User talk:MjolnirPants

This is a place for anyone to share any music that's worth sharing. Youtube links are preferred, but not necessary. I ask that you not post anything behind a pay-wall.

If you decide to add a new genre, please start a new column (with Template:col-break), and please search the "other cool music" column for songs that belong in the new genre to move them there.

I have every sympathy with your position, and I am just replacing this message, deleted by over zealous admins I presume. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A section of this page has been deleted by an admin, after I restored it. Their edsum reads " I've left your note, but the rest was removed by an oversight process. Please do not restore it. " Tis a fucking joke. That was not an oversight deletion, and just appears spiteful. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

When you see a "...removed from Wikipedia's public records..." edit by an admin, it is best to leave it be. Something went on that they can't tell us about. In the past I have inquired about these sort of blocks, and have been assured by people who I trust that any action that they can't publicly give a reason for gets a lot of extra scrutiny from multiple uninvolved admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That's all very well, but the content I restored was not oversight deleted, and remains in the edit history for all to see. I urge lurkers to take a look. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason why an admin might oversight some things and delete other things as part of oversighting. Sometimes the part that gets oversighted makes the rest invalid. Somebody writes something. I respond. The bit I responded to disappears. Now my response is out if context. It doesn't have to be a direct reply either. Somebody writes something. I write something else without mentioning X because somebody has already covered X. The bit that discusses X disappears. Now it looks like I purposely avoided discussing X. And it is far from obvious from the history that deleting my comment was a good idea. Seriously, we have to trust the admins in this case. We simply do not have the information needed to determine what should and should not be restored. I don't like it any better than you do; I regularly review admin decisions and ask questions if they seem a bit fishy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Admins are not omniscient arbiters of interpretation and are not immune to WP:TPG; if someone objects to their non-oversighted material being removed, and there isn't a policy-based reason to remove it (doesn't contain attacks, copyvios, etc.), the admin isn't acting in an admin capacity if they stubbornly re-remove it again, they're just an editor editwarring against TPG.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, for the record, all {{OversightBlock}}s are subject to immediate review by the entire oversight team once they have been made. After changing Ivanvector’s block to an OS block, I immediately emailed the list for review. The content Roxy is discussing was not suppressed, but another OS’r felt it best to remove from the live page. I can’t really say anything else at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Since we're doing this, let me just clarify that my blanking of the text was not intended an oversight action — indeed, it was not oversighted — but rather for the reason I stated in my edit summary. Even ignoring the content, what remained was a screed-like abuse of the talkpage while blocked, and such disruptions are routinely blanked, in particular for indefinite blocks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: The reason people are "doing this" is because you removed the material in the first place. First place; but not first class. ——SerialNumber54129 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Suicide by admin? You know, I was kind of expecting that. All the best, Thunderbritches. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

• Folks, I've restored this talk page so that all the material MPants himself removed stays removed, and what was added since remains. If you did not see the oversighted content and don't know who did what, please don't try to guess at it and and attempt to restore it to a version that you didn't even see. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If any of that is directed at me, then please don't try to guess at it and and attempt to restore it to a version that you didn't even see is utterly counter-factual. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It was a general comment, as I have seen a number of people apparently making assumptions of who did what and why. At this point, I suggest leaving any more excisions or restorations to oversighters if anyone thinks they need doing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, since we're all weighing in, the reason I restored Amorymeltzer's original removal of what was not oversighted was specifically to avoid the exact drama-fest which is currently playing out on this page, after having speedy-closed the long ANI discussions for the same reason. Everyone, please, remember that we're all on the same team here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Retoring Amorymeltzer's removal seems fine to me, but Tryptofish's restoring of MPants's earlier removals was not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It was removed by two different administrators for reasons completely unrelated to the oversighting, reasons which strike me as fairly obvious. I don't see a good reason for you to have restored it in the first place. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • At this point, I've lost track of which removals and restorations we are talking about, but I stand by what I did entirely. If one looks at what I actually put back – here, oh horror, is the diff: – there is nothing wrong about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • There's nothing wrong with that content, no, and your motivation was honorable. But MPants himself removed it from his own talk page, and he had the right to do that, even if he was angry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I'll take your revision of your comment, in which you acknowledge that my "motivation was honorable", along with your original acknowledgement that there was "nothing wrong with that content", as good enough for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The way you have ALL behaved here in the last hour or so is actually a disgrace. You should all take yourselves off to ANI. Just remember the guy who's page this actually is probably watching. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And you are actually trolling, Leaky caldron. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC).

Trolling does not necessarily equate to untruth. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

MPants, please be aware that you can get the block lifted when you feel ready to come back to editing, by following the instructions in the template above. And I know that I speak for numerous editors when I say that I hope that you do! Really, this entire mess got way out-of-hand. I tried to put back some comments from some of us that I think you might have removed in anger, but was overruled. I do hope you will get the opportunity to read what I previously said here: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. After skimming the most recent ANI discussion, I have a fairly good idea of what probably got you this block. Don't let the harassers and trolls get to you like this, because that's only granting them a "win" and making the whole project even more toxic than it was before. Ignore them, don't talk about them, don't post about their off-wiki activities and don't do anything that could be perceived by someone who hasn't looked into the context as "calling them names". There's a reason your user essay was snow-kept and the admin who blocked you had less than 24 hours earlier been one of the editors who !voted to keep it; Wikipedia can be weird about this kinda stuff. We just have to live with it and work within the system -- 90% of the time it does work, after a fashion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Y'all might also be interested in signing this aka User:MjolnirPants/nonazis

-Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm stopping by to make a few comments that I hope MPants will see. I've decided that I will not sign the nonazis page, and I'd like to explain why, in part because it might be useful to think about when considering a request to come back. I agree with the idea that Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. My problem is with calling it "fucking". When people like the trolling sock (or was it a socking troll?) who started all these dramas show up, it's entirely appropriate to shoot down their arguments in terms of content and policies, not to mention common sense, and to show them the door. But it gets tricky to personalize it, even for Nazis. And in particular, using the curse words that trigger a lot of people here, shifts the attention off of where it should be.

Also, I've seen a couple of editors referring to "suicide by admin". I'd prefer that editors not do that, because you probably don't know what was in MPants' mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The ban against you was unjust. You being upset at blatant pov pushing and a condescending attitude is understandable. That guy was an obvious sock. Get back to editing soon. - Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Just pointing out that MjolnirPants is not banned. The idea of banning them has never been suggested. At the most extreme end of proposed sanctions they might have been blocked for a while until they acknowledged some suggestions from other editors, but an outright ban has never been on the table. The current oversight situation is an unfortunate side show. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the issue at ANI and "that guy" is not the reason for the indef block. The block is because of comments here which were oversighted and which we cannot now see. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the history here (and with the caveat that I cannot see the oversighted edits) the possibility exists that MJP did the Wikipedia equivalent of Suicide by cop and committed "Suicide" by administrator.

It would not surprise me if MJP emailed the blocking admin and requested that his user pages be courtesy blanked and possibly protected. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I remember the edits in question, and (without saying exactly what they were) I could imagine a user seeing the edits as a statement of "either this problem needs to be fixed or I need to go." (Both happened).

The original block disabled his email, so I don't think he emailed a request for a courtesy blank. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, they did not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that he did, but rather that he might. I know I would ask for a courtesy blanking if I blanked a page, had TPA revoked, and my comments re-appeared. Technical question: Does revoking email mean that he can't send emails to an admin who otherwise accept emails? Does it mean that he can't receive emails through Wikipedia? I just checked, and the "Email this user" form still comes up (I didn't try actually sending, because I don't want to bother him with a test email). --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: When it became an Oversight block, his email was re-enabled, probably because the only way to appeal his block now is through the Oversight and/or Arbitration Committees. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The setting prevents sending email through the "email this user" form. I don't know if it prevents access to the form (I suspect not) but disables its functionality I'm assuming on the server end, so probably you could still type out an email in the form, you would then get an error message and your email would not be sent. It does not, for example, prevent a user from opening their mail app, typing in the known email address of an administrator (or other user), and pushing send. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something that comes out of Guy Macon's observations. If hypothetically anyone had communicated onsite that MPants had made an additional request via email to an admin or oversighter that his talk page be kept blank, I would never have put anything back. That's an entirely different kind of situation than what actually appears to have happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• I re-enabled the email function when I took over the block as an OS block because email is the only way to appeal them, and I wanted to enable appeal via the system email function. I’ve also stated this on the list, but I’ll state it here if MPants is watching; he is also free to email any individual oversighter about this block (including myself as the blocking one, and I’d forward to the list). I have not received an email from him, but can’t speak to anyone else. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Butting in, like everyone else, but: Can ya'll just stop? There is no reason to be going over all this stuff on a blocked user's talkpage. Butting out. Arkon (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ditto, oh and MP, for real though, come back soon. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. EEng 00:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

What a senseless drama fest! I confess I just came here to enjoy your red page notice one last time before its predictable demise. Be big, be bold and be back! — JFG ^talk 01:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on "come back soon!" I say that as the one who MfD'ed the editnotice, not expecting all this weird shitshow, like the oversighting and indef stuff. The MfD wasn't a hostile action, it's simply not possible to raise an issue with you about that editnotice's effects – when the editnotice itself demands no criticism of any kind except at a noticeboard – other than by taking the matter to the noticeboard for editnotices. I was actually trying to comply with it even while objecting to it! Was also fully expecting you back within hours, since your short-term block was almost up – and it was bogus to begin with, being punitive rather than preventative. Blargh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed the recent events. I also hope that you come back, MjolnirPants, but that you take all the time off you need. —PaleoNeonate – 08:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So sorry to see this. I too would like to see this user come back, but since he's indefinitely blocked, how is that supposed to happen? Jonathunder (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. What he would do, if he wants to, is to privately email ArbCom, asking for an unblock. In case he is watching here, I'll add that I would hope that he would read and think about WP:AAB before making that request. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at WP:AN#Review of re-block. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of any talk-page watchers: the outcome of this AN discussion from Feb. 2019 can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Review of re-block. A further thread on Tryptofish's user talk page (discussing the result) is at User talk:Tryptofish#Post-ANI, re MJP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hope you're having a happy new year so far. Hopefully the weather down there is better than it is up here, and I trust you and your family are doing well. GMG^talk 15:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're out there anywhere, my friend, I hope that you will see this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

And this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've unblocked this account and MPants at work. I know there's some other declared alts I've missed, so let me know here and I'll get to them when I'm back online (or any admin can lift them as having the consent of an oversighter to lift the block.) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• 💃🍻🎉🥳 Yay!!! Glad your back!! Captain Kirk says hello!! Atsme 💬 📧 00:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Woohoo! If I knew you were coming I'd have baked a cake. It's great to see you're back! nagualdesign 00:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The strawberries and chocolate look delicious, along with a couple of packs of fags just for decoration. nagualdesign 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: you win :) Glad to have you back, MPants! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, world famous editor MjolnirPants aka MPants at work aka Yeshua AKA Jesus is back? What a throwback Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia needs editors like you. Welcome back! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back! I would not have baked you a cake, but you can have some of my home-smoked ham. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Great to have you back! Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey - great to see you back MP. Nice to come across a bit of good news for a change. :) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

(Actual serious response for anyone interested) I saw things were getting a bit better in terms of less crossover between the motivated bad political actors and the editing of conspiracy theory/pseudoscience articles, so I made my promises not to dox any more pedophile Nazis. I figure that's a promise that should be easy enough to keep. Not that there's any shortage of them, it's just that most aren't smart enough to need doxxing; they'll get themselves indeffed soon enough without my help. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• +1 GMG^talk 17:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts wild garlic ...

wild garlic

Close

• +1 - if you don't like cake how is this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty, and tasty. I recommend blending them with rapeseed oil, walnuts and vintage cheddar for a delicious pesto. Mmm... GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No basil? Well, I think I've just found a pesto I can finally get behind. (I hate basil.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Basil? No way. I love basil, but it would be completely overshadowed, this packs a real kick in the (M) pants. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Its because you are using Cheddar instead of parmesan. Cheddar would fight with the basil but parmesan complements it. While I can forgive the replacement of parmesan with cheddar (if you are not using basil, you could theoretically use any mature hard cheese of preference) I cannot, under any circumstances, countenence the replacement of virgin olive oil with rapeseed oil. Its an abomination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

An abomination it may be, but it's a damned tasty one. You get some really nice rapeseed oils these days, very nutty and subtle. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back. Refreshed I hope, and just the right amount of reinvigorated. 😉 SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  +1. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back! -- Valjean (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Welcome back indeed, and a pop-tart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EErY75MXYXI —PaleoNeonate – 23:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Welcome back! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Me too! Doug Weller talk
• Good to have you back! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• I also am glad to see you back. Cardamon (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• Woah. Welcome back! Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• A pleasant surprise to see your username again. Welcome back! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who welcomed me back. I honestly expected my return to go mostly under the radar as it were, and it's heartwarming to see so many people happy to see me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeing your username in my Watchlist was heartwarming. I hope to see The Quixotic Potato there one day too. nagualdesign 17:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• I was delighted to see your name on my watchlist today, welcome back! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Welcome back. I don't believe we've interacted directly, and my motivation is broader than just welcoming you, individually. It's also to say that it cheers me that the verbiage about an indefinite block not necessarily being an infinite block, actually works out sometimes, and therefore might also apply to a couple of others, who I hope to see back as well, one day. Enjoy your welcome party! Mathglot (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe we have, though I've seen your handle and my hind brain tells me it was on some good edits (templates? I think). Thanks, I'm glad to be back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• One needs a strong stomach to see how sausage is made. Don't let it change you. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• I know I'm kinda late to the party, but holy shit, this is ... pretty damn good news! squirrelking was wrong -- the pants weren't dead after all! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Just saw your name pop up at ANI. Had no idea you were back, but glad to see it! Grandpallama (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Good to see you again!! I regret to say that i still cannot spell Mjolnir correct the first 4 of 5 times. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious

understanding of metal

Thank you for quality article The Dresden Files short fiction, for edit summaries for posterity ("the lead is short, but it hits every point in the article, which is also quite short") and understanding, for resilience and metal music, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2582 of Precious, a prize of QAI, aka the cabal of the outcast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to share the diffs to support your wild accusations of misrepresentation, bald-faced lies, and racism? Stonkaments (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Oh, those accusations were anything but wild. If you have a problem with it, go ahead and complain at ANI, at which point I'll come with dozens, if not hundreds of diffs and links to WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS and WP:CRUSH for all those uninvolved admins to ruminate on. But do not post this kind of crap to my talk page again. In fact, don't post anything to my talk page again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Conspiracies, wikiracism and bald-faced lies!

Sorry what was the question again I forgot — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• We have plenty of pictures of cloudless sunny days. Still possible we could redirect this article. Like...remember when e-cards were a thing? Your great-aunt just got dial up and she wanted everyone to know. GMG^talk 22:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: The more I browse through that talk page's archives (looking for consensus discussions and RfCs), the more I think you've got the right idea. We should redirect it to Special:random. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I just went back over MPants' edits (from both accounts) over the past several days, and (not seeing any diffs in the OP's post here), it seems to me, that if we're speaking of accusations, then there really ought to be something to back up the accusation being made against MPants here. I see this: , which does not strike me as incorrect, and I'm really only seeing a WP:BOOMERANG here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• The "accusations" (it was only one, and it was addressed at Stonk's comment, not stonk themselves) in question happened here, in which I characterized Stonk's description of their months-long push against the consensus at Race and intelligence as somewhere between "gross misrepresentation of what happened" and "bald-faced lies about what the sources and other editors said". And I absolutely stand by that, as there's at least one claim in the edit I referred to which Stonk has previously admitted was false. Stonk also has months of refusing to accept the consensus, constantly re-litigating a claim which Stonk claims not to actually believe and going out of their way to endorse and support disruptive editors under his belt, as well.

