User talk:JzG/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 February 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Demotion!

By order of the cabal I regret to inform you that you are now a sysop. Enjoy! RatMaster ^háblame 18:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh noes! Now I need to find room for another mop and bucket under the stairs... :-) JzG (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia templates

The message has been distilled from the unnecessary rudeness and aggression. RW does not use Wikipedia templates because the microformatting etc are a pain in the arse. Understood. Enforcing the retention of rudeness on talk pages or in archives is asinine, obviously. Full details in the fossil record if you care. JzG (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey there new guy

Don't worry about everyone else. Just relax and get a feel for the vibe of this cesspit. And don't forget to vote Ace in the upcoming moderator elections. Ace, for a better future. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 02:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he won't meet the qualifications to vote. Too new.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here longer than you, son. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, two responses. Ace you're a filthy whore and Shut Up Bricks. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 02:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have been here awhile you'll know Brx is long time troll. We keep him around for shits'n'giggles and occasionally the bigger boys kid sand in his face. Don't know about Matty however - he does have wonderful prose though. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 02:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be an interesting social experiment if we set the voting requirements to the number of edits brxbrx makes to the mainspace -1. - π 02:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the more I would edit the less new users would be able to vote. So basically it'd be a circle jerk between the old users.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

JzGoat

sterile^{no new information} 05:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Importing someone else's material

It wasn't somebody else's it was mine. This was a silly and pointless argument.

Archiving

Old conversations can be moved to an archive, but you can't just delete them. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 15:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Um, really? Even Wikipedia doesn't have a rule that retarded. JzG (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Rationalwiki, the place that isn't Wikipedia. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 11:32 am, Today (UTC−4)

Sadly, my understanding is that there is, in fact, a rule that retarded. Just archive. Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're a whiny jerk...

How does that work for you? Get you a lot of girls? Help your career advancement plans? Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 15:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep edit warring...

...and I will temporarily remove tour rights and vandal bin you. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 15:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is really quite sad, considering he's a rather good Mainspace editor. Тy^{Not updated with a witty slogan this week} 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit is this really worth fighting and losing a good editor over? Cow...Hammer^time! 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We have community standards for a reason. If somebody is going to bitch and moan and edit war over something simple like archiving your talk page, then where will it end? If he wants to have a sulk over it, so be it. If he wants to fuck off, so be it too. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 15:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no such rule, hasn't been for a while. It's all there in the history - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is such a rule, you fuckwit. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a bit about desysopping in there. Perhaps you are using special 3D glasses - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to deleting talk page material. Look, dude edit-wars against policy and blatantly announces he will continue to do so. I stopped him. Don't like it? Take me to the Coop. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 17:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here.

When you decide to no longer act like a petulant child, use this. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You expect JzG not to be JzG? What? --Abd (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-demoted

Ignore the fool above, he's making shit up as he goes along - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, He's not. Bad Faith (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Because, of course, this is Web 2.0 where information should be FREEEEEE and nothing should ever be deleted. </snark> Secret Squirrel (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I promoted JzG again, since David Gerard's reason for demoting was poopy. Process? We need process for something as evanescent as desysopping? Next thing we'll have RfCs and ANI and ArbComm and obligatory endless walls of text.

JzG, you might want to reconsider your huffiness. RW can be fun. Where else do I get to block, in one place, Hipocrite, David Gerard, and you? I'm a kid in a candy store. Wheeeeeee! --Abd (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or how about, as a mod, you tell me what your case for said user having or not having sysop rights is and I'll have a final word? ^pathetic 22:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It was all about this and this and this and... (yes, I know they're in reverse order)

He was asked nicely not to delete stuff from his talk page, an edit war started and ToP eventually blocked him. As he was a sysop he unblocked himself, came straight back and deleted his talk page again. At this point his sysop rights were removed - I forget by whom - so that he couldn't unblock himself during the cooling off block he was given. He promptly LANCB'd.

