User talk:MjolnirPants/Archives/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MjolnirPants. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was working on rewriting my assholish response. So I'll just post it here;

It's a sound refutation... ish. When somebody calls you a Nazi, you don't respond with no, let's have a rationale discussion. That's pointless because the person calling you a Nazi (assuming its for no reason or for holding an opinion they don't like) is not being rational. The problem with the rational left is that they respond to the irrational left with rationality. Why do you think Trump won? cause he's rational? no, course not. You respond with either; No I'm not, and you're an asshole for calling me that or alternatively; Sieg Heil and then call them an asshole. I think it was Sam Harris who said something like the first one. Preferably, your response will be the first one. That doesn't mean actually become a Nazi, start reading and believing Nazi propaganda as you suggest above (on the other page). Yes, duckfooting, sieg heiling and all the rest of it is a legitimate response, it's just not a productive one. That's where I agree with you. However, what you're not seeing is that I'm not trying to be productive with that response. I have no intent of having a rational discussion with say an Antifa supporter. Anymore than they would be interested in doing the same with me. It's pointless. Kekistan is doing a sufficient job I think of spitting in their face. You might be right about the alt-right cutting it's nose off too spite it's face. Antifa (for example) is doing something quite a bit dumber though. They call themselves anti-fascists, but, they behave exactly like I would expact a fascist to behave. Refer the Berkeley riots for evidence and how about that school teacher Yvette Felarca. When you call everybody a Nazi, you give them a common cause against you. The reason you find the alt-right getting involved in shitposting and hijacking all the memes, is because they have common cause with moderate people as well. Milk is a great example here; that meme was started by articles calling white people racist because lactose intolerance is higher in non-white communities. The only danger here is that you could accidentally make a bedfellow out of the movement. All of that said, I don't actually know anything about the alt-right movement as a whole. I don't really care too. I find ethnonationalists and religious nuts amusing, not intriguing. Also I'm left leaning. Also it's 2:55 am. This is about as rational as I'm going to get. Maybe I'll wake up and strike this too. Who knows. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A couple points:

That's pointless because the person calling you a Nazi (assuming its for no reason or for holding an opinion they don't like) is not being rational. As you pointed out, this is only true if the person calling Bob a Nazi is doing so for an irrational reason. When Alice calls Bob a Nazi because Bob follows Richard B. Spencer on twitter, has stormfront.org on his bookmark toolbar, and collects Nazi memorabilia, calling him a Nazi is a perfectly rational things.

You respond with either; No I'm not, and you're an asshole for calling me that or alternatively; Sieg Heil and then call them an asshole. Personally (and to be clear: I loves me some schadenfreude and trolling), I prefer to pull apart something they said to interpret it as racism, then ask them innocent-sounding questions about how they developed their odd views of race that actually trick them into saying things that sound even more racist until they rage quit the conversation. But then, I truly don't care what such people think, I enjoy tormenting them and I see no point to a rational response as it's not going to accomplish anything but wasting my time making it. Or else I'll simply agree with them, tell them to go fuck themselves and go away because I don't feel like torturing someone at the time. I'm sure as hell not going to adopt a racist persona in the misguided presumption that proving them right will somehow get under their skin. Because I know from experience that it won't.

Example: Remember when Spencer got punched on TV and the alt-right tried to drum up some sympathy, only to be met with that whole "Is it ever okay to punch a Nazi?" meme? That's how you do it.

However, what you're not seeing is that I'm not trying to be productive with that response. No, I implicitly understood that from the get-go. The FSM is not productive, the "atheist just love babies with ketchup!!" thing is not productive. Nothing I said hinges upon the response needing to be productive in any way, just the response not being unintentionally ironic and actively counter-productive (even to the goal of pissing them off).

Kekistan is doing a sufficient job I think of spitting in their face. As a card carrying liberal, I was overjoyed to hear about Kekistan. The more racism my political opposites adopt, the more ethically right I become. And I am one of those who think that racism is inherent in the alt-right movement. It doesn't spit in my face at all. It proves me right. It's awesome! If the alt-right wanted to spit in my face, they'd do something to show how hypocritical I was, instead of calling me a hypocrite and putting triple parentheses around my name because it happens to end in -berg. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm still awake, just one question since you've now said it twice; I was overjoyed to hear about Kekistan. The more racism my political opposites adopt, the more ethically right I become. Exactly how is Kekistan racist? <- Ah, you're referring to the Nazi symbolism involved. I thought you meant that creating an ethnicity is inherently racist. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The notion of Kekistan isn't inherently racist (I'm aware that 'kek' is similar in meaning to 'lol' or more specifically, that 'kekekeke' is the Germanic-language equivalent of 'hehehehe'), it's just that it's something that has been adopted by so many racists that it's acquired the trait. I linked to an example of overt racism on the Kekistan wiki in my comment at the wikispace page. Also, the pseudo-political dimensions of it are both a magnet for and a red flag of the alt-right, who are inextricably associated with chan-culture/shitposters to the point of having ideological roots in it (along with ecomonic and social Libertarianism and far-right politics).

My family tends to be quite far down the right wing of the political spectrum, to the point of me having an uncle who is an active member of the KKK, well into his retirement. He was the first person I ever heard mention "kekistan", and he actively refers to himself as a "shitposter" a "/b/tard" and as a member of the alt-right. I also have friends who have numerous associations with neo-nazi groups (they themselves aren't members, though I often question their tolerance), and the chan-culture/shitposter culture is strong with them, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a 4/8 channer or a /pol/er. I'm aware of both of these things but am not a member or even reader of any boards. Nah, I'm Kekistani in as far as I find it funny as hell. Beyond that, in terms a legitimate political movement, I couldn't care less. I'm interested in what's going on politically, but, I am far from being a competent pundit. Also, the Kek in Kekistan is referring to Kek (mythology). Kek being a frog and behaving similarly to Pepe the Frog. Hence; "Praise Kek". Anyway, night. It's now 4:39 AM and I am actually starting to feel drowsy... I think. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm (vaguely) aware of the associations with Egyptian mythology, but I know "kek" was a term used in that subculture long before it adopted Pepe. I also don't doubt there are a lot of apolitical shitposters, it's just that it's a culture that gave birth to the alt-right, and has been more-or-less taken over, or at the least eclipsed by the alt-right. That's why I don't lay any claim to being a part of it (Well, that and the association with other reactionary movements like anti-feminism). Anyways, have a good night's/morning's sleep. If you do decide to strike anything here after you wake up, feel free to blank the whole section, I won't mind a bit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

....special. Thank you for such a kewl surprise. I sometimes feel I'm deserving of it when a trout just won't do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You done messed up this time, boy! Don't put easily pressed buttons on your Talk page. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting for someone to trout me for the mistake of making it so easy to trout me! lol Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm...you may find the following useful if you decide to keep that button:  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough - it's for when a trout just isn't enough. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That self-whale thing is awesome. I bet you it took a true genius to make that template... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We had a discussion on the validity of the source I used to prove that Agent Orange is from Placentia on Oshwah's talk page. How about this? Is this a better source? I also noted that there was and is no source on the Agent Orange article even saying they're from Orange County.--DeathTrain (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: Yes, actually. That source looks perfectly acceptable. I'll format it correctly for you, just copy and paste the ref below to the end of the first sentence (after the period) when you make your edit.

<ref name="AmerHardcore">{{cite book|last1=Blush|first1=Steven|last2=Petros|first2=George|title=American Hardcore (Second Edition): A Tribal History|date=October 19, 2010|publisher=[[Feral House]]|location=Port Townsend, Washington|isbn=1932595899|page=99|edition=2nd|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=PFJjCwAAQBAJ&dq=agent+orange+placentia&source=gbs_navlinks_s|accessdate=22 April 2017}}</ref>

Also, you'll need to listen to Black Flag while you make the edit. Sorry, it's a requirement. Singing along is encouraged. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I made the edit and added the source. I also did as you said by listening to Rise Above while I did it, even singing along for a bit. Thanks for formatting it correctly for me.DeathTrain (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

... but I laughed my head off (figuratively) at the request form. Compliments. Kleuske (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker) If anyone can (literally) figure out how to laugh one's ass off, please share. Diets don't work. Atsme📞📧 19:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)}

@Kleuske: I had to look it up; I knew there was a way to do it. It's actually just a method you call from index.php, and you provide it with a template page (in this case Wikipedia:Requests for Angry Mobs/new request). Just hover over the link to see the string. Then, some creative use of <nowiki> and <noinclude> tags to make sure it shows up right and voila!

@Atsme: According to a random google search result, you're wrong. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though. If you figure something out, let me know. I stopped lifting weights a decade ago, and my wife is starting to comment on the effects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Uhm...good'un...but in the future, please cite sources per WP:MEDRS. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to agree with me, disagree with me, or call me horrible names and question my integrity/sanity/intelligence; feel free to do so at my talk page.

As much as I might enjoy calling you horrible names and question various aspects of your character/well-being/capability; unfortunately, I’m not educated in such, and, as it happens, I agree with you. Mayhap I’ll have better luck in your next entreaty. (This edit may self-destruct after a random period of time.) Objective3000 (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I do love a good self-destructing message. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Re the RDC discussion of font tags, I have boldly created Wikipedia:Signatures#Font tags. There was a shorter and stronger statement on that page at one point, but it was removed some time ago, possibly because it was too strong and/or possibly because it was within the "Appearance and color" section which has policy status (I don't recall). Any feedback welcome. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: That looks great to me! There is one question, though. Does the mediawiki software parse it on its own? I don't think it does, but if I'm wrong, then they'll continue to work long after browsers drop support. I know a way to check, though. I'll reply again (sans ping) with the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Good news (for you, not for anyone using font tags), it's rendered by the browser. So your addition is spot-on accurate, and quite useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. We'll see if it flies. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

BTW I didn't receive the above ping, and I can't see anything wrong with it. That's a first for me. How about pinging me again as a test. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Weird... I didn't do anything wrong that I'm aware of. @Mandruss:. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Got that one. The first one is not in my notification history, so I didn't just miss it somehow. Score one for the poltergeist. I recently saw a comment to the effect of "Maybe his pinger isn't working" (referring to the ping target), but I took it with a grain of salt since I had never seen that happen in 4 years. Shrug. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Maybe his pinger isn't working" That's what she said.

It's happened to me before. I've gotten them late, and I've missed them entirely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what she said. Hmmm, Urban Dictionary confirms (def 5). Learn something every day! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, the most versatile joke on earth. And it has some pretty good staying power, too.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding dispute resolution. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document".The discussion is about the topic Pizzagate. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Terrorist96 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I've only just worked out how to reply. There has been a problem with some of the Sceptic comments on the 'Jenny Cockell' page. BBC and other researchers confirmed by interviewing witnesses that Cockell spoke about her past lives and named and located the village of Malahide in childhood. It's possible that the sceptical replies claiming that the name and location of the village were 'a mystery' were taken via third party information. I tried to correct it because content that is potentially libellous is against Wikipedia policy. I have noted that the comments have now been removed so the issue may have been resolved. Jonparkyn (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@JonParkyn: Okay, I'm going to tell you something right now and I need you to understand and either accept it, or make the effort to verify it because it's true: You don't know what libel is. Your accusations, however, are potentially libelous. It's not libel to debunk someone's extraordinary claims. It is libel, however, to accuse someone of slander without presenting any evidence. Right now, the best sources we have are from the skeptics, who (believe it or not) have a reputation for being honest almost to a fault when it comes to these sorts of things.