I really wanted to avoid heading to the drama boards so soon after coming back, but right now, if I want to actually improve this project, I need to at least give serious consideration to asking that Stonk be topic banned in response to their constant sealioning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

huh? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You know, I actually saw that, and I didn't think for a minute that it was an accusation that matched the opening post here. Saying that someone else's statement is misleading, even in the extreme, is just how users with opposing views agree or disagree at AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Can one of you guys explain the connection? Call me dumb (you won't be the first), but I'm not seeing how that ANI section relates to this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to explain if you can tell me which one I am: a leftard, or a libtard. (I wanna be both.) That was an IP who was edit warring to make brain size to say that brain size varies with skin color. (I guess size matters.) The IP was also saying that the scientific consensus was being challenged by lots of new re-surch. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, your answer sounds much intelligenter than how I would've explained the connection. Cookie for you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yummy! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec)So it was just a comparison of a similar (if less civil) POV pusher. Got it, you libtard leftard. Speaking of which, anyone want to create a new usercat:Libtards? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fish no like cats. But I can just imagine the resulting WP:CFD. Don't mess with the category nazis police! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard, the category popo lost their leader. A little fish told me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

But little cat-tards keep popping up like dandelions or zombies or something. You know the cliché about "those who can, do, and those who can't, teach". This is like "those who can create content do, and those who can't police Da Rulez^TM." Probably on the spectrum or something... oh, wait a minute, sorry... --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree that Stonkaments' disruption has reached the level where a t-ban would be appropriate. For context though, you might want to be aware that they have been getting encouragement from a more experienced editor, Ferahgo the Assassin, who was previously topic-banned from R&I. According to this talk page thread, where the most recent update occurred just yesterday, Feragho is planning to launch another RfC on race and intelligence soon, in coordination with the publication of a paper she thinks will turn the tide. Generalrelative (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly starting to wonder if it isn't time to take this to Arbcom. This was a problem 2 years ago. It's still a problem, and it's stemming now (as then) from a small group of editors who are determined to undermine the consensus of not just WP, but of the scientific community. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Realistically Arbcom are not going to do anything other than sanction the obvious socks and worst offenders as a short term solution. Actually getting a long term resolution for the topic would require banning the scientific racism proponents, but it would require them to take a position on the content of the article. And if they started to do that, it would be open season for every topic area where you have miniorities to the generally accepted consensus pushing their fringe views. We are talking politics, gun control etc. And with the exception of maybe Beeblebrox, I doubt any of the current Arbcom, like their forebears, are willing to stick their neck out that far. Arbcom seems to have forgotton its job is to resolve disputes that the community is unable to handle. Its job isnt to sweep it under the carpet until a later time. Which is what almost always happens with content disputes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

That tracks with my expectations of Arbcom. I imagine it as sort of a tactical nuke: they'll destroy the deployed forces on both sides, and completely ignore the reserves.

I imagine that the worst of the PUV pushers will be banned, along with the editors who've been most frustrated by them, topic bans handed out to 1 or 2 others (including to editors who've been defending the accuracy of the article) and 1 or 2 more editors will be "admonished".

And there's the issue of the nature of the problem, as you pointed out. Arbcom will apparently need to take a side on a topic matter, which carries a whole host of problems. But this is also where I'm wondering if this situation is different, because the sources are quite clear (the APA commissioned a publication specifically to address the core content question here of "what is the scientific consensus" and no-one has ever presented a source that argues with that which has anywhere near the weight of it), yet one side is determined to minimize or alter what we say about the same question. It's less of a content dispute and more of a content policy dispute. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

My advice to anyone considering ArbCom is: don't. There are existing discretionary sanctions for Race and Intelligence, so make use of those. (If the situation gets bad enough, consider a structured RfC on the issue of scientific consensus, modeled on WP:GMORFC, where the outcome will be "this is what the community already decided, so stuff it".) But if ArbCom takes a case, they end up slamming the hammer down on anyone who has said anything intemperate: if the opposition can find the right diff, that will be taken out of context and used against you. Too much collateral damage. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't much mind the thought of being sanctioned myself. Hell, I've considered getting myself re-blocked on and off since about the second day after I came back.

But there are good editors on that talk page who've expressed very understandable frustration at the non-stop POV push and repetitive arguments. This is why I'm torn. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't. Put the mouse down, and step slowly away from the keyboard. Take anyone who makes trouble to WP:AE. Don't ask for ECP. Ask for a topic ban. Rinse and repeat. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to take anyone anywhere and ask for anything. The thought of starting a new ANI or AE or Arbcom thread makes me want to punch my monitor. I just want to make conspiracy theory and pseudoscience related articles better.

And so far, for all the stupidity on the talk page, there hasn't been much edit warring in the article, so knock on wood it stays that way. The article is so much better now than it was back when Deleet was trying to WP:OWN it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the very best advice I can give anyone is just to edit other stuff, and leave the drama-prone topics to someone else. For me, editing GMOs got to be disheartening, whereas editing an article about a big garden with pretty roses was genuinely fun. Substitute whatever works for you for those roses. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, getting back to the aforementioned IP at brain size, all that I did, myself, was really just this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I just remembered something that you can do, short of taking someone to a noticeboard. There is Template:Ds/alert. In the case of race and intelligence, you would go to the user talk page (no more than once per year!) and post {{subst:alert|r-i}} there. In fact, you have to do that before you can take anyone to AE, and they can only be sanctioned for anything they do after you post the alert to them. But the reality is that, for all but the most determined trouble-makers, just getting the notice tends to make them back down. It's a quick edit, totally by-the-rules, and it often gets the job done. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this guy's been notified within the past year already, but in any case, like I said above: I'm not going to move on the drama boards unless I have to, and right now, I don't seem to have to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I checked, and he has been notified in the past year. And how ironic: he is clearly watching here, in a way that may well put him on the wrong side of WP:HOUND, and per the last four edits to this page, just before mine, now, you are now notified too. Seems like I've been a great help here, wink, wink. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think those 3 edits since I told them to stay away from my talk are enough to get them sanctioned, depending on the admin who comes across it. Speaking of which, Stonk had better hope Bish isn't reading this. I wouldn't even need to file a complaint, considering how proactive and decisive she is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not reading anything. I'm officially asleep. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC).

In the long run, giving him a short block will be worth less than a topic ban resulting from accumulated evidence, of which this would be just one piece. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, that's very true. On the other hand, a short block now would clearly establish a battleground mentality, which would make the topic ban easier to get.

Of course, all of that ignores the fact that I don't actually want to pursue sanctions against this editor or any of their cohorts. I don't even really want someone else to get them sanctioned, or even for them to just go away and leave this topic alone. All I really want is for them to acknowledge that the horse is dead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If someone is pressing your buttons (whether knowingly or unknowingly), bad things tend to happen. I don't think any of us is really immune to it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the dogtard . wooF 07:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

At the ID talk page, I believe I've messed up a post you made. Could you look? THX -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It did, but honestly all you removed was some warning advice (which might have escalated things) and an olive branch (intended to offset the former). It's probably better this way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

OK good. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The current !vote count at Talk:Race and intelligence#RfC on racial hereditarianism is at:

• Yes 33.
• No 2, maybe 3.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, if anyone needed (more) evidence that ECP on that page was a good thing, check this out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: that editor's first contribution is a defense of female genital mutilation: . Quite a charmer. Generalrelative (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems about right. There will come a point, very soon, when someone won't be able to take their shenanigans anymore, and I think we all know which direction that ANI thread is going. Until then, enjoy the show. I actually laughed out loud when I saw the links they provided in that edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish the clairvoyant puts fin to forehead and makes a Delphic prediction: I predict that the closing consensus when the RfC eventually ends will reflect that !vote trend. And once that happens, just tell anyone who wants to claim the contrary that they should see that RfC and recognize that the issue has been decided by the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I can already tell you that you have a better track record than Nostradamus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There's really no comparison! --Prettyfish

And much better looking! But didn't he bat 0.000? That's a pretty low bar to beat. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, don't be a sore winner, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm much better looking. The end. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I can honestly say that I've never laid awake at night, picturing the curve of Nostrodamus' lips and the deep color of his eyes.

Of course, I haven't really done that for you, either, but I've certainly never done it for Nostodamus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Now I'm going to lie awake, gagging at that thought... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I'm sure that the gentle swaying of your esca will lull you into a deep slumber in no time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL, got me! I had to look up what an esca is. What an escapade this has been! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Apparently I'm not the worst admin in the world and I actually am a competent judge of community consensus in line with policy. Whodathunkit. Also, hi. I've been away from wiki these days — I'm settling in to the old functionary chiming in when shit is hitting the fan state of wiki-life — but very happy to see you're still doing good work :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you unblocked me. I don't think anyone could blame you for keeping a low profile after a move like that. ;) I'm sure glad to see your name on my watchlist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That's nothing. He even unblocked me. EEng 00:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear god! Tony's depravity knows no bounds... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm considering starting an RfC on placing a moratorium on debates about the scientific consensus, unless and until an editor can bring recent (since the RfC last year) high quality sources that make explicit statements about "the science" or "the consensus" changing. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It probably isn't worth the trouble, assuming the existing RfC keeps going this way. There are already DS, so once the new RfC has a consensus, any trouble-maker can be reverted with an edit summary of "per RfC", and taken to 3RRN or AE if they edit war about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: What would your thoughts about an editnotice that links to the various discussions be? Or a talk page hat note. I've seen FYIs work well on other controversial subjects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a good idea. An alternative might be an FAQ banner like they have over at Talk:Fascism. Something similar was suggested by Hemiauchenia recently. Generalrelative (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I'll get started on writing the FYI. I'll post a link at talk as soon as it's in a state to be edited by multiple editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly support any and all of those alternatives. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I started a draft of an FYI at User:MjolnirPants/RnI FYI. I've got it to the point where I need input. I'm pretty sure it's not ready right now to be implemented and could stand to be improved (we need to gather up a consensus, first, anyways).

Also, I have written up a brief explanation/analogy of the genetics at User:MPants at work/sandbox, if anyone would like to take a look at that and make any improvements. I think we might be able to incorporate a link to that somewhere in the FYI, or maybe do something else with it.

In both cases, please just go ahead and make your edits, and we'll talk about them here if there's any disagreement that can't be sussed out in a couple of edit summaries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Things I think need to be changed (though I'm not going to be doing so right away because I'm too busy):

• We should probably link the two big RfCs, as well as the close review on the first. I also have a text file with links to other related discussions.
• We should probably explain the actual consensus: we're treating the claims of a genetic link between race and intelligence as a fringe theory. We're not dismissing the notion of heritability entirely, nor dismissing any link between race and intelligence.
• It probably needs a "so why do different races have different average IQ scores" question.
• It might stand to be less conversational in tone. I wrote it in a stream-of-consciousness style, by coming up with a question that seemed to lead from the last answer, and then just letting my mind wander and typing out everything that came into it which wasn't about punching Neo-Nazis, smacking clueless wikipedians upside their heads and purple octopi dancing in a garden full of cute kittens growing on trees and licorice grass. Yeah, it gets pretty weird in there sometimes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

_{Friendly talkpage stalker here..."purple octopi dancing in a garden full of cute kittens growing on trees and licorice grass" is just marvelous! Glad you are back! Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)}

I've just made my revisions. I, too, think that linking to RfCs, especially in the FAQ, is important. In fact, it may be more important than the rest of what already is there. Now, as I think I understand it, the FAQ is intended to appear at the top of the article talk page, and the sandbox piece is intended to become a userspace essay. Is that right? What I'm thinking is that the people who are trolls or racist POV-pushers are the ones who are the least likely to bother reading anything that explains stuff. For them, the most effective and efficient message is: this is what Wikipedia has already decided, and that's the end of the discussion. (And I, too, love the purple octopi et al.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Now, as I think I understand it, the FAQ is intended to appear at the top of the article talk page, and the sandbox piece is intended to become a userspace essay. Is that right? Yes to the first, I don't know to the second. It's extremely focused, and probably needs more work, but I thought it might make for a collapsed answer at the bottom of the FAQ, an essay, or something else.

I like your revisions to the FAQ, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems unlikely though. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for this. I'm gonna comment there shortly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, User:Doug Weller - Old sockmasters never die. They just knit new socks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, the sock didn't seem to fit his foot very well, which is actually good news. But there will be more. I'm personally excited to see what the next round of usernames-threatening-me-with-execution will be, considering my participation in the process that now makes it impossible for him to engage in jackassery on one of his favorite articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. We need a few more volunteers, and that case needed a volunteer. (Well, it still needs one, and it has one.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-reasoned, policy-based points at Talk:Nicholas Wade. I disagree with Bonewah's arguments—and particularly object to his recent edit to the article—but I don't think his removal resembled trolling and want to urge you to take that statement back. I'm guessing this conversation will take a while, and early aspersions can escalate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I was trying to make the point that it was an atrociously bad edit (in the vein of Poe's law), not accusing Bonewah of actually trolling. However, if you read it as that sort of accusation, then it stands to reason I didn't communicate that well enough. I'll edit my comment to be more clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant this is to the current discussion, but I just saw that Wade is now pushing another popular fringe theory (in the pages of the NY Post no less): "The theory that COVID-19 escaped from a lab may not be so far-fetched" (can't link because the site is blacklisted). Wondering if his writing on this topic might belong in his BLP too. See also his article on thebulletin.org, "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan?" (apparently this site is blacklisted too). Just a thought. Generalrelative (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing that too! I had a moment of shock at how jaded I am about COVID misinformation that my first thoughts on seeing the news results were, "Ugh, this complicates the search for coverage of his book." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about how I came across. I'm a technical writer in my everyday life so I tend to get a bit anal on analyzing the underlying support for something. I didn't mean to be pedantic or upset you. I'm just a bit overly precise (to a fault). Sorry again. Squatch347 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Squatch347: I'm not upset at all. I'm just very unimpressed by your case, because you seem to keep repeating arguments I've already addressed, and you don't seem to be responding to the more important parts of what I've said.

For what it's worth, I can be very pedantic, myself, and I do understand the distinction you're making (and in case it wasn't clear, I acknowledge that you weren't trying to draw a distinction between skepticism and denialism, I was mistaken in that). But this is not a situation that really benefits from a firm application of pedantry. I'm not familiar with any famous conservative figures on Sowell's level who object to climate change activism, but not to the science of climate change, and I have serious doubts about whether any even exist.

But rather than quibble about the relative strength of arguments and the applicability of pedantry, how about I make another proposal I could get behind, this time by altering yours with elements of mine (the last time, I modified my version with elements of yours)?

::Sowell has written several pieces critical of climate change, in which he has taken a skeptical view of the assessed impacts and has generally favored little to no governmental regulatory action in response. He has characterized activism as "hysteria" and has expressed doubt that humans are significant contributors to climate change and claimed that public funding has biased research in this field. Further, Sowell has stated that there is no such thing as a "climate change denier," arguing the term "... demoniz[es] the opposition with catchwords..."

I'd be happier with it if we added the bit about him calling the field a "swindle", but I'm given to understanding that a good compromise is one which nobody is happy with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a very fair addition. I would fully support this inclusion as is. I want to thank you for the proposal and the patience. I think the swindle language is addable as well and I think you are very close to putting it in the right form (sorry to put the pressure on you). I'm also very eager to read your addition on the reception aspect.

I do have a question I've been meaning to ask you since I think we had our first discussion awhile ago. Why Mjolnir? I like the user name and I'm curious as to the origin. Squatch347 (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll get on both of those tomorrow. I might not work the "swindle" in, it depends on how everything flows. I meant to do the Stewart thing today, but I wasn't able to.

As to the handle, it's a three part reference, actually.

1. I was a huge fan of Nordic mythology, back before that was a code phrase for "I'm a pagan Nazi".

2. I used to own a pair of "hammer pants" back in the early 90's. And I may have worn them a time or two.

What about yours? I assume you're a Seattle fan, am I right? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, I probably won't be on as much as I was yesterday, but I should check in daily so I'll keep an eye on that page.

Yeah, I loved norse mythology too until it got popular again, I wrote a paper in college on the idea that Tyr was the original chief diety in that pantheon, it really is an interesting mythos set. We might be of similar ages, I was extremely butthurt my parents wouldn't buy me hammer pants. In hindsite though....

I actually am a Seattle fan (I'm from there), but the name is oddly independent of that. I was a swimmer in Highschool and my sophomore year I qualified for State as an alternate. Since it wasn't really likely that I was going to swim, I didn't shave, but the rest of the team did, so I looked like a sasquatch in comparison and the name kinda stuck. Squatch347 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it took me this long to see that you've replied.

I too, once had a nickname as a result of my decision not to shave something. Somewhat unfortunately, in my case, that nickname got enshrined on my NCO certificate, which reads in part:

I have never worn a moustache since, without a beard to keep it company. However, the name grew on me as it morphed from "Dirty" to "Dirty D" to "Big D" in the years following. Especially the latter, and most especially when people asked me where it came from; a question to which I generally responded with an arch look and allowed the questioner to draw their own conclusions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Just an argument against your faq. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Being a connoisseur of stupidity, I'm now curious as to what sort of nonsense he'd filled it with. Anything particularly shit-brained, or just the usual pearl-clutching "tHoUgHt PoLiCe! Wagh!1!11!!!1!oneone!" wails? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sock edit

Definition of race

Those people who use the race concept define it by shared ancestry like any other taxa. Not by "color" which is ridiculous. That's just a label not a definition. Your personal (and utterly absurd) opinion that human taxa are defined by "colors" has exactly zero relevance to Wikipedia. We look at the definitions in the scholarly literature. Your failure to understand even the most basic concepts in this debate is of no importance. This sophomoric ignorant (charitably, probably you're just knowingly lying) screed is of no importance. Dave D Davidson III (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"They're not geneticists"

Molecular genetics currently has little to say on this either way. The consistent pattern in all times and places pretty strongly indicates a genetic effect. There's certainly no evidence for the Occam's razor violating cocktail of mysterious "environmental variables" causing the gap. But anyway, go ahead and delete my comment you utter charlatan. Dave D Davidson III (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He almost seems mentally ill, veering between wild attacks and rants and calmer discourse. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I love how incredibly and deeply ignorant he is. It's as if he's never read a book that didn't have a swastika on the cover.

