User talk:MjolnirPants/Archives/Archive 2

re: youtube video you recommended

I'm responding here since the conversation on WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#General Discussion of Above Chiropractic Articles moved on and now my response seems too far off-topic to post there. Just wanted to say thanks for the link. It was funny how they basically said the same thing that I thought I came up with all by myself the other day. :) But, man, that main guy is a slow talker! I thought I had been used the chiropractor for the few reasons the people on the video said were valid (i.e. therapies that aren't specific to chiropractic like adjustments for lower back pain, hip alignment, etc.) even though I didn't know it at the time. I wasn't sure if that was wishful thinking though, so that podcast validated my justification. :-P PermStrump(talk) 20:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Glad you liked it! I thought it was funny, because I listened to it for the first time yesterday, and then you came along the next day, and with only a month of research had arrived at the same conclusion as a guy who's been looking into it for years! :D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I feel like I should fess up a little b/c there are a few details that didn’t seem relevant before, but now their omission makes it seem like I'm smarter than I really am... When I was still in high school, my PCP was a DO and he did some adjustments once after I hurt my back and the next couple of adjustments I had were from a physical therapist. So when I saw a chiropractor for the first time, it was because I was specifically looking for the most convenient way to repeat the experience I had been introduced to by a DO and a PT. I’ve also know for a long time that MDs scoff at chiropractors, but I assumed it was for the same reasons as my mom… because "everyone" knows that there are a lot of crooked chiropractors and dentists who pretend that radiology isn’t something that takes years of extra medical training to become competent in and then they convince people that their total normal X-rays indicate some made-up misalignment issue/cavity that will require multiple follow-up visits to treat. So, a knee-jerk skepticism towards chiropractors had been instilled in me from a young age. So technically, the only brand new information that I learned last week was that my mom’s reasons distrusting chiropractors were only the tip of the iceberg. PermStrump(talk) 01:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I said I didn't purposely go to the chiropractor for the only valid techniques they offer, what I meant was... I had no idea there were other reasons to see a chiropractor. It never would have occurred to me that someone might go for any issue other than neck or back pain. PermStrump(talk) 01:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I believed for many years that a chiropractor was like a masseuse with a medical degree. I thought it was all based on sound science, and that the only issues they dealt with were muscular and skeletal issues that spinal adjustments could actually help with. It was only a few (okay, maybe ten or so, god I'm old...) years ago I learned otherwise, and I was blown away. So don't feel bad. Pulling the wool over people's eyes is just what these sorts do. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Walter Krickeberg

Thank you. / I wrote: For example, in German article there's an article about Walter Krickeberg (1885-1962). No article about him in English Wikipedia. Also no article about Hermann Trimborn (1901-1986) in English Wikipedia. I can't write these articles. But maybe the others can write them. / They wrote books about the Maya civilization, the Aztecs, the Toltecs, the Inca Empire... / No article about Johann Rudolf Rengger (1795-1832) on English Wikipedia... (but we see that article in German, Russian and in Spanish.) / No article about Ramona-Ann Gale / No article about Bertha Morris Parker (1890-1980) we see that article on Croatian Wikipedia. / No article about Vladimir Stchepinsky / No article about Ron Carter, the author of The Coming Of Civilization. / They wrote books about history, geology, archaeology, paleontology, etc. I don't know much about their lives... For example, Croatian Wikipedia has an article about Bertha Morris Parker and the names of her books in English. Böri (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Böri: Okay, let's start with Walter Krickeberg. I found a few english-language sources, and I can read a tiny bit of German, so with the help of google translate, I can start transcribing some of the German article and sourcing it to English language sources. If you can find any English sources, or you have copies of any books (in any language you can read) which we could use to source it, post them to my talk page. Later tonight, I'll start a draft in my user space and give you a link. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again. Böri (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I liked that page. Please edit it as a Wikipedia-article. Thanks. Böri (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cryonics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 April 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Cryonics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's always a pleasure to talk about Ehrman with someone who agrees

It's kind of off-topic, so I'm taking it to your talk page.

I think we interacted a bit back in a historicity of Moses (!?) dispute two years ago.

Well, I know for a fact that Yale's open course on the New Testament (taught by Dale Martin) uses Ehrman's textbooks and recommends several of his popular books.

Don't I know it! I found those lectures by accident on YouTube back in 2012, and in a manner of speaking they changed my life, in that they eventually led to NT being my main non-Japan focused academic hobby. Martin was whom I was thinking of when I made these edits.

As an even more remote aside, have you seen this? Martin's introduction of his friend Ehrman is delightful in so many ways, and he specifically mentioned that he and others use Ehrman's books as textbooks (which I think might imply that in Martin's non-introductory seminars he uses Ehrman's books that aren't explicitly marketed as textbooks). Heck, he even kinda-sorta addressed the problem I brought up in this edit, but he did it in a tongue-in-cheek manner so unfortunately can't be cited.

And the Gospel of Judas talk you were listening to wasn't the one where his audience kept laughing and clapping at extremely bizarre places and in the Q&A asked him about "the Twelve Female Disciples" and Mary Magdalene's grotto in southern France, was it? I love that one. :P

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Wow, such enthusiasm! Don't worry, I'm not criticizing it. I'm sharing it. ;) Okay, to respond to your comments:

No, I don't think I was involved in a debate about the historicity of Moses, though I would have been, had I known of it. I could be wrong however, as I've argued about a lot of things here, mostly civilly.
I've listened to the entire course series by Hayes and Martin, and I loved them. Open courses are one of the greatest things to come out of internet culture, IMHO.
No, I've never seen that video before! Thank you for sharing, it's going next in my playlist.
Yes, that's the video I'm referring to. I've watched it before, and I love Ehrman's reaction to it. It's such a typical expert reaction to an off-the-wall claim, but coming from Ehrman (who generally sounds more like an evangelical preacher than an academic) it's just plain funny.

Now I have a question for you. Don't take this the wrong way, and know that your answer doesn't really matter to me beyond simple curiosity. Are you religious? I'm not, but I find the study of religions fascinating. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

DON'T PUT IT NEXT ON YOUR PLAYLIST!! It's the third in a series. Admittedly, I saw the first two parts about a year before I found out there was a third part, because YaleDivinitySchool's YouTube channel is somewhat messy, so it's possible you too have already seen his first two lectures on anti-Docetic and anti-adoptionist changes to Luke without knowing that there was a third on anti-Jewish changes to Luke.