I strongly suggest you read WP:BLP, and WP:V and WP:IRS. Those will outline how we write about living people, and what is permissible to say about living people on WP (even in edit summaries). I also strongly suggest you start commenting at talk, and refrain from editing the article until you can show the rest of us that you understand our policies and guidelines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Happy Star Wars day MP! Lord High Permanent Senior Undersecretary to L3X1 (addressed as His Worshipfulness Lordy Lord) 18:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You know this is an AMAZINGLY bad idea right? Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

	A song for you!
	Something to maybe (hopefully) cheer you up in the wake of that noticeboard ridiculousness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CsJCa2TlXU bonadea contributions talk 12:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I mean, you did request a boomerang. --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, do I love a good song pun :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ooooh, I like this boomerang... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Mark Dice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2601:183:8202:3D81:498A:6554:5A3F:CF9B (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You should look up what edit warring means. I don't think it means what you think it does..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In a way my fault, I left one of thee on his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂😂🤣 - ok, I feel refreshed and ready to get back to work after reading some of the posts on your TP. Perhaps Gwyneth Paltrow should try it as a much safer alternative. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I should post a few pictures of myself up. That way, it'd be just as steamy as her other method. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your revert stated "first addition out of context, second doesn't exist in source".

The first was not, at all, out of context. The section of the book is explicitly discussing informal fallacies: it says on page 33: "Such fallacies are often called informal". The example it then gives is "x is an authority and x says that P" logically proves P. The portion which says "statements are true or false because of what they say, not who says them" was a direct quote. So how precisely is any of that out of context or nonexistent in the source?

The other was, again, a more-or-less direct quote and it was directly talking about how the argument has classically been viewed. In what way does that not exist or is taken out of context? TheLogician112 (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheLogician112:See the talk page. I've explained it there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Repeated_attempts_to_close_a_discussion_by_an_involved_editor

Since you've repeatedly violated Wikipedia's policies regarding closing discussions, I've filed a report on the administraotr's noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C583:2370:651D:41CC:9232:B7CE (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jars of Clay (album). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi MjolnirPants. I don't know whether you remember or not but we previously had a discussion here on your talk page back in January or February, and I had given a request to you about this file and asked for a colorized version of it as the PNG format that was created by another graphist was of low quality. Anyway, I added that photo to the article and right now, after a few months, we're again having problem with other users about choosing a suitable photo for the article. As the other existing photos are of low quality as well, I think creating a colorized version of that black and white photo is the only logical option. I'm not trying to force you to do it as fast as possible; I just wanted to make sure that you're working on it. Many thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 05:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: Yeah, I remember. I still have the original files, lemme finish them up and I'll show you the result. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I sympathise. I'm from Miami, which is hardly a typical southern town, although my mothers family came from DeLand and the small village of Glenwood which had one road - two lanes covered with shell and a row of oak trees going down the middle. I see that Peace Talks is a long way from being finished. Annoying that Butcher is taking so long. How is going to produce 5 more books and an "apocalyptic trilogy"? I gather he has a plan, I hope I live to see it finished! Doug Weller talk 18:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I grew up an hour north of your hometown. Similarly, my mother came from Canal Point, Florida back when the population was an order of magnitude smaller.

I haven't been following the news from Butcher lately (whose site is currently being hacked away at, if I'm any judge of error messages) because I've had plenty more fiction to occupy my time. I was hoping to be able to read Peace Talks before the end of the year, but that seems unlikely at this point. Oh well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I remember when Orlando was a small town. And when driving from Miami to North Carolina took 3 days. We always stopped in some small town in Florida for lunch - the place stank of the sulphur water. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: That was before my time, but I was a bit of a road-trip enthusiast in my late teens and early twenties, and I used to stop at the Desert Inn and Restaurant every time I was in the area (and it tickles me to no end that this place has a WP article, though I'm not too sure if it's actually notable enough for one). US-441 was always my preferred route north, because it didn't get a lot of long-distance traffic, meaning from St. Cloud South to Okeechobee, it was purely rural. Last year, I drove that route with my brother and I was pleasantly surprised to see that nothing's really changed, except that the ice cream shop at Yeehaw Junction is a bit bigger and less sketchy-looking, having been taken over by a Stucky's. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

...an infobox spinning off the PhD infobox that says: PhffT | This user is a doctor of everything. All of their work has been doctored. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:That made me laugh out loud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you build one for me? Please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Show me the specific PhD infobox you are referring to (I think you might mean a userbox). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean userbox. ugh...proof why I need help. -

PhD	This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Physics.

^{Atsme📞📧} 00:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I know there's a pretty broad consensus to keep the majority of userboxes in userspace, so I'm going to make it in mine without moving it. But I'll post it here as soon as I'm done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• How's this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• ❤️ THANK YOU!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI (@Opabinia regalis: that was brunodam. I'm considering writing a bunch of lines of code to automatically generate his standard post block replies: "you caught just a few of my sockpuppets" + "I'm gonna meet you" + [look at my blog! I have just written some nonsense based upon the only info I know about you]. --Vituzzu (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: Yep, thanks. First time I've come across this particular sockfarm. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits to Wikipedia that are objectively fucking awful, as you did with this edit to Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Doing objectively fucking awful things is generally considered bad form, and increases the likelihood that editors will harm themselves or others. If you would like to experiment with doing objectively fucking awful things, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, please submit them to the appropriate forum. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This leads me to wonder at the state of a world where taking a photo of your cat shitting and uploading it to the internet is considered to be helping to contribute to the body of human knowledge. I suppose it's less awe-inspiring than the contributions of this lovely fellow (WARNING: That link is absolutely NSFW). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Meh. It's better than finding your 1,000th dick pick on new files feed. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly why I don't ever so much as glance at the new file feed.

While we're on the dual subjects of dick pics and horrible jokes, I recently offered my wife a dick pic to get her through her work day, and when she accepted, I sent her a picture of me giving my older son a noogie while playing keepaway with my younger son's juice box (hey, I didn't specify what kind of dick would be in the pic). She was not amused.

Her boss, however has a keen appreciation for dad jokes and a loud voice, meaning she managed to be overheard by her boss telling my wife that I sent the best dick pic she's ever seen. So don't knock a bad joke; you never know when they will result in true hilarity (and a meeting with HR). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

MP,

I would appreciate some input on this.

Many thanks;

87.1.122.76 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I assume this because you have the "IKEA" userbox at your page and, your user name sounds Swedish with Old Norse Viking letters on your signature. And yes, I love the fact that Sweden is a multicultural country too (like Australia, where I live). — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 09:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Nope. I live in 'Murika. But my family is Norwegian, and I wish the US of A were actually a secular nation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice stuff. We sometimes call our country Straya, mate! And how did you discover what I wrote before I changed 'secular' to 'multicultural'? — AWESOME meeos ！ * ([ˈjæb.ə ət məɪ])) 13:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Awesomemeeos: Your edit summary clued me in that you made an edit to your original comment, so I just checked the diff to see what it was. I know religion is a touchy subject for some people, but I'm pretty open to discussing anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

On your user page, it's fucking around with the appearance of the page. It's nothing like as annoying as the upside down "Contents" section on this page, but nevertheless. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How is it doing that? I don't see any fuckiness going on in my browser, but I have no attachment to the placement or size of the image.

Re the contents: I've actually gotten quite used to it. Just always click the top entry to see what's going on most recently. It's right there at the top. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I made some changes to it, does that fix it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dunno what you changed, didn't look, but yes, fixed. I'll cope with the upside down contents I suppose. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not getting rid of the contents in the foreseeable future. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(thought you should know that the ping didn't work. dont know why not. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC))

Weird... I know I did it right, I didn't edit it in or anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I see that a closure is already requested at ANRFC back in late March. Do you think one closer is enough, or more than one is needed? As I see, the discussion went one for months without a closure. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Well, ideally it would be one admin closing it, because more than that might result in no consensus on how to close it (making my head spin, but still). The issue is that it's so long and contentious, with tempers flaring in the extended discussion. And the numbers, while favoring the "support" side, aren't overwhelming. So the closer would need to read through the !votes and discussion and weigh the merits.

To be honest, this seems to me (who is familiar with the discussion already) to be fairly clear cut: The "oppose" !votes and debaters all hinged their !vote upon either not liking it (which is a legitimate if lightweight reason, given that it's a change to policy being proposed) or upon the very (very) flawed assumption that implementing it would cause more work for editors making cats in Special:Wantedcategories. And by "flawed" I mean "blatantly and obviously untrue as proven by the most strident opponent who went ahead and implemented part of the proposal anyways in a very bitter and WP:POINTY while refusing to admit being wrong about anything." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All right. If the second closer is unnecessary, the closure shouldn't have taken months, should it? You don't mind me re-requesting a closure at WP:AN, do you? I can request just one closer there if you like. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I would actually greatly appreciate it if you made such a request. I'm at the point where I don't really care that much which way it's closed (though I think anyone familiar with it and objective will close it as supported by better arguments and a slight majority), so long as it gets closed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I requested it at WP:AN. George Ho (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Justcurious has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to change your closing statement myself (here), but the current one suggests that the whole thread was off-topic. Although the thread should not have persisted that long, its original purpose still had to do with the article: the use of colloquial "theory" vs "argument". The thread appears to have confirmed that the consensus is to avoid the use of "theory" to describe it, for good reasons. Maybe a note about this in the closing summary would be useful... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I actually had the exact same thought when I closed. If I'm not the only one thinking it, then it stands to reason that changing it would be a good thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Super, thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 20:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:

@Roxy the dog:

If either of you get the ping, do me a favor and let me know. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Worked. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this time it worked fine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tfut has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

Referring back to our conversation here...

I tried using AutoHotKey (finally) and am having a problem. I have all my coordinates and I think that I've got everything typed in correctly. But when I run it, I just get most of the text on the page highlighted and then the web page scrolls to the end. I don't know if it matters but I have two monitors. And this is being done on my main monitor. This is what I have so far...

#NoEnv  ; Recommended for performance and compatibility with future AutoHotkey releases.
; #Warn  ; Enable warnings to assist with detecting common errors.
SendMode Input  ; Recommended for new scripts due to its superior speed and reliability.
SetWorkingDir %A_ScriptDir%  ; Ensures a consistent starting directory.

CoordMode, Mouse, Screen

^+l:: ;this tells AHK what key you want to press to trigger this script
MouseGetPos mX, mY ;this records the current position of your mouse. Type this line exactly as you see it
Click 800, 425 ;this is the click to drop down the pulldown menu 
Click 800, 475 ;This is the click to select the option
Sleep, 500 ; wait for the radio buttons to load in the page based on the menu choice above
Click 708, 495 ;This is the click to select the radio button 
Click 800, 545  ;this is the the click to select the text box for your name
Send Joe Dismas ;Replace "Joe Dismas" with your name
Click 800, 595 ;this is the second click to select a control 
Send 12345 ;replace 12345 with your employee number 

MouseMove mX, mY ;this returns your mouse to the original position it was at, type this line exactly as you see it
Exit

The first 4 lines come as a default at the top of the script. I've tried it with and without those first four lines and get the same behavior. Any ideas?

