User talk:JPxG

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article, or even the talk page for an encyclopedia article. It is a miserable little pile of secrets. Do not consult it for term papers, doctoral dissertations, Congressional committee reports, ecumenical statements, et cetera. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror, or one of those ersatz knockoff sites that make fake profiles of Wikipedia editors and claim them as users. Be aware that the page may be outdated, or stupid, and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JPxG.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

I had been struggling with the rmcloser on the move for the Donald trump shooting article for a full ten minutes. Thank you for closing it. Soni (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was so cursed lol. Even with admin tools that give me the #fuckit #yolo overrides for everything, I still had to separately move the main page and the talk page and disregard a bunch of warnings -- I think MediaWiki was freaking out at the idea of auto-deleting both destination pages. I really wish there was an option to auto-histmerge short history redirects/dabs, but then again, this would probably cause a bunch of additional unbelievably-stupid edge cases, so who knows tbdesu. jp×g🗯️ 04:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suspect it's the talk page size that caused it. That and the speed of edits for both pages, at least for me it took me quite a while to realise there were new edits after the version I was stuck on.

New pages are always a pain for history and similar reasons. Soni (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Griphennus after you put it in WP:RECORDS and was surprised when "griphennus" didn't yield a single non-Wikipedia result in any of the places I searched it. It really sounds like a word. It could be an Austrian meadow or great uncle of Methuselah or a humanoid toilet YouTuber or something. For a minute I started wishing it were a word, so maybe for today I can say it means "interesting, useful, behind the scenes task that I previously did not realize anyone had to do." Like standardizing improperly closed AfDs, that's a total griphennus. Thanks! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used my viewdeleted for good evil silly when I was looking at that AfD because I wanted to know too. Here is what it was:

This a common slang term used by a group of Marquenvolists of the Acrophedya in Cornolio, (a very secluded pterogynne exchanging thylial expressions) allowing pavilius commonequial . Modern theories concur the usage to be applied to strutting the absolute mendisqual reliance on temporary jargonth. Memphitatically, the fianthropology consisted of technical distribution due to the connorial diction of vixerish methigie. Although amptitwin conditions persist the morpholitus adaptaptable query for maquisurial expenditures. Further information can be found on the messiroial vector summation Law from David Vandelorough's Volume 9-77 listings.

Had a bit of a chorfaw at this, it was a pretty good nonsense as far as nonsense goes. jp×g🗯️ 05:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha griphennus is what it's like when my friends that are in grad school publish exciting but painfully esoteric papers and I try to read them to be supportive Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering why this talk page is protected. 2403:6200:8810:F964:B067:4711:4774:5642 (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if I know -- I didn't do it, I just moved it there. I guess that puts my name in the protection log because I transferred it from the old title. Well, I guess I can take a look. jp×g🗯️ 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Downerr2937 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- inspired by reflection on recent events, I have written a new essay with ideas for developing our Wikipedian conduct norms. I am looking for advice and collaborators and thought you might find it interesting. Pizpa (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your robot HooptyBot have been change other's userspace page, I have reverted. Gongxiang01 (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, where? I don't see anything in its contribs outside of my own userspace. jp×g🗯️ 03:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JPxG/Oracle/2010-11: Revision history - Wikipedia Gongxiang01 (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Gongxiang01 (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gongxiang01: Ah, it is fine. Thanks for helping out anyway :) jp×g🗯️ 03:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, How did you make that fancy username ND61F (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard? jp×g🗯️ 02:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, I didn't know that! ND61F (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Cyber tux.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused; deleted on Commons.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Queen of Hearts ^talk 21:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts: I have never before witnessed so much wailing and gnashing of teeth over an image with seemingly zero capacity to offend -- I feel like a picture of a naked person getting their head cut off by a giant swastika made of poop would not earn so much tripe as this random DALL-E pic of the fucking Linux penguin. I feel like every day there is some new random complaint, which is for some reason structured in a way that requires my active participation to respond to. It got deleted on Commons because: someone removed it from an article for a couple days, then during that time someone popped over to nominate it for deletion at Commons because it was "unused", then it could never be added back to the article because it was deleted, then my request for a deletion review was ignored, as was my message to the deleting admin. So when I reuploaded it locally, I had to use the Internet Archive to get the description text from the former Commons page -- nobody could be bothered to give it to me from Commons.