No, I'm not religious. I was raised Catholic (I'm Irish and went to public school, which means I really went to Catholic school, and my parents are both liberal Catholics), but I live in Japan and feel more of an attachment to Buddhism on a spiritual level, but even then not so much. I'm interested in Buddhism in an academic manner about as much as Judaism and Christianity. More textual, literary and historical study than "study of religion", though, if you get my meaning. Comparative religion (mythology) is something I'm also kinda interested in, but I haven't read a book on the subject from start to finish since c. 2008. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It was eating at me what on earth we were talking about two years ago if not the historicity of Moses, so I checked our interactions and found nothing. Then I recalled that it may have been in the period I was editing logged out because of some off-wiki bullshit (I blamed my phone, and I don't mind admitting that I was lying; anyone who wants the details can email me). The IP you were referring to here was me, and you posted on the IP's talk page here something that in my memory became a discussion of the historicity of Moses... it's funny how memory works... :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, sorry for never getting back to you!! Pretty much everything I said there that wasn't explicitly sourced to Hayes was ... well, implicitly sourced to Hayes. :D Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, I remember that now! Yeah, we discussed Moses, but in the context of the overall historicity of Genesis. Good times. It's all good on not getting back to me. I discovered the Hayes lectures since, and found the reference myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I have filed an enforcement request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MjolnirPants concerning your recent editing. Rhoark (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of decision

In the recent AE request filed against you, I have come to the following decision:

Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility.

If you wish to appeal this decision you may do so to me on my Talk page, through Arbitration Enforcement, Administrator's Noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've edited that ANI thread too many times already, so responding here

What I meant was that you could vouch for my having edited in very technical discussions of biblical scholarship as early as two years ago.[1] The other user and I first came into conflict at the very end of February 2015, and he has claimed several times between April 2015 and April 2016 that I am somehow "following" him to biblical/Christian topics. You and I interacted in a discussion of biblical topics almost a year before I supposedly started "following" that user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

alt-white?

Check your last talk page edit! Doug Weller talk 13:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: LOL Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know...

...that these comments made me "lol", "One wonders how one could have one's mind controlled, yet still be able to rebel against it, or indeed, even recognize it." and "but twenty minutes of google searching (by a guy who, not to toot my own horn, knows how to squeeze results out of google) returns nothing". —PermStrump(talk) 21:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I'm glad somebody finally laughed at a joke I made here. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Dont bother..

...with SageRad, he shows up at an article, declares it biased (ie, not how he likes) then claims anyone different is not editing neutrally. Its really not worth your or anyone's time to justify his comments by labelling them PA's or striking them. No one really listens anymore. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: I know he doesn't have much of a voice, but me and him once had a bit of a rapport. I was just hoping he'd listen. It's worth a shot if there's a chance Sage might listen and tone it down a bit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well it never has before. Good luck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I... Probably will need it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:TE at Electronic harassment

Regarding the disruption there, it is ultra-slow and long term, but still a disruption. I happen to think there's a WP:COMPETENCE issue in his not being able to understand the encyclopedia's policies. AFAIK, his only experience has been with a small group of editors on article Talk pages. I was hoping maybe if he got some wider input he'd come to the realization that it isn't a few biased editors opinions he's fighting, it's a widespread and agreed-upon set of community standards. But maybe that's unrealistic and WP:AE is the best way forward. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLouie: I understand where you're coming from: You want to help the editor as much as (or more than) you want to help the article. I sympathize and even agree for the most part, but I can't help but remember that sanctions on WP aren't supposed to be punitive (even though they often work out that way). If Jed were put in a position to only edit other areas of WP, areas where he may be more neutrally minded, that might do a lot more good than having a bunch of people trying to convince him directly. I've always believed that you can't convince anyone of anything, you can only give them the tools to convince themselves. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I forgot about the WP:TBAN option. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI: [2]. Sigh. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Laucke at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop

Hey Mjolnirpants, hope all is well! Are you still doing photo alteration/repair requests? Michael Laucke is a WP:FAC article at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop that has an embarrassing case of the blurs... would you be able to look at it? If not, do you know someone who is good at these things? Thanks!! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Hey. No, I've unwatched the page and I'm not bothering there. Way too much drama, almost all of it revolving around one editor makes it no fun to contribute there. I'll take a look at that image sometime in the next week, if no-one else gets to it. I can't promise much (blurriness is notoriously difficult to fix), but I can probably do a few things with it. The motion-blurring on his hand, for instance, looks like something I could do a lot for. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has already chopped off the blurry hand, but then a different editor said she has a better picture anyhow. Sorry you had an unpleasant experience in a Wikipedia process. I hate it when that happens. It's happened to me before too in a vastly different context, years ago... Hope all is well with you. Let me know if you ever need any help with articles etc. (Except I'll be traveling through most of July, with only intermittent access). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for edit warring, as you did at James Ossuary. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

12 hours is not a long time to calm down and see if somebody else tries to resolve the dispute. If nobody does, come back then and start a conversation on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I think you blocked the wrong guy... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This was a tricky one to call, but I felt since it was only you and the IP warring on the article today, protecting would knock out anybody else attempting to reach a consensus, so it had to be a short block (the IP is also blocked for the same reason). However, if you tell me you won't go near James Ossuary at all for the next 12 hours and are happy to edit something else, I am happy to unblock. I will say that comments such as "Was that really so hard? Next time, you're likely to end up getting blocked" led me to believe that you were trying to pick a fight with the IP and not reach a peaceful conclusion. Remember, that when there is an edit war, don't keep changing the article while the discussion is ongoing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I made two reverts (not even three, let alone four or more) and began a discussion in which I agreed to the changes I first reverted, then categorically stated that I would not violate the 3RR. How is that edit warring? That's exactly the process we're supposed to use. Hell, I requested page semi-protection because this wasn't something that called for blocks at all in my view. Check the page history. There were IP editors edit warring on both sides which I why I didn't rescind my request for page protection. I even explained to the IP who I reverted how they could get the changes I had changed my mind about to put back in if the page got protected and someone else blindly reverted them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now I've had a chance to look at what's going on, I've assessed the situation and I'm happy to unblock here. As you were. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Personally, I think an apology is due. The reason given for the block has been shown above to be flawed. MjolnirPants had a clean block log and the claim that the block was because of repetitive behavior hasn't been made.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I had made a mistake (as explained on my talk I got dates mixed up and thought I was dealing with a current set of reverts) and am happy to apologise for royally screwing everything up. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

(It bears repeating here)Apology accepted, and with no hard feelings. We all make mistakes! MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't delete material from my talk page

I wanted to know about that. Thanks. --200.114.212.124 (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted nothing. There's this thing called a page history that contains all of that information. The message I removed was canvassing that was sent to a large number of editors who have self-identified as atheists on their user pages. Of course, if you plan to act on it while logged out, you're going to end up being banned for sockpupptry and canvassing, but that's on you, not me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern Levant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Horizontal line test

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Horizontal line test. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This...