I mean, even someone as incredibly incompetent as Emil Kirke- Kirka- Kockgobliin is capable of making a statement that seems nuanced and educated and point to sources that seem to support his point (as long as you don't examine either for more than a few seconds). This guy can barely compose a coherent sentence, and even when he does manage that, it's just a matter of time before he completely loses his shit and starts making death threats that are funnier than any joke he's ever intentionally made in his sad, lonely life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey there! I think the RfC topic at Nicholas Wade might be too long. It seems like Legobot isn't copying the proposal text over to the RfC listings. I am out of my wheelhouse here, so there may be some other explanation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Seems so. Pinging @Generalrelative: to see if they want to edit their comments down. If not, we can manually copy the RfC text, I think. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not at all knowledgeable about technical matters like this. Would it be possible to place the RfC after my suggested text (and addendum) and then make the RfC question "Do you support or oppose adopting the text (and addendum) suggested by Generalrelative above?" I'm really not sure about the implications of adding the question/RfC template after !voting has begun, so I'll leave that to more experienced hands like y'all to decide. Seems to me that the "oppose" camp will leap on any technicality if they can. In any case, thanks for the assist! Your teamwork on this is much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I could also possibly strike my comment about Wade's WP:MANDY-esque retort since that seems to conflict with the imperative for the question to be neutrally worded. I wasn't thinking of this as a formal RfC when I worded it that way. Generalrelative (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I think that would work. I can sort it out, if you like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be good, thanks. I've already been scolded for the overly long / non-neutral question. Ferahgo's RfC was recently closed as improper for much the same thing, which makes me especially concerned that this might result in the status quo being left to stand. The other option would be to just remove the RfC template. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Whomever is scolding you is full of shit. "Is this an acceptable edit?" is as neutral as it gets. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Scolding" may be too strong a word then. The primary issue appears to be length. And in any case it's one of the same people who "scolded" Ferahgo for much the same thing. Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting to that right away. Looks good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. The objections to this can't survive the light of day, and Bonewah's whining about "fairness" is classic POV-pusher behavior. And Johnwhatevernumbergoeshere is reduced to denying that the scientists actually believe what they said and making personal attacks. The light at the end of this tunnel is growing brighter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hope so. Thanks again, Generalrelative (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Still some issue. Looks like maybe a signature problem? Bonewah's first response is getting copied over to the RfC listings. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. I laughed at how hysterical it is, and wondering if it might bias incoming editors against their position. I added a signature to the question, so hopefully legobot will update it. I'm not sure what triggers it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I know it's not a vote, but I count (looking at only clearly expressed, bolded !votes):

9 support

8 oppose

Rather closer than I'd imagined and hoped. So it goes I suppose. A finding of "no consensus" would essentially take us back to square one, yeah? Generalrelative (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't !voted yet, but I will before close. I won't spoil it for you ... but it won't be surprising. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Lol, no spoilers please! But yeah I'm just trying to game out what an appropriate response to "no consensus" would be. Would it be essentially the same as a clear "oppose" result, where I should just drop the issue and move on? Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative A no consensus close would essentially mean your specific proposal wouldn't be adopted. If that happened, I'd immediately write up a shorter version and start a new RfC over that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated count:

11 support

9 oppose

Kinda funny how we've gone from "strong oppose" to "very strong oppose". I might have to change my !vote to "super-sized double support with extra dipping sauce". Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Way ahead of ya, buddy. I'm a little suspicious of the trend of no participation for a few days, followed by a series of "oppose" !votes from editors who don't usually edit in this topic. Would be useful if JzG, CycoMa and Hyperion35 would indicate their support on the specific proposed wording. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering that too. I suppose it could have something to do with the fact that Wade's been in the news again for pushing the COVID lab-leak conspiracy theory. Generalrelative (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, he may have had his reputation as a science communicator completely wiped out by this book, but that's just a feather in his cap when it comes to becoming a right-wing talking head. Bet he's lining up a segment on Fox News even now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised! If you google "Nicholas Wade" and filter results to the past week, you get a lot of far-right / neo-Nazi blogs n such. Generalrelative (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The first time I ever heard of him was a Nazi (of the 'swatztika-for-a-profile-pic variety) on Reddit saying "Nicholas Wate proveed that you don't have to be a seanetiss to se that siance sayes that n****rs are inferor." (Everything but the asterisks there is a literal copy-paste from my "hall of fame" files.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That one's pretty epic. But on the other hand we have A Troublesome Inheritance listed as an "editors' pick" at Amazon.com, with 500+ reviews and 4.5 stars: . The book appears to be a real bridge between the pseudo-mainstream and the ultra-fringe. Generalrelative (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There's something like a 99% chance that some scientific-racism nerd out there buys a new copy every week in a deliberate effort to keep the sales high. Hell, there's probably something like a 90% chance there are dozens of them. These guys are more about recruiting and optics than they are about actually being racist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Argh! It took me quite a while to get the meaning of those words. I spent most of it trying to think of a word for someone who holds séances which is similar to "seanetiss". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. Some of us are just inferor. It's just what siance sayes. Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm like 99% sure that guy was a European dude who learned to speak English (but not read or write it), as an adult. But given his beliefs, I've got no qualms with making fun of every tiny little failing of his. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated count:

16 support

9 oppose

Do you think it's time to request a close, since the the conversation seems to have turned to other matters? Or would that be premature? Generalrelative (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, Yes, I think that might be okay. The oldest !vote is 10 days old (so that's the age of the RFC) and the last !vote was 2 days ago. It's kinda borderline for requesting a close, but the three !votes preceding the last were each a day apart, showing that it has been losing momentum for a few days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'll wait till it's no longer borderline. Wouldn't want to add to the controversy. Generalrelative (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You were right about him lining up a segment of Fox News: . Very prescient! Or perhaps it was just that predictable. Generalrelative (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, That's hilarious! "Prescience" is my story, and I'm sticking to it. We all damn well know it was just that predictable, though... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to request an uninvolved closer for the RfC today, FYI. Not sure if you wanted to add reasons to your !vote (obviously you provide lots of reasons elsewhere but not specifically in the !vote comment) or if you wanted to transform "Tyrannosupportus" back to a humble "Support", just to make things easier for the closer. Thanks for all your thoughtful engagement on this topic! Generalrelative (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I think I might do just that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sychonic. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw that, thank you. Not sure if I have anything to add at the moment (except a closing parentheses, hint hint), but I'll keep an eye on it and chime in if anything needs saying.

I'm trying to avoid the drama boards as much as possible out of sheer disgust for the way about half of all threads there are handled (though I have to admit that I laughed quite a bit at how this thread went), but I understand that it's a necessary evil on occasion. I certainly won't leave you to defend the OP comment alone if the usual gaggle of "punish all liberal editors" lurkers shows up to defend them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot I even did this, but...

Copy the following code:

{{#invoke:Sandbox/MjolnirPants|NonsenseNameCaller}}

Click on the "Start a new section" link at the top here, paste it into the edit pane, then hit the preview button. It's good for 5-10 minutes of childish amusement.

(I did it like six or seven times before I erased it from below my signature here and hit "publish changes".)

When you're done, talk to me about what sort of serious uses you could see something like this put to. My first thought was "generating responses to the repeated-ad-nauseum complaints that we're not giving both sides at pseudoscience articles," but I'm sure there's more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of the tradition of "bs generators" like the "Web Economy Bullshit Generator" (not linking to one as there are many implementations), then for extra fun, Markov chain based text generators that can be trained with specific text, and of course more language-oriented AI including retro-classical toys like Eliza (incredible how this has evolved since, we even have a free cluebot)... —PaleoNeonate – 10:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh and Biblical/Shakespearean insult generators... —PaleoNeonate – 10:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I did it once and got bored, then it occurs to me that it may give different results each implementation??? -Roxy . wooF 11:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There ought to be a way to have that execute under an Easter Egg "click here" or "press this button" or "leave me a new message". Could be quite useful next April 1. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes to both of you. Roxy, the module randomly combines an adjective and a noun in a random sentence structure. There's 5 of each, so 125 possible combinations. Tryp, do you remember my "Trout Me" link I used to have at the top of my talk page? There's a query string one can append to a link that tells the servers to insert the contents of one page into the edit form of another. It's how all the templates work at places like WP:DRN and WP:AE. It would be a simple matter to add the invoke statement to such a template page. The limitation, of course, is that the target page (and the page containing the template) both have to be hardwired into the link. But, a template can invoke a module, which makes it easier when editing to use them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Paleo, the first version of it I intended to write was a Shakespearean insult generator, but then I decided that I didn't want someone noticing and misusing it, so I made it a nonsense insult generator. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was thinking I could figure out a good couple of statements that go together well, explaining the things we repeatedly explain to IPs and SPAs, like our policy on reliable sourcing and treatment of fringe theories. That would have to be more complicated, because it would need conditionals so that it only chose combinations that worked well together. I could write all the possibilities myself, but that would take forever, so I'm asking if you guys would be willing to write single sentences, each saying something about our policies that often needs to be said to new editors? It wouldn't matter if there were duplicate statements (in fact, having lots of the same statements using different wording would help a lot). If you want to, just append them here. I'm sketching out the logic for letting the module choose sentences that flow well together today. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Heh, globulish narklaholic. I think you would find This Word Does Not Exist helpful. Then again, if you're going to be noncomissive, you can rogano a cobel, you plontic zimron. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• If there were a lot more interest in the actual module as written now, that link would be a godsend. As it is, it's still sargilagiously cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps if I turn upside down long enough, your TOC will turn the right way up, eh? --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Nah, it's a simple trick, really. You just click whatever is on top (and slightly to the left), and it takes you right to the latest section! Not very impressive now, but wait till I let my talk page get like User talk:EEng. It'll be a lifesaver. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool! BTW, if you'd like come say hi to me at the Simple English Wikipedia, if you'd like :-) --つがる Talk to つがる:) 🍁 01:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been encouraging my younger son to use that to look things up (he's extraordinarily curious and loves to learn new things), so I may very well do that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your AE reaction to a diff aimed at me, it's not worth making another official statement to nitpick. But consider the context of it. I'd just got done explaining that I was basing my opinion on a label on federal law as analyzed by a major think tank and further covered by a Big Three news network. Calling that "nice OR" is beyond sarcasm, just suggests the joker is ignoring the conversation to say things that aren't true, for no apparent reason.

And rhetorically getting asked whether I want to call the subject of a serious discussion a traitor by the same guy who just copy/pasted at me how she was supportive of the president of the very same government he thinks she overthrew isn't clever, it's annoyingly stubborn noise.

Anyway, nice meeting you, cool name, hope you at least kind of get what I mean. There's a time and a place for lukewarm comedy, and tragedy articles aren't it. Lot of good animal and placename articles around here to try new puns and light-hearted or mean-spirited banter when we're bored or on a break, surely? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I do understand what you were saying there, but the thing is: Guy's response to you was a very clear implicit argument. I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome as a young teen, so I generally consider myself to be on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to reading intent, especially in text form. But even I was able to understand Guy's intent with his sarcastic response.

You made an argument that drew a false distinction between "seizing" power and "challeng[ing] or nullify[ing] it", and even if that distinction were meaningful, the purpose of the insurrection was to install their preferred candidate into office and remove "enemy" elected officials; i.e. to seize power.

There was another layer of meaning which is apparent to me. "Insurrectionist" is a term used by RSes very frequently to describe the people involved. "Traitor" is a synonym of "insurrectionist", but it has even more negative connotations. By arguing that we should not use a term preferred by the RSes, you were essentially arguing for the use of another term. "Traitor" is one, the suggestion of which drives home Guy's repeated assertion that much of the arguing going on is being done by people intent upon whitewashing the event.

Now, get ready to be surprised if you've read this far: I actually agree with you that the word "insurrectionist" should not be used to describe anyone not yet convicted of a crime, nor should it be used to describe the group of people involved. After the (inevitable, it seems) convictions begin to happen, we should then look to each individual case, and choose between terms like "insurrectionist," "rioter" and others, like "participant in the insurrection".

I do think that "insurrection" is a perfectly acceptable word to describe the event, however, my advice (which I have previously given to Masem at WP:BLPN) is to do a survey of the sources. If the majority prefer "insurrection", go with that. If there are a significant number of RSes arguing that it was not an insurrection, then we should avoid using the word. If the RSes are split on what to call it, or use terms interchangeably (which, from my experience reading about the events in the news, seems to be the case), then we should use terms interchangeably as well, using "insurrection," "riot," "protest," or "event" as dictated by the sourcing used to support each statement.

One final thought; my father once gave me some advice when I was very young that I've remembered and held to heart ever since; he said "The worst times to make a joke are the best times to make a joke." Meaning that fraught, tense situations tend to benefit the most from the introduction of a little light-heartedness. Now, I believe there's a bit more nuance than that, but this sort of situation, where everybody is at everybody else's throat over every little detail (I stopped editing American politics years ago for just that reason), if a few people on either side of the divide could all agree to run with any jokes introduced, I have absolutely no doubt that editing on the would be become much easier for all involved, and more welcoming to newcomers.

Sorry for the wall of text. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No apology needed, I like reading and it's a well-written wall (paragraphs and punctuation always help). Not going to respond to every point I indeed considered, just two.

I agree we should base our work on RS, and disagree that an "avowed and public Trump supporter" who "joined a Trump loyalist protest" should be seen as trying to seize his power, or install him. At the time of Babbitt's death, he was the American president, after all. She and other supporters/loyalists/protestors could be called "insurgents" for challenging and trying to nullify the Congressional authority that would install Biden, but I think those first three nouns are more common in sources. Even "Trumpist" ain't half bad, for short.

Finally, I agree that when it makes people laugh or smile, humour is a good medicine. I grew up in a funeral home, have seen many grieving families chuckling amongst themselves and sometimes even at something my dad (the director) offered. Here, I proudly wear a barnstar someone gave me for joking while improving a Brussels bombing article. Not to toot my own dark horn, but I've been even sharper and wittier at far bloodier and deadlier than that. Comedy's subjective, of course, and I've also dropped my share of stinkers. But I've never punched down and gotten the sort of boos and hisses an AE tribunal brings for it. I stand by my appraisal of the string of rants there as neither funny nor cool. But if you appreciate that brand of observational yuk-yuk, I'm glad someone does. Not even being sarcastic, enjoy him while you get him! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

disagree that an "avowed and public Trump supporter" who "joined a Trump loyalist protest" should be seen as trying to seize his power, or install him. Look, I don't mean any offense by this, but unless and until you can state an outcome that the Jan 6 rioters were trying to achieve that is not overturning the results of the election (which is logically indistinguishable from "seizing power for Trump") and show that this is not contradicted by reams of reliable sources, then we're at an impasse, because you're not engaging with reality. And, again, not trying to insult you in any way, but the fact is: there is no such motivation. The claim that the Jan 6 riot was an attempted insurrection is a fact, not an opinion. Whether they are de-jure insurrectionists is an entirely different question, as is whether Wikipedia should use the word "insurrectionists".

I'm not going to continue to argue about this. If you have something else to say, you are more than welcome to do so, but I'm going to revert any arguments about this particular issue which you post here, unless you can absolutely blow my mind by providing the motivation I described above.

In the meantime, I suggest you check out the section at the top of this page, and see if there's anything there you're unfamiliar with, or maybe see if you'd like to add something to it. Music is good for the soul. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Zoning out to Katatonia's Night is the New Day in this meantime, thanks for the nudge in that general direction, slowly angstily nodding does beat slowly angrily typing! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, It never fails to amaze me just how great they are: a death metal band turned prop/emo-rock... It doesn't even sound possible, but the end result sounds amazing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In case you're unfamiliar, check out the career path of Poppy (entertainer), either by actually listening or just reading the mixed labels in that article. I'd heard some Katatonia before, but forget or never caught the titles. Just discovering Swallow the Sun now, will (re)hear "Premonition" later, BETTER BE good! InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, She's the youtuber who did the robot videos, right? The one from the link you added to the metal genre? I dug into that rabbit hole a while back (I think via the youtube channel about internet rabbit holes). Good stuff, there. And you won't be disappointed in Premonition. It's achingly beautiful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

She became the robot that was about to tour with the Deftones and Gojira, before the pandemic made her resurrect that Russian lesbian anthem from 2002 as a subversive nod to Donald Trump and release a lo-fi acoustic album instead, go figure. Nobody can! New Moon just ended and the literal rain is here...I think it might be time to do exactly as you wish. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, it didn't (immediately) live up to the hype, for me. But not disappointed, because nothing usually does, B+! Solid haunting hook, dooo dooo, do-do-do... InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, What is this heresy you speak?! You're dead to me. I cannot abide the sort of tasteless knave who would not immediately recognize it for the masterpiece it is.