I may not have got this 100% right but he was acting like an arsehole and there didn't seem to be a mod available at the time. Bad Faith (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Abd is of course a far more welcome sysop, and should definitely have the power to deop people - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Abd shouldn't be stripping anyone of those powers. But if it's about deleting a talk page, hell, I'll take it all and dump it in an archive myself. No effort required on behalf of JzG. ^narchist 23:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-demoted

Ignore the fool above, he's making shit up as he goes along - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, He's not. Bad Faith (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Because, of course, this is Web 2.0 where information should be FREEEEEE and nothing should ever be deleted. </snark> Secret Squirrel (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I promoted JzG again, since David Gerard's reason for demoting was poopy. Process? We need process for something as evanescent as desysopping? Next thing we'll have RfCs and ANI and ArbComm and obligatory endless walls of text.

JzG, you might want to reconsider your huffiness. RW can be fun. Where else do I get to block, in one place, Hipocrite, David Gerard, and you? I'm a kid in a candy store. Wheeeeeee! --Abd (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Or how about, as a mod, you tell me what your case for said user having or not having sysop rights is and I'll have a final word? ^pathetic 22:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

[inserted here because I think Armondikov was asking me.] I don't give a flying eff. And I'm not a mod. Okay, okay, you know that. I couldn't resist.

Sophie blocked, but the shock apparently caused some kind of malfunction. TheoryOfPractice actually gave some Serious Block, Obey Ma Authority type, a Whole Hour. Perhaps he'd noticed that JzG used his Toolz to restore a page that Sophie deleted, and warned JzG he'd remove them. [1] JzG has taken his bits home.[2][3] He's done that many times on Wikipedia, while his friends moan about the terrible loss, and blame the trolls, POV-pushers and spammers, which JzG found and blocked everywhere. Without him, WP would be Doomed.

JzG repeatedly blanked his Talk page. Wikipedians like him think of this as normal. Well, not exactly. Blanking like that would be considered abusive there, too, at least for a sysop. JzG revert warred with ToP. I'd guess JzG should not have the tools here due to Severe Lack of Clue, combined with an excess of This is Sirius Bizniss. Boring. But again, ... I don't give an eff. Or a gee, either. Your call, Armondikov. I don't think we need the Coop here. ToP had justification, and David Gerard was just helping his friend, and I was only objecting to DG's poopy sysopping reason. Process? Really? Here? --Abd (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Abd. Just so you know, I choose not to interact with you. I do not like you, I find you frustrating and experience indicates that attempting to communicate with you is a waste of time. Also, using sysop rights against people against whom you harbour long-running external grudges is plain stupid. Please don't post here again, OK? Bye. JzG (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It was all about this and this and this and... (yes, I know they're in reverse order)

He was asked nicely not to delete stuff from his talk page, an edit war started and ToP eventually blocked him. As he was a sysop he unblocked himself, came straight back and deleted his talk page again. At this point his sysop rights were removed - I forget by whom - so that he couldn't unblock himself during the cooling off block he was given. He promptly LANCB'd.

I may not have got this 100% right but he was acting like an arsehole and there didn't seem to be a mod available at the time. Bad Faith (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Abd is of course a far more welcome sysop, and should definitely have the power to deop people - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Abd shouldn't be stripping anyone of those powers. But if it's about deleting a talk page, hell, I'll take it all and dump it in an archive myself. No effort required on behalf of JzG. ^narchist 23:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it's probably about using the tools to undo what Psygremlin and another did without discussion,[4][5] and about blanking this talk page repeatedly after being told about RW community practice. If there were a way to remove the tools temporarily, I'd have done it. I was, with my removal, commenting on David Gerard's reversal of ToP's desysopping. ToP *did* have a legitimate basis, whether or not ultimately "right." David Gerard's basis for his quick reversal was.... for you to judge. Process? What wiki is this? I assumed that my action would be quickly reversed, if not supported, I only responded here because you asked.

