I can't get a handle on how it might be generalized.

Thoughts?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

well, there is rule #14 of the Cynic’s Guide To Wikipedia. Of course, it’s written in pseudo-Perl, which is an indication of how old and out-of-date it is (and I am). MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's definitely a step forward. BTW, I've put a link to CGTW on my Thoughts page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Re truth, there is also OWB#72 which points to WP:The Truth. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

MastCell, and #18 is the definitive statement on Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (help! - typo?) 07:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

BMK, What about something like "Any user whose handle claims to bring truth, seek justice, correct misinformation or anything of the sort will inevitably work tirelessly to do the exact opposite,"? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Inevitably or invariably?[1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, "invariably" would certainly be the best word, but I like the sense of impending doom that comes with "inevitably". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedian Way. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Look ... up in the sky.— Ched (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the exact wording, something about names with "truth" in them should certainly be one of the first few laws of usernames, but I'm not sure whether it should actually be the first. I think they would compete for first place with names that look like names of businesses, names that contain the word "official", names that start with "DJ" or end with "musician", names that contain "qwerty" or an apparently random string of characters, and a few more categories. JBW (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've bashed something together at User:GeneralNotability/First_law_of_usernames, edits are welcome. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I think Sentinel could perhaps be added to the list as well... Guy (help! - typo?) 19:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit, adding material gleaned from this discussion, copyediting it, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I, for one, have grave concerns about this whole notion. UnbiasedSentinelOfTruthFreedomAndFacts (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  UnbiasedSentinelOfTruthFreedomAndFacts, I cannot imagine why. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  My apologies. I forgot Poe's Law for a moment, and made that account to make this joke. You'll be happy to know that Oshwah blackballed it entirely within minutes of your edit to the user page. TPA revoked, email disabled, the works. Honestly, that was funnier than the joke I made with the account, by far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JzG. Thank you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI

I wasn't notified either but you've been mentioned here and here in Wikipedia's latest temper tantrum dramafest. YODADICAE👽 15:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Holy crap, that's a lot of electrons sacrificed in a short amount of time for no benefit. Wikipedia at its finest. That discussion should definitely be linked in the see also section of the Wikipedia community article. Or maybe the article title should just be a redirect to that discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe it should just be closed before more editors are denigrated as trolls for having the audacity to have a slightly fun signature, but you know, I'm a troll and know nothing and am just here to intentionally disrupt Wikipedia, Floquenbeam. YODADICAE👽 16:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• The repeated claimed desire by those discussing it is "to make sure the guidelines reflect actual practice," yet at no point do they ever consider adjusting the guideline to reflect actual practice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to include your signature in that list, MPants at work, you heathen, you! YODADICAE👽 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

From one troll here to disrupt the project to another: don't worry about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

at no point do they ever consider adjusting the guideline to reflect actual practice - I may be confusing a singular vs. plural "they" here, but since I opened that section I might as well highlight that that's literally the starting point for the discussion. i.e. hey, we have these guidelines and people both disagree about what they mean and when, if ever, they should be enforced. Do they still have consensus, and how should we adjust the guideline to reflect actual practice/consensus? I think there are legitimate arguments at either end of the spectrum -- the goal is consistency. ...It just happens that one of the most active participants feels very strongly about there only being one acceptable interpretation (the strictest possible interpretation), so much of the page has become about that, unfortunately. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, none of my comments have been about you, in case that was actually of concern. Just...the rest of it. YODADICAE👽 18:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It was a plural "They." I'm not singling you out. The problem is that the actual practice is that numerous editors don't spell out their usernames in their signatures, leaving the linking to identify them, and that's adjusting the guidelines to fit that not something that anyone is seriously considering there. Literally every option being given any real consideration is one that will actively damage the project, and most of the participants seem almost giddy at the thought of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, I guess. Lots of options are being considered. They're just harder to see per above, I guess? Part of the point of trying to figure this out is to put to bed any mistaken notions of what is required. To that extent, simply asking BHG's preferred question may be most effective, I guess, because it will certainly shut down the idea that there's consensus for signatures containing usernames exactly as they are, with no other text, etc. But there are plenty of other ideas being discussed, from "grandfathering" to allowing abbreviations and variations but not completely unrelated names, to only requiring a userpage link. And there are plenty of good reasons for all of them. None of that seems like it makes me (or the majority of participants there) giddy to do damage to the project or disinterested in adjusting the guidelines. I confess to starting to feel a little burnt out with the "it must be my way; there's no good reason for anything else; you're all breaking the rules" on one end and "let people do what they want; there's no good reason for anything else; you're all just a bunch of destructive jerks" on the other and not enough nuance between. Anyway, I'm starting to repeat myself and create lots of notifications for Guy, so I'll shut up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

One difficulty in having an honest conversation about this is the elephant in the room: 95%+ of the time, people complaining about a signature aren't actually confused by the signature, they just want to get an editing opponent in trouble. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Kind of a point I was trying to make when I said this. YODADICAE👽 16:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that several people in content disputes with me in the past have complained about my signature, and no-one else has. It also always seems to be people I'm in some disagreement with who make the mistake of thinking my username is actually ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking of changing my sig in solidarity. (Credit to Levivich). PenisMacWilly _(blether) 18:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget to add 🍔 at the end. context. BEACHIDICAE🌊 18:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That glorious signature comes with this theme song GS ;-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)