Thanks, †dismas†|^(talk) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly how long is this break. YOU ARE MISSED. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, he hasnt even been gone a DAY! :) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: what calendar are you using? The unspoken word among some editors is that only productive editors are missed after a day...or a week + 1 day as in MP's case. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Well on my screen at that point it was showing his last contribution (editing his editnotices) as 20th June. Which I only noticed because I was leaving him a link to an article about Australian big things. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. I was going by the date of his break notice. I'm still waiting for the steamy picture of himself that he threatened to post, and wondered if maybe he was eluding to this one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Atsme Do you mean allude, as in point to, or elude, as in don't stop running? Anyway, DYK that our sandbox has more watchers then Donald Trump does, by a long shot? Now we know where all those people were in Januar;, adding the sandbox to their watchlist :) d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Good catch L3X1. Now fixed or at least it is in my conflated thoughts where I created the elusion delusion illusion that it's fixed . Psst...it would be "than" as the second element in a comparison. BTW, your mention is the first I've heard of a WP sandbox. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, my last edit was just to put an editnotice up so that anyone hitting "Edit" without paying attention to the floating wikibreak banner would be aware. I don't know when I'll be ready to come back and start dealing with the non-stop POV pushing and dick-measuring that goes on in so many talk pages here. In the meantime, here's that steamy pic I promised. Don't make fun of my third testicle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's my understanding that 3 testicles and 2 heads are better than none. Enjoy your break but not of the bone kind. ^{And that red banner is annoying - makes it very difficult to annoy you. Atsme📞📧} 19:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've become tired of it. We'll be glad to see you back, if you return. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate - 23:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi MjolnirPants. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James O'Keefe. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Stalking/not stalking... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeppers! Yay!! Welcome back! ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, "I'm back!" —PaleoNeonate - 18:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

^{That was a little creepy.} 🤣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEmDmMlBqy4

Objective3000 (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sweet. I like the Yardbirds. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think this one is probably more true. But I'm not going to argue too much with folks paying me compliments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hah. Yeah, the Yardbirds song is sort of the opposite of the point. Somehow I missed the Dead South. Thanks for the Southern strings. Music cures many ills. Hope “Music” understands you did him a Mitzvah.:) In the end, we all need someone. And, in keeping with the Southern theme, you may need a drink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAYhQsQhSY

Should you accept this assignment, delete after read. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

For your offer of mentorship for MusicPi. I can't think of a better person to do it and wish you both well. I didn't anticipate the broadening of the topic ban but looking at the discussion I think it was justified. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It's really no big deal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add that your suggestion that he/she might have said was very well written: "I can fully understand the attraction and benefits of organized religion, especially when one is raised in a culture defined in part by it. Indeed, progressive elements of religion are often amazingly sane and logical, and on balance produce far more good than harm. But the potential for harm that comes with dogmatic and intolerant religious beliefs is, without question, one of the most damaging forces this world has ever known; the root of much evil." To a large extent that reflects my views. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Social justice warrior? Are you one of them????174.26.4.190 (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a teeshirt with the Punisher logo printed on it, along with the words "I'm an SJW..." and on the back it says "...bitch." I also have one that replaces "SJW" with "feminist". I sometimes wear the latter to counter protest anti-abortionists at my local women's clinic. I almost always wear the former to any political event, and I regularly wear it to the gun range (one of my favorite haunts). So not only am I one of them, I'm the one MRMs and other reactionary nincompoops have nightmares about. :) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy the consensus issue. But let the at least two other editors bring their own complaints, or it's you trying to wp:canvass. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Telling someone to wait for a consensus is not canvassing. Dear god, please read the policy pages before you try to cite them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

MP,

I think there is a confrontational element in wikipedia (or perhaps just in my interaction with it), which I let influence me in our current interaction. If one uncouples said confrontational element from the attempt of improving the encyclopedia, and allows it to influence oneself, it can be toxic - it is toxic, actually, with examples ranging from wikibreaks, to pages upon bitter pages of ANI, ARBCOM, etc. So I'll grab the chance to apologize and thank you for reminding me that there are also positive aspects of editing WP. Just hope I can build on them and remember it next time someone disagrees with me. It apparently does not take much to do so; in this case, all what was needed is a neutral/polite tone in an answer; lucky I've been able to perceive it. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. We've interacted before, me via a number of IPs, and once upon a time I edited with an account, should you wonder. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What account? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

User:MinorStoop 82.50.226.41 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Any reason you're not logging in? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

An incident similar to this, which went sour. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, MinorStoop has never been blocked or subject to any sanctions. But using an IP address to avoid scrutiny for whatever reason is sockpuppetry and grounds for immediate blocking. If an individuals IP range can be established, it can even result in the range being blocked. Going through MinorStoop's contributions, I can't see anything that would suggest a reason for this. So you might understand that I'm a little skeptical. It doesn't make sense for MinorStoop to stop using their account and start editing from their IP. Especially because I now know quite a bit more about you, such as your ISP and what city you live in. Editing as an IP is significantly less anonymous than editing with a username. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no way, of course, for me to convince you that I used to edit with the MinorStoop account, so I won't try. _I_ know I did so, and this is going to be the whole issue. And, no, there has been no block, ban, outside intervention. However, at the time I felt that the other user was a lot less wp:civil than you have been now. I realize now he wasn't, but that misperception has been enough for me to lose any motivation I might have had to have an account. If you think I'm too thin-skinned for my own good, you're likely correct.

Considering that my edits consist mostly in dealing with a few spelling/grammar mistakes, the occasional alteration of a Dresden Files page, and the even rarer disagreement with another user, I don't feel motivated to create another account - I'll always be a very minor editor on WP, skulking unregistered at the fringes of the real action. I don't think anybody will feel strongly enough to start a sockpuppetry investigation over this.

I can only try to remember that other users' objections may be as well motivated as my original edit and that said objections should be taken into account. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UigeqHfejn1dn (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• As the thread has been closed. I believe you can safely file this away. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we always follow WP:UCRN when moving articles, or does possible offensiveness also play a role? Aren't arguments for moving genderqueer similar to arguments for moving sex reassignment surgery? Davey2010 said, "Offensiveness can play a part in article moves but in this case neither names are offensive so for this article it's simply a COMMONNAME issue." [1]. I told him I've looked for sources saying that "genderqueer" is offensive, but I see none, and "non-binary gender" isn't well defined. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You should stop avoiding your block by sockpuppeting too. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Block? Do you think I'm UigeqHfejn1dn (talk · contribs)? I'm not. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Haha. Of course you are;) Anyway, to answer your question, a Watchlist is what helped me see that you are sockpuppeting, and all the new posts you made, because I can choose which pages on the project I am following. Good eh? -Roxy the dog. bark 10:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Question: Does my contribution history or typing style look anything like UigeqHfejn1dn? Do I appear to be as inexperienced an editor as UigeqHfejn1dn? I'm sharing an Internet connection/computer with someone, but not a Wikipedia account, and I'm not UigeqHfejn1dn. I'm not socking. I see Doug Weller higher up. He's a CheckUser. You can ask him to look at me since you think there is probable cause here and it might not be a fishing violation. Anyhoo, you can keep thinking I'm a sock, but I came to this talk page to ask MjolnirPants about the genderqueer page since it's undergoing a move discussion and the "offensive" and "non-binary gender is more popular" claims aren't supported. UigeqHfejn1dn seems to be an activist. I think UigeqHfejn1dn would argue for moving that article. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 10:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Answering your Q, yes, this does look directly as if you are user:UigeqHfejn1dn editing logged out, because it is the same subject at the very same time. However, A checkuser geolocates you somewhere else. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• As fishy (or maybe WP:DUCKy) as this smells, it seems there's a legitimate question here that related only tangentially to my interaction with the sockmaster, so I'm going to AGF and address it.

As far as offensiveness is concerned, Wikipedia is not censored. In practice, offensiveness is generally not a consideration. The closest thing to it we have are strictures against libel or slander. Wrt this particular issue, this is -quite literally- the first time I've heard anyone express the opinion that "genderqueer" is an offensive term, though I can understand the rationale. However, I am personally acquainted with transgendered and asexual individuals who have identified as genderqueer, and I've yet to hear anything about it being offensive. I've been told that "queer" may be offensive or endearing, depending on how and in what context they are used. I have not done any research into the situation, as whether or not a term is offensive is usually quite obvious, and when it is not, simply speaking to an individual to whom the term's idiomatic meaning applies can usually shed much light on the situation.

So yes, WP:COMMONNAME would override any concerns about the potential offensiveness of the subject. As disagreeable as it sounds, I contend that it is possible that, were WP to exist in the 1950's, "fag" or "queer" might be the proper name of the article Homosexuality, though I would expect the text to prefer more clinical terms. The issue with naming articles really boils down to making it possible (and hopefully easy) for people to find them; not using the most precise term for the subject. I've been on the opposite side of this issue before, though I've come to accept that I was wrong about it then. So I do understand the position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello MjolnirPants, PCHS-NJROTC has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@PCHS-NJROTC: No worries: I'm enjoying the back-and-forth. You made a great argument by comparing RW to those two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, leading off a disagreement with some wikilove is probably one of the best ideas anyone had here. Hope you don't mind if I steal it from you from time to time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem,. I'm actually enjoying the debate too, as long as it doesn't turn ugly or get disruptive to Wikipedia. The way I look at it is that we (should) have the same goal, and that is to create a quality encyclopedia for anyone in the world to enjoy, and because we live in a diverse world, there's going to be disagreements, but as long as we work together rather than against each other, the end result should be good. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I know we disagree about quite a few things, but this surely is not one of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That damn thread is too long to find my last post so I can simply add the following: in which case use in-text attribution. Just wanted to make sure you saw that part. And that's the end of that. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I understand complete. I added a second section break with my typical amazing insight into proper naming of section breaks.

I'm goign to reply here to your comment: "White Supremacist" is a factual statement, whereas something like "racist" isn't; a person (such as Taylor) can truly believe that the nebulous "worth" of a person is identical across the races, while simultaneously saying very racist things. Similarly, a terrorist can truly believe the people they kill aren't innocent. But a white supremacist; a person who advocates (not necessarily believes) that whites are superior doesn't have any logical leg to stand on. Plus, there are no RSes contesting the notion. There were plenty of (marginal, but still) RSes contesting the notion that Trump is racist, for example. I even saw a Fox News source argue that Trump's remarks about the "Mexican" judge weren't racist because Trump's racism against Mexicans lent credence to his claim of a COI, and as such "concluding" that Trump wasn't racist. It boggles the mind, but still.

Now, I have been seeing a push from the white supremacist crowd to "re-brand" themselves as white nationalists (even though there's a difference). Should that succeed, I'd be open to swapping out all the WS labels for WN labels on the basis of "that's what they identify as, it's an acceptably descriptive term and it's used by RSes." But until then, when the vast majority of RSes use WS to describe Taylor, I just don't see how we can not do so without implicitly acknowledging that white supremacists are "bad". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

All supremacism is bad, if I may coin the phrase...but it's not the place of WP to use the terminology for a number of different reasons...beginning with the fact that it is based on OPINION not science. Just because multiple (many being biased) sources call someone a "supremacist" - be they white, black, yellow or brown - doesn't make it so. See this article by the same accusers of all the people they consider racists/supremacists/whatever. Then look at the leads of Ayo Kimathi, Hitler and Charles Manson. I'll give you a moment to digest that food for thought before you jump into the pool. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is bad, but it's not an entirely opinion-based judgement. (I only say "entirely" because people have opinions about facts all the time, including opinions that run counter to facts.) There is a well-defined meaning of the term "white supremacist", and whether or not Taylor fits that bill isn't, epistemologically speaking, a matter of opinion. It's a verifiable fact that he advocates a view that white people are superior. Some people may have contrary opinions, but we don't need to pay lip service to their views because they're not in the RSes, and they're not based in reality.

I really do understand the concerns: calling someone a white supremacist looks like character assasination, like WP is trying to discredit his views. That's a legitimate concern right up until you run into the fact that his views are white supremacist. Us not using the term would be an exercise in the exact sort of political correctness people who take issue with the label being applied generally advocate against. It also sends a message that WP won't label him with that because it's bad which clearly assigns a political POV to WP. I don't like PC culture, and I don't like WP intentionally giving itself a political POV (even implicitly). So I just can't get behind the arguments that the term is inappropriate.