...might interest you.

With my apologies for bothering you, 79.43.19.105 (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ancestral health

Your suggestion that the article titled "Ancestral health" violates WP:ELNO needs some specificity. What provision in that list do you think it may violate, and how? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

All three links in the EL section are to websites advocating for what amounts to a paeolithic diet. So it runs up against 1, 5 and possibly 2. Also, I should point out that the article meets WP:A10 of the speedy deletion criteria. I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A10 is about a new article that duplicates an existing article, yet you do not specify any existing article that you think it duplicates. Tell me which one. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Item 1 in WP:ELNO discourages "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Obviously the links do provide a unique resource that the article cannot: One has links to a refereed journal in which articles can be read; one has the schedule of speakers at a symposium on a university campus; one has a site run by a non-profit organization offering information about the ancestral health movement.

Item 5 discourages "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising." The linked web pages contain no advertising and do not try to sell anything, let alone exist for the purpose of selling something.

Item 2 discourages "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Did you choose this on by throwing a dart at the list? For this to apply, you would have to at least allege that there is factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. This is an organization that publishes a refereed journal.

How does your citing of ELNO make any sense at all? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: Listen, do you want me to just go ahead and nominate this for speedy deletion? Because if you insist upon arguing with me, that's what I'm going to do. Right now, you've got a one-sentence article with a bunch of advocacy groups in the external links and one citation that doesn't support what it's used for. This thing will get deleted so fast you'll forget it ever existed. I've offered to put off nominating it so you can get the chance to improve it, but you seem more interested in arguing with me about it. So make up your mind. If you post back here without improving the article significantly, I'm just going to go ahead and nominate it, and we can happily go on arguing about an article that doesn't even exist anymore. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I was asking questions. You make assertions that it duplicates an existing article; do you not expect anyone to wonder which article? You say there's advertising on linked pages where I find none and even say they exist for the purpose of selling something, do you not expect people to wonder where you find that? Your latest posting looks as if you're actually impatient and annoyed and didn't expect this. Discussions of these things are supposed to be collegial. Your last comment is written in a tone that I would expect only if you thought you were responding to something inappropriate rather than to the use of these pages to discuss Wikipedia editing, which is their intended purpose. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Collegial discussion

You wrote, "I'll lay off nominating it for a speedy for a week, so you can have time to add more info." We now see that that was insincere. As nearly as I can tell you changed your mind because I violated some rule of yours that forbids arguing with you. Normally discussions among those who edit Wikipedia pages include disagreeing with others' views and putting forth the reasons for disagreeing. You're the only one I've ever seen declaring himself exempt and ordering far more experienced users not to express disagreements with you. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I've started this discussion of your behavior. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for doubting your infallibility.

I've edited Wikipedia articles daily since 2002, and done nearly two-hundred-thousand edits not counting anonymous edits (which have been most of my edits in recent years), and you're the first Wikipedian I've encountered who asserted that I should never dispute the assertions of someone who tells me I'm wrong, since telling me I'm wrong is doing me a favor. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I offer you popcorn, Mr Pants? -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:Indeed you may. Quite the show, I'd say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been wanting to apologise for my frivolity here, very soon after I made this casual remark, things got all odd and out of control. I believe that now would be the first appropriate time since then to comment at all. I hate popcorn actually, it's nasty dry muck that they couldn't feed to pigs. Oh, wait ... -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any apology is really necessary. There was, after all, some ridiculousness. If anything, the whole affair became even more ridiculous as it progressed... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The long version

Okay, I'm a little overwhelmed with all of this, but this seems like the best place to post my 'side' of things, for what it's worth. Allow me the preface by saying that I've been criticized quite a lot for being too detailed and posting gigantic walls of text numerous times. I've been trying to work on that. I've also highly cognizant of the fact that several editors of articles about WP:FRINGE subjects have a big gripe with skeptical editors, and I've seen myself that they're not entirely in the wrong. Sometimes, me and my fellow skeptics can go too far in our fight to keep false and misleading claims out of WP.

To that end, when I encountered what appeared to be a pro-fringe stub article, rather than posting a ten paragraph wall of complaints on the article talk page, or posting at WP:FT/N and recruiting a half-dozen skeptics to descend on the article like a viking raid, I decided to PROD the article on some technicalities (notability and the appropriateness of the external links all being to advocacy sites). An article on this subject might be appropriate, if worded correctly, so I figured this could be a win-win. Either the author improves the article, or the article gets deleted. Michael, the primary author of the page then responded by removing the prod and asking for clarification on my talk page.

I responded, again being cognizant of not trying to overwhelm anyone with talking points, or engaging in the sort of judgement-casting that might come across as me denigrating the entire subject. I told him that I felt the article could be speedily deleted, but that I'd hold off on tagging it so he could have time to improve it. Michael responded again, and I was typing a response when he posted yet more complaints about what I'd said. At that point, I admit to getting testy. I felt like I was being gish galloped because he'd responded in detail to things I'd brought up in passing, and I was unable to even respond to one of his complaints before he made three more. The only way for me to respond in detail would be to point out exactly what's wrong with the subject of the article with respect to each and every point raised. That would have meant me posting a wall of text full of skeptical judgement of this subject, the exact eventuality I'd been attempting to avoid.

