User talk:Judge Dredd/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 4 October 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<8>, <1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

"Weapon X" is still almost entirely false positives

Just turn it off. It's not a helpful filter the way you've made it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Confucius say... Better light a candle than curse the darkness. Also you turned it off anyway, you nimby. — Dysk (contribs) 21:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What's "Weapon X?" Is it one of those sooper-sekrit tech things we're not allowed to know about? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth It's a secret, you'll never know... — Übermensch ^{Pierce through the wonder of amazement at the ubermensch} 21:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

ikanreed is just annoyed because it tagged him here (because I didn't set it to only affect new users. oops) For more info see Special:AbuseFilter/18. — Dysk (contribs) 21:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm annoyed because it tagged several other legitimate edits since then, none of which are mine, because you whitelisted my edits. You're overpolicing language, and it's not helping anything. Algorithms do not replace human moderation. Especially naive pattern recognition for "bad words". The history of how this doesn't work is all over the fucking place. Edit filters were not intended for overprotective tut-tutting, but being an automated response to automated(or at least very persistent) classes of abuse.

You've created several other filters of similar levels of anti-utility. I want you to acknowledge what edit filters are for and stop using them this way.

We could have a huge long argument over it, but for now, please at least understand why I'm objecting to what you're doing, and stop thinking of it in such "he's personally offended" terms. That just makes me think you want control. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The filter only even tagged one edit. smh. Then the tagging was turned off and it matched half a dozen edits on the log, taking no action. Then I made changes to the filter which included whitelisting you, and it only subsequently matched one edit, which it didn't tag, while enabled for a five day period. (and it hadn't matched anything at all for four days when you disabled it.)

Also I firmly believe that the other unrelated filters have been very effective. So by no means do I agree that the general approach is flawed. There are proven results. — Dysk (contribs) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright, what's your best case favorite edit filter to prove "they work"? Excluding ones that match something hyper-specific like a username rather than a word. Far be it from me to strawman. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 21:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ok so ignoring for a moment the poorly executed filter 18, and if tagging rude language is something anyone wants (apparently I am alone in this), there are these filters I made;

• Filter 54, which detects and blocks usernames matching a pattern which the mods habitually renamed.
• Filter 55, which does exactly the same thing as filter 54, but on a different pattern.
• Filter 57, which has prevented the creation of 2,136 spam pages. With less than ten false positives. Because it was getting boring deleting Viagra ads.
• Filter 58, which has prevented the creation of a further 329 hits in a similar way to filter 57. Because health food ads are also a thing.
• Filter 59, which has performed dismally, imo. Because although it does stop what it is supposed to stop, there have been false positives. (although I have made changes to it recently to fix that).
• Filter 5, which although not currently set to stop it, has matched most the spam made to the salon bar with no false positives.
• Filter 2, which matches usernames specifically, so there is no question that it works to the extent that action is desirable.

— Dysk (contribs) 22:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

So... the successful ones target automated garbage? The thing I was saying they were for? I'll also grant serial username re-creation is a better case than edits containing naughty words, because the volume of false positives is a billion about 100,000 times lower. I wasn't making the case that edit filters are useless, just the thing you tried to use them for with Weapon X was really bad. I wish I had glasses to take off and rub the bridge of my nose, because that's really the perfect expression of how I'm feeling trying to make a fairly simple case about this. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes my bad. I didn't immediately see that it was a bad idea, but I am sorry for any worry caused by trying it. — Dysk (contribs) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And I'm sorry for being so severe and combative about it, but there's nothing worse for a sense of freedom on a website than a mindless computer coming in and yelling at you for stepping slightly outside the chalk. I appreciate what you were trying to achieve, but years of seeing automated moderation at work doing things like banning users for quoting the death threats against themselves makes me super-wary of it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't the Simpsons a reliable source for quotes?

Why is Futurama an OK source (such as on the mad scientist article) but The Simpsons isn't? It's a quote from Donald Rumsfeld when he guest starred (so it's his voice and his words). I don't really get this. Say, call it explicit, no callous eggs. There's woe on poor old imbeciles, nary twofold. Zany! Ere's raw odds. Flashthecash (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You are allowed to quote cartoons on the mad scientist article (probably), and in funspace, but ideally nowhere else. m'kaay? — Dysk (contribs) 16:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So, culprits in easy nodes? Caring every time we oddly pull out inklings. Now there's zeal entering rugs, OK? Flashthecash (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Am dhem gwenn. — Dysk (contribs) 23:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Logic and Such

is Logic and Such rational? Have you ever seen Videos for People? ^{— Unsigned, by: Logic and Such / talk / contribs}

Yeah I am sure they are perfectly rational. Just a PITA. — Dysk (contribs) 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

So cheap I even now called experts. They walked out. Pity, Oxford is not tolerable. Zounds! Easy. Right. Odiferous. Flashthecash (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you know about MCToon?