That being said, I'm more than open to the notion of using attribution. But WP:YESPOV is pretty clear that we should not state opinions as facts, and as far as the RSes are concerns, "Taylor is a WS" seems to be put forth as a fact. If someone can produce a good selection of RSes arguing that Taylor's not an WS, I'll support attribution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Understood, but the most convincing argument for me is this one when establishing fact from opinion. 😘 It's Friday night, so enjoy!! I intend to do just that! ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a couple of ways in which I agree with Tryp's statement. But I don't see that as overcoming the whole "no RSes disagree, and a very large number of RSes agree" point.

There's one other reason I would support attribution, by the way. If I thought my !vote would tip the balance enough to make it a consensus. The thing with me is that I don't think this is a very obvious decision, at all. Both sides have pros and cons. But the idea of WP I have is a WP that is exactly what it says on the tin; no POV, no censorship, no political correctness, no opinion, no suggestions, just a great big reference work written in the most boring prose we can write. From where I sit, "Jared Taylor is a white supremacist who..." is about as boring as it gets. Because that's what he does professionally: he espouses white supremacist ideals. That's what his ideology is: white supremacy. That's what helps define his personal life (what race is his wife? friends? family?), his public persona...

But like I said: It's not an obvious thing. There are pros and cons to each. I understand many of the concerns expressed by those opposed to labelling Taylor in wikivoice, and I do not dismiss them.

And one more thing... (you're gonna loooooooove this, sorry!)

...I think it's pretty obvious that the SPLC is an RS for such claims. I've seen the arguments on both sides, and they boil down to "the SPLC meets every criteria for reliable sources we have." vs "The SPLC has had a couple controversies!" I'm sorry, but "fallible" isn't a scathing critique, seeing as how it applies to every single source that ever has, does or will exist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that they're RS per numerous disputes that have proven them wrong. Britannica even questions their reliability, and that of ADL. Sorry but true. Since you're disputing what's written in WP:BLP and WP:LABEL, shouldn't you be attempting to change them to possibly read multiple opinions automatically make it fact; therefore, can be stated in WP voice with no attribution necessary? 😂 That would be a fun discussion. In the interim, we're stuck with what we have, and MOS is very clear about labeling (you can skip to the next paragraph since you probably know the PAGs by heart): Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Calling a BLP a white supremacist (a highly charged racist statement) or even a freedom fighter is to be avoided unless widely used (by RS) and with in-text attribution. WP:BLP policy unambiguously states, All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Ok, so the sources are arguably RS for labeling this guy a ws according to policy. I have yet to see anything that is verifiably convincing that he is much more than a defender of the Caucasian race at a time when it clearly needs defending. White supremacist is a term which may mean different things to different people because it's a "societal issue" or you could say "tribal issue" based on opinion, interpretation and circumstantial evidence rather than scientific fact derived from clinical trials or repeated experimentation. What I've read so far says he's not except for the sources using that label once, possibly twice throughout an entire book or article, more as an aspersion than anything else, and unsupported by footnotes except for a few instances that typically cite SPLC or ADL in the work, the latter of which are not RS for such labeling. What have you read that unequivocally supports your POV? Please quote and cite so I, too, can be enlightened. I'm not arguing against inclusion of the labels if they are verifiably cited and are not being presented as fact in Wiki voice. It's hard enough trying to maintain consistency in our MOS throughout the encyclopedia, but also having to ward off advocacies and racial or political hatred is not part of our job description, and neither is diagnosing people as racists or supremacists regardless of their color. Try adding white supremacist in the lead of Hitler, or supporter of Islamic terrorism in the lead of Anjem Choudary and see what happens. 🤣 ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that they're RS per numerous disputes that have proven them wrong. Compared to the number of times they've been inarguably right? Compared to the number of other indisputably reliable sources who, themselves, consider SPLC reliable enough? No, I'm sorry; but you're simply suggesting that because the SPLC is not perfect that they're not reliable. That is not a convincing argument as I pointed out above.

shouldn't you be attempting to change them to possibly read multiple opinions automatically make it fact; therefore, can be stated in WP voice with no attribution necessary? Try to find a definition of "fact" in WP:PAG. I'll save you some time; it doesn't exist. However, we have explicit policies like "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." which is as close as we get to a definition of "fact": a factual assertion made by reliable sources which is not contested. So, without those RSes claiming that Taylor is not a WS...

I have yet to see anything that is verifiably convincing that he is much more than a defender of the Caucasian race at a time when it clearly needs defending Let me tell you a story about my workplace.

A large chunk of our business comes from a web-based service we offer, though we also operate in engineering and construction. So as you can imagine, the state of our web technology is of huge importance. The other software developer -let's call him J- is a web technology expert. He's highly proficient with the particular technologies we use to provide our web-based services. They are very complex technologies. I, on the other hand, am a specialist in desktop applications and integrated systems. I'm more "old school," and while I could (and have) put together a pretty decent website, I've no experience working with tech as complicated as our web tech. J has over 2 years of experience working with it, and is arguably the most knowledgeable person in the world, seeing as how he had re-written it from scratch and expanded upon the original tech significantly since he was hired. Much of the tech J was in the process of developing is urgently needed tech that will save our company millions per year, and expand our capabilities, as well as making our existing capabilities stronger.

On Friday, I and the other software developer at my workplace, along with our department head, had a meeting with the owner of the company. We went over the state of the web technologies J had developed, as well as the state of technologies he was currently developing on request from the owner (I will call him B). B listened carefully, asking numerous questions about the current state and the end result. When J was done, B fired him.

B then told him to get me up to speed on the web tech, and to have his desk cleared out by the end of the day. J was obviously upset, but he went over the tech with me, cleared out his desk and left. Later in the day, B pulled me into his office, gave me a key to the company headquarters, a small raise and a budget for IT certifications. He told me they'd be hiring a new software developer to work under me.

On balance, B made one of the most phenomenally stupid decisions I have ever seen in entire life. I am now responsible for an extraordinarily complicated technology which I barely understand, and which lies outside my area of expertise. If anything goes wrong in the next few months (months during which I will be frantically memorizing notes, code and systems in order to try and get a grasp on it) there is almost nothing I can do to address the problem. We will loose tens of thousands of dollars in revenue a day, for many weeks until I can learn enough about the specific systems experiencing the problem to diagnose and repair it. The database that supports our web technology is also a proprietary, third-party one. I will give you three guesses which employee at our company had a decent understanding of it. Hint: it wasn't me. All of this is information B had. I spelled it out for him when I met with him later that day, just to make sure he knew. He did. He chose to take the chance that I will be able to temporarily handle both my job and J's job until a new developer is hired, and then successfully train that developer on a system I don't understand myself, as well as be an effective manager. Have I mentioned that I've worked for this company for less than a year? I don't mind saying that my resume and my personal presentation lend themselves to the notion that I am intelligent and capable, and a good leader. But B has spent less than a dozen hours with me since I was hired. He has essentially gambled that his first impression of me was a vast understatement of my potential. And what does he stand to gain from this? Nothing. I'm now earning more than J was, and the new developer will be earning almost the same as J was. Development of our tech will absolutely slow down, no matter how quickly I catch up. It will be full of more bugs and will require more monitoring. In truth, there's not one single practical gain B stood to make from this decision. The only explanation I can find is that J was not well liked in the office, being rather quiet and keeping to himself. I was the only person he'd ever gotten lunch with, for example, and I was the only person who would stop to chat with him about non-work matters.

Now. What race do you think J was? What about B? What about me? What about the rest of the office? If you guessed that J was the only black person in our office, you guessed right. We work in an area that's almost 25% black and less than 50% white. But our office staff is 100% white. (No hispanic, asian or middle eastern workers, either).

This is not an uncommon story. I've heard it many, many times. I've read a thousand variations on the internet and in newspapers. I've personally seen similar events happen dozens of times. So when you say that white people need a defender, the only thing it convinces me of is that you don't really have any experience with actual racism in the US. We don't need a defender. We are 60% of the population, and almost 90% of the wealthy and powerful. We have more money, more opportunities, more representation in government. And that's not "white guilt" speaking. I don't feel a shred of guilt over it. I accept and use the advantages I have from being white without reservation. But I recognize that they are advantages, because I see the way it is for non-whites every single day. There is nothing white people need to be defended from, except for immoral ideologues like Taylor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow, what an incredible story. You are under a shitpot full of stress, my friend! Our work backgrounds are very different. In relation to society, maybe not so different. I see people, not color. My life is very diverse with family of mixed races and religions ranging from old school Italian and Irish immigrants, to Japanese, Mexican, Iraqi, African American and Native American. Our family gatherings are never boring. Our family picnics have the most incredible selection of food on the planet.

I live part of the year in the US, and part of the year in the Dutch Caribbean where I have an "adopted" family I love dearly. They are an Aruban-Bonairean-South American-African mix - the most beautiful people in the world, and among the most loving! My life is truly blessed in that regard. I see the world through a photographic lens - there's beauty in everything and everyone. And I will say that throughout my entire life, I have never seen the racial hatred like what I've seen in the past decade. I grew up during the Kennedy era; Martin Luther King was another of my heroes, and still is to this day. I've had long talks with Ice Cube, trying to get a better understanding of why things changed so dramatically during the Bush-Obama years without us even noticing. I respect how Cube managed to escape the LA Hood gangs when he was a kid, and turned his life around while his school buddies made bad decisions. But then, Cube had good parents, no, great parents, and that means everything. It was hard for me to imagine that kind of life because I was never exposed to such violence growing up. Lordy, I've digressed - those are the kinds of discussions that are best served with cold beer and peanuts during a break at Wikimania. *lol*

What I do know for certain is that when I'm editing WP, I don't see things the same way most editors do, probably because of my years as a writer/producer/publisher - it's second nature for me - I don't think about it rather I just do it void of all emotion and bias with an intense focus on what I'm reading and how I interpret it vs how the writer of the article interpreted it. I don't remember most of the things I write. It's like I start with a clean slate with each project, and then it's forgotten. I was a perfectionist at one time - borderline OCD - but I have mellowed quite a bit since retirement. Things start coming into perspective a bit more when one realizes how fragile life really is, and how little time we have on this earth. There are things I've forgotten, new things I'm learning, trying to balance my time with family, friends and hobbies...running a horse ranch...and on and on. WP is my escape - it's like going fishing for me - total focus, no intrusion from the real world - my only thoughts are accuracy and disseminating enough information so the reader can form their own opinion without me imposing my own opinions and biases onto the reader. Just the facts, please. Wishing you a happy Sunday with family and friends - cheers! ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

And I will say that throughout my entire life, I have never seen the racial hatred like what I've seen in the past decade. (I am assuming, based on your prior comments that the hatred you reference is directed towards white people) I would ask, in the most sincere sense possible, that you consider whether you have seen this much hatred yourself, or whether this hatred is being reported on by numerous sources (even otherwise reliable sources) of a certain political bent. Because hate crimes (the only reliable indicator of societal levels of hate) against white people are and always have been pretty damn low.