JzG's actions on the deleted pages were not a problem in themselves, but his overboard response may have been. On the other hand, look at all the fun this has created. Wheeeeeee!!! --Abd (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!! --Abd (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not unblock myself. As far as I'm aware I did not use sysop rights to undo any other privileged action, other than undeleting a page that was wrongly deleted for copyright (it was my work released by me), which I think is unproblematic. Check my log: Special:Log/JzG - I have never used the block or unblock buttons here. It was a stupid dispute about the removal of an obnoxious message whose purpose had been served months before and could have been served three times better by being couched in less obnoxious terms, and it was ill-timed for me personally, so i did what I do when Wikipedia gets stressful: walked away for a while. Having seen that people are being rational again, I saw that as a clear call to me to be rational too. So here we are, and nobody died. JzG (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, thanks, folks, sanity prevailed. Sorry to get snotty, I was suffering badly with my coeliac disease at the time. No, Abd, I did not "blank my talkpage", I removed a snarky message whose underlying point was to advise me that RW doesn't do things a certain way, a message which had served its purpose. Even you don't get blocked on Wikipedia for doing that. It's all in the fossil record for anyone who cares (which is, to a good first approximation, nobody). Note: community standards talk about deletion, not removal. They are different. In fact archiving breaks the chain in a way that simply blanking does not, as the edit record is on a different page from the content. JzG (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the celiac disease. As to the arguments about Talk page, I've made similar arguments, and have been reverted, promoted, and even promoted again (blocked), for pursuing similar to you, I'd say for doing less than you. --Abd (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have determined that JzG's archiving with link to history was appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I was confident that this would be acceptable since it serves 100% of the purpose of the community standard. I'd be grateful if you could counsel Abd to leave me alone, you will be well aware of my reasons for having no interest in dealing with him I believe and I suspect you have no interest at all in importing old Wikipedia battles. JzG (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

---

I am not going to engage with Abd. You can email me if you want to discuss this. Comments left despite the request to desist will be removed, they remain in the record should you care. [6], [7].

---

Addendum: the decision of the Loya Jirga appears to support my actions re this talk page entirely. Constructive debate is welcome, telling me I'm wrong based on your interpretation of the same policy page I've read - not so much. JzG (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Cold fusion

You said

It's also notable that the cold fusionists, who have a sort of walled garden with their own journals reviewed by each other, their own conferences and so on, have several times shifted their claim as to what exactly they are looking at. They deny this has ever happened, reminiscent of the way that Oceania was always at war with Eastasia. And as usual with pathological science there are very few genuinely open-minded researchers: the true believers are deeply vested in proving they are right, and the non-believers for the most part either don't care or won't touch it with a bargepole.

[...] As always with Wikipedia, resisting the promotion of fringe views is a burden that falls on a small number of people, who are thus prone to burnout. Most people either don't consider themselves qualified to edit the article, or are "shruggies". JzG (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I would like to use that as a quote (I can email you the final chapter if you like). I'm in two minds about Cold fusion. It looks like one of those things were there is some 'anomalous result' which is close to some statistical boundary between probable and just chance, and little more. There is also Blacklight Power, but that's a puzzle too. Lots of PhDs on the staff, apparent endorsement by specialists, etc etc.

It may be best to stick to a subject where someone like me can clearly spot woo from a mile off. How about homeopathy? Any jungle guides for that war? If I were picking a 'science war', what would be the most illuminating - and entertaining - guide to Wikipedia's true nature? Peter Damian (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you read this? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I also know a lot more than I'd like about homeopathy. They are analogous in that both fields try to produce science supporting their pre-existing conclusion, but different in that at least the cold fusionists know how to do science. The average homeopath simply does not understand the concept of the null hypothesis. Virtually every fringe and pseudoscience subject in Wikipedia suffers the same problem. There is a constant stream of new people trying to tell us all the ways in which we're wrong, but very little departure from the normal route of edit, revert, polite explanation, and rapid descent into ranting about how Wikipedia is biased against $woo. No, Wikipedia is not biased against $woo, the universe is. The universe has these pesky laws which make things like homeopathy, free energy, the One True Cure For All Disease and so on, impossible. JzG (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - looks good. So is homeophy undiluted woo, or extremely diluted woo? Peter Damian (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be an ecumenical matter. JzG (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