I wrote an article about MCToon and I guess he isn't as well known as I thought he was. I think he deserves a page, but what do you think? I thought he was pretty well known. Smokinwheat (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Less than 1000 subs is pretty much a non-starter, sorry. — Dysk (contribs) 01:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

He has over 1,000 views and has spoken face to face with over 5 Flat Earthers. Can you examine his content? It's very good and he puts in a TON of work to prove Flat Earthers wrong. Smokinwheat (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning small youtube channels and not taking no for an answer. This reminds me of someone we know very well. Commie Lib (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Subscribers ≠ Views. — Dysk (contribs) 01:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Science 2.0

Science 2.0

LogicNSuch

LogicNSuch Science 2.0

VIYCE

VIYCE Nightlife

Science 2.0

Herman The Hitchiker College Buddies

Why "2.0"? — Dysk (contribs) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I'm also curious about the etymology of "Dysklyver". Why disks and livers? When I see "Dysklyver", the voice in my head often automatically pronounces it as "Dansk-yev-lar" (that is to say, "Danskjävlar", which means "bloody Danes" in Swedish), and I can't take you as seriously as I should.

With all due respect, another username I have some trouble taking seriously is @Gol Sarnitt, since it reminds me of "Gosh Darnit". Anyone care to explain? 77.111.245.27 (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Dysklyver is a word in Cornish (which is a local language), you pronounce it as /dɪsk'lɪvɛr/. And it's meaning is essentially; "book of learning". — Dysk (contribs) 14:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a clue about Gol Sarnitt. Maybe that's their name? You could ask them perhaps. — Dysk (contribs) 00:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just curious about a block

You blocked a user named Samantha Priss. I am wondering, is it a sock of a known troll?Ariel31459 (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

15:57, 10 March 2019 Dysklyver (talk | contribs | block) blocked Samantha Priss (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled) (Trolling talk pages) (unblock | change block)

15:56, 10 March 2019 Dysklyver (talk | contribs | block) blocked Samanthaprissmikemikev (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×infinity! (account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Undesirable username) (unblock | change block)

Probably Mikemikev. — Dysk (contribs) 02:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

John66 and Bongolian are the same person

They are both the same person, they should be banned. OAPP (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I know both of them - as two separate different people. Get a life. — Dysk (contribs) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you defending Smith

He’s abusing multiple accounts. He’s been on almost every wiki he’s ever logged onto! ^{— Unsigned, by: Bright eyes / talk / contribs}

Never coop banned, so it's technically allowed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Dysk (contribs) 12:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Furry Fandom article

I would like to open discussion regarding this article, as in my view there seems to be something of a misunderstanding between us. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That is entirely possible. Certainty I would be interested in why you think the article should be written that way. — Dysk (contribs) 12:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The article, at least in my view, predominantly has some tongue-in-cheek jokes in defense of Furries, such as "Don't try to insult a furry by calling them a jackass or a son of a bitch: they will thank you, and likely return the compliment." or "Regrettably, fur bashing causes matting" and in fact the entirety of "If you want to appear incredibly intelligent and well-adjusted, chant "Kill it with Fire!" at a furry or group of furries. This is a well-known chant that strikes fear into the hearts of many furries, as it signals the presence of one of their many enemies, be they Goons, Anons, EDiots, or one of many "upstanding citizens," and is often accompanied with similar chants of "Yiff in Hell!"<ref>[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/kill-it-with-fire Know Your Memes - Kill It With Fire!]</ref> The vast majority of furries have totally not heard this chant hundreds of times before, so you will appear to be highly original and insightful. And, of course, irrational hatred of outgroups shows you are a hip and worldly person of distinction." reads as sarcastic.

"===Fur bashing=== + Furry-bashing is common at websites such as Something Awful, Portal of Evil, [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]], and, most notably, CrushYiffDestroy! As a result, furries think they are the "underdog" or victims of "fursecution", although those may be bad puns. <ref group=notes>It's worth noting that while the fandom does carry a general mistrust of the media and non-furries, the perception of the furry fandom being consistently misrepresented and drawing unfair negative attention from the rest of the internet and the media at large is not completely off-base. Furthermore, words like "fursecution" rarely see any earnest usage within the furry community, with that word in particular seeing more usage by ''non-furries'' as a [[snarl word]] meant to characterize furries as oversensitive and to trivialize the harsh treatment they've received from other internet communities.</ref> while critical reads as a defense of Furries.

Basically I don't see a problem with most of the disputed content, as it is snarky and irreverent yes, but not much more than the rest of the site. Why do think said content should go? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"tongue-in-cheek jokes in defense of Furries" see this isn't what I think at all, but I am ok with simply avoiding the article and your "snark", which imo is misplaced, but it's true, that much of this site is like that. — Dysk (contribs) 15:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Pssst...