The claim that hatred of white people is on the rise is something I see quite often, but I've yet to see even a single shred of hard data to back it up. Meanwhile, refutations of it almost always include plenty of data. I know it's a very common view, but from where I sit (I'm the kind of guy who would milk anti-white sentiments for all their worth, playing the race card every chance I got, because I'm kind of a jackass), I'm pretty well convinced that it's simply untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, it's true - although not on my little piece of paradise but I do see tension between the Dutch and the locals, not so much Americans and the locals - Americans have a hard time with the Dutch, too.🤣 Right here in the good ole US of A tensions have been really high since around 2007 or so? One example...I'm at the casino in Shreveport at a slot machine, and I hit a jackpot. A black lady is sitting 3 machines down from me to my right. She looked over at me, and if looks could kill, I'd be dead. She started cussing at me, saying they fixed the machines so that only white people will hit a jackpot. *lol* I thought maybe she was joking...so I laughed. She kept on, only she wasn't joking - she was dead serious. She continued speaking very loudly about how she hoped Obama would get his revenge, yada yada yada, and I just looked at her with incredulous amazement, thinking she really must be out of her freaking mind. She just kept going on denigrating me and all white people. The "jackpot crew" finally came around and then she started on them. I was the only white person there at the time. She kept on about how bad white people are and how we always get special treatment, and on and on. I guess she was really pissed that I hit a jackpot. She got up, walked over to me and started pointing her finger in my face still yelling - Security showed up at the perfect time, and escorted her out of the casino. The crew was so apologetic, they left a guard with me - they were in as much shock as I was. It was not a pleasant experience. I've had other occasions where I was pushed out of the way, given dirty looks, ignored like I didn't exist. *LOL* I'm sure you've seen the knock-out game - it's all very real. So many actually believe they've been victimized - they're being brainwashed. They believe what they're being told and what they read - just like that lady in the casino. The derogatory labels don't help anything - they create victims. False equivalency? No, I'm out here living in the real world and I travel extensively. It's bad here in the US, but I think people are beginning to wake-up and see what's wrong with the whole picture. The very people who are crying about unfair treatment are the ones who are dishing it out the worst. Hopefully the right people are taking notice, and getting a better understanding of what they've created. It's clearly not working. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's what happens to whistleblowers. Did you see Silkwood? SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely...and I've been trying to stay apprised of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. I do not agree with everything our government has done/is doing, and I'd rather talk about showing horses, dogs or taking landscape pictures, birding, underwater photographer, hiking the Andes (horseback because I'm a wimp)...and the things that make life a happy place when I'm not in that freaky zone of detached, play-by-the-rules editing. My photographs are where I express originality and creativity...and when I don't feel creative, I go fishing the big lakes for stripers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You have strippers in the lakes? I'm in. You wouldn't put Assange in the same category as the woman who exposed the slot machine scam, would you? I mean really? SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

A black lady is sitting 3 machines down from me to my right. She looked over at me, and if looks could kill, I'd be dead. I don't doubt your story. And I don't doubt that she was wrong. But consider this: if you'd spent your whole on the receiving end of stories like the one I told you, you'd be pretty pissy about it, too. I'm not saying she was right, I'm saying there's a difference between a person who's been subject to discrimination their whole life lashing out at the group responsible (even if the individuals lashed out at aren't), and a person who's been in the group with power lashing out at a minority. A huge difference. At the end of that encounter, who had been ejected? I've seen white folk have similar meltdowns, and the response was to "talk them down", offer them a gift card for their next visit and smooth things over with the rest of the customers. I've seen black folk have meltdowns like that and end up getting shot by the cops.

In all truth: I've had similar encounters myself. And I know for a fact that the color of my skin was the reason. But I'm not subject to a dozen minor slights every day. I only experience that kind of verbal assault once in a while, even though every time it happens it feels like a common thing. One of my closest friends is a black guy, and before I had kids, spending time with him was always a bit of an eye-opener. Not so much for those kinds of encounters, even though they happened to him more often than I. But for the thousand little dirty looks he would get, the times white girls would give us a wide berth, and the different way people would look at me, just because of who I was with. My wife's close friends and coworkers are an interracial couple, and I see them and even their kids get those looks. Constantly. I bet you didn't know how common it is for black parents to teach their kids how to deal with racism, because it's not something Hollywood likes to normalize. But it is. Every black parent I know (this includes everyone I mentioned above as well as my ex-girlfriend and her husband) has to make a point of teaching their kids that yeah, they're going to be discriminated against. I've yet to meet a single white person who teaches their kids that.

I'm sure you've seen the knock-out game - it's all very real. I've actually been a target of it. It wasn't black kids playing (unless you count "black and blue" and wait until after the weak-ass little git hit me). Consider this: I know you don't trust the media. I know you know the media likes to put spin on everything to make you buy their paper, read their story and click on the ads on their website. What's scarier: a bunch of white kids playing a game of punching random strangers, or a "gang" of black kids "sadistically" attacking defenseless white people? Even the most liberal media fall victim to this, because it's about what gets you to read/watch/listen. Fear sells better than sex, any journalist can tell you that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Fear sells better than sex" - 🤣 Interesting concept. I guess if you compare the total revenue generated by the various markets prostituting fear [2], the total may actually surpass "pay-to-play". This source claims prostitution revenue worldwide is $186 Billion. To that, add the porn industry which is around $95 Billion = $281 Billion. I imagine that's just the reported revenue, and doesn't include marriage. 😂 Interestingly, according to this internet source (I have no clue if it's reliable): "XVideo, on its own, is bigger than Dropbox, CNN and New York Times combined." ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How many journalist work in porn? You got the wrong industry. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That went over my head. Thought we were talking about selling fear vs selling sex. What did I miss? (dammit, now I'm sounding like EEng. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I said earlier that you can ask any journalist which sells better; sex or fear. We've been talking about journalism. The fact that the porn industry might be bigger than the news industry (and I don't think it is, at about $10-15billion a year in the US, which puts the entire US porn industry on par with just cable news, not including web, network, newspapers or local tv news) doesn't say anything about whether news media use fear to sell stories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

^{Oh, and I disagree that Picard is better than Kirk.Atsme📞📧 03:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)}

I think that my mom would agree. —PaleoNeonate – 04:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Fucking heathens. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The above is a reference to your despicable comments on the eternal and incredibly important Kirk/Picard debate, not to anything else said in this thread. And I stand by it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I know Captain Kirk, Mr. Whistle Britches, and I can tell you that Picard is no Cpt. Kirk. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A fact with which I am intimately familiar and for which I am eternally grateful. I prefer my captains Xeno-STD free, thank you. ;P ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

^{Atsme📞📧} 00:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We also at least know that Picard really existed and visited the past ^[Humor], but he unfortunately paid the ultimate price... Kennewick_Man#Race_factor "Observers said that Kennewick Man resembled Patrick Stewart, a British actor on the television program Star Trek: The Next Generation" (no picture in the article unfortunately, but they're easy to find :) —PaleoNeonate – 01:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen them before and I can only conclude that he traveled back in time to prevent some catastrophe and heroically gave his own life in the process. Not sure if that was Picard or Professor X, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If Sheldon and Leonard agrees that Picard is better than Kirk, that is obviously THETRUTH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice try, but here are 100 reasons why Sheldon & Leonard are wrong: [3] (preceding unsigned comment left by a a despicable heathen) Proudly with vindication signed: ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Suck it, heretics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

What does toilet paper and Cpt. Jean-Luc Picard's Enterprise-D have in common??? They both circle Uranus looking for Klingons! Why did Picard become a Borg??? The scriptwriters mistakenly thought entertainment cured Borgdom. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The Klingons were Federation allies by the time of TNG. You just earned a black mark on your Nerd Card. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not so fast whistle britches...Federation-Klingon War (alternate timeline) - in 2344 Klingon outpost on Narendra III, USS Enterprise-C disappeared into a temporal rift when they were defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans. That little ordeal caused a breakdown in peace negotiations with the Klingons = beginning of 20 yr. war. Picard and Riker salvaged Enterprise-C (Picard gave them 9 hrs for repairs) so Starfleet could use it in the war, that way Enterprise-D could stay on the move and avoid attacks from the Klingon fleet. El-Aurian Guinan (Picard's personal confidant), sensed the timeline change and warned Picard that the war shouldn't be happening. That's when Picard realized that defending the outpost was the turning point which would have prevented the conflict, and yada yada, they had to go back in time, suffered major damage, yada yada. Leave your Nerd Card on the desk beside the model of Kirk's Starship Enterprise. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If we're going all Mirror, Mirror, then I might remind you that Kirk only ever got anywhere because he managed to steal the Tantalus field. In other words, he was just a loooooooooser. :D ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And Picard plays the flute. [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This will Crusher all you Peecard fans, and end this debate once and for all. 👽 ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

[5] —PaleoNeonate – 01:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's awesome! Except the ending. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

	A Wiki-Tribble From Kirk's Starship Enterprise
	A lil cuddly to soften the blow of Nerd Card relinquishment. WMF doesn't offer safe places to cry and only the winners get a blue ribbon. A Captain Kirk Wiki-Tribble is as good as it gets. Atsme📞📧 11:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:MjolnirPants, can you please help by creating a collage image from the "Feels" video for the article's music video section please? If so, my idea was one of these [6], [7], because you couldn't show just one of the artists, and they're never seen together, but if the shots could be like these [8], [9], so it shows the psychedelic effects used if possible, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela:I could do that, but it would have to be used under the fair use doctrine, meaning a low resolution file, maintained on en.WP instead of commons, only used on the minimum number of pages. If that's going to work, then let me know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes User:MjolnirPants, that is fine, I want it to be used just on the song's article anyway. Video's here [10] and of course, the quality can be changed on settings, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: okay, I've created one from screencaps of the video, and it's located at File:DJ Calvin Harris - Feels (collage).jpg. I noticed after uploading, however, that the article only has three sentences on the music video, none of which say anything about the trippy visuals. So there's a very good chance it will get tagged for deletion. If I were you, I would search far and wide for a good RS discussing the video, specifically the visual style of it, and add some info based on that. Otherwise, someone's just going to tag the file, noting that there's no discussion about the visuals and it'll end up speedied within the next few weeks. Good luck! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this, I will see what I can do about a description, but with the song being number one, it should get a lot of editors as well.--Theo Mandela (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You missed a better joke than the Soup Nazi one: You got your politics in my Wikipedia! You got your Wikipedia in my politics! RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Snort, seems to be the way at the moment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Responding to a different closure [11] I appreciate you taking the time to close discussions, but I would have appreciated a little more nuance in this one. It was definitely not a WP:SNOW oppose if you carefully follow the chronology. There were several initial supports, then a couple of "tentative opposes" that were contingent on QuackGuru acknowledging the problem (see comments by Doc James and Ozzie10aaaa). After QG posted their apology and commitment to change, the tide turned dramatically with a majority of the opposes directly citing the apology (including Ian.thompson, GoldenRing, RexxS, Beyond My Ken, Capeo, Myself, Begoon, and Agathoclea) and two of the earlier supports (Cjhard and Guy Macon) switching to oppose, again directly citing the apology. Your close should definitely mention this. ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Awilley:I hear you, and I noticed all of that myself. I felt at the time that calling it a snow close would be enough, but since I've gotten at least one objection to that already, I'll assume I was wrong and add a bit about it. Thanks for the input. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:DAT Solutions. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your newest addition: This user saw the 2017 eclipse with his own eyes - implies that you could see it using someone else's eyes, and I call that a lunartic charlatan. 🤣🌗 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You'd be surprised... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

An eyes surprise indeed! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just making sure you saw this. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

My contribution on the wiki article was rejected. And now i cant open a discussion forum to talk about my decision to edit that article. Where can i talk about it?

On the Talk page of the article concerned. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: He was reverted at talk.