So instead, I (more tersely than was necessary, I admit) told Michael that if he decided to keep arguing with me instead of trying to improve the article by fleshing it out and trying to address my complaints, I would nominate it for a speedy delete, since it essentially said nothing that wasn't already said in paleolithic diet. Well, instead of doing anything at all to the article, he continued to argue with me about it. There is a time and a place for discussion, and as I mentioned, I can "...happily go on arguing about an article that doesn't even exist anymore." But the problem of the article still needed to be addressed. Michael clearly indicated that he felt arguing with me was more important than improving the article, since he hadn't edited the article except to remove my prod in that entire time period. So I tagged it for speedy and logged off for the day. When I looked something up this morning, I found I'd gotten an email from Michael, I'd been pinged numerous times and my talk page had been edited numerous times. So I cracked a joke and wrote this. Next, I'll throw a link up at AN/I in case anyone there wants to read it.

So that's my version of events. Maybe this helps, maybe not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MjolnirPants. Yes, it seems kind of surreal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If it brings you any comfort, I wandered over to your talk page after reading your near-heroically patient conversation with Pete.delaney, so I'd like to vouch that your engagement in such conversations at other times can be been remarkably productive. Deletion is a topic that leans quite heavily towards confrontation, and this particular subtopic involves editors who are, if not predisposed to iconoclastic and adversarial reactions, at the least dealing with a force that must seem subjectively indistinguishable from the prejudice of consensus and any hostility towards their interests that they perceive therein. You seem to be seeking to provide positive examples of the useful encyclopaedic documentation of so-called 'fringe' theories, and that strikes me as a very inclusive approach, given the alternatives. 0x69494411 21:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

At least two important untruths appear above: The words "instead of" are not true. In addition to improving the article I disputed one of MjolnirPants's points and asked a question about the other. It was not "instead of" trying to improve the article. I had every intention of doing that, and did so. Secondly, it is false that MjolnirPants said that the article duplicated the "Paleolithic diet" article before I asked _which_ article he thought it duplicated. In fact, he said the article had something to do with the "Paleolithic diet" article (something I'd already said myself) and that it duplicates some other article. But he did not say _which_ other article. Obviously not the "Paleolithic diet" article, but which one? I didn't know. So I asked which one. That question made MjolnirPants very angry and he said so. This is the first time I've been ordered by another user not to disagree with him and not to ask him questions. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I am told posting a mere inquiry about something that has happened is not appropriate at WP:ANI. So I've posted something that is explicitly a complaint. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

An administrator on the English Wikipedia should not have to say "I am told" regarding what is and is not allowed at ANI. He should know the rules backwards and forwards. Furthermore, if we accept for the sake of argument that "posting a mere inquiry" is not appropriate (given your recent history, I am confident that a diff would show that a completely different reason was given), an administrator on the English Wikipedia should know that rephrasing it as a complaint is gaming the system. Newbies make these sort of mistakes all the time, and it is the responsibility of the administrators to know the policies, gently correct the newbies, and explain exactly what is and what is not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom request

I have made a request to ArbCom, in which I have named you as a party. It is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Michael Hardy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I think you (User:MjolnirPants) may have left out a word or two from your statement. "Michael has demonstrated what appears to be a near-complete grasp of those social skills necessary to collaborate with others on a project like this" seems like it needs a negation operator somewhere, perhaps "failure to" before "grasp". Apologies if I'm off-base on this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Squid

I have actually seen someone with squid wounds.... they bleed. A lot. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Ouch! Did it look like it was from the suckers or the beak? --Guy Macon (talk)

(edit conflict)@Only in death:Me too, as a matter of fact, LOL. It happened to a friend, right in front of me. Bled like hell for a while. You know what the best thing about it was, though? Her name is Jules. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Idle chatter

I looked, and didn't find a "Patience of Job" barnstar to award you for your attempts to work with that guy Peter on the electron article. That's very nice of you. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, he's new. New guys get slack from me, so long as they're not obnoxious. I still feel like a new guy, myself. I appreciate the sentiment, though. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

One thing though.... Tell me, did you a get a ping from this edit? User:MjolnirPants/Drafts/irt Note: The template has been moved into main space at Template:In response to, that's why this doesn't work. I'm not fixing it because I don't want to ping Boris again.)

I'm testing out a template before I push it into mainspace. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I did get the ping. I got two notifications, one of which was for your message on my talk page and the other must have been the ping. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please come and comment on Talk:Objections to evolution

Could you come and add your input to Talk:Objections to evolution please? You're the only editor who can be considered as close to being neutral here. It is incredible how people blindly object to the simple clarification that biologists consider macroevolution to include speciation. The Wiki page doesn't make sense without this crucial information. 69.75.54.130 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"...in the section titled after me"

If you have room, you might mention that the "statements of fact" (which are anything but) are never backed up with a diff. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Argument from authority

In re Talk:Argument from authority

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chris Dubey (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your MediaWiki.xml script is very useful.

Good job, thanks :-) 85.193.252.33 (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. 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 discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

You eventually have to move the old threads into archive pages, or your talk page will become slower and slower to load, and eventually uneditable on many devices. Just FYI. See Template:Archive box. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 03:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil and interesting conversation at RS/N. I suppose that the best way to get greater clarity about BLPPRIMARY would be at the BLP talk page. Right? I could start a discussion there, or you could. I guess you have interests beyond the Graphics Lab.🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: BLPN would probably be the best place for the discussion you and I are having. I'm at work (and pretty busy today) so if you want to start one, that'll get it rolling faster than waiting for me. As far as the graphics lab goes, I steer clear these days, as it's become too dramatic. You can mostly find me at WP:FTN lately. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you'd start the BLPN discussion whenever you get a chance, because I'm not confident that I would accurately describe your position and rationale. But I could give it a try if you want. Either way, I think we both want to avoid drama.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I was just thinking... The problem with what we're discussing (and likely part of the reason we've both been so good at keeping it civil) is that we're not talking about an actual proposal... If someone were to insert the claim "Source says that Trump is considered to be highly dishonest," or something like that, they're not likely to actually cite politifact.org, factcheck.org, the wapo fact checkers (whom, like Huffpo with their editorial diatribe against trump added to every article about him, I would argue are way too biased against Trump to be cited for such a claim) or snopes.com. Even if they did, another editor would come along and replace that citation with a better one, such as (I actually had about 10 links here, but the EL blacklist triggered on google.com for some reason and I don't want to open each in a new tab to get core addresses. Suffice it to say, there are plenty of non-opinion pieces calling Trump dishonest, some of which report on fact checker scores) or any of a thousand others.