I used to listen to that song on repeat on a cheap MP3 player whenever I could, most notably when I was deployed somewhere very cold in 2004. I had recently been dumped by the girl I'd been dating when I enlisted (she met Jodie and fell in love). I spent most nights when I wasn't on watch curled up in a blanket, hugging my rifle and listening to that song while wishing I'd stayed home. At the time, it was painful but now... It's so bittersweet than I can't help but love that song. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's "exactly" what I thought you'd say, "sorry" for being "honest"! At least your memories have a gun and a girl. Whenever I listen to Woods of Ypres now, I have to see goddamned Bus stop's faded face, and I have no idea what that looks like! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, that's unfortunate. I'll not comment on Bus stop or his site ban, but Woods of Ypres has long been an underground favorite of mine. If you're gonna do Doom metal, you should make it sound good, yanno? Woods does exactly that. The blend of Doom and Black metal, especially with those added melodic elements is awesome. And at least one of their albums was recorded by a YouTuber I'm a big fan of: Glenn Fricker. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't around his siteban, slightly earlier, better times, but yeah, regardless. The thing that blew me away about Woods is how much of their story (lyrically and biographically) comes from places I, a metalhead, have also lived and died (a little, inside). They must have been underground, for real! I'll check out Fricker, but don't wait up for a review. Gotta go see a man about a dog in Barrie, have fun moping! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, Glenn from Tecumseh, why didn't you say so! Yeah, good guy. Just don't call him late for dinner, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) InedibleHulk, Have fun with that dog. For the record, Fricker is a studio engineer best known for his screaming at the camera he films his YouTube videos on and his condescending and irrational hatred of bass players. Having been a bassist I can't really blame him for that last one.

Also, I do not mope. I brood. It's much cooler (but other than that, identical). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Also for the record, a little dog tells me Poppy is now a Jack Off Jill cover project, but still intends to meld with Gojira this summer barring further abnormalities. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, it's not wise to use Edit summaries for personal messages. Best wishes anyway, and happy editing! Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Huh? What in the ever loving hell does that mean? There's nothing remotely personal about that edit summary, and these sorts of notes are extremely common in edit sums. Did you link the wrong edit? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

She didn't list or notify the two editors whom you mentioned in your comment. Oh, but you pinged them. But I went ahead and closed it, as I said, as poorly filed, without regard to the merits of the issue, which she isn't even addressing. She has the right to use the article talk page or her talk page to disagree with Wikipedia reporting it as a conspiracy theory because mainstream media report it as a conspiracy theory. She seems to be aware of the 3RR rule. I did notice that one of her edits to electronic harassment was reverted as vandalism by a bot. It wasn't vandalism, just an absurd edit, but in this case the bot happened to be correct that it needed reverting, just for a not-quite-right reason. Oh well. We will see whether she continues editing. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, my first draft of that edit included a ping to you, asking if you would close it. I left that out because, frankly, I had no doubt you or another volunteer would close it soon.

The filing was a pretty obvious attempt to do an end-run around the editors watching that page, IMHO. She'll be given the chance to make her case at talk, like the countless others who's made the exact same arguments as her. One or two has gone on to become productive editors in other subjects, most just give up and stop trying to edit WP. Here's to hoping Marie is the former. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary here indicates that you're interested in filing for page protection. I just wanted to make sure that we're on the same page (not that you've said otherwise) that full protection would need to be the request, not semi-protection, as WP:SEMI says it is applied for edit warring if all parties involved are unregistered or new editors (i.e. in cases in which full protection would otherwise be applied). This does not apply when autoconfirmed users are involved. Since discussion on the self-referential reference seems to have stalled and would be the best way to resolve the issue, maybe drawing wider attention in some form would be desirable. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I'm still waiting for you to explain how your incredulity makes for an actual argument. You've got absolutely no evidence that the blog is the work of an imposter, and I've shown you virtually indisputable evidence that it isn't.

To that end, here's more evidence:

I mean, the evidence is good enough that I only included the word "virtually" in that last sentence out of an abundance of caution over it being taken literally. I suppose it's possible that the imposter has hacked TinEye and literally every site that mentions Stamp and links to that blog (there's a lot more than I just linked) to prevent Stamp from noticing being impersonated, but I somehow doubt that the world's greatest hacker (and presumably, swordsman) would waste their talents on impersonating a Toronto filmmaker, instead of, you know, making money.

Also, I'd like to point out that any last-second changes to the article before page protection went into effect would be blatant WP:GAMING, and when combined with an example of a dishonest and combative RfC, an absolute refusal to accept any sort of compromise and a note on my talk page paving the way for said gaming... We both know how any ANI discussion over that would end. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about those changes, but completely separate ones, and would have no desire to edit the page shortly before full protection to make a version "stick" (you're correct that the edit would be undone by any competent administrator and I could rightly be sanctioned for it). I don't plan on addressing the content above because I've made my point sufficiently clear that an uninvolved user could understand my perspective, and we need more such users to comment so we can get consensus—it should be obvious that neither of us will agree with the other even if the discussion extends to the length of Gadsby (it already contains more "e"s). — Bilorv (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I don't much care whether we agree or not, only whether we've a consensus.

To that end, let's briefly review.

• There's no evidence the blog is the work of an imposter, as you've suggested.
• There's plenty of evidence (some of it as close to irrefutable as it could possibly be) that the blog is legit.
• Two editors have opposed removal of this example.
• Only you have advocated removal of this example.

So, as long as you've no intention of editing contrary to that rather clear (if small) consensus, then we're all good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The last point is incorrect, as two other editors have expressed support for option A in the RfC, which has removal as a consequent. I, of course, will not be closing the RfC, but I will be watching to make sure its outcome is implemented. — Bilorv (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, The RfC was extremely combative, and utterly improper as you have been told by 3 people already, but in any case, it asks if "unsourced" or "user-generated" sources should be used. This source is quite clearly neither, but self-published, which is acceptable when the source is an expert, such as a notable entertainer.

You cannot take agreement to remove unsourced and user-generated sources, and extrapolate that to agreement that expert sourced content be removed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just a comment on your signature. I don't personally have a problem with it, but the contrast between the dark colors you've chosen and the shadow behind them could be an accessibility problem for those with poorer vision. The combination of green on grey has a contrast of about 1-1.5, and the black on gray of about 5-5.5. The accessibility guidelines require at least 4.5:1 ratio, and recommend 7:1 where feasible. The easiest way to fix it is to change the shadow of the "username" part (the ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱ) to pure black - which would produce a contrast of at least 6, as opposed to the 1-1.5 it has now. This would appear like the following example below. Unfortunately, green colors on a grey background simply don't ever get above about a 4:1 ratio of contrast, and even then it's with grey close to black itself. If you change the shadow to black, you may consider removing it from the second part altogether - black text doesn't work with a black shadow and I don't know if you can fit two shadow colors into the length limit of the signature customization. Just because you've been commenting on the signature discussions, I figured I'd bring up the contrast and see if you wouldn't mind just changing the shadow to black which would fix the problem with the green part of your signature. As a final look, here's what my suggestion would look like: ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.. Note that I lied earlier - this is actually only 248 characters and thus fixes the contrast issues while leaving the shadow on both parts of the signature. Thanks for your consideration even if you don't make the change :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Extra note, sorry - MjolnirPants and MPants at work differ by 3 characters - meaning you could use links to either userpage/talkpage and still have it be just under 255 characters. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) In one fish's opinion: I looked at the existing and the suggested new versions, and to my eyes, the status quo is easier to see. (Parenthetically, the new edit notice took me a lifetime to read.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur. The dark shadow makes it less clear. The current signature is better. nagualdesign 23:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I was going to just suggest removing the shadow altogether. But I wanted to provide an option that meets accessibility guidance and keeps it. The problem with having a shadow is that there are very limited colors that are of sufficient contrast against both pure black and pure white - and there's virtually no colors that are of sufficient contrast against grey and pure white both. When a shadow is used, the contrast between the text and pure white isn't sufficient - the contrast with the shadow also must be considered. Removing the shadow altogether is also an option that would require no additional changes. I don't intend to push this any further, but the contrast between the green color and grey shadow is so low that people with difficulty seeing contrast are not going to be able to see it - not to mention screens that are lower contrast/brightness which would make it hard to see too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I just wanted to comment that it is rich for someone whose sign-off is in IPA and whose signature just reads "User" to comment or advise on the accessibility of another Wikipedian's signature. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  Please feel free to tell me which of the guidelines my signature violates and I'd be happy to look into it and change if necessary - whereas MPants' signature violates the accessibility guidelines for colors (not just in signatures but in general). Maybe you think it's "rich" that someone focuses on accessibility for people with trouble seeing low-contrast things, but this comment is a borderline personal attack and not helpful at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Stop bickering, you too! Else I'll turn the hose on ya! And trust me, you don't want to chance what a guy with name like mine might mean by "the hose". It's not just worth it.

This was a politely worded request, obviously intended to be helpful, so I don't much care whether it's actually helpful or not, whether it's hypocritical or not, or even whether it's stupid or not. It's welcome here.

That being said, Nagual is absolutely right. The proposal is harder to read than the original. That's my only complaint about it. Now, the thing is, my monitor is color-corrected. I'm certain that Nagual's is, as well, but the vast majority of people don't have color-corrected monitors. So I've little doubt that Berchanhimez can actually read the proposal better. However, that's not to say that all those other users with non-color-corrected monitors will be seeing my sig the same way. I suspect many people would find the darker shadows harder to read, and lighter shadows impossible to see.

Now, with that being said, I've also been thinking that the shadows looks a little too 2010 for me, so I've updated my sig, anyways. I do believe that the current version is extremely readable.

Finally, to help lighten the mood, I want to let everyone know that I just spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why the link to my talk page was working in the preview in my preferences, but not here. It's okay. You can laugh at my stupidity. I'm chuckling at it, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I approve. And yes, confusingly, the link to the page that you're already on doesn't work! tee-hee nagualdesign 17:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I like the new signature. (I'm not sure what language the first part is in, but I still like it.^[FBDB]) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Thank you. They are Elder Futhark runes, part of the UTF8 charset, so they should display properly for anyone using an updated browser, on virtually any device (though there are exceptions: only in death said once that they render as squares for him). It's the runic alphabet used to write Proto Norse, and is most likely derived from the Latin character set. I picked it because it's the most likely candidate for the alphabet that the word "Mjolnir" would have originated in, though the spelling is still a little questionable (there are multiple attested spellings; mine is a mixture of two of the more common spellings, as well as the one closest to the English common spelling). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, all stuff that I knew nothing about. Also seems very heavy metal (or at least Spinal Tap!). (I get the feeling you are going to pillage and plunder Wikipedia (Viking joke).) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty fuckin metal.

If you ever want to sing the alphabet song to Elder Futhark, here's the melody.

But my pillaging days are over. I'm a farmer now. I plant milkweed and grow butterflies for my kid's science projects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

For what its worth, it no longer renders as SQUARESQUARESQUARSQUAREPants on any of my devices. It now renders correctly everywhere. Even my work laptop, but that routes through a business-VPN which inexplicably appears to be IP-Blocked.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Only in death, that's actually a little disappointing. Because, as it happens, I have recently moved to a pineapple under the sea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you're such a sponge! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, absorbent and yellow and porous am I! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish Heh. See here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hah! Some things never change! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, including my pants! Much to my wife's dismay... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(Too much info! (joke)) I was just about to post that this might ruin your heavy metal image – but apparently not! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

. No comment from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Hah! I was just heading here to post that link, but you beat me to it. There's also this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I found it by searching, but I'm almost scared that you already knew about it. Any SpongeBob in Elder Futhark? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, ᛊᛈᚢᚾᛃᛒᛟᛒ would be a pretty close transliteration. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I just ran that through Google translate, and it means "take a sponge bath and go fuck yourself". (Not true, just kidding.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'd tell you what it translates to if you run it through duolingo, but the owl just told me to stop fucking around and practice my Spanish or he's gonna kick the shit out of me, and I think... I think he means it.... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nagualdesign, I actually knew that. I'd noticed it a thousand times before in signatures on user talk pages, but it still took me forever to figure it out yesterday. I guess my brain took the day off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to apologize for my bickering and thank MjolnirPants for fixing the issue in an even better way than I came up with - collaboration at its finest when we can discuss like this. Thanks MP for changing (good new sig, also) and thanks all for commenting on the new signature - I’ll admit that when I came up with my suggestion it was on a computer with an older monitor and it did look better, but looking on my phone now (just moved and no internet yet) I can see what people mean. Thanks all :) now time to figure out what article I’m going to write in 2 days when my internet gets hooked up. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, no apology necessary, I was mostly joking around. I mean, it wouldn't be WP without a little bickering over minor stuff.

The screen stuff is one of those things that you just don't think about until you've gotten used to a color corrected monitor. Not the sort of thing 99% of people (including many digital artists!) would think of, but it's right up my ass next to the stick pedantic alley. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. To remind you, you posted a feedback on my edit request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2021_Israel%E2%80%93Palestine_crisis I just wanted to say that your criticism of my edit request was the first constructive criticism I've seen which included actual explanations behind why it was unbalanced. Everyone else just repeated the same things over and over. I feel like I can't just say that without addressing your feedback entirely, so here goes (excuse me). "I agree with NightHeron. The top version is far more neutrally worded. I suspect the reason it might seem non-neutral is because it spends relatively little time on the damage caused by the rocket attacks, and a lot of time characterizing the damage caused by the IDF response." Actually, it wasn't an attempt to balance anything, just to add the context, which is the intentions behind the two sides. NightHeron also said "Do they think that the Palestinian areas targeted by the IDF are uncivilized?" - no, but Hamas has a choice of avoiding firing at innocent civilians, because Israel is much less dense, yet it still chooses to fire at them. "I mean, if one is going to point out something as specific as the AP office building and then quote the IDF, I would expect to see the responses from the building owner and the AP denying that Hamas had any facilities there": The AP building was the "hottest" thing at the time of writing (some time before posting to the noticeboard), so I put it there. Also, one of the main sources I've put at the top was a video showing the response of AP's CEO. I've lost interest in editing this topic in Wikipedia. Not because I don't care anymore - I care greatly - but because it's extremely discouraging to improve such articles in Wikipedia (and that's also considering that you've only noticed my edit request after I've posted to the noticeboard, which was apparently not permitted per ArbCom's sanctions and not acceptable per the "no forum shopping" guidelines). Anyways, even if I disagree with you, and even if I think that it's better to add and continue improving upon, rather than miss out, the information, I just wanted to thank you for your constructive criticism. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Feel free to ask me directly if you ever need a third opinion on anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

And WTF is wrong with your ToC btw 85.64.76.29 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a trick. You just click the link at the top of it to go straight to the most recent thread on my page.

And it's not perfectly upside down because my inner 12-year-old giggles every time I see it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I humbly suggest some kind of reference to , which I found to be very interesting, in User:MjolnirPants/RnI FYI. 128.12.123.225 (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A link to that article was recently added to the "Isn't it a conspiracy theory..." question. I agree that it's a very informative piece. Generalrelative (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that it's a great addition, and I appreciate the suggestion, even if it's a bit late. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I saw in comments you made that the bronze star was awarded out as a door prize, and one did not have to be in the military, at least at some point. But the discussion there was as to the bronze star for combat - a discrete subsection. (in that case, in the Second Battle of Fallujah). Is it your view that your comments apply to the bronze star for combat? Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:4D9C:876C:C03D:F3FB (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the V device really changes it that much; it's still a middle-of-the-pack award, a recipient of which you could find in almost any VFW bar in the country. It amounts to a big thumbs up on your resume if you're a lifer, and minor bragging rights (which I've got absolutely no use for, FWIW) if you're not.

I'll give you my thoughts on the notability of the individual awards for combat action in the Army (I think your guy was a marine, but this would still help):

• Unit commendations: Never mention anywhere except in infoboxes, and only when not mentioning makes no sense.
• Commendation Medals: Don't mention in lede or body unless there's a compelling reason. Discuss mentions in inforboxes.
• Meritorious Service Medals: Never mention in the lede. Maybe mention in the body, if there's a compelling reason. Give weight to arguments to mention in infoboxes.
• Bronze Star: Don't mention in the lede unless it's a significant part of what makes them notable. Give weight to arguments to mentioning in the body. Always mention in infoboxes.
• Silver Star: Same as Bronze, but with a bit more weight on the arguments to mention it in the lede. Should be mentioned in the body unless there's a compelling reason not to. Always mention in infoboxes.
• Distinguished Service Cross: Mention it in the lede unless there's a good reason not to. Always mention it in the body and infobox.
• Medal of Honor: Always mention it in the lede body and infoboxes, describe the events that led to it in the body.