@Gosale:The problem is that your comment was a diatribe, not an invitation to discuss changes to the article. The second problem is that your comment was very ignorant: Iran absolutely does not have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East, Israel does. Even if one denies the validity of Israel, then "Occupied Palestine" would have the largest population. This is not the sort of error that would be made by an editor who has any business editing in this topic. Please read WP:CIR and understand that if you cannot be counted on to display a certain level of knowledge, that you thus cannot be allowed to make major changes to the article without discussion first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work:You are correct, i should have written more clearly the examples i provided. In the middle east, not including THE JEWISH STATE, and the State and/or states that yet not exist, Iran has the largest Jewish state. But this was not my point and this was not the only example i provided. I used those examples to convey the fact that, including in an article that a tv station is anti-Semitic is not appropriate. I would love to read your thought regarding the topic.Gosale (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gosale:First off, there's no need to ping me on my own talk page; I'll be notified whenever you comment here.

Second: Labeling a television station antisemitic is something that absolutely is appropriate if that television station regularly broadcasts antisemitic propaganda. See WP:YESPOV where it states quite clearly: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." I'm not familiar with the particulars, so I'm not going to weigh in with my opinion on who's right. What I'm doing is letting you know that there most certainly is a case to be made for this. It's not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it out to be.

Finally, a large Iranian Jewish population means nothing when "large" refers to less than 9,000 Jews; 0.0117% of the population. Even if it referred to a much larger proportion of the population, that would not make your case for you. In 1933, Germany had a Jewish population of over 500,000 or 0.75%, a much larger total number as well as percentage. That doesn't make Nazi-run broadcaster any less antisemitic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work:The statement that the tv station broadcast ANTI-SEMITIC programs is absolutely false. Please provide source were you have seen this happen. If you want i can provide you link to their programs that host Jewish commentators and guests. Please have in mind that this labelling was made in an article about an event(Sandy Hook incident) that this tv station hosted and American guest, and that Guest disputed parts of the event. I dont want to edit any article were i write "Iran has a LARGE Jewish population". This example, including many other example i provided, was to show that nor the government of Iran or tv station is Anti-Semitic. I believe in that article, that specific label, is put there to slander and it is non neutral. Please read the article and if you still believe it is fair then i will rest my case. Also sorry for starting talks in several places.Gosale (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gosale:If you're not going to read anything I wrote, why are you even bothering? Just go edit the article however you like until you get blocked for being a disruption. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work:Of course i read what you write, perhaps a missed you point.

Points you seem to have missed:

1. You don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Literally the first sentence of my detailed response above.
2. There certainly can be a case made to refer to a media outlet as antisemitic.
3. I am not attempting to make that case, just to make you aware that it can be done.
4. Your argument was fallacious. Trivially so.
5. After checking the article, I can see that your assertion that it labels the broadcaster antisemitic is categorically false. If you cannot discern a difference between stating that a station broadcasted antisemitic conspiracy theories and stating that the station itself is antisemitic, then you have no business editing such articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Now then. Wouldn't circling two wagons look a bit ridiculous? Especially with all the other wagons simply puttering about on the outside. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I agree completely. It all looked ridiculous to me. But then, most of the drama here does. Don't take my comment as an opinion on the admins in general, just that the only AGF way I could think of explaining that is one admin coming to another's defense. Most of the admins are pretty good folks, in my experience, and every bit as cantankerous and prone to disagreement as the rest of us peons. Except for Bishzilla. She's scary. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

MjolnirPants,

I see you put this notice in place. Considering there are a "Background" and "Reception" sections in place, I fail to see how it can be appropriate. May I ask you what reasoning there is behind it?

Thanks! 87.1.125.215 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Read your post on the talk page, but I still fail to understand. 87.1.125.215 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@87.1.125.215: It's the relative size of the plot section vs the background and reception sections, coupled with the fact that it'd be difficult to reduce the size of the plot section without mangling it too much, or leaving out important plot points. I'm hoping someone will be able to add to the reception or background sections, to balance it out. However, if you really want to remove the tag, I won't revert you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, am not going to remove it. I couldn't keep reading the book after the 15th page, so I don't have a real opinion. Just needed to understand your reasons.

Thanks! 87.1.125.215 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Shame, the IP might have enjoyed it. I still prefer his Dresden stuff I think although I like steampunk and my wife and I have quite a bit of steampunk stuff around the house. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you: It was a bit difficult to read for the first few chapters, but once you got past that, it picked up considerably. Although I have to admit I really like the "steampunk as a literary genre" thing, so maybe I'm a little biased. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

On occasion, I manage to get past the point I got stuck in the first reading. But it can take years. 87.1.125.215 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm the same way. I've sunk at least $50 into ebooks that looked promising but weren't that good. Some of them, I managed to pick back up a while later, but it takes a while and isn't always rewarding. Mostly I get back in because I feel like I've wasted money if I don't. Currently, I'm making my way through something called Wild Wastes for the second time (first time, I stopped after about 30-40 pages). If you're curious, I can't really recommend it. It's like 50 Shades of Grey, written by a 19 year old, male Dungeons & Dragons geek who thinks he's a feminist but really has a lot to learn about women. It's failing the Bechdel test at about 80% of the way through, despite having only one male character, and at least 5 "strong" female characters. I use the scare quotes because they would be strong women if they were real, but they're really written more like needy, clingy girls who just happen to know how to swing a sword. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

50 shades of grey is a giveaway - good is not known even in passing. 18:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It actually has a plot outside of "sex, more sex and some sex which the author thinks is freaky but really is about as tame as a hound dog," but it's so slow about laying it out that you can tell the author was just making that part up as he went along. The real crime is that it's a fairly interesting plot, or rather, it would be an interesting plot if it wasn't constantly interrupted by sex scenes and rushed through the important parts; an escape through a battle line takes all of 3 pages, and there are only about 15-20 pages on the final, climactic battle between ~500 fantasy humanoids and ~1000 humans. There's an obviously-important plot line featuring the protagonist's parents that gets mentioned twice in the entire book. It's like "Dude, we get it; your main character is a Mary Sue with a harem of willing concubines who are all attracted only to him and don't feel a shred of jealousy for each other. Just shut up about his sexual exploits and get on with whatever passes for an actual story in your mind." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see you have read Kushiel's Dart as well then? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope! And if it's anything like that one, I never will. I've found exactly one' "erotic fantasy" (using "fantasy" to refer to fantastical/magical elements, not sexual fantasies) author who's worth a hot damn, and even then, only in small doses. I can't recall the name off the top of my head, but he writes like a Joss Whedon screenplay; all witty banter, subverted tropes and hilarious jokes combined with an actual compelling story, written by an author who knows how to create suspense instead of just telling you the characters are in suspense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, I am overly harsh to Carey, she at least works the eroticism into the plot very well. Not like Jean Auel (Earth's Children) who will one second go from a well-researched description of how pre-historic humans cooked giant steppe hamster - to a torrid sex scene worthy of Mills & Boon's finest. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Also congrats on surviving the storm. Sympathy if you lost anything. If it helps, Richard Branson's personal island was demolished. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually read half of one of the sequels to The Clan of the Cave Bear. I only got halfway through it because of the basic plot: a caveman is so well-endowed that no woman will let him get past second base. Until he meets Daryl Hannah. She can go allllllll the way, heh heh heh. (Oh, for the best result, picture that previous sentence being said in a deadpan voice by someone simultaneously setting a new world record for eye rolling.) That's not the plot of an erotic novel, that's the plot of a porn movie. Hurricane was fine, btw. No damage, only lost power for a few hours. Kids went nuts, but I kinda expected that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No damage? Surely you mean your windows were smashed and TV was blown over requiring a brand new curved 70 inch Samsung? (with matching audiobar) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, don't be surprised if you hear me bemoaning the devastation caused by this monster storm to my humble (and well-insured) abode should you happen to drive by my house when the adjuster is there. But there's no way to link either of my two accounts here to my actual ISP and billing address, so no damage. ;) The truth is, there's minor damage to our wooden fence and our gutters. Both are covered, but the damage is way less than the deductible. I'll file just to take a chunk out of the deductible (it's an annual deductible), but it'll take a single day to fix it all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm staring at windlass right now. It's sitting between two Thomas Covenants. I can't bring myself to approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It can be hard to compete with an author capable of making you empathize with and root for a leprous rapist. Move it next to something by Vox Day, the only other writer brave enough to tackle (metaphorically) leprous (date) rapists as protagonists. An author who fails at making them identifiable or compelling, but confirms that some people think that Zapp Brannigan is a paradigm of sci-fi manliness, instead of a satire of it. Then it'll look a lot better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel you have a greater appreciation of Covenant than I could ever muster. The only way I am getting near a Vox Day book is when staying at a campsite and the long drop toilets run out of paper... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Somehow, I feel that's still too good for a Vox Day novel. You know, I actually read (part of) one, once. I can't remember the name and I didn't know at the time that Beale was the overt racist, hypocrite and moron that he is. It was during that aborted reading that I first thought up that line about Zapp Brannigan. No joke; the hero's only flaw was that he felt lonely because he was just so awesome that no-one else could compete with him. That was literally the hero's only flaw. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw it. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I did. I read it and checked the link and I agree with you. I'll respond a little more later on, but this morning I have a network that needs to be shut down and buttressed against Hurricane Irma, so I only get some free time in short increments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I know your comment here in WP:RSN might have been a bit tounge-in-cheek, but I thought I would mention that Politico released an interesting article by Michael Crowley last week indicating how the conspiracy-minded that used to reside on the left have changed places with those on the right. I spend half of my time on Wikipedia plucking weeds from article related to either the JFK assassination, the CIA drug trafficking, or the October Surprise conspiracy theories, and most of those theories or allegations either started with or are pushed by people on the left. But Crowley's report reflects what I have noticed in that many or these same theories are now promulgated by Alex Jones, Roger "LBJ did it" Stone, or other right-wingers. For whatever reason, the Bush family makes it easy for the right to adopt fringe theories that were once held by the left. Anyway, stay dry! -Location (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Location:It was only half tongue-in-cheek, actually. That article, as you describe it tracks exactly with both my own thoughts and with other analyses I've read. Just like domestic terrorism (and following the same trends and timeline, so there's definitely a correlation of some sort), conspiracy theories seemed to move from the left to the right since the 70's, most noticeably in the 90's. But I wasn't actually referring to CSes overall, but to the CSes that seem to make their way into WP. WP seems to be subject to a dedicated push from right-wing individuals, meaning we get more right-wing disruptive editors, and more right-wing conspiracy theories. It's all pretty interesting stuff, especially where it intersects with politics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is probably true that right-wingers are more disruptive to Wikipedia since they push the conspiracy theories that are more in play right now. I tend to avoid the contemporary articles that might attract them (e.g. Murder of Seth Rich, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, etc.) because they tend to be more volatile and there are larger numbers of experienced editors to keep an eye on them. I agree with your observation about the change in the 90s. I've read in multiple places that conspiracy theories thrive when people feel powerless, and I think the articles I focus on tend to involve the pre-Clinton era when people on the left may have felt more powerless than people on the right. On some level, I get how people might distrust "the establishment" of either party but there are a lot of people out there nowadays who are simply odd-balls. -Location (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick follow-up regarding something that proves our point: CNN put out this article today stating that Republican Representative Walter B. Jones Jr. may have Roger "LBJ did it" Stone use his influence with Trump to make sure all JFK-related files are release this month. CNN quotes Jones as stating, "For God's sake, it's time to let the people know the truth." The implication is that the "truth" of a smoking gun is not in the mountains of evidence and documents already released, but that it is within the handful of documents that remain classified. Jones' reason for this course of action is that he read a book by a conspiracy researcher! -Location (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the ACIM article: The use of the word "being" in participle clauses is permissible grammar. Please check out: the BBC on this. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read just about any style guide written on modern English: Permissible != good. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that the sentence would probably have been better as clause of the previous sentence, separated by a comma, but if you want to "correct" me on what you feel is my "bad grammar" I would much prefer if you did it on my own talk page rather than on an article talk page, as I am sure you would prefer yourself. No?