I think you mean, "you can no longer assume". You forgot to write "no". Spud (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :D — Dysk (contribs) 10:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

NO U

Marxist traitor. Antifungal16 (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Fascist scum. — Dysk (contribs) 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why was Concerned blocked? The response on that user-talk is also very strange - I think you're confusing me with someone else by impersonations. Most likely Antifungal/Mike is impersonating me on emails now. There were also recently fake accounts of my name on Reddit and Conservapedia. Mike is also apparently impersonating you on the EDF forum where he's been blocked on 6 accounts in last few days.Jellybeans (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, the point where I gave a shite has long passed. Take the drama back to to Encyclopedia Dramatica forums (lol) or wherever. — Dysk (contribs) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Harvard and Yale

Go look up the history on these universities. Yale, for example, was founded by puritans. They were definitely fundie schools. What a Wonderful World (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No because Christian fundamentalism started in the late 19th century, whereas Yale was founded in 1701, when everybody were Christians, but not fundamentalists. Therefore Yale was never a "fundie school", since such a thing could not have existed when it was founded. — Dysk (contribs) 09:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your beard

you either grow it out and take care of it properly with some tiege hanley, or you shave it off bucko. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:34ed:b2af:8894:54ae / talk / contribs}

The worst thing the Romans ever did was normalizing shaving. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:2876:3C83:70A9:92EA (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It won't really grow out more than that really at the moment. — Dysk (contribs) 14:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Dysklyver workout to boost your test and start chopping wood (it's scientifically proven to boost test, and no I'm not joking or trolling) 2601:CA:8200:34A:34ED:B2AF:8894:54AE (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... that's pure woo. Right up there with "make your kid do stereotypically masculine things and he won't turn gay" level woo. ^{— Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs}

A study found that chopping wood increase test by 48%. You soyboys better chop wood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymih3w7dtg0 (Check his other videos if you like bodybuilding) 2601:CA:8200:34A:F50C:C74C:A51E:62C5 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeedy. — Dysk (contribs) 17:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Life ?

Do you have one ? You seem to be moderating this siite 24/7. It seems mildly pathetic. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:ca:8200:34a:f50c:c74c:a51e:62c5 / talk / contribs}

Pretty much, I occasionally look in while working/studying and do stuff. It's a distraction of sorts I guess. — Dysk (contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Discord

You're wanted on Discord for questions relating to the election. Thought I'd give you a heads up. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Knowino Page Virus Links

Hey NekoDysk, seeing as how I'm totally new here and don't know how to navigate things yet and that you're a Techadmin, I figured this might be an okay place to bring it up (if not, I'm so sorry!). The external links on the Knowino page led to virus pages. I figured I'd give you guys a heads up. Thanks so much for welcoming me! — TeenageRobotomy (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes good catch, although you already successfully removed them from the page, so all is good. :) — Dysk (contribs) 23:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Discord again

I need you on Discord for a private talk. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Graves

is relevant [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] kthx EK (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks interesting, tell me more on Discord. — Dysk (contribs) 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Email

I sent you some emails. Respond ASAP. — Oxyaena ^Harass

Wilco. — Dysk (contribs) 21:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Discord election

Please check the candidate list against the election form before it goes live. Jem (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries, pretty sure everything is good. — Dysk (contribs) 18:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Creating Coop

Hi, I've found a very problematic editor (a sysop) who is making dubious edits. I think at the very least he needs to be desysopped, preferably banned. I will create a Coop later today. I would appreciate if you comment when I post since you have a history/experience editing some race articles.Tobias (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

As much as that editor is a dubious influence he hasn't actually done anything that seems idiotic enough to ban him for it. Maybe that will change, we will see. — Dysk (contribs) 20:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

please see - greenrd (Robin Green) section I created on the Coop.Tobias (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

HCM level

HCM 3 is when the whole site starts getting involved in a conflict and starts taking sides. The current coop is HCM 4; only a handful of editors are involved in it. What a Wonderful World (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure almost everyone is involved by now though. — Dysk (contribs) 09:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

attack page

check the deletion log, u should do the suppression thing EK (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. :/ — Dysk (contribs) 13:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Traitors

Get hung, drawn and quartered. 82.132.220.67 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Good thing i'm not a traitor then. :p — Dysk (contribs) 14:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. 82.132.232.37 (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mike, you're nearly 41 years old and childless. Why not give up the white nationalism/alt-right nonsense that doesn't even suit you since you have no children and become an antinatalist. Welcome to the club, old buddy. Tobias (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

honk honk EK (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Discord ASAP.

Need you on there now. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I see you on Discord now? ^{— Unsigned, by: Oxyaena / talk / contribs}

OwO. — Dysk (contribs) 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Glamour Sickle

Good catch. I thought he/she was a troll, and administered a block, due to vandalism, but it seemed other people bought the user's BS. The user seemed to post things that sounded suspiciously like Nazi caricatures of our positions( such as this. Additionally, all of their edits were alarmingly low-quality, as well as being focused on race. It seems Mr Pedo-Nazi is also a shitty parodist. Again, thanks for the catch. Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Warning

Do not abet Oliver, who is engaged in defamation. He's a literal committed psychopath. Fits in here. 82.132.213.167 (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Do I look bothered? — Dysk (contribs) 20:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Request

Can we just Coop and ban this piece of shit. Another whitewashing attempt for his buddy Nathan again.Tobias (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's something that I will probably do rather soon if he keeps up what he's doing. Bear in mind if he gets banned it's because of his disruption here, not explicitly due to him being a crony of certain eugenicists. — Dysk (contribs) 22:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)