That;'s about how I see it, though everything's up for discussion. Hopefully that helps. Feel free to ask for further clarification if needed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting. Shifting from my main question to one raised by your thoughts above, I'm not sure I see why one would mention x in the infobox, but not in the body of an article. An infobox "An infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject." Anything properly in an infobox, in my view, is at the very least proper in the body of the article - because all key features of the page's subject are properly in the article. Thoughts? 2603:7000:2143:8500:D036:6824:FEDF:8E13 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the official guideline on infoboxes, yes. But there are also a lot of standard practices around here that don't get documented so well, and everybody has their own unique way of doing things, as well. From where I sit, and in many cases I've seen, part of the purpose of the infobox is to collect statistical and list-like data about the individual. The top of a box should absolutely define the key features of an article's subject, but infoboxes can get pretty long. We even have methods of combining multiple infoboxes into one big infobox, where that statistical and list-like data can be shown at the bottom of such a box.

Individual awards, while sometimes not really deserving any coverage in the article, fit better in the infobox, where they can be presented neutrally and dispassionately. So I'm a little more relaxed about WP:DUE when it comes to infoboxes. Not everyone agrees with me, mind. Some might think just the opposite: that only the most important facts should ever appear in an infobox and the rest is a problem for wikidata. Those people are wrong and deeply immoral, and should be treated like the scum they are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Love it. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E47D:C5B9:F0E2:9980 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Great name! On a related issue, the first part of mine is a derivation of Thor, the owner of Mjölnir... Terjen (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Pfft, what are y'all, the gods of hammers? Arkon (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Either that, or the M.C.s. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• I honestly though Terjen was Hungarian until you mentioned this. It would seem to be derived from thorgeirr (ᚦorgæirr), which mean's "Thor's staff". I think between the two of us, we might have have to start a Scandinavian-dick-joke themed comedy troupe.

If it helps get the ball(s) rolling, I actually have a Norwegian ancestor named Hrolf the three-legged. (Although, to be fair, he got the epithet as an athlete, through his opponent's inability to take him to the ground in bare-knuckled boxing/wrestling). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As requested, please ping me when you finish this. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi! This message is in regards to with the summary "manual revert of removal: this sources is categorically not listed as perennially unreliable, nor has it been found to be unreliable at RSN.” Just FYI Media Bias/Fact Check is listed as perennially unreliable due to being found to be unreliable at RSN. Not sure what happened here, you’re normally such a good editor. Did you forget to check RSN and WP:RSP? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I checked both, and I was thorough (exhausting all returned results for "mediabiasfactcheck.com") at RSN. It was also definitely absent from the perennial list at the time I checked it, though I can see that it's present now, after an IP editor had removed several entries from the list and was reverted.

I've started a discussion at the talk page. It would be best to continue this there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are able to review and help at all with trans fat, it would be most welcome even if it isn't officially a dispute yet. I keep getting reverts by people who refuse to engage on the talk page. Everyone who has left detailed comments about merger is opposed (other than the initial proposal). Declanscottp (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Declanscottp, I'm afraid that one more editor getting involved in that mess isn't going to make a difference, and I'm not well-versed enough in the medical information about the subject to take a side and argue effectively for it.

I do have some advice, however. Do not edit war over it any more. You clearly were not the only one doing so, but you would make your position much stronger by leaving the article alone while discussion is ongoing. Relatively few of the editors involved have said much, mostly you and Lisopthian have been going back and forth. You've got to give the discussion a chance to grow, at which point the other editors will be looking not just as the arguments, but also the behavior of the editors who kicked it off. When that happens, you want your hands to be as clean as possible. And of course, there's the chance an admin will look at any continued edit warring as a good reason to block you, which is best avoided. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Why dont they find something better to do with their time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Only in death, I suspect they are of the opinion that there is nothing better to do with their time. I've certainly never seen a single one of them do anything really useful on this project.

There's a distinct pattern to their behavior, which I find interesting.

• Locate editors having fun.
• Locate an obscure P&G which countermands the having of fun in this way.
  If they find such a P&G:

• Refer to it multiple times per comment as they accuse the editor having fun of being a troll, being NOTHERE, and threatening them with sanctions.

If they don't find it:

• Privately discuss the creation of such a rule in an obscure location.
• Create an RfC with a fairly deceptive question which paints the proposal in a good light.
• Lie through their teeth and use blatant hypocrisy and ridiculous predictions about the future to support this proposal.
  If their RfC succeeds:

• Hound the fun-having editors with this new rule and veiled aspersions until they comply or lash out.

If their RfC fails (most often the case):

• Hound the fun-having editors with veiled aspersions until they comply with the failed proposal or lash out.
  If the fun-having editor complies:

• Seek out other editors having fun in different ways to continue the fight.

If the fun-having editor lashes out:

• Share a diff of the lashing out with a sympathetic admin and ramp-up the hounding, casting aspersions directly now, knowing they're protected by the sympathetic admin. Make veiled personal attacks until the fun-having editor lashes out again if the sympathetic admin does not immediately block them.

• Start the search for a new target.

• Congratulate each other and award each other barnstars for "improving" the project.

• Profit.

For example, one of the fun police chiefs (formerly also a sympathetic admin, which proves that ArbCom is not entirely useless) recently argued that any custom signature is a nigh-insurmountable impediment to collaboration and should be banned, and any editor who does not use the default signature should be indeffed, in a thread in which a good faith editor had asked for input about a much more reasonable restriction on usernames. (The fact that this chief's signature blatantly violates not only their proposed rules, but also the more reasonable proposal is not acknowledged at all.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah I am well aware of the signature issue (and its cause), the current proposals are failing due the average wikipedian not particularly wanting to have their individuality be removed and be boxed up into the homogenous bland western white middle class window of the wiki-police. It was dead as soon as people genuinely suggested restrictions that would prevent SUL accounts being used tbh. Not to mention the structural racism that blocking use of certain character sets supports. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the only one pointing that out. I noticed the responses have consisted of hand-waving it away with "it's rare" or dismissively saying "well, we can have an exception for those people" without ever acknowledging that their proposal explicitly calls for a "no exceptions" clause.

I'm particularly fond of the blatantly false assertion that normal editors have trouble locating the actual username of the person they're responding to: either an editor is using the reply-link, in which case the username is automatically found for them, or the editor has hit the edit link, in which case the actual username is right there in front of them in plain text.

You might be amused by an editor who recently complained at nagualdesign's talk page about how custom signatures always declare an editor to be demanding, rude, petty, arrogant and a show-off. You'll probably also be impressed by nagual's patience with them, even after their 4th or 5th snarky, condescending remark. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above – strongly! This issue is one of the things that annoys me the most about Wikipedia. Although I realize that it will be difficult, I think it would be worth making things like the above into essays, and use the Fun Police's tactics back on them, by citing those essays. It would be a lot harder to get those things into guidelines, but Wikipedia change tends to happen slowly. I envision eventually having something like WP:FUNPOLICE sitting alongside stuff like WP:RGW at WP:TE. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Honestly, that's a pretty damn good idea. I may start writing that essay tonight. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I was just now thinking about it myself. There needs to be a name for it, a name that is catchy, a good gotcha to place on someone, and preferably kind of literate. I was just now looking around for literary figures who might fit, and came upon Malvolio. I'm thinking WP:MALVOLIO, and "stop being such a Malvolio". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Oh my god, that's fucking genius!

We might have to give it a more descriptive main title, and make WP:MALVOLIO a redirect, but we'd definitely want to mention him in the text and include some images of him.

File:George Clint (1770-1854) - Malvolio and Sir Toby (from William Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night', Act II, Scene iii) - 485055 - National Trust.jpg and File:Die Gartenlaube (1863) b 453.jpg come to mind, as both make him look like a giant PITA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Also File:Malvolio confronting the revelers (Hall, 1855).jpg ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed all around (especially the genius part... oh, never mind). There are also File:Malvolio (Twelfth Night, Act 2, Scene 5) MET DP870121.jpg and File:John Boyne - Malvolio, Possibly a Self-Portrait in the Role - B1977.14.4937 - Yale Center for British Art.jpg. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish, My god, I don't think I've ever seen such a punchable face before. I might have to make a collage to represent one of the deletion discussions which they never inform the impacted editors of beforehand. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

—PaleoNeonate – 12:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• See User:MjolnirPants/The Fun Police.

Also edit it. Seriously. I'm a zombie right now, so while it looks like an okayish start to me, it's probably half random babbling and half grumpy bitching. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks for getting this started. I'll get working on it. Also, a ping to EEng, who probably has had more experience than anyone else with killjoy users sticking their noses into other people's business. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me know when you need my selfie for the essay. I can probably find one where I'm literally sticking my nose into something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing some cleanup today over at Transgender personnel in the United States military and I could use your help. I honestly think we could get this to GA status, but it's hard to do on my own. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Any idea what the IP was frothing about on my talkpage? I honestly have no clue. His only other edit was something about 'Ice' which absent context could mean anything. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Not a clue. Possibly had nothing to do with you. On a side note, I didn't know you were in The Who. Pretty cool, even if you were using your successful rock star status to cover for your hacking and theft. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I left you a small inquiry regarding Luis Elizondo's occupation on the talk page. Letting you know here just in case, cheers --Loganmac (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Loganmac, thanks, I just responded. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You (actually that PantsAtWork fellow) recently accepted this edit. To me the content is misplaced in this particular section about Henrietta Lack's death. I thought it would be a better fit within the HeLa article instead of within the WP:BIO article, about a scientific discovery associated with the disease that killed Lacks. I went and looked at the HeLa article and actually, the content word-for word already appears there (see HeLa#Virology) and this edit is an apparent cut&paste without attribution. I was going to revert the acceptance but wanted to ask your opinion etc. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Shearonink, go ahead and revert. My only look into it was to check that it passed WP:V, at which point I accepted it, as it seemed germane enough.

I appreciate the heads up, though for future reference you can feel free to revert without clearing it with me, first. I can read an edit summary, and I've got no problem with being wrong. If I did, I'd have melted into a puddle of liquid despair years ago. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought maybe I missed something and am always willing to learn. Lol re melting.... Shearonink (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We're all doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I mean, you've seen the difference, and it's getting better all the time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing you and I won't do... oh, never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

No, you're right. You're absolutely right. For example, If you're havin' trouble with the high school head, he's givin' you the blues. You want to graduate but not in 'is bed, Here's what you gotta do. Pick up the phone, I'm always home. Call me any time. Just ring 36 24 36 hey, I lead a life of crime. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A collection of 3182 classic 88x31 buttons from the 1990’s, 2000’s, and today in GIF format. EPILEPSY WARNING! Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel like 1997 just punched me in the face and then kissed me passionately. That's awesome! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 11:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Please let me know if that bothers you!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, Not even a little bit. Help yourself to anything else you like, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, I made sure to put "For any and all complaints, please see MjlolnirPants" in big red letters right at the bottom. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Damn smart move, that. Wish I'd thought of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink I butchered the ping in my last edit so this is me fixing it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

...that in creating this, I lifted some language from this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Looking at the warning template, I have some concern that it does not actually reflect policy here (not that I welcome Nazis, of course!). I don't think that policy indicates that people who have such beliefs are blocked on sight. Rather, it's the expression, on-wiki, of those beliefs that leads to blocking. As such, a user warning for hate speech may be more precisely appropriate. I realize that the actual wording of the template does refer to the expression of racist views, but the overall language should focus more on speech and less on identity. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Your advice is good. I'll take a look at adjusting the language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've made some changes. See what you think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Kind of echoing Tryptofish here. Probably not appropriate as a warning template like you seem to be using it as here. Calling randos on the internet you have a dispute with nazis is generally not helpful. Unless they are actually nazis in which case knock yourself out (or them, I don't really care honestly). PackMecEng (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken I think that warning template is actually a good idea. They should add it to Twinkle. And yeah, I have to admit, the newer version seems like an improvement. I mean, my feelings towards Nazis are comparable to Nazis' feelings towards Jews (though mine actually have a shred of justification, instead of just being based on being a racist sack of runny shit), but at the end of the day, we can't know an editor is a Nazi unless they edit like a Nazi.

And FWIW, that IP was editing like a Nazi. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how I saw it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As did Materialscientist, who blocked them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't really object to "famous Nazi had a Jewish godfather" and "famous Nazi was a convicted war criminal" without making it real obvious what your political and racial views look like. Bonus points for thinking up the weakest justifications for objecting imaginable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BMK, and thanks all. I think this is an excellent improvement. I also made a few tweaks of my own. I'd like to suggest one more thing: to rename it from Uw-nonazis to Uw-hatespeech. With that, I would consider it good to go, and I would be happy to see it used along with all the other Twinkle user warnings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added two links (feel free to revert if not deemed useful). I think the link to WP:NAZI makes sense to "back up" the claims and provide more reasoning if someone wants to learn more, and the one to WP:PROMO similarly explains why all propaganda isn't permitted on wiki. Leijurv (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to revert, but I'm sort-of inclined to (but obviously the edits are good-faith). The Nazi essay is an essay, and doesn't really amount to a policy reason to block someone, and PROMO is more about WP:COI-related stuff than about hate speech. I'd support undoing those links, but I won't do it unless other editors agree about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I only chose PROMO because it goes to the correct section (could have done SOAP instead perhaps), someone receiving the notice (I'd hope) would refer to #1 under there (Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment). I thought that that was the policy against propaganda, so I imagined it would make sense to link to it from the text will not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a tool for propaganda. For the WP:NAZI one, it seemed to me to be of similar "authority" to this template, in that both are unofficial. Really, it's just a much longer expanded version of this template so that was my reasoning for linking to it, to provide more info. I wouldn't be broken up if it's reverted, no worries! :) Leijurv (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Nazi essay is an explanation of existing policy (along with some additional information about the subject), and there have been a few blocks which cited the essay as a reason, so I don't think it's bad to have it in a warning template like this.

Of course, I'm a little biased, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You? Biased? Anyway, after reading and thinking about these comments, I did this. Both links are still there, but are no longer being used as a reason to block someone (which really is more about the blocking policy, anyway). Now, PROMO links simply to the word "propaganda", and NAZI links to immediately removing the edits. I think that's fair.

I still think that it should be moved to "Template:Uw-hatespeech". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good way of linking them, and I agree about the name of the template. Provacative title are fine for essays, but they tend to get in the way when it comes to things like templates.

For example, you know me well enough to know that I love little hidden (and not-so-hidden) jokes all over the place, but the one rule I created for which I do not tolerate any violations of is that all functions and variables in their output must have clear, verbose and descriptive names. Just today, I had to explain to one of my people that we must rename the function "ButtSlap()" to "VerifyTraceResults()". Yes, it was funny, but sometimes there's just no room for humor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

So does that mean that a butt-monkey works for you? ^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I know of one who works for my boss... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I decided to WP:BEBOLD, and moved it to Template:Uw-hatespeech. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I'm really enjoying the redirect it left behind. I agree that this is the best name for it, but I like that the see-also link at NONAZIS refers to the old name. It says "not only will we block you for Naziing around on WP; we'll file paperwork over it, do it efficiently, and promptly forget you ever existed." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Good, then. I, too, felt that the redirect should remain there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You are well aware of what talk pages are for, and it's not for discussing our interactions (and no I do not dislike you, I do not know who you are). What I am doing is trying to make sure we are seen to obey policy. That means we do exactly what it says, we do not decide to be lax because we think we are in the right. The way I react towards you is the same as I would (and have) towards anyone I think is bending policies. Nor do I consider your interactions with me frendly, or even particualy civil on the whole. As I said here [] you seem to go out of your way to look for confrontations. This [] for example if not friendly, in fact, it is very insulting (and was our second interaction there, you choose to get personal, not me). You may have the last word here, I will not respond.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Go read User:MjolnirPants/The Fun Police and ask yourself if you're actually helping with comments like this one.

And if you come to an affirmative answer, go read WP:CIR, because -surprise surprise- it applies to you. Going out of your way to make things less enjoyable for other editors is disruptive, no matter what your excuse for doing so.

And if you're serious that you don't dislike me, then maybe ask if you're a good fit for this project, because when you do things like reporting me at ANI for making what could possibly be the most inoffensive joke ever, here, it strongly suggests that either you're incapable of interacting with people in a productive manner, or you're incapable of interacting with that particular person in a productive manner. I was AGFing that it's the latter, but if this is just generally how you are, then your severe lack of social skills (especially in comparison to someone who's been diagnosed with an innate lack of social skills, like myself) is a serious problem where this project is concerned.