<----------------- I looked at the homeopathy stuff and looks out of date. The main article looks well under control now (or appears so). The Cold Fusion is just too difficult. It seems as though there is evidence of an 'anomaly', but the default position is that fusion not likely. So I am left with Apollo hoax and Electronic Voice Phenomena and possibly Integral Theory. Am I right in my hypothesis that a lot of the 'human potential' and New Age stuff managed to get a stronger foothold in Wikipedia than the strictly pseudo-scientific stuff? Fred Bauder was a very early proponent of that, I remember. Peter Damian (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you actually looking for? Examples of provable bullshit that have been and remain skewed towards the bullshit viewpoint? On that score wp:health freedom movement is a strong contender. JzG (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely - the more the better. Also, cases where the defenders of the mainstream viewpoint were worn out or destroyed by the constant attrition. On Cold Fusion, I decided to look at it again - I may have some further questions. Peter Damian (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually having quickly looked at wp:health freedom movement I don't see any particular bias, even the reverse. The article is telling me that there is a coalition of interests working against the regulation of health products, which naturally turns me against the coalition as a kind of conspiracy. The effect was to make me more hostile to 'alternative medicine'. Peter Damian (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Aetherometry

There's a deleted Wikipedia article on the topic, which, having been an uncontroversial AFD, could be copied and adapted for here quite well - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have already nicked bits of it :-) How do I credit a deleted WP article for licensing, by the way? JzG (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tended to just credit the substantial author and that I got it from Wikipedia in the edit summary, c.f. The Kolbrin - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This...

not worth a three-month block. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

His name is Errol Denton and he is engaged in a long-standing campaign of harassment and smears against skeptics. He is also a fraud and a quack, listed as a noncompliant advertiser by the Advertising Standards Authority and under investigation by Trading Standards for consumer fraud. He has no interest here other than whitewashing the article on him. I think the phrase "malicious lying quack" sums him up... JzG (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

None of which merits a block unless you can 1. Show consistent and persistent bad-spirited behavior on the wiki and 2. get a vote to ban in the Coop. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, revealing people's IRL identities based on nothing more than speculation and for no good reason to begin with is a bitch move. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I went by the block reason template: I want to harass him. Seems only fair to me. JzG (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Cute

But now someone will have to post the following for me at the coop:

Errol Denton is a malicious lying quack who is listed as a noncompliant advertiser by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority following his failure to amend false claims. He has retaliated for this by pursuing a vendetta against two female bloggers he has decided are behind the reports to ASA. This has been ToS'd by Facebook, WordPress, Heart Internet and others. He has registered a bogus petition site to continue his vendetta, which was hosted at Heart until it was ToS'd. His thesis is that the reports are because h'es black. Close. It's actually because he's a quack, pretending to cure cancer with live blood analysis and alkaline diet. On the plus side, Trading Standards are now interested so he may be shut down or even jailed.

He has appeared here as user:81.174.162.215, user:Sceptic1 and user:Racblog (i.e. "racist bloggers").

This is the kind of thing he wants to do here: [8], though he'd probably prefer [9].

So, what, if anything, should I / we / anybody do about him on RW? JzG (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Please stop associating BoNs and usernames with real people without any good reason. 2. What should we do? Revert any unproductive edits, engage with any complaints that come up on talk pages. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah so we should ignore the blindingly obvious. Thanks for that. JzG (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Jones

Josephine Jones Website has been taken down by Wordpress. Scream!! (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I know, it seems to be an error - the generic spam blog message was sent, and it is not a spam blog. We're wondering if it got hacked. Be back online soon, anyway. Tempting to blame the idiot Denton but that is probably just coincidence. He got another blog taken down by bleating about use of a picture of him (ironic given that he uploaded over 70 copies of a picture of someone else in order to harass them). JzG (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Back now, in case you hadn't heard. Looks like a false positive form the Wordpress spam-o-tron. JzG (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Blog post?

I am currently trying and failing to write an RW blog post on the odiousness of cancer woo, made harder by that blue link actually being a redirect and not an article. It occurs to me that you might be able to bash something together off the top of your head - not just examples, but why it has a hold on people and why it's so peculiarly odious. It might even be something useful, we'll see! - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to. What's the mechanism? Build the article or email you something? JzG (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much. Either. Thank you :-) And, of course, there's infinite articles to write on some subjects - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)