So the situation is entirely hypothetical right now. I'll tell you what: For now, we'll go with your position, and replace the source on any such claim/revert the change (if it's in wikivoice). If this causes too much friction, I'll start a discussion at BLPN so we can get a consensus. But right now, without a concrete proposal based on it, I don't think it's worth trying to get a consensus. What do you think? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration propossed decision

Hi MjolnirPants, in the open Michael Hardy arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jarabulus offensive (2016)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jarabulus offensive (2016). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character theory (media)

You might want to revisit your latest on the above page ... right now you're "not on board with Deleteing" ... possibly "now"? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised (as an avid MU* player) Bartle's types didnt have an article to itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It should. It's notable enough. I've been on a kick of watching speeches from GDC (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0JB7TSe49lg56u6qH8y_MQ) and the speaker mentions it virtually every time any sort of MUD or MMO is mentioned. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Michael Hardy is reminded that:
1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Peace Talks

MjolnirPants,

Here, you appear to state it is too early to add "Peace Talks" to the book list - something may come up by which the title needs to be changed.

Here, on the contrary, you seem to affirm that the book will come out and is notable enough.

Unless I fail in interpreting your statements, this is an unresolved contradiction. How can we resolve it?

79.53.94.105 (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, you have failed to understand my statements. No worries, though. It happens. The first comment (that we should wait, because things can change) refers to the book's title. The second comment (that the book will be notable and will be coming out) refers to the book itself. As I mentioned in the thread on the skin game talk page, even given assurances that a book will be published, we have no assurances that the title will not change. Indeed, I believe the title will not. But we don't know that. This actually applies to the book's publication as well, however I'm much more certain of it. Besides, wp policy is quite clear: unless the buzz about the book's upcoming release is notable, we don't report on it until we have something to report on. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think I get your drift. But shouldn't we wait also for the short fiction page? Easy enough to change, but it's still a potentially weak spot. 79.53.94.105 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there entries for future short works on that page? If there are, I've got your back in removing them. Commenting them out (by putting a  tag after it) would be a good way, because that takes them out with a single edit, and lets them get brought back when it's time with a single edit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Only mention is on the paragraph about "Jury Duty". Here.

Your edit looks good to me. I suppose one could replace the prose mention of Peace Talks with something like "the next novel" and be okay, per WP:IAR, but I'm also sure there's some pedant out there who would edit war over it, should they find it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPants at work (talk • contribs)

"the next novel"? Does not seem that good of an idea. I, for one, would wait up to the time we get a book cover for it. 87.18.122.11 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Surrender (military)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Surrender (military). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

AE Request

There is a request at AE in which I have mentioned you in passing. It probably does not require any response from you, but I felt obliged to inform you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: I think Sage is angling for an Oscar with all the drama in his defense. I'm not sure he doesn't deserve one, either. I mean... Is it just me, or do you hear Charlton Heston's voice when you read his comments there? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(Delayed response due to being sent to Coventry.) Reverend Lovejoy's wife for me. Wont someone think of the children? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Oooh, did you get a chance to see the cathedral? I've heard it's very nice. And sort of a middle finger to Hitler, which is always a plus in my book. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

My wife's a catholic and from Cov, so have unfortunately seen lots of it (to be fair it is very nice). As an athiest we have a deal, Christmas & Easter masses and thats it. With christenings to be negotiated separately. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: I had a similar arrangement with my wife (I am an atheist as well), however she was never very religious to begin with, so after a few years she's an I-won't-use-the-word-but-I'm-still-an atheist. She shares atheist memes on Facebook and everything. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A fundamentalist who called Ehrman a "fringe hack" just got indeffed

Holy shit. Apparently, sometimes, the system works. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, while that's rather heartening, I would like to offer you a word of caution that this comment could be seen as gravedancing. Still. That's one likely future battle averted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. (Although I don't think it's technically gravedancing until they're metaphorically "dead", and that hasn't happened as long as some users appear to be saying that because some of the !votes in favour of indeffing were in error because they were based on the assumption that the user was logging out in order to make personal attacks when it actually seems like those edits were made by yet another user then the user's block should be repealed. I may have misinterpreted those posts, mind you.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Ugh. Wiki-political-lawyers. "Well, he wasn't responsible for the personal attacks, so we should forgive the ignorant POV pushing because wiki membership is down." Or the even worse "Well, I agree with his ignorant POV sometimes so it can't be that bad to let him keep pushing it..." To be fair, nobody seems to have said the latter yet, from what I've seen. But someone will. If this continues much longer, then at some point someone's going to start arguing "Well, what if he has a point? Should we really be letting atheists edit the Christian pages?" MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Also, his user page, where he says "I am interested in editeding any and all articles in order to make them more succinct~~ly written,~~ and more accurate, while using excellent grammar and spelling." is using poor syntax and grammar. Rule number one of the grammar Nazi Reich is "Don't be a grammar Nazi!" Rule number two is "If you are a grammar Nazi, you will be subject to grammatical corrections!" And yes, every rule ends in an exclamation mark. And should be shouted with a German accent whenever spoken aloud. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, nobody seems to have said the latter yet Read very closely, and you can see a certain old friend of ours saying "Yeah, you should block him, but..." And he was the only one to say it like that; it's pretty obvious why. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to this particular friend, then I don't see his comments in the same light. I see them more along the lines of "I can imagine them reforming, but they'd need to prove it hard, first." But the discussion is closed anyways so... Yay? I dunno. Check out the current version of ANI, and you'll see I've spoken up in yet another case about a hyperreligious POV pusher... Sigh. The system works, but the problem never ends... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nipponese Adonis

It's not Adonis, it's Venus, and not actually Nipponese so's you'd notice either, but I certainly don't blame people for getting both impressions. I suppose my username is kind of baffling too, come to think of it. Bishonen | talk 21:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I had the strong impression you were more of a Venus than an Adonis, but the name kept throwing me for a loop... Well, know I know. And knowing is half the battle. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

...basically pretending not to be a prehistoric monster ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we all? I know I am. I'm a perfectly normal sized homo sapiens. And those aren't scales, just a skin condition...MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of converts to Christianity from Islam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of converts to Christianity from Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Burying the hatchet