And you'd better damn well not respond, because I've told you multiple times to keep this kind of bullshit off my talk page. Go add me to your list of editor's who've banned you from their talk pages, and continue to expect pushback every single time you decide to get confrontational and pedantic and nagging on an article talk page for no decent reason. And don't you dare question why so many people have banned you from their talk pages, because that would just be too insightful.

Also, the comment that you claimed was OR was me being friendly with you for the umpteenth time, and just like every time before it, you responded with inappropriate, illogical and ignorant hostility. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the basic problem might be that there's not really that much important positive stuff to say about this person, who is really just famous for being famous, and only for the past four years, and only on social media Which sort of inevitably means the focus in the print/digital media is on the stuff that goes viral, which means all the online drama, which of course is generally negative. So how can the article be more "balanced" when whatever it is they do that's "positive" (not even sure what that could be, these folks are not typically volunteering in soup kitchens on Thanksgiving) isn't getting the press, so we're left with just the blooper highlights. If I were czar we'd just refer social media celebrities to SocMedWiki. :D Thanks for your time and energy. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee You've got a good point here, and I mostly agree with it. I'm normally a "follow the best quality sources, regardless of how poorly they paint the subject" kind of editor. However, I also have a lot of sympathy for your arguments here as they pertain to celebrities, because celebrities (as opposed to the conspiracy theorists and quacks I usually deal with) rarely get the sort of balanced treatment that lets us dig down to the highest quality sources and sus some truth out of the facts. I have no doubt at all that the ratio of positive to negative coverage of Charles does not paint an accurate picture of him. I don't think we're quite at WP:IAR with respect to following the sources though, for reasons I'm outlining below.

During the Tati Westbrook feud, I had been asked by some folks on Reddit to do a deep dive and figure out what was going on, which I did. (I was not editing WP at the time, or you might have seen me in the history of that page, there's info about that in the hatted content above the TOC here). At the time, the research I did painted him in a very negative light. But when diving back in recently in preparation for the DRN case, I got a much more positive picture. Not because the sources were treating him better, but because the build-up of facts made for a much more nuanced picture than the judgemental tone of many articles.

I really do intend to do a bit of editing there. I've watchlisted the page, and am hoping to find some time this weekend to do it, or possibly later this week. I've located sources that have more to say about his CoverGirl gig, already.

I'm sorry I couldn't help you find a resolution at DRN, but I hope (and believe) that if we can get the article to cover his career in more detail than his various controversies, it'll be much easier for everyone to give a little and get a little in return. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just glad to have someone who is interested in editing the article subject get in there. I have almost zero interest in celebrity culture that it's basically pulling teeth for me to get involved lol. —valereee (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee You and me both, lol. When I was first asked to research the Tati Westbrook thing, my initial response was, verbatim "No thanks, I'm too busy watching some paint dry." I only gave in because it was pointed out that, as a (then former) Wikipedian, I was the only one who knew how to dig in and find the facts quickly.

Which is actually a little sad, as the world would be a much better place if everyone knew how to identify a reliable source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello MPants at work, I noticed that you undid one of my edits on the fascism page citing the argument “sources failed verification”. I don’t quite understand this as both sources are easily verifiable, please explain. Best regards, Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It means I actually opened a copy of the source and looked for that claim in the entire chapter on Fascism (from page 167 to page 178) and did not find it. I did, however, find the following quote:

Historically, the term originated with the radical nationalist movement of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, organized by Benito Mussolinie and others in 1919. Fascio in Italian means 'bundle' or 'union' and was a common name given to varying types of new political groupings, particularly those of more radical character. The Fasci Italiani di Combattimento were in turn reorganized two years later, in 1921, as the Partito Nazionale Fascista, or Fascist Party for short, converting the orignal substantive into an adjective. In October 1922 the Fascist leader Mussolini became prime minister of Italy, and in 1925 converted his government into a one-party dictatorship, thus creating the first, and prototypical 'fascist regime'.

As early as 1923, however, there developed a growing tendency to generalize beyond the Italian example and apply the term fascist or fascism to any form of right-wing authoritarianism movement or system. In the broadest sense, therefore, the trend was to identify any form of non-leftist authoritarianism as fascist, while competing left-wing groups, particularly Soviet Stalinists began to apply the term to leftist rivals. By the 1930s the the term fascist had sometimes become little more than a term of denigration applied to political foes, and this categorical but vague connotation has remained to this present day.

Emphasis added.

So not only does your source not claim that fascism is left-wing or right-wing, it directly states that the term refers to right-wing authoritarianism, and notes that when it was applied to leftist groups, that was the beginning of the muddying of the term into a non-specific political insult.

In other words, your source directly contradicted your claims. I don't know whether you were being dishonest about what the source said, whether you were confused about what the source meant, or whether you simply failed to read the source. But there are no high-quality sources asserting that fascism can be left-wing. The actual political ideology is and always has been a radical right-wing ideology.

Do not comment here again about this. Keep the discussion at the article, or at your talk page if you wish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi-

Just to let you know, I meet none of the requirements necessary to have a COI. I just happen to have copies of most of the Keddie case files and have been working with the last Special Investigator on the Keddie case @ PCSO, Mike Gamberg. If knowing who did the murders and why is a conflict on Wiki, then I'm damned. Anyway, thanks for the Heads Up, but I have no COI. I just loathe when Wiki editors bring up clearly nonsensical crap from outdated, debunked sources who, themselves, made up garbage lies just to make a buck.Keddie28 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Can I treat this fellow as a hostile witness, Your Honour? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Keddie28 Your username is what made me think of it. And I was fully prepared to believe you right up until your last sentence, which raises doubts once again. Fortunately for you, assuming good faith is one of our policies here.

For the record, unless you can cite reliable sources for every change you make to a page on this project, your edits can be reverted. Case files would be primary sources, which means they must be used with extreme caution, and only for uncontroversial claims, and even then, only when no secondary source is available, except in a few specific circumstances. If you need help figuring out how to cite a source, or figuring out whether a source is reliable or not, I'd be happy to lend a hand.

Roxy, I think what we have here is an SPA who might be able to make some valuable contributions to the article, if they can figure out the ropes. I'm certainly not one to judge someone for criticizing debunked claims, though I withhold judgement for now on whether those claims are actually debunked or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A minor point is that the filing party did identify one other editor. The filing party was an IP address, and identified one editor. However, they didn't notify the other editor, and, as you said, there was inadequate discussion. Also, the dispute is already pending at FTN, and that is a reason not to discuss it at another noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I misspoke. I had meant to say that no opposing parties were named, as the account they named had been in agreement with the IP on this content. I'll correct that now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe the IP is the same editor editing logged out. It doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, MjolnirPants. I just wanted to leave a quick note to you about your recent BLPN comment. First, thank you for your helpful and detailed comment. However, I think it would be appropriate to avoid using terms like "emotive" to dismiss other editors' concerns unless you have very good reason to use a term like that. Claiming that long-term editors of BLPs who are active on BLPN are not being neutral is an unnecessary comment regarding other editors, and it can make respectful discussions about contentious issues a lot more difficult. If you want to make claims like that, you should include diffs and probably raise those concerns outside of a discussion about content, such as on individual editors' talk pages or at ANI. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert I think not. If editors are unable to make their case without making emotive arguments, then they should not be discussing the matter.

In a similar vein, if editors are unable to distinguish between criticism of arguments and criticism of editors, then they have no business discussing anything on WP.

Note that my response is not an invitation to debate the issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem about re-instating the parrallex graphic - I have started a discussion about it on the talk page to get a consensus about it. IMHO given the governments report that there is no current obvious explanation for the craft, saying they are such things as weather balloons and parrallex errors is not something we should be pushing in the article - may be ok to have it in the sceptics part of the article, but I think the graphic gives it WP:Undue proposing that it is a real explanation for these objects when that is obviously not the case. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian If you want to move it to the skeptics response section, I'm perfectly okay with that. From what I've been seeing around the noticeboards, it seem inevitable that the report will get its own article, which should help ameliorate some of your concerns about the balance of the article.

I do have to say, having extensive experience working with government bodies, and past experience in the military, that I could enumerate a million reasons why an independent skeptic would be generally more trustworthy on something like this than a government employee of some flavor. Most of which could be succinctly summed up by saying "government efficiency" in a sufficiently sarcastic tone. With the exception of the special operations and intelligence communities, I've never met a government employee who went beyond "passably competent". This usually goes double for contractors hired by the government. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks I think its more suitable belonging in that section, its a bit out of place where it is now, it sort of appears to be a proposed explanation for all the videos. I mean with this particular report, there is a lot of focus on this, as Senators have pushed for it, and the Govt is changing its mindset from "we don't want to talk about it/Its just a weatherballoon" to "ok, our jets may crash into these things, whatever they are" - so I think the report is probably written in preparation for more focus on the area.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

An IP created an ANI on you, but it was blocked by a filter false positive. Since I've procedurally implemented the edit while clearing out WP:EFFP, obligatory notice follows:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MjolnirPants: Incivility. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Why you thought that was something worth restoring is beyond me. I guess it's just too much to ask that people stop bawling about interpersonal drama. I mean, it's not like there's an encyclopedia to edit or anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit filter that blocked the edit was meant to block something else. This specific portion of the filter has had frequent issues, and if the IP didn't include that specific phrase in their comment it would've posted as normal. I don't think it's proper for a small group of people who have technical access to see private filters, and monitor EFFP, to decide the merits of edits, so I tend to implement any edit that hit a false positive and doesn't obviously violate a policy, then let others determine the merits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough I guess. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This should really be thrown back, because IMO the alleged "error" hardly signifies. But because you asked for it... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

JoJo Anthrax, Wagh, I've been anchovied!

It really is warranted, I should have double checked the article before I agreed to move the image to a non-existent section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll thank the two of you very much to refrain from calling any of my relatives "wee".^[FBDB] --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What about miniscule, teeny, puny, itty-bitty, mini, petite, trifling pee-wee, or -my personal favorite- lilliputian? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

How about my mother's favorite descriptor, "wee little." As in, "I ate some wee little fish sticks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't say that! The last time I mentioned a fish fry to Tryp, he was inconsolable for weeks... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, shoot! What a whopper! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I should just stop wailing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Why stop? Are you really bailing out already? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I bet you think you're such a star! Be sure to read the first sentence of the "Digestion" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

And... ^{[cetacean needed]}. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, here's an inline ceteacean: , ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I bet you use that (in)line all the time! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Only when I'm trying to land a big fish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The fish police just called. Now don't flip out, but they'd like you both to scale back your comments, lest other editors feel out of place and get sucked into this truly horrific crap. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that's some dad-joke-fu, right there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That's OK, really. You guys are still my chums. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Got your message and you can go ahead and block me. I don't give a shit. BTW don't come around with hat in hand pandering for money the way Wikipedia periodically does then bitch at someone for telling a Trumpkin off. Got it? Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.93.160 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That's right, MPants, you pro-Trump neo-nazi, you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I can't be arsed to bring this to any of the drama boards, but I'm sure there are at least a few admins watching here. I reviewed the IP's edits going back more than a month, and it's one person, and classic WP:NOTHERE. Block away! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• I mean, to be fair, I am a big, bearded ginger who wears a Smith & Wesson ballcap most days and jeans and combat boots every day. And I enjoy hunting, fishing and sport shooting (my 12yo just won a junior PPC competition, btw. The kid's a natural!) The radio in my Jeep is tuned to the bluegrass station, right now, and there's a gun rack in it where I sometimes keep an AR-15, a Marlin 123 gauge or a Remington 30.06, depending on where I'm going... And I co-own some property up near Ruby Ridge. And I'm an Army vet who served in Iraq and elsewhere. It's a pretty easy mistake to make. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Just be careful not to shoot the messenger. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I'm a big Milla Jovovich fan. I'd never shoot her. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm much prettier than her. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

...were you aware of this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This just came to my attention later, but voting against someone at RFA for being an ex-fascist (not for having been a fascist, but for no longer being a fascist) should be a deal-breaker. (And the other comments in that RFA, such as complaining about "conservatives" being "labeled [sic] fascist" IRL, are worse, not better, in case anyone accuses me of cherry-picking this diff.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, I came across this because, when I investigated you-know-who yesterday, I saw another (more recent) disruptive post they made about you on WP:VP, I commented there, and then today I noticed that another user (you-probably-don't-know-who-but-it's-not-important) had seemingly followed me there. I looked into it and he seemingly posts there once every few months, so I guess it's a coincidence, but before I found that out, I noticed he posted a question to that RFA, which I found interesting so I read a bit more, and then I noticed that you-know-who was the first person to post an oppose vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88 Hmmm, that is interesting. It also underscores your question at ANI as to whether WP:NONAZIS has anything to do with TOA's repeated attempts to get me sanctioned.

I also noticed their post at WP:VPP, and I commented there to provide the context. In case said context wasn't obvious enough, TOA has included one of the instances of them narrowly escaping a block for WP:GAMING as an example of where ANI failed to work. And they included another thread I was involved in, and a thread in which their actually was a resultant sanction, but it just didn't go their way.

Now, last I checked in at ANI, TOA was accusing you of being a Nazi owing to the numbers in your username. Were I you, I would not hesitate to bring that comment, as well as other diffs from TOA to an admin directly and ask if that sort of confrontational attitude is appropriate. I'd do so myself (I might, actually, still do so), but I generally like to avoid even the appearance of gaming. Which also explains why the admin with whom I recently had a short conversation about how incredibly disruptive concern trolling about civility is has not gotten a ping from me, in this thread in which TOA and Wally are engaged in the exact behavior this admin finds so disruptive.

Of course as I mentioned, I might yet do so. It's not a violation of any rule, written or unspoken. But I have a feeling it's unnecessary, and allowing these things to run out provides diffs which make the inevitable request for a CBAN or indefinite block in the future easier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My go-to admins have all left the project (around the same time you did) or severely cut back on their activity level, but if TOA doesn't get blocked before the current thread is closed/archived, I'll look into who blocked Til Eulenspiegel, the last editor to call me a Nazi (similar to the current situation, it was because I was expressing anti-reactionary views, in that case in relation to the text of the Hebrew Bible) and get blocked for it (technically someone else called me a Nazi a year later, but he avoided getting blocked for it).

And yeah, if you look at the last few comments I left on ANI, I'm aware of the BS on VPP. It is pretty hilarious that he would present those as cases of ANI not working as it's supposed to when actually they're rare cases of the exact opposite.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be Tony, who unblocked me. He's not been very active lately which is truly sad, as he's one of the Four Horsemen of the Adminpocalypse; admins willing to take decisive action without undue hand-wringing. For the record, I consider Drmies, Bishonen and Oshwah to be the other three Horsemen, and for extra credit, Oshwah is one of the nicest editors on the project, to boot. This is not to disparage any other admins, mind. The vast majority do a very good job, the vast majority of the time.

I had not looked back into the ANI thread between my last comment there and writing the above comment here, but I have since, so I see that you weren't the only one defending yourself, there. Which is good; it helps show any admin who comes across the thread that TOA's accusations are wildly off base.

I left a note on Jayron32's talk page, as TOA is blatantly ignoring the warning Jayron left them the last time the three of us interacted (one of the examples of TOA failing to get me blocked).

Regarding the Catflaps thing, I think it's worth pointing out (even if only as a bit of a compliment to you) that, of all the rescinded remedies, all were restrictions on you. And of the enforcement actions, none were directed at you. I'm delighted that the editors such as yourself, with whom I have a good working relationship, tend very strongly to be good editors, capable of proving themselves valuable contributors when needed.

I'd note that Til had socks operating on wiki as recently as August of 2019, and socking was what he was blocked for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll ask Oshwah (once the thread gets closed without either you or whoever it was who opened the thread getting blocked -- I can kinda understand why ANI closers would be reluctant to sanction "random passers by"). Honestly, if I wear making a list of the Four Heavenly Admin-Kings of Wikipedia, Swarm would probably be on it, but in my experience in cases like this, Swarm and Drmies are more likely to say "Build articles, avoid ANI" (good advice, but not something I need an admin for ;-) ), and Bishonen... well, I've annoyed her with more bullshit than I probably should get away with.

My favourite part was when he tried to "well, actually" someone who ... wait, I've always assumed he was Jewish, but now I can't seem to recall why I thought that ... about when it's acceptable to call people Nazis.

Yeah, I saw Jayron's comments in the previous ANI thread, but I also saw the close (Jayron had a pretty good community consensus to block TOA at that point, and didn't take it), so I figured a ping wouldn't lead anywhere... jeez, I'm really cynical.

That may be true, but Catflap almost immediately left the project after the ArbCom case, Curtis completely evaded any kind of ArbCom sanction and continued causing disruption until the community stepped in, and one of my sanctions, which was completely ineffective in solving the problem it was meant to (again, the community had to step in), can never be removed and is going to continue to be thrown in my face every few months until I'm dead.