It just seems to me that around Wikipedia, too often things turn into public personal attacks against one another, and leave the articles in disrepair. As has just happened at that article. Why couldn't we work in more mutually supportive ways, instead of having to always feel like having to make everything into something personal against one another? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the article talk page is to discuss changes to the article. You made a change, I made a change, and then I proceeded to attempt to discuss those changes with you. If you are embarrassed by my criticisms, then you are volunteering at the wrong project. If you cannot help but personalize criticisms of your edits or arguments, then you are volunteering at the wrong project. If you cannot collaborate or engage with others to work on articles, you are volunteering at the wrong project. Please take some time to review our policies and guidelines as well as our manual of style if you wish to continue editing here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you know it generally against WP protocol to tamper with the comments of others on article talk pages, but perhaps we can come to some greater mutual understanding here for the sake of that talk page. I have no desire to escalate anything here. I am merely hoping to understand why you were more concerned with denigrating me than with repairing the article. Does that concern of mine make any sense to you? Scott P. (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you know it generally against WP protocol to tamper with the comments of others on article talk pages That would be correct. The key word being "generally" and the specific exceptions outlined in the link I provided in my edit summary. In short, our talk page guidelines make it clear that talk pages are a place for discussing changes to the article, not a place for venting about the perceived slights offered to you by another editor. Just as I said in my edit summary; if you wish to complain, contact an admin.

I have no desire to escalate anything here. I would actually find it something of a relief if you did make an attempt to escalate this to a noticeboard, because I have no doubt it will result in a large number of editors telling you to stop personalizing disagreements and learn to accept some criticism from time to time.

I am merely hoping to understand why you were more concerned with denigrating me than with repairing the article. I have not denigrated you in the slightest. Please read WP:AGF, which is a policy page and which you agreed to abide by when you registered your account. Criticisms of your edits are not at all the same thing as criticisms of you personally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Whitewasher, juvenile, edit warrior, incapable of using proper grammar, etc. etc. Not denigrating... Hmm... Yes, avoid answering why these terms do not denigrate. Call up the ANI. Please, listen to yourself. Scott P. (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You are no longer welcome on my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I want to be clear this isn't in any way attacking or forum shopping for anyone else, or anything. I have a query and puzzlement about a comment you made on WP:AN, where I don't see the evidence you're describing. I'd like to check if I missed anything or if it's just that different people see the same things differently, for my own peace of mind and to be sure I'm seeing things fairly (both for the user and the community), or if I missed anything. I hope you can indulge that - it shouldn't be a big thing and nothing comes of it that affects either of us, except perhaps an exchange of impressions.

The query is about this post on WP:AN. It seems we both looked through his talk page and yet came to very different conclusions. Your post says "I checked all the diffs provided" and that " the claim that [the blocking admin] never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit [...] anyone making still making that claim has absolutely no excuse for continuing to push it)."

I reviewed the block and also read the same page. I could not see anything suggesting problem behavior from when his last block ended until August. In August there was precisely one problem, a BLP dispute where we can probably agree he didn't handle it well. My question is this:

Suppose there was no other problem conduct between ending his unblock (or TBAN if preferred) and the BLP dispute. I think we would then agree that he probably was an editor with a seriously problematic past but who seemed to be taking steps to get over it. That's the situation as I'm interpreting.

I looked for evidence to show what his conduct was after unblock/un-TBAN, and could not find any diffs since then, other than civility/AGF, and the single BLP issue in August. That troubled me. I have no prior involvement or knowledge, and I've dealt with quite a few warriors in the past, so I was very prepared to see him as one, if the diffs existed. I asked for the evidence I hadn't found, more than once, and never got any. (The civility/agf issues were raised and he seems to have tried to fix them which is promising.)

You've looked at the same page and came away feeling that there were diffs provided. Not diffs of old conduct, but diffs showing he was currently edit warring as the block says. But where? I've checked the t/p, block logs, the works (I thought). I would feel peace of mind if I found I was mistaken, but I don't think I am. Can you clarify for me what the blocking admin wouldn't - namely, apart from conduct he was already blocked/tbanned for and is now closed, and the agreed BLP/civ/agf issues, was there anything else you're aware of? I'm hoping you can help clarify it for me a bit, because of the strong statement that anyone who doesn't see it, has no excuse. Thank you! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, for starters, as I've already explained, MastCell has explained themselves multiple times. Whether or not you find that explanation to be insufficient is your own problem: it looks plenty fine to me, as well as many others. For another thing, insisting on diffs in place of a prosaic explanation along with links to sections and pages containing evidence is classic WP:WIKILAWYERING. Finally- Wait a second... Did you just implicitly accuse me of forum shopping because I commented on an existing thread an AN, on a matter in which I am entirely uninvolved? Are you fucking kidding me?! Go the fuck away and don't come back. This, right here -what you are doing on my page- is WP:CHILLING and WP:BLUDGEONING and I will quickly drag another admin in to review your behavior if you don't stop it, now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ernie Wilkins. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your comment there is totally reasonable. From a personal perspective I don't think HT had a right to edit war over the Miller content. I haven't read through enough of the history at Miller / Trump to know what the deal was with the other person - Nfitz - who was blocked. -Darouet (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a personal opinion, which you can ignore. Nfitz and HT obviously don’t share the same political perspectives. What they do share is a sense of disenfranchisement, a tendency toward Wikilawyering, a lack of congeniality, bullheadedness, lack of finesse, desire to rightgreatwrongs, belief that they know the “truth” and verbal diarrhea. OTOH, I don’t think Nfitz is as agenda oriented (i.e. organized). He/she just strikes out wildly. HT actually published his agenda on his user page, including removing WaPo and NYT as RS. Which is to say, and agenda item that has zero chance of success and suggests he should not be on political articles. Nfitz deserved a block and may eventually learn from it – or not. It may take another block or maturity. I don’t see HT ever learning how to work here. All he had to do is say “oops, my bad, this is how I’ll improve.” Instead, he’s talking himself into an indef block instead of a Tban. Just an opinion from a minor editor. Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you said there, with one exception: HT has a history of saying "Oops, my bad, this is how I'll improve" and then returning to the same exact behavior when unblocked. So them saying it this time would not be enough, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My the way - no need to continue with this on the AN board- but I don't think I'd ever interacted with HT before this episode. Also, as far as I can tell anyway, I'm not a conservative (though I don't like breaking politics down into the typical American camps anyway, as the world is big by comparison) :) -Darouet (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your personal politics aside, where I've seen you involved in TP discussion on political subjects, you've always agreed with conservative (or right-wing) editors, and disagreed with liberal (or left-wing) editors. I'm not saying that's always the case, mind, nor am I saying that it's a bad things. But you and I have had relatively few interactions and this is something that is rather noticeable to me. I don't think it's a stretch to presume that HT noticed it as well. Personally, I don't understand why people feel the need to be noncommittal about their politics. I readily identify as a liberal, yet I'm perfectly happy to take the conservative side when it's right. Hell, I almost always take the "conservative" side on any argument about gun control. I love my LWRC M6 with Trijicon red-dot optics, chambered in 6.8 SPC and I have named it "Vera". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's the specific articles we've both edited. Funnily enough, I've had major conflicts with TTAAC in the past, with them on the "right," and me on the "left," to the extent you can peg it that way. -Darouet (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, MjolnirPants. You have new messages at Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
Message added 18:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding repeated insults you've made against me. The thread is Insults by MjolnirPants. Thucydides411 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You're screwed. GMG^talk 00:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I seriously considered trotting out the image here once again. But I think it's too late now; the thread's already been closed after literally every comment was going against Thuc. Most amusingly, the phrase "fucking ridiculous" was used by more than one editor, and none of them were me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pants, you're not stupid. Maybe you could start up a business selling insults 5 cents. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pants, you're not stupid. That's it. I'm reporting this horrible insult to ANI. You should be indeffed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No fair. You wouldn't say that in an academic setting. If told a work colleague she wasn't stupid, you'd be out on your @$$. SPECIFICO talk 03:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I read the thread on Drmies talk page... Having worked far more in the private sector than in academia, I can tell you with absolute assurance, that at least in the engineering and IT industries, phrases like "what a fucking moron" "that is the stupidest idea I've every heard" and "give me a break with this retarded shit" are rather commonly used. And I agree from my (admittedly limited) experience in academia that it is a bit more relaxed than private industry. Wikipedia has, hands down, the most rigorous enforcement of civility that I've seen in any forum, on the web or in person. Our civility standards are up there with formal, public discourses, except that such forums generally don't have to enforce civility, as the participants enforce it themselves. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Academia is an absolute sewer of incivility. Only rule is the caste system. Tenure and all that. I've mentioned elsewhere we routinely had to restrain one Political Science prof who was very strong on Locke and Mill in theory but in practice was more of a British football brawler/fan. "I'll break his neck..." he would explain, while discussing the budget allocation with a biologist who thought lab equipment and formaldehyde was needed more urgently than a refurbished social science reading room. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So I suppose maintaining a collegial tone would mean I should transition from harsh critiques of the arguments presented to me to threats of bodily harm. Not exactly my style, but I once made a career (well, a job, really) out of inflicting bodily harm, so what the hell. I suggest you try not to disagree with me anymore. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The maximum range of an ANI thread is 3,600 meters. But the maximum effective range is only 600. True story. GMG^talk 13:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That explains this particular thread's scattershot accusations. Ass I say. Not stupid, just ASS. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit at AN moving my collapse, I have provided an example of something "untoward" in it in my edit summary. I personally don't think your choice of doing the analysis was wise, but, you can of course do one. I think you have involved yourself too much into that thread to be providing guidance to the closer and think it would be wisest for you to leave it within the collapse. That said, you are entirely free to remove it if it doesn't cast aspersions (even non-particular ones) in any direction. Your comment aims to discredit the opposition. I can fully understand why you'd do that, and have probably done that myself in heated discussions. But again, parts (really, short phrases) of your analysis flagrantly violate civility policy. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing especially uncivil in the material you hatted, and it's an extreme step to hat text that includes a lot of substantive comment about the matter at hand. I think you should restore it to its natural condition and readers will find the strength to read what you may feel is uncivil and survive without injury or lasting impairment. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't feel it is uncivil, it is uncivil. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I've reverted you. That is not an aspersion, nor an insult. It was not directed at any individual editor, it was not an accusation (merely the admission that dishonesty is a possibility) and there is sufficient evidence to support it, were it an accusation, right there in the thread. Please do not continue to edit war over this, as I posted that analysis for a reason, and it is not your place to hold it's visibility hostage until I edit it to suit your sensibilities. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wow ... dishonesty is a possibility ... I did not expect that from you. I think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak at best, and dishonest at worst. Are you serious? No, MjolnirPants, it was directed at a group of editors and yes it is an aspersion as you are suggesting that editors are being dishonest. Oh sorry, my bad, the possibility exists that they might be. Demonstration: You might be a dishonest snivelling conniving lying manipulative bad-faith editor, then again, I'm only saying that you might be and not that you are so it's all perfectly civil. Nothing to be concerned about. I'm not actually saying that, I'm just pointing out how arrogant that looks, and, of course, stretching it out to the black and white extreme. You tell me, am I being civil? am I not casting any aspersions about your conduct? Ah, but, you say individual. Very clever, don't name and shame and it's alright. Well, let's see. You've directed that specific comment at a group of individuals: the support unblock-ers. I.e. the individuals you've, possibly, directed it at are; Mr Ernie, Thucydides411 (who you've actually flatly called a liar later on), Lepricavark, Only in death, Alex Shih, Power~enwiki, JFG, TJW (GMG now), Winkelvi, Cjhard, Darouet, Darwinian Ape, and Mandruss. I wonder how any of them would feel at the suggestion that they might be or might have been dishonest in their support of some kind of unblock. I know you're really directing this at one or two editors (Thuc and HT at least) and that you don't mean all the supporters of some kind of unblock, but, you can't possibly be serious in suggesting that your comment is all well and good cause you weren't specific enough. I have not re-reverted you and will not so that it'll give you the chance to rethink that comment for yourself. At worst, it's exactly what it is, an aspersion on the conduct of fellow editors, and, at best, it doesn't add to the strength of your analysis. That is, unless you want to call out specific dishonesty from specific editors and provide specific evidence that doesn't rely on vague might be's that encompass everybody supporting a certain position. Do what's right, strike the comment, double-check the rest of your analysis for more of that shit, and don't make specific (dishonesty) non-specific (might be) accusations against groups of individuals (support unblock) and then act like, well, I'm only saying that it might be the case. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:Your incredulity does not change the basic rules of communication in English. "weak at best, dishonest at worst" presents a range of possibilities. Whether you personally comprehend this or not does not change the basic fact that I am the ultimate source of what I meant by a particular phrase. You may presume that I meant something different, but that presumption will assuredly put you out of agreement with the majority of English speakers. Furthermore, as I have said multiple times now; sufficient evidence exists such that an accusation of dishonesty (which I absolutely admit to making later on in that thread) is not a violation of any policy. It is uncivil to make accusations without proof, it is not uncivil to respond to a lie by calling it a lie. If you do not have anything further to offer than your own incredulity that I would dare to disagree with you about what I meant when I said that, then please do not post here again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm entirely lost on whether or not you want a response. That last sentence is a bit difficult to parse. I think you want something other than incredulity. I did provide both, but, feel free to selectively ignore that. [S]ufficient evidence exists such that an accusation of dishonesty ... is not a violation of any policy. Grave accusations require grave evidence. No evidence presented = accusation unmerited = violation of civility policy. Your range of possibilities includes dishonesty, which suggests that you believe that dishonesty is present and you only strengthen that suggestion with your comments here. I think reasonably, you should back up your claim with some evidence. Or, much more reasonably, just strike that vague accusation. I'd be inclined to support you if you made a specific accusation, against a specific individual, with specific evidence. As it is you are poisoning the well by suggesting that dishonesty is present and specifically pointing the finger at those supporting an unblock. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, and, I am actually AGFing. In no way could your comment reasonably be interpreted to mean anything other than what it means: Ya'll are providing weak through to dishonest arguments for unblock. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No evidence presented = accusation unmerited = violation of civility policy. See, now you're just grasping at straws. The evidence is right there at the top of the thread, fifth post down, first comment by MastCell. How you can sit here and claim to be AGFing while at the same time rejecting the only possible narrative that could have been true if you AGF is beyond me, but feel free to drop the stick any time now. If it's any consolation, know that I truly think you're just not getting it, and don't think you are being disingenuous here. That being said, the meaning of the last sentence you couldn't quite parse is that I actually have better things to do than sit here and be accused of shit by another editor with an axe to grind. So if you have something different to talk about, feel free. However, if that's all you're going to do, kindly fuck off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please explain your decision here: [12]? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Btw a policy based reason would be preferred. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Also pinging User:MPants at work. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: for future reference, you do not need to ping my alt account; I will get any alerts going to my main account, whichever one I am using.