I apologize for the unfolding of the dispute at Talk:Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories#Judgement of theological claims and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparently uncivil behavior disrupting content discussion. It is clear that my tone and manner of speech--which I assure you are how I normally speak/write--were unwittingly liable to interpretation as pretension and obstinance. Berating was never my intention. Despite my continuing belief that my comments were sincere efforts at constructive dialogue, it is incumbent upon me to apologize that I was not more successful in obtaining that end and rather facilitating just the opposite. I regard the dispute as settled and hope you do as well. Ergo Sum 05:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to sound ungracious, but seriously: I just want you to drop it. I don't much mind if you think I'm a giant asshole, so long as you're not making a stink about it where I can see it. So I accept your apology, and for what it's worth, I'm sorry you were offended and I never intended to offend you. Just please, go away. I'm still hoping the next time we run into each other it will be with better attitudes, and the best way to do that is if we both just forget this ever happened. I'm going to wipe this thread tomorrow after you've had a chance to read it, and I really just don't want to hear from you again after that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please dont make your edit summaries break my watchlist formatting ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Nownow, don´t hurt yourself, MP ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Sorry about that! I had no idea I had a stalker. Actually, I'm not sorry. I'm laughing my ass off, imagining my own reaction to coming across a summary like that on my watchlist.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'll be fine. I have a high tolerance. I appreciate the concern, though. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very very very sorry for editing your Talk page. I couldn't take any more. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I might just have to report you to ANI for this harassment. I can see the section now:

Ill tempered User:Roxy the dog harassing me me on my talk page with funny quips

Could an admin please put a stop to this? He's making me chuckle and we just can't have that. Wikipedia is serious business, and forcing me to laugh at myself detracts from the necessary sense of self-importance it takes to be a good editor. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you mocking me?

I have just read your comment at the Talk page of user:JzG here[3]. The diff you linked to was an uncivil attempt by the admin @Jzg: to mock me. Your posting is a further attempt to mock me. I suggest you strike your comment. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If I may interject, he wasn't mocking you Doc, he was appreciating Guy's sense of humour.

You are welcome. -Roxy the dog™ bark 21:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not a sense of humour. I asked a direct question of an admin. He not only refused to give a direct answer to me, but instead used an anecdote which effectively tells me to "fuck off". DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, DrChrissy for so perfectly illustrating the joke I made in the section immediately above this one. It's nice to know that I can mock the self-importance of some wikipedians and immediately have someone else not only understand me, but chime in with some satire that perfectly illustrates it.

That is what you are doing, right? You have, in fact, gotten over being dismissed by one editor, and are not making a stink because another appreciated the humor with which it was done, and decided the best thing to do was to poke a little fun at yourself by putting on an act, right?

Because otherwise, it means that you have been pacing around a dead horse, stick in hand for almost a month now. It means you are dictating to me what Guy and myself are thinking, in the face of others (accurately) disagreeing with you. It means you are disrupting Wikipedia by making a stink here on my talk page, instead of contributing elsewhere. It means you would have to be so self absorbed and, frankly, arrogant as to think that both Guy's comment and my informing him that it made me laugh constitute actionable breaches, and furthermore that you were somehow being gracious by complaining about it here in terms more suitable to someone mocking that sense of self-importance, rather an immediately bringing it to WP:ANI for the attention of an uninvolved admin.

I don't like to think you're the type of person to do those latter things. So I'm choosing to believe you're engaging in the former line of events. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

No article about Andreas Bertalan Schwarz

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Bertalan_Schwarz I saw the article on German Wikipedia. He wrote books about the Roman law. Böri (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MjolnirPants. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussions, misunderstanding, misrepresentations and civility

MjolnirPants, It is clear to me, from our interactions in a number of discussions, that I have an issue being understood by you; and, from your responses (describing my comment as "bizarre"), this may be clear to you also. I conjecture that this is in part because we are accustomed to different vernaculars. I would respectfully request you to please assume good faith, and to carefully read what is actually written, rather than reading more in to it or speculating on its intent or implications; and to respond accordingly, based on what has actually been put to page. If there is something which is written which is not clearly understood, my suggestion is to ask questions, rather than asserting understandings in error. I will also mention that continually misrepresenting editors, and continual personally directed comment on editors, are both incivil, and in violation of policy. Thanks in advance for your consideration on this point. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It is clear that you have trouble understanding me, because I made it quite apparent that I am, in fact, assuming good faith. Were I to assume you were a POV pushing ideologue with no grasp of logic or appreciation of reality, for example, I would not have been the least bit confused to be confronted with arguments that are based on such a broad divergence from reality as those which you recently presented at the wikiproject page. I would not have engaged you at all, were that the case.

This is a problem I see with a number of editors who display difficulty putting together well-considered arguments, as well as otherwise competent editor who argue under circumstances in which they have some emotional or ideological investment. Such editors are (or become) unable or unwilling to distinguish between criticisms of their argument and criticisms of their person. While I understand this is human nature, I should point out that insulting people who disagree with you is human nature as well. We are not expected to simply give in to our baser instincts here. Speaking of which...

Your reference to Hanlon's razor is an unambiguous personal attack. It cannot be applied to an argument and serves no purpose in the discussion. The hypocrisy of posting a message on my talk page asking me to be civil when you are making personal attacks at the other page is staggering. At this point, you should tread very carefully. I am not the kind of editor who will run to the admin the first time I am insulted, but continued lashing out on your part will change my mind on this. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Happydaise (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE post length

Hello MjolnirPants. Thanks for your recent contribution at WP:AE#SageRad. Per instructions at the top of the page, statements should be less than 500 words in total. One way to count is to use https://wordcounttools.com/. You are now at 969 words. Please see if you can get this down to 500. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I was trying to reply to Sage with the level of detail he often requires. Nonetheless, give me a few minutes to get to it and I'll put the text on a page in my namespace and replace it with a link. I had forgotten about the word count limit, sorry about that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Close

Hi. Re this, I appreciate your effort to cut off a discussion that doesn't need to go on any longer, but per WP:CLOSE#Closure procedure you need to be uninvolved to close a discussion. You can't participate in a discussion and then close it. You should probably self-revert. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

On second thought I'm going to revert you - but I'll preserve the comment you added concurrently to the body of the discussion. I just don't want folks thinking they're being railroaded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I understand what you're saying, and you're free to open the discussion back up again, but bear in mind two things:

WP:CLOSE is not a policy, and is focused on deletion discussions. There was a clear (and overwhelming) consensus that removing the tag was a good thing. One editor refusing to accept that was becoming disruptive, hence the close was to prevent further disruption.
By re-opening the discussion, you are implying to anyone involved or reading that there are some merits to the claim that removing the tag was improper. You are feeding the trolls, as it were. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Misguided kool-aid drinkers are not the same thing as trolls, but I hear what you're saying. So if there's a consensus to close, then close. I'm not going to get anyone in trouble or anything. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Misguided kool-aid drinkers, trolls, vandals, POV pushers, racists, activists, crusaders: it doesn't matter what particular flavor of disruptive they are: if we encourage them, they will continue. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

We'll, that's not how admins and arbcom tend to see it. (To be clear, that's not a threat!) No matter. We have the same goal, just different approaches. I always appreciate your insightful comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

warnings

@MjolnirPants: Thanks for the feedback! You might have seen that I was using STiki for that revert, and I'm just getting used to it, so I probably didn't intend to go that hard on them. --prmcd16 👽 ^(u)•(t) 01:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Prmcd16: I kinda figured it was a bot template. No worries. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andy Murray

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Murray. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Happy New Year, MjolnirPants!

Happy New Year!

MjolnirPants,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. -- Dane ^talk 02:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

No article about Sven Lagerbring

but the Swedish Wikipedia has that article: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Lagerbring Böri (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi

You tell something [4], but do not support your statement by diffs. If you tell on AE that user X acted inappropriately during last weeks, you absolutely must provide diffs showing the alleged misbehavior. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

MVBW I'm not sure what you're expecting. the insult I mentioned had a diff (the text of the insult is a link to the diff), and providing diffs of TTAAC's editing history over the past week would accomplish nothing more than linking their edit history would, while requiring a lot more work. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean that if you are telling that almost all their recent edits on article talk pages [5] were just like that, you probably should provide additional diffs to support your assertion. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. The problem is that this is one of those null hypothesis things. I could provide a stack of a hundred diffs, but if their editing history consisted of 5000 edits meeting those criteria, that would mean nothing. I provided a link to their editing history precisely because it shows both the edits in question and all other edits to talk pages in that time period. I really do understand where you're coming from, but I just can't see where me adding a bunch of diffs would do anything but muddy the waters. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Martin talking about non-academic stuff

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this. I got bored looking for new lectures to watch on YouTube (or waiting for more stuff from the scholars I already like to be posted) and Googled "Dale Martin lecture -site:youtube.com", and came it across. Very interesting. Probably can't be used as a source for anything on Wikipedia (although I did do this), but still a good watch. He's actually pretty funny, when he wants to be (Ehrman Shaffer intro, and all). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff! Listening to it now. Thanks :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Feeling frisky?

Feel like putting together some kind of proposal? I'm not sure if I can work much on it tonight, probably should spend some time with my family (whatever that's supposed to mean). But I wouldn't mind having a few cracks at a sandbox with another editor to hash things out before proposing something. At least one link I posted on the talk does in fact seem to be to an opinion piece (my bad). But the current emphasis on Clinton in particular is almost certainly losing a larger context, which the current spat on talk only serves to illustrate. And after all, you're a working sort of pants, not the kind to sit by idly and let the day pass you by. TimothyJosephWood 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, Heh. Me being the working sort of pants is a big part of the problem. I work 10 hours a day, and can't devote more than a few minutes at a time to WP during the days. But I just posted some sources at the talk page, and I plan to read through them tonight and write up a draft section that includes the sentence we've been arguing about. I'll drop you a link to whatever sandbox I put it in as soon as I do. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Roger that. I'll start delving through sources tomorrow morning, including the ones you've posted. For now, off to be a dad and a husband. TimothyJosephWood 22:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, when you're done dadding (as a fellow dad, we can be honest and admit to each other that husbanding doesn't happen very often these days), I've gotten something started here. I've linked it at the article page as well, where there seems to be an emerging consensus that we should write it. Hopefully, this will engender some cooperation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your "Shut your pie hole" comment

This [6] edit where you started out with "Shut your stupid pie hole", formed a personal attack that violates WP:NPA. In the middle of a contentious discussion that's escalated to WP:AE.

I understand the frustration, but this is blockable personal attack behavior. This has to be redacted and I need a reassurance that it won't happen again, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert You are mistaken. It was not a personal attack, nor was it made from frustration. It was (IMHO a pretty clear, but we all know what they say about opinions) attempt at levity. Check the diff; you will see that I intentionally linked the phrase to this page, which reads "Go back and re-read what I said. Now picture a dorky looking guy handing you a beer and saying it with a smile on their face. That's how I meant it. Not in the angry way you might have thought."' I created that page for the express purpose of using it to identify remarks as being facetious, friendly or both.

Nor was it out of the blue, but a callback to this edit in which I told another editor (I admit; I had confused the two for a moment and thought I was talking to the same editor) that we both had been advised to "shut our stupid pie holes" and that I intended to follow that advice. Note the sentence preceding the one in question: framing it as advice.

In turn, that edit was a callback to this scene from the Chris Farley film Dirty Work, which I admittedly mangled pretty badly.

When it comes to assurances that I don't intend to engage in personal attacks in the future: it's easy enough to give, given that it's been my tact thus far. As to assurances that I won't make jokes others may not get; I'm sorry, that's like asking me to stop breathing.

I don't mind striking the comment; it was intended and delivered in jest, and thus isn't very important. But I think it's worth saying that in the future, you might be well advised to more carefully read diffs presented to you if you intend to act on them. I can't escape the notion that enclosing what appears to be a personal attack in a link (to a page in user space, no less) just begs for that link to be looked at by any admin examining it.

tl;dr Check the page the phrase was linked to for the intentions, and check this diff for the context that should have made it clear I wasn't making the comment out of the blue. It was a joke, not an insult. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw that comment. I took it as a light touch in an otherwise heavy and unproductive thread. It linked to a self-deprecating ironic remark and I have never seen Mr. Pants express any mean or negative sentiments on WP. In fact that whole thread was prompted by a bright line violation of Discretionary Sanctions at that article by another editor, but the talk remained more or less civil on all fronts. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to AGF that that's how you meant it, but if you look on the AE page TTAAC called it out as being a personal attack upon him. So he and I both read it as an attack on first impression.

Insulting humor works better in person with people you know or can read, rather than across the internet with people you don't really know and can't read the reactions of. It's too vulnerable to being misinterpreted and even if it gets cleared up, causes stress and anxiety. He's stressed right now, for an obvious reason. It was not the best choice of ways to communicate with him under the circumstances. You should probably go apologize and try to clear it up with him, assuming he believes you. If he doesn't then you should just disengage on it, but an attempt to apologize and explain may work. In any case should retract first if possible (typing this without checking if you did yet, was off on another work computer for a while). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

One of TTAAC's difficulties on WP has been a tendency to project his own shortcomings on other users. I doubt that Mr. Pants is among TTAAC's biggest concerns. We will all be fine in the morning. SPECIFICO talk 03:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In particular on AE and other admin boards, abusing users facing sanctions is seen as extremely bad form (see WP:GRAVEDANCING for doing things to fully blocked users, but the term also is used for users facing other sanctions). His reaction was not extreme, and I suspect this will blow over ok, but these are the kinds of things you really should not do. There are reasons for it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Georgewilliamherbert, I don't think it takes much faith to accept what I said; you'd have to explain away everything I said, including why I used such a juvenile phrase (you might notice I tend to write with a bit of formality when I'm not making a point of using vernacular language), why I used the phrase twice in the same day (once referring to myself) and why I put a link on it that should, by all rights, have taken the sting out of the comment. Nonetheless, you commented just as I was in the process of striking it.

I don't plan to apologize, because I don't believe for one second TTAAC would listen to any apology. I normally would, but the rants on his user page, combined with the fact that he came after me, proverbial fists flying in an argument in which he and I were taking the same position (He seems to remain completely unaware of this, despite me telling him so explicitly), combined with his predilection for focusing on users and misinterpreting anything that isn't convenient to his stated beliefs have drained his due share of AGF where I am concerned. If he remains offended, well, that's not ideal, but I've made my intentions in making that comment clear enough that I feel it's his problem, not mine. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

More weasely than this?!

[7] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell you how tickled I am that someone actually noticed that edit summary... :D MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Trivia

Regarding the category "People paid by Big Pharma/Big Government/Big Science/Big Skepticism/Big Atheism to schill", I believe the correct spelling is "shill", at least in American English. [8] "Schill" makes it look as if it came from Yiddish. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I spell sceptic with a c too. Oy Vey. Roxy the dog. bark 04:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I had looked into the etymology of the word once (in an actual library no less, with real books and everything) and I came away with the impression that it does come from a Yiddish word that got conflated with an English surname, and started out as referring to what we would better term a "hawker" these days. That being said, that's not why I spelled it this way, here.

No, the truth is far more mysterious....

Mysterious as in "How the fuck did I typo a 'c' in between an 's' and an 'h'?!?!?!?!" (Seriously, it's a typo, just one of the weirdest ones I've ever noticed.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Harumph. No, you copied it from me, correct spelling and all, then modified the qualifiers. (the c is silent, as in schule) Roxy the dog. bark 15:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahhhh! I see that now. So, totally not a typo. And I'm going with the American spelling, because 'Murika. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Just a note, you might want to remain a little more civil, here. I completely agree with you, but that comment could have been a bit better. Dealing with alt-right nuts is really challenging, however, and it would be hard to find an editor who would stay calm in that situation. Keep up the good work! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing was that I don't really care to convince them, nor to continue to engage with them. I was careful to not insult the editor at all, but I firmly believe that there's nothing wrong with passing judgement on an argument. Intelligent people can make ignorant, fallacious, bullshit or even downright stupid arguments. I suppose I can't argue too much that I was being civil, just that I didn't make any personal attacks. But, as you said; dealing with these people is a challenge and sometimes that means even an impeccably nice guy speaks his mind to an unwise extent. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

About Jim Butcher's template

MjolnirPants, if you don't mind me bothering you for a bit of advice, I'd like to ask you what can be done with this template.

"The Cinder Spires" is just a redirect to "The Aeronaut's Windlass", a book I intensely disliked and did not finish reading. That they should be cited is pretty clear, but there's preciously little I can add to the main pages of the series.

Distinct possibility that other people will not want to either - the The Areonaut's Windlass is about a year old and is still a stub. Lack of notability is a point.

Thanks. 87.8.88.240 (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I can type up a short summary; I actually just finished reading this on the 13th. But the book isn't very notable. It's popular among Butcher's existing fans, but that's about it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(TPS) Its not even that popular amongst his fans if you delve into online review forums. Its more one of those 'Well he wrote it so I will read it' kind of deals. Its not bad, but its not his best. And 'Meh' does not make for a great article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death and 87.8.88.240: I've gotten the opposite impression, but then even fans of a specific author can schism into factions these days, so it's distinctly possible that one or both of us is absolutely correct. I haven't delved into it too deep. I did find only positive reviews on the first page of a google search for them, though. I've made some significant additions to the article in the past few minutes: I think maybe too much. Feel free, both of you, to trim them up as necessary. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I grew tired of the current crop of authors in the sci-fi and fantasy genre's and so had to start reading through my library (physical library). Started on Katharine Kerr again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Only in death, that's some good stuff. I got to the end of my desire for new sci-fi as well recently, and have been on a Neal Stephenson tear. I finished Cryptonomicon before I realized I was only supposed to pretend I have (but then, I work in IT so it was an easier read for me). Snow Crash rocked my world, too (I can't believe it took me this long to get to it...) and I'm pissed off that he's not planning on writing a sequel to Seveneves. I know, the last one is new, but dammnit it's a classic already. At least in my book. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I guess that The Cinder Spires will stay a redirect for a while, which, according to User:*Treker, has no place in a template. 87.8.88.240 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with *Treker on that. Once the third book is out, we can make a page for the series (assuming it doesn't languish in obscurity). Until then, plain text for the series title and a link to the first book page is all we can reasonably do. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Out of interest (since I was stalking here anyway) Is there a guideline on waiting til all books are out in a series? Generally I have seen trilogy pages go up after two books. The thinking being its unlikely for a publisher to drop the third at that point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I just figured, given the notability questions, that waiting for the third book would be the safest course. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably - Areonaut's Windlass was one _bad_ piece of fiction. 87.8.88.240 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Milo

I thought it was obvious, but let me clarify. There was no consensus reached on Breitbart News as to whether the term "right wing" or "far right" were best, so both terms stand as of now. Therefore I have added it into the Milo article so it mirrors the Breitbart one. Please do not slavishly revert edits without engaging brain. Thanks! Phatwa (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a consensus: the same consensus was reached in three different discussions on the most recent archive page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)