That's a matter of interpretation -- Til was not, IIRC, banned for using multiple accounts simultaneously. He received a string of short blocks at first, then got a long block (put in place by Future Perfect at Sunrise) for calling me a Nazi (and some other stuff, but I'm pretty sure it was mostly the Nazi thing). Immediately thereafter, he abused his talk page privileges, so Spike Wilbury removed talk page access. A little under two weeks later, Bishonen extended the block for block evasion, then made it indef less than half an hour later because new IPs appeared. He was fully unblocked for about two weeks, before getting indeffed again. He has socked multiple times since (I accidentally linked his username without using noping in 2017 or 2018 and an IP showed up and demanded that I stop talking about him, so I'm aware), and yeah, the constant sockpuppetry (he became an LTA case very quickly) is the actual reason he has been de facto and probably also de jure site-banned for years, but the original block that led to the block evasion that led to that was for calling me a Nazi.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I actually forgot, but I, too, could be seen as having "logged out to report someone on ANI". But then, I'm 88% certain it's okay if I end the filing with (Full disclosure: I'm editing from a phone as I now prefer to only edit Wikipedia while travelling. I have an account that I haven't logged into for months. Don't ask don't tell and all that.). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat that: You disclosed your regular account in your first comment; a far cry from what the IP did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the ANI thread (and facepalmed). My advice (to which either of you should feel free to say "get lost") is that it has become a wall-of-text without the much-needed shut-down by an admin, so I'd suggest stop replying to the multiple dimwits that are attacking you there, and only reply if an uninvolved admin asks you a question. At this point, it's WP:LASTWORD, and far past diminishing returns. It's obvious to impartial observers that the accusations against either of you are without merit, so you don't have to worry about it, and you can let the other editors hang themselves by their own ropes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Tryptofish Boy, you weren't kidding. Wally, at least seems bound and determined to find the end of that rope. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm always full of it – good advice, that is. And don't call me "boy".^[FBDB] (LOL.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. My non-specific masculine individual forms of address also include Dude, Dudeski, Duuuuuuuuuude, Brother, Broski, Bro, Man, Mang, Bud, Buddie, Son, Guy, Friend, Comrade, My Dear Fellow, Chap, Chapski and Oi Fuckface. You may take your pick of those, or specify a custom option for the low, low price of $75 USD per letter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How about Mr. Boy? Or better yet, General Boy? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be Professor Boy, to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

However... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

OMG! Listen to the last sentence of what he says in that video. Now we know who Q is! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Just gonna leave this here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I can abide that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Duuuuuuuuuude it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad we could work it out. I'll go ahead and make the edit. Throast (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee WP:RCD states that content disputes between editors may be resolved on "the article talk page or their user talk page." Throast (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but it's best to keep discussions about articles at article talk for the sake of other editors of that article. There might be a half dozen editors willing to chime in and share their opinions, and they'll never get the chance if they don't know the discussion is going on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Throast, content disputes are generally handled best at the article talk. If you're objecting to an editor's behavior or to a general pattern of editing, their talk page is the place. —valereee (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee I generally agree. As this was relatively minor, I thought it wouldn't require gathering consensus on the article talk page, so I started it here. Anyways I know I'm unnecessarily dragging it out at this point so I'll stop now. Cheers Throast (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have any problem with continuing to discuss this here, or even with you two continuing a conversation here without me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Please note - there is an ongoing RFC discussion about this, which you were previously involved in Here Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You were mentioned (conveniently not by name) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Review. Nothing to worry about—apparently it was "bad faith" for you to feel that consensus can change???—but if it were me I'd wanna know. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Tamzin I saw your ping there before I saw this, and I appreciate the heads up. I'd have weighed in were it not closed so quickly. As expected, now that the page was (properly) deleted, I'm entirely unsurprised that editors have come out of the wood works to wail and complain that a page chock full of OR that supports their political views was deleted. The complaints that it survived AfD are my particular favorite, as I addressed the prior AfD's in the nomination.

The bad faith accusations are par for the course. I actually appreciate those sorts of hollow accusations, as they help more clearly label editors who are here to push a right-wing political agenda. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

True. Same reason I don't mind being rather visible about a few of the minority groups I'm a member of. If a troll bites on that and calls me some slur or says that my pronouns are disruptive, then they've just [fast-forwards 41 seconds] saved us all some time we'd otherwise have wasted AGFing. Visibility in the face of POV-pushers is, in its own way, a service to the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Tamzin How could you be so inconsiderate as to display your preferred pronouns where anyone could see it? Haven't you thought of the children?

I'm convinced that one of the main reasons we've had as much success as we've had dealing with bigoted POV pushers of various stripes (which, to be clear, won't be nearly enough success until it's 100%) is because they're just so easily offended that they're much easier to spot than other types of problematic editors. And ironically, if they ever stop being such delicate little snowflakes, it's to our advantage; as it's their deep offense at WP's statements about reality that motivates them to come edit, in the first place.

Getting back to the original subject, you'll likely be entirely unsurprised to know that the pure fiction in that deleted article which was deceptively sourced to nominal RSes made it's way into Fascism, and is now being defended by editors who are studiously ignoring the fact that it's unverifiable bullshit, and bickering about consensus instead. Fortunately, Black Kite stepped in early on, so they're disincentivized to edit war over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you contending the edits on Megalith WP:OR and editorializing?

"no large storage facilities have been identified" is verbatim in the source and the successors of Schmidt don't see them as temples but label the enclosures as I stated. Hypnôs (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that no large storage facilities were found is completely unnecessary to state, per WP:ASTONISHME, as such structures are not hypothesized to be megalithic, and are not specifically hypothesized to be a part of this site by any significant number of mainstream archeologists, in any case. I mean, there's literally no reason to point out that none were found there, because no-one expected they were ever there, and even if they did, no-one would expect to find them.

Your claim that Kinzel and Clare's wording was "neutral" was pure editorializing, and has no business in an encyclopedia. The terms "special structure" and "ceremonial architecture" are in no way mutually exclusive, and Schmidt is not the only one to consider them ceremonial (the majority of archeologists do), contrary to your forced attribution.

In addition to all of that, your edit worsened the grammar significantly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

- no large storage facilities were found is completely unnecessary to state

It isn't, since storage facilities (like granaries) could indicate agriculture.

- "special structure" and "ceremonial architecture" are in no way mutually exclusive

Correct, but one is neutral, the other isn't, hence the inclusion of the word "neutral". I anything, calling them "ceremonial" is editorializing.

I suggest you read the article by Kinzel and Clare, as it reflects the current understanding of the site. Hypnôs (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling you didn't actually read what I wrote, because you're repeating yourself instead of responding to me. Stop commenting here, I'll just revert you, and ask an admin to intervene if you don't stop.

I strongly suggest you read up on our policies and guidelines and familiarize yourself with how to write an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MjolnirPants. You culled back fixes I made to the article. I'm not CarlPhilippTrump.me and my fixes to the article have nothing to do with that editor. They don't even support what that editor is arguing. The are serious issues with the edits made by Desert-opal. For example, you re-introduced blockquotes from individual doctors, lending entire blockquotes to their views, and you re-introduced external links on the page. There are also other issues. Please see Talk. I saw the article when I was looking at "Recent changes." I read the talk page and saw what Hob Gadling said, and then I looked into the article's history and culled back Desert-opal's edits.

I'm not arguing with myself on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowearskirts (talk • contribs)

• Nowearskirts I made a mistake, which I have outlined at the SPI page, and requested that the clerk there take note that my suspicious were misguided. In any case, I do apologize for that, as it was entirely my fault. You may feel free to revert me at the article, and if you do not (or haven't already), I'll do so myself, as they look like valuable improvements, once I found myself looking at the correct diff.

P.S. Please remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Nowearskirts (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nowearskirts (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nowearskirts (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that guy, MjolnirPants. The ironical part is that I'm not really a big fan of Ehrman. However, I respect him as a scholar and I feel the need to defend him from the attacks of these cranks.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. That revert at Ehrman's book article just screamed "vindictive" to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

He/She doesn't give up. At this point, I think a block is inevitable.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, that depends on the whims of the admins. My advice to you right now is to not post in that thread at ANI any more, except maybe once a day to add diffs of any subsequent reverts of your edits they engage in, and when you do that, just make a comment like:

Additional reverts: [diff 1], [diff 2], [diff 3]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I know it's not easy to do, but cluttering the thread up with argumentation makes admins less willing to look into things.

Other editors arguing on your behalf is what you want to see. Hopefully, some others will jump in to agree with you. If that's the case, and the thread doesn't get overwhelmed by back-and-forth, then an admin may impose a one way Iban, or issue a warning, or something of the sort. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Very good, I won't add anything more for now.--Karma1998 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, MjolnirPants: since you seem an expert on the matter, could you advise me some books about the historical Jesus? I think I'm going to read A marginal Jew of John P. Meier, Jesus the Jew of Geza Vermes and some works of Raymond E. Brown, but I would ask your advice for other text from major scholars.

PS Possibly not by Bart D. Ehrman. I mean, he is an excellent scholar, but he tends to have some anti-Christian prejudice, due to his evangelical background. I understand him, though: I was once an inerrantist too, and I was very sorry when I found out that that position is untenable. But I eventually got over it--Karma1998 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Ehrman would be the best authority on the historicity of Jesus. AFAIK, he's the only serious scholar (and he's quite a prominent one, as well) who has really engaged with Mythicists to refute their claims, which is a great basis for getting to the actual historiography of Jesus. And if you look at the most common criticism levelled at him, it's that he spends much more effort communicating the scholarly consensus to the masses than he does contributing new knowledge to it, which is hardly a criticism at all, if one isn't a scholar themselves (the criticism isn't well merited in any case, as he's been hugely influential on modern conceptions of Jesus).

I feel like you might re-evaluate your view of Ehrman after a reading of Did Jesus Exist?, because he pulls no punches in pointing out the overzealousness of the atheists behind the CMT, albeit in his own dad joke-esque, mostly inoffensive manner. If so, I'd go on to recommend Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.

Meier would be my second choice, followed closely by or perhaps tied with Albert Schweizer, although Schweizer's work is a bit dated. Regardless of age, The Quest of the Historical Jesus is a powerful and compelling work on exactly this subject.

Also, I wouldn't consider myself an expert. I'm just familiar with the scholarship because I'm fascinated by the history of religions, and Christianity is the biggest religion here in the West. And serious scholarly works on NT studies tend to be much cheaper than other scholarly books. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't hate Bart D. Ehrman: he's an excellent scholar (at least in the US, here in Italy he's not very known) and I really appreciate the fact that he has so actively fought the CMT nonsense (Maurice Casey was also very active in it); others scholars don't usually spend much time on it, since the CMT is so absurd that no serious scholar spends much time on it. But when I read his articles on his blog, I do feel a lot of anger and disappointment in him toward Christianity, which I understand, since I was also an inerrantist in the past and I was desperate when I knew that The Exodus didn't happen; the difference between me and him is that I did not lose my faith, I simply stopped being a fundamentalist and move toward a more rational understanding of religion. But I don't hate nor despise him, he's a very good scholar and he is firmly on the mainstream. I think I'll read Did Jesus Exist?.

I recently read an introduction book from Catholic biblical scholar Giuseppe Segalla, which summarizes the Quest from the Enlightment to 2010 and I found it very interesting.--Karma1998 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the name of that book? I'm familiar with the historiography of Jesus, but not its history (and if that doesn't sound like the opening line of a Monty Python sketch, I'll eat my shoe).

I could probably outline it's route from Schweizer to Ehrman, but that's a fairly straight and short line. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the book is only in Italian :-( and it doesn't mention Ehrman, since he's not very known here in Italy. However, it does mention Richard Bauckham and James D.G. Dunn; it also correctly criticizes the bizarre views of the Jesus Seminar. It is a useful summarization of the Quest for the historical Jesus from the 18th century to 2010.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, well, thanks anyways. Italian is not in my repertoire, though I do all right with das Deutch.

Which is a little surprising, as I once dated an Italian (as in: born and raised in La Spezia) girl who barely spoke English. You'd think I'd have picked up some, if only to facilitate communication between us, but alas, I was young and chauvinistic enough that I viewed our communicative difficulties as a bonus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah look, women are really not my field, since I'm gay :-D--Karma1998 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the points I don't agree with Ehrman is the complete denials of miracles: that Jesus healed some people and practiced exorcism is a view supported by many scholars (such as E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Maurice Casey and John P. Meier), although other miracles are obviously allegorical (like Jesus walking on water or the Wedding at Cana). I also don't agree with his idea that Jesus was "thrown in a pitt" and not buried (as far as I know, the only one who supports this view aside from Ehrman is John Dominic Crossan). In any case, his is a respectable position, even if I don't agree.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ehrman has made some commentary on the burial that seems mostly drawn from supposition and his knowledge of societal norms at the time. I've always found that reasonable, but it's like a future historian suggesting that a modern day person must have spent significant time on social media because the records indicate the subject was computer savvy: It's certainly possible, but you really have no way of knowing, and there's no way of really even gauging how likely it is.

With respect to the miracles, I'm in complete agreement with him. A historian's job is to make educated guesses about what likely happened, and by definition, miracles are extraordinarily unlikely.

I'll say that Casey likely agreed with Ehrman, as he argued that Jesus' healings miracles were actually just the application of a placebo. Meier, Vermes and Sanders might have as well; I'm not as familiar with their discussions of miracles.

I think the only point of contention between the Ehrman and Casey would be that Ehrman seems to think (I'm not entirely sure of this, because he never states this position that I'm aware) that the healing stories were invented after the fact to "pad out" Jesus' resume, as it were. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I'm wrong about that, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I take a pretty agnostic position about miracles: I do believe that Jesus healed people and practised exorcism, because this is, in my view, likely. After all, Josephus calls Jesus a "doer of startling deeds" and that part is believed by most scholars not to have been interpolated (Ehrman himself believes it). That doesn't mean, of course, that I want to "prove" miracles or to "prove" the existance of demons, since this is something that cannot be rationally proved, as they are metaphysical. As for Jesus's burial, there's an ongoing debate on the matter, and Ehrman can obviously take the position he considers more likely. I personally agree with Dale Allison and Raymond E. Brown's position that there was a member of the Sanhedrin called Joseph of Arimathea that buried Jesus to avoid that his body remained on the cross during Passover, but that is my personal position and I'm not a scholar. --Karma1998 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I'm with Ehrman on the miracle thing. Jesus may or may not have performed miracles, but it's not for Historians to make a determination on that matter. As for the burial, I'm pretty agnostic. Ehrman makes a compelling case, but then, so do the others. The story about Joseph burying him is not particularly unlikely (which seems to be Ehrman's main reason for doubting it), given the culture and norms of that time and region. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I understand your point. The problem is, in my view, that Ehrman doesn't take an agnostic stance on early Christianity: in his views, early Christians were "forgers", who maliciously invented stuff to boast their religion. Such a hostile point of view is improper for a historian and, in my view, Ehrman's fundamentalist past is apparent when he takes such positions. Had he remained an Episcopalian and engaged scholarship with that point of view, he would be a much more pleasent person, I believe.--Karma1998 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ehh, I agree with him, on that. Early Christianity was like most other cults at the time: a fractious group where everybody claimed to be an authority on The Truth, with secret knowledge and totally authentic writings from dead authorities which no-one else had ever even heard of. I mean, List of messiah claimants shows that even with the second-largest religion in the world, the spawning of cults -all of which are surrounded by sycophants willing to lie, cheat and steal to support them- is still ongoing. I don't know how familiar you are with Mormonism, but it shows that even new holy texts are not above being produced. I doubt strongly that early Christians were particularly committed to truth and critical thinking, compared to everyone else.

Honestly sounds a lot like a bunch of political groups on the internet, today, come to think of it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the Book of Mormon is a complete fantasy, but I don't think Joseph Smith actually forged it with malicious intents. I think he wrote and that it reflects his spiritual and internal experiences; it's probable that he actually believed it to be true. I mean, he may have been a freak, but certainly not a swindler.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm with you on the book of Mormon. Malicious intent is an entirely unnecessary assumption for these sorts of things. I'm sure there was some ego and hubris involved (I mean, what affairs of mankind don't involve some ego and hubris?), but that's as far as I'd go. I think that's applicable to early Christians, as well. There's just so much non-cannonical work out there (and some cannonical stuff of dubious origin, as well). I'm sure there were a few swindlers, but most were just self-righteous, if you'll forgive the (totally intentional) pun. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, what do you think about the birthplace of Jesus? Most scholars agree that he was born in Nazareth (despite ridicolous attempts from Richard Carrier to state that Nazareth didn't exist). Among the supporters of the "Nazareth thesis" are Bart D. Ehrman, John P. Meier, E.P. Sanders and Raymond E. Brown. Some still defend Bethlehem, though (like Jerome Murphy-O'Connor).--Karma1998 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nazareth. It makes perfect sense, as it explains what his disciples believed about him (Jesus of Nazareth) and it provides a good explanation for the oddness of the Nativity; It was a story invented to conform Jesus to an existing prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem without denying what everyone knew about his town of origin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me as well, since the Gospel of John even tacitly admits that Jesus didn't came from Bethlehem. The Nativity stories are probably invented to fulfill the prophecies in the Book of Micah.-Karma1998 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi bro! I'd like to suggest you a very interesting book by the late Catholic biblical scholar Joseph Fitzmyer about Paul the Apostle. It's basically a sum of his life and theology and was originally a part of the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, though it was later re-published as a separate book. In Italian it is called Paolo: Vita, viaggi, teologia, but I don't its title in English. An excellent work of scholarship.--Karma1998 (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998 Thanks for that. I'll search for an English translation this weekend. If I can't find one, well, maybe it's a good excuse to impara l'italiano. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

OpPoSiNg BiGotRy iS tHE rEaL biGotRy. I thought you knew? :P MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

MastCell oh, I knew that very well.