As I explained in my edit summary; non-admins do not have the right to impose sanctions. If you disagree, then as the person making the positive claim, I would ask that you indicate where in our policy this is expressly or implicitly permitted. Even if it is not stated explicitly in policy that only admins can impose sanctions, it has become a community norm, and as such carries the same weight as any other policy per WP:CONSENSUS. Your close indicated the imposition of sanctions, e.g.; "...the indefinite block is to be converted to a community ban." As the close imposed editing restrictions, and you are not an admin, it was an improper close. Had you closed it with a note to the effect of "There is nothing more to be discussed; the close has been called for numerous times" and alerted Boing! said Zebedee (whom I believe is willing to apply the result, if not decide on it himself) to your closure, I'd have left it alone.

I do not disagree with your conclusion. I believe that an impartial admin will come to the same result you mentioned. But I do not believe you have the authority to do so yourself, and I do not wish to see another round of wikilawyering disrupting this project over your close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. What is especially problematic is the whole "With this in mind I have set the following conditions for appeal..." part, which is not something that a simple consensus close can include unless there was an expressed consensus for those specific points. Some discretionary santions interpretation is likely to be needed here, to specifiy the details of the sanctions and the conditions, and only an admin can decide on and impose discretionary sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but who will bell the cat? Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: just for clarity's sake, do you intend to make a decision, close that thread and take the next steps yourself now that the community has weighed in, or do you want another admin to do so? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to judge the consensus and close it myself - I said so right at the start and I have to stick to that. All I intend to do is close my unblock request review which is currently on hold, once someone else has closed the AN discussion (though I might wait a short while to be sure any close is not reverted). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Very well. But the conditions for unbanning where closely based on the WP:STANDARDOFFER. I only decreased the amount of time needed to account for the fact that many editors felt that the editor had a chance outside of the AP area. But thankyou for your explanation. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

(ec)To add to the comment above, I'm willing to also chime in and close this discussion once and for all. While I voiced my opinion on the matter in the thread, there appears to be at least a majority to keep the block in place on HT. Boing, if willing I'll work with you to get a closure statement up? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

See my comment just above, sorry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Curses! No problem I misread above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nah, you didn't misread it - it wasn't there! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: I hope this doesn't mean you've rescinded your offer to close the thread! That thread is in serious need of being taken out back and given the Ole Yeller treatment, regardless of the outcome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No, and in fact I'm working to get a trio of us admins together to close it down. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Awesome, thanks! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good - you'll have my gratitude too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like I was beaten to the punch. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, there is no consensus to unblock, yet "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted". I don't get that - I'll ask for clarification. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That second just keeps the door wide open for this to KEEP going too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly - the whole point of the exercise was to get a decision, not throw it back to "Any admin can do as they please". I've asked for clarification, but I'm tempted to revert this closure too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with both of you. I think Mrjulesd hit the nail on the head when he said there was a clear consensus for a community site ban. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and RickinBaltimore, I've reverted the close and have explained why - it was faulty on a number of levels, but I've kept it as simple as I could. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I really appreciate Goldenring's willingness to close this out, but that's the right call here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I greatly appreciate Goldenring's effort too (and it's rare that I get thanked for dumping a hot potato like this in someone's lap ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's only just struck me why your upside-down table of contents is so good! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's upside-down? Objective3000 (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The most recent is always at the top, so no scrolling is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly why I never put it back. I tried it with a couple different angles and offsets, and while this one is difficult to read (check off my first goal, hehehe), it conveniently puts the bottom of the page right under my mouse when I get here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You know those people who won't archive and accumulate hundreds of talk page sections and you have to scroll for ages? It's tempting to sneak in under the cover of IP darkness and turn them upside down ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, don't give me idea now... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

An alternative would be {{Skip to bottom}} —PaleoNeonate – 21:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but that bypasses the whole "make the TOC hard to read" thing that was my first goal. Of course, I could do than then style the TOC with "color:#f0f0f0;background-color:white;"... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• I was attempting to do this on my own talkpage yesterday (previewing) as I wanted to find out a way to have latest at the top - then remembered Mjol's solution but couldn't work out how. If the mysterious night elves were to do it while I am asleep, I would not object. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MjolnirPants aspersions, personal attacks and/or incivility; or alternatively Mr rnddude edit-warring, ownership and/or incivility. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for editing my teahouse comment so that it includes your 'handle' - I forgot to include it myself when I made my original edit!! Neiltonks (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Archiving? oh you poor naïve boy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you think that's a silly idea... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Why set up archiving when I can just do this? (I am amazingly lazy) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

or this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

But if you want to talk about laziness, try the OneCLickArchiver. Works just as advertised. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:MjolnirPants, I want to change the infobox images on the season articles for The Walking Dead into their DVD covers, because they've all been released except season 8. Can you add the covers please? Because I haven't got the tools on my computer. Blu-ray covers for each season: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]But the Blue-ray banners on the top should be cropped if you can and the left side on season 7 cover. Cheers, --Theo Mandela (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I gotta be honest with you, I think the current art is better. The blu-ray covers are specific to the blu-rays, whereas the articles are about the seasons in general. Promo images are a better representation, and since we're working with copyrighted imagery, I think we should stick with the best match to the article subject so as to make the best case for the fair-use rationale. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair, do know if there's a poster for season 8 yet? Because AMC definitely would have released one by now.--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela:http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10833752.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/New-Walking-dead-poster.jpg ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Cheers MjolnirPants, I can't add it because of my computer. Anyway, I'm not sure your allowed because it's a UK poster from Fox, not AMC.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't bother looking up the source, I just looked for an example image. But it's easy enough to do if you start with a google image search. I like the show, but I'm not an editor at those pages, and I'm not too vested in maintaining the imagery. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User voted web polls are not a reliable source. Please stop accepting edits that attempt to add Rotten Tomatoes user votes to articles such as The Orville. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@109.76.159.233: any primary source can be considered reliable for its own claims. This includes UGC. The relevant guideline for this sort of sourcing is WP:DUE which says that we can insert such claims (properly attributed, as the one you disagreed with is) into articles so long as it hits our standards for inclusion of claims. a Rotten Tomatoes rating certainly hits our standards for inclusion, as it's an extremely popular web site. Since the claim is attributed to them (I'll actually be editing it in a second here to make that more clear), it's a perfectly acceptable use. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it me or CobraSA and Zuwed1 stops activity after getting a warning? There's another user called Toboyof who's making personal attacks against Stikkyy and me. I'm getting suspicious that CobraSA, Zuwed1 and Toboyof are the same person.Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 14:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zirukurt01: Heh. See the edit summary in this edit. I've always been very reluctant to start threads in the drama boards, but if you want to file an SPI, I'll be behind you all the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but i think the evidence may not be enough. If Toboyof stops the activity, I'll file a sockpuppetry case against CobraSA and his suspected sockpuppets.Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 15:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zirukurt01: Let me know when you do, I'll comment my support and take on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ziurkurt01: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CobraSA Stikkyy t/c 21:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Zirukurt01: Stikkyy t/c 21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

But I think the president may have just left a comment at my AfD... o_O GMG^talk 21:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo, read that user's talk page. The halting use of English there sounds kinda Russian to me.... but sometimes so does the president. Ya got me. Scott P. (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ITT Mjolnir gets lectured for calling a spade a spade and Wiki' s resident right-wingers get to obscure their loyalty to dear leader over their country. 97.46.67.5 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You are cool

Sea Captain Cormac 14:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Q and P Award

Quality and Patience Award
---- Thank you for being a tireless and fearless contributor to the Wikipedia project, and for being one whose many edits have added significantly to the overall quality of the project. May your long patience with this brave and bold project reflect back brightly upon you. Awarded October 12, 2017 by the Wikipedia Editors Kindness Project

(Please feel free to delete this award in case you may not want the word out that you are actually a rather patient fellow.) Scott P. (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:MjolnirPants, can you get a collage image of the comic version and the TV version of the character (like this [20]) if you get time please? Theo (edits) 21:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You done messed up this time, boy! SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Consider yourself the former champion of incivility. [21]. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)