Then there became an endless series of random IP editors and accounts with two edits driveby-removing it from the fanart gallery of the Tux article -- then two accounts with similar writing styles and two previous edits ever opened a talk page section to argue that there was a solid consensus to remove because they both said they don't like it.

Never have I been forced through so much pointless nonsensical bureaucratic busywork over something this utterly inconsequential.

Please, for the love of God, just delete the goddamn thing so I can stop hearing about it. I do not give a fuck anymore. jp×g🗯️ 02:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nah: here, look, it's in use. Now I never have to hear about it again. jp×g🗯️ 02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, see User talk:Ingenuity/Archive 10#Redirecting Where is Kate? to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health and User talk:Jclemens/Archive 15#Recreation of Where is Kate? for some of the side discussions that went on around that. My impression was that there was a strong sense among some that BLP expected, if not demanded, the revisions be hidden. I didn't agree with that consensus, but my recreation of a redirect after deletion was not intended to circumvent it. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God damn it. I had a feeling there was going to be some additional hidden layer to this. Well, at any rate, I undeleted it so a Signpost writer could look through the revision history to write an article about how the AfD and the article development process worked -- so I think that if this can veg for a few days it will be fine. Yeah? jp×g🗯️ 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My post is informational only. I didn't really have a dog in the fight, was just trying to tidy up around the edges, and still don't have a strong opinion. I do know that the objection was to the tabloidish nature of the content, but that the content itself was all RS'ed, just perceived as tacky and in poor taste, especially once the cancer diagnosis was revealed. I'm not a subject of the crown, and have less personal emotional investment in Catherine Middleton than in school acquaintances I haven't seen in decades. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err, sorry: in other words, I don't care and have no objections from a BLP perspective. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, I think you should take the article down for the time being, as I feel you may have overridden the deletion consensus of it being a BLP violation, tabloidish, and everything Jclemens said above. I'm still writing up the Trump photo one for the upcoming issue, so perhaps we can set a date when you restore the Kate article, Saturday or Sunday? Svampesky (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I wish people would put more detailed notes/references to the actual discussions that originated consensus in the deletion log instead of just leaving it up to guesswork - but I guess it can't be helped. At any rate, sure, I can re-delete it until you are actually ready to write. I can also restore the revisions to page in your userspace somewhere (if you are fine with having the page's deletion/move log have the link to User:Svampesky/resource or whatever) -- everyone I asked prior to doing this mostly seemed to agree that would be acceptable for a few days, I just didn't do it because of the additional PITA etc. jp×g🗯️ 11:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Delete for now and I'll ping you when I need access to it for the signpost. Alternatively, is there any way of you hatting my account and admins give me access to pages ad hoc, in line with writing reports? I think it would've helped if I had access to Kalloor (and I don't think I even knew admins had access?) Svampesky (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. At least this was my recollection the last time people were talking about this -- the WMF had some kind of legal thing going on where people could strictly never be allowed access to the full sum of all deleted content without going through some kind of community selection process (e.g. why all the rfa sortition stuff didn't end up going through). @Barkeep49: Now that you've got free time I can ping you for piddling shit like this right? jp×g🗯️ 16:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why me? But yes access to deleted material is considered by the WMF to be something that needs community consensus and could not be unbundled from RfA (or an RfA-like process). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule about sending deleted pages to non-admins but I think there is some kind of actual legal issue with letting non-admins see pages. The first part of this sentence contradicts the last. You're allowed to send pages, but the recipient is not allowed to see it? I'll just work with the resources I have available. Given that the deletion report primarily pertains to the discussion itself and the policy under consideration during said discussion, the article is not really needed. The article may enhance the report. My suggestion is: initiate a Restore for Signpost (RfSP; as RfS was already in use) and post it on the newsroom page. Additionally, notify the admin noticeboard so the community can assess its suitability. The report will proceed as planned, but the community can decide whether the article/selection revisions of it can be linked. Svampesky (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feeling about the restoration of the Kate article. I would've opposed the restoration and linking of the Kalloor article, as it effectively disregarded the community's consensus for deleting it. The Signpost probably shouldn't restore articles without prior consultation with the community. Svampesky (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