WoN't AnYoNe ThInK oF tHe ChIlDrEn??? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going to go with: NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION (to be deployed as an inapt metaphor in an effort to discredit basic human decency)! But that would have been too on-the-nose. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The far-right are such snowflakes! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey that offends me! Mr Ernie (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Feelings don't care about your facts! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

On-the-nose indeed: I honestly never expected to see the claim that the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was progressive legal reform. That's a brand new one, even for me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I had a multi-paragraph long essay of a post written on this (because accurately explaining the historiography of the Spanish Inquisition on even the most minor point without saying something stupid can't be done without at least 500 words...), but I'll save you the trouble and recommend Modern Inquisitions : Peru and the colonial origins of the civilized world if you're interested in discussion of the Spanish Inquisition as a legal system from a serious academic source. Basically describing it on Wikipedia is going to be hard to do because you have the competing false narratives of the black legend and the reaction to the black legend that says everything should be white-washed.

I'm sure whomever you all were discussing was probably not that interested in actually having a discussion about Inquisition in the context of early modernity. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

They claimed the purpose of the Spanish Inquisition was to "reduce the number of unjust executions," which was laughably naive. I thought about explaining that the reason it was formed was to wrest control of the local exercise of the Catholic Inquisition from the pope and getting into some of the nitty-gritty that you've touched on above, but I decided that would be showing off too much, so I just responded with the one sentence version: "It existed to stamp out heresy among nominal converts".

It never really cease to amaze me how different the common perception of historical subjects can be from the actual truth there, though in this case, the person who was wrong seem to have invented a view from whole cloth.

On another note, the golden lie is a page that seems like it might be in need of creation, as a counterpart to the one you linked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And on the other hand, there is always The Museum of Funny Walks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I could lend y'all a comfy chair? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

		The Wikignome Award
		I hope you've been given this award multiple times before, because you certainly deserve it. You are one of the most helpful editors that I have come across! ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 12:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Don't take this the wrong way, FormalDude, but I think my stalkers are going to get a great big laugh out of the notion that I'm a WP:Wikignome. Truth is, many an errant knight has tried to slay me, though to no avail thus far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Haha I definitely see that. I like to think Wikignomes are also those who stick to common sense principals rather than forcing their point of view on others. Either way, you seem humble enough to always pursue truth, and that's what matters. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 14:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I do appreciate the sentiment. Thanks. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it has somewhat taken on a life beyond you and I think having it in project space is good because it shows it is a view held by a significant portion of the community, and not just the thoughts of one person. On a personal note, I have an odd appreciation for it being in you user space, since it means people will no longer assume I wrote it and thus accuse me of [whatever political prejudice I supposedly have on a given day because I "wrote it"], but I do think having it in project space has benefits. That being said, you were the primary force behind it, so I'm not going to push beyond this note. All the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that it should be in the project space. I would find it pretty appalling if the community were unwilling to take the "blowback" for this "exclusionary" essay and instead insisted on making one user the constant target of seemingly ever Nazi who can get away with creating an extended-confirmed account. The recent kerfuffle has proven pretty conclusively that User X went after MPants is not enough to get them blocked for being a Nazi even in combination with a number of other explicitly fascistic edits, so having the essay in the MPants user space is already not fulfilling the one useful purpose it may have originally served, IMO. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually kind of agree with you on that, Tony. My move back to my userspace was the result of a couple of editors (Guy Macon being the foremost among them) who were personally attacking me at the talk for daring to disagree with them about what I meant when I originally wrote it. Thryduulf and Tamzin were the other two, and it got frustrating to an incredible degree, as Guy was basically acting like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way (and has continued to behave immaturely towards me ever since). It was a kneejerk thing in response to what Guy kept saying.

Had a more level-headed editor been around to point out that those three were not behaving themselves, it might not have gotten to that point. If you (and this includes you as well, Hijiri88) want to have a discussion about moving it back to Wikispace, I'm perfectly fine with that. I vaguely favor that move, assuming I can get a few more people watching the page so as to cut down on temper tantrums thrown over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll put in a !vote for keeping it in user space. Once it goes into WP: space, it will be vulnerable to never-ending battles over what it should or should not say. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a good point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Check this out if you want a laugh. I removed some unnecessary IPA, then was reverted by two separate editors who are apparently convinced that "hieroglyph[ic]s" is a super-rare "foreign origin" word (still not sure what would constitute a word that is not of foreign origin...), I gave them some pretty reasonable talk page arguments, which they promptly ignored, and started going off on tangents about how Webster doesn't IPA and therefore we should be using IPA (!?). I did the normal thing and said "Fine, I don't care enough to waste any more time on this" and they responded by pinging me back in and telling me that I'm the one creating drama by trying to give up and walk away. (I couldn't help but be reminded of this. Ironically, there too he took offence, or pretended to take offence, at my complimenting him in a manner one would expect a Wikipedian to be used to, and only retracted after several editors told him otherwise. These days, I'm afraid, I honestly don't have the patience to deal with Wikipedians who think their grasp of English is better than it actually is: I get enough of that in the real world. #JapaneseTranslationIndustry ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not asking for your input on the content dispute. I suspect you probably agree with me, but it would actually be somewhat reassuring to know that someone who listens to reason and makes coherent talk page arguments also would have reverted my edit, and therefore that my giving up out of frustration may have been for the benefit of the project. I'm just venting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I can withhold my opinion on the content just fine. DePiep definitely seems to be very sensitive where you're concerned. "useful-ass edit summaries" isn't the sort of thing any native English speaker I know would take offense at. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, but when I see IPA, straight away I think India Pale Ale' (wonderful stuff, requires a lifetime of study), and nothing else matters. I too have huge problems with non-english speakers, it is Dunny Kruger gone mad!!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a much better IPA than any stuffy pronunciation. Mmmm, I'm thirsty, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I have always deplored the WP use of IPA (agree that the drinkable version is good). I find it hopelessly user-unfriendly, and assume that it became The Way We Do Things^TM long ago, through some kind of brute-force consensus. But I've never wanted to try to change it to something more accessible, because I know the effort would be a waste of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I find that when I look at an article lead that really shouldn't have IPA but does, if I check the page history there's a one in three chance that it was added within the last three or four years by one particular user. I don't know how, but somehow this user has avoided getting a single edit-warring block or ban (personally I think his actions on one particular page, about a recent American video game set in medieval Japan, should be grounds for an indefinite ban on adding IPA to articles, but...). I really don't think it's The Way We Do Things^TM but rather how a small cadre of users, some of whom are non-native speakers of English who want to turn Wikipedia into a language textbook with others being weird prescriptivists who want to both show off their own mastery of IPA and eliminate variant pronunciations, do things. This is a particularly awkward example (Omnipaedista is not the editor referred to above -- I don't know them from Adam), since the /-mjʊ-/ pronunciation is common enough that it appears in both the OED and Webster and is the one used by the narrator of the Shōgun audiobook, and "samurai" is an English word of Japanese origin (actually quite different from the Japanese word) so it doesn't actually make sense to talk about how the Japanese pronunciation is closer to /-mʊ-/ (presumably the reason the IPA was considered necessary). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming we are talking Tsushima, its an actual Japanese place. Of significant historical relevance in Japanese history. So any (if merited) use of IPA (on the game page) should reflect the actual Japanese pronunciatian. From my brief reading of the talk page, was the argument that the IPA should reflect how the American developers mis-pronounce the Japanese name? Because thats insane. And also borderline racist. (Just to be clear, I dont blame the developers for not consistently getting it right, they arnt Japanese. I live in Wales, *No one* who isnt Welsh can sufficiently pronounce our place names.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay... thanks for making the point that I was trying not to make myself. The needless ANI kerfuffle makes me think that there was some amount of WP:HARASSMENT involved -- i.e., that it was less about a content dispute than about trying to "get me in trouble" -- so I didn't want to leave ammo out on the table like that. As for the content, I think a guide to the "correct Japanese" (i.e., Tokyo dialect) pronunciation of the place name would be completely off-topic for an article on an American video game, and I would even argue that it would be inappropriate for our article on the island. Not only would a nit-picky IPA spelling only represent one of several possible Japanese pronunciations of the island's name, but (i) most Americans and other members of English Wikipedia's target audience don't know how to read IPA for English words, (ii) the nitpicky IPA spellings for Japanese include characters that don't appear in the "English IPA" (for Japanese sounds that don't exist English) and therefore even I didn't learn when studying the IPA for a linguistics course I took in my first year of college (where my "major" was Japanese), (iii) those Japanese IPA characters represent sounds that few non-Japanese-speaking readers would actually be able to form correctly even if we explained the pronunciation to them, and (iv) Hepburn romanization of Japanese is already easier for most native English-speakers to read than IPA, because it was artificially designed as such. I suspect a lot of the IPA fans don't actually know or care about this last point (they definitely know about the others, but don't seem to care). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I can see the IPA being useful in cases like Kate Mara where the subject is a human being whose name will not appear in most standard dictionaries and does not have an "intuitive" pronunciation, but per this, it's not even working. (Yeah, I personally think more English-speakers should know how to read IPA, but if that's the motivation for those who add it to articles, it borders on WP:RGW...) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If there were an essay on when to use and when not to use IPA, containing your reasoning above, you could link that in such cases. Of course, some people will say, "it is just an essay". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of IPA, because the vast majority of people have no idea how to pronounce it, which is rather self-defeating, if you ask me. But I understand the utility of it for those who can read it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean... if the goal of these people is to make IPA as visible as possible to the vast swath of readers of Wikipedia, and therefore increase awareness of it among the general public (... general L1 English-speaking public? I don't know... do mainland Europeans and others who learn English as a second language actually learn to read the IPA? Japanese certainly don't, and this is true even for some Japanese I've met who are fluent in English), then I agree with them in theory, but this would obviously be in violation of WP:RGW. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Nothing against your right to talk, but why is this necessary? We agreed to keep the IPA, and you said that you didn't want to waste any more time on the dispute (I'm not entirely sure but I think a part of the comment is about DePiep or something else I'm unaware of). By the way, IPA is not only useful for those who can read it: hovering your mouse over the IPA will reveal how to pronounce each character with standard English. Look, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot, but are you very keen on removing it? I do not mind it that much; how do you want to proceed? (Apologies if this is bothering you MjolnirPants). Wretchskull (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We agreed to keep the IPA No, we did not agree to anythingthat (technically I said that I would "agree to disagree" and walk away, but that was before I was accused of being the one creating needless drama). You two exasperated me by constantly shifting your rationale and pretending I had not addressed your concerns, I didn't want to open an RFC (or an ANI thread), so I gave up. I then came here to vent, and you followed me here more than four days later for seemingly no reason other than continuing to cause trouble. Anyway, this latest argument for including IPA (that it is theoretically helpful even for those who are unable to read it and also don't know how to read the common English noun in question because hovering a cursor over it works differently from hovering a cursor over 99% of links on Wikipedia, if you just happen to know that) also doesn't work in 2021, since not everyone reads Wikipedia with a computer and mouse (I rarely do) and, as noted, you need to already know that and it's not at all intuitive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wretchskull Don't re-litigate this here. Hijiri is a Wikifriend of mine, who came here to vent. You showing up on my talk page to try and spread your argument around doesn't help that one little bit. So shoo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey at the article of sex. There were a lot of things you mentioned and you gave some advice. I do appreciate some of the advice you provided over there.

However, I do feel like there are some details that I probably didn’t mention over there and may some miscommunication. Also I noticed you mentioned something about how you aren’t entirely sure what’s going in my mind, so can I at least explain myself a bit?CycoMa (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

BY all means, CycoMa.

As I said, I don't believe you're engaged in POV pushing, it's just that you frequently remind me of editors who have engaged in it in terms of how your talk page comments sometimes read. I'm sure it's just a miscommunication and some uniqueness in the way you think (to be clear, I believe everyone has a unique way of thinking, and on certain subjects or mediums which vary from person to person, this will cause serious miscommunications). I'm not immune to it, either: on WP I frequently come across as grumpy and short-tempered, but the truth is just that I've always seen giving friends and coworkers a hard time is how one expresses friendliness. Of course, I can't grin it away on WP the way I do in real life, so I've developed a reputation as a hardass here, which requires effort on my part to assuage.

I'm glad to see you're taking some of my comments to heart, and I'd be very interested in you laying out your thinking here, as it might help me work with you better at the article. If you decide to write it in one big spiel, try to keep it structured, like an essay written for an English Comp class. That will make it much easier for me to follow along. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, you mentioned how some of the things I have said make it appear that I'm offended by some changes regarding some articles. This is a personal detail but I have ADHD which means my attention span is very poor and I get emotional easier. Doesn’t help some of the articles I edit are controversial.(There is a lot more just trying to keep this comment short.)

I will admit calling out medical sources like that was not ideal. Medicine and biology do indeed work hand and hand. Like at my community college I took a human anatomy class which is both a medical and a biological course. But, there are reasons I had issues with those sources in particular.(I will explain why later, just don't want this comment to be too long.)

Also I will admit calling those sources on sex propaganda was uncivil and I probably should have explained why those sources had issues in a better way. You mentioned how I don't have expertise or have a PHD sure I will admit that I am merely just some amateur editing on various topics but, you don't need a PHD to know that some sources don't have expertise on certain topics.

I have seen you comment and edit on various articles relating to the Bible and religion, you probably saw sources that don't know much about the topic, like theologians may argue that the Book of Exodus is historical but historians would say otherwise. This is a similar case, sociologists view on biological sex may not align with the with biologists view.(I’ll explain more in detail why they don't align just trying to make sure this comment isn't too long.)CycoMa (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this is all easy enough to follow. I'm going to take it all in, but I'll respond to a couple of points.

This is a personal detail but I have ADHD which means my attention span is very poor and I get emotional easier. That's about what I figured, but I didn't want to presume. In the spirit of sharing, know that I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome back in the early 90s, so I've got a good idea of what it's like constantly having to moderate yourself in order to communicate with others. I had an ADHD diagnosis as well, but that was years earlier.

You mentioned how I don't have expertise or have a PHD You're in the same boat as me, there, as well. I dropped out of high school, got my GED and joined the Army; didn't get a college degree until I was in my 30's, and it's just a bachelor's. I'm not an expert on anything except software design and some of my hobbies.

I have seen you comment and edit on various articles relating to the Bible and religion, you probably saw sources that don't know much about the topic, like theologians may argue that the Book of Exodus is historical but historians who say otherwise. Actually, in Biblical Studies, serious theologians and historians are generally on the same page, due to the heavy intersection between the two. Don't get me wrong, there are fundamentalists out there who believe in biblical inerrancy, but they're mostly marginalized from the serious scholarly community. Conversely, theologians who have a grasp of history are broadly welcomes, and many notable historians actually have their degrees in related subjects, including theology.

I've found that sociology (or more specifically cultural anthropology), might frequently have an issue with advocacy, but it's very rarely as big of a disconnect as one might expect from a cursory look. To get more specific, I strongly suspect that many sociologically-focused works might use "sex" and "gender" almost interchangeably, despite there being a very clear difference between the two. Or the paradigms through which they deal with the subject (the broad variety of possibilities, both real and imagined for sexes in both humans and animals) may be biologically classified as an imperfect binary or perhaps a strong binary clustering on a spectrum, but in sociology might be simplified as a smooth, infinitely-divisible spectrum. It doesn't necessarily make the sociological work wrong, it's just that it's written from a different perspective. Sociologists are going to talk about biological subjects by focusing on how those biological subject affect sociology, which means they're going to talk about sex almost exclusively as it pertains to gender, and perhaps even misuse the word a bit, due to common sociological jargon. They might start with a discussion of sex, and transition to a discussion of gender without ever making it clear to the reader that they're doing so, because to another sociologist, it might be obvious that that's what happening. Perhaps it's even expected.

So one has to keep that in mind when reading the sources, and not necessarily assume that two vastly different descriptions are necessarily mutually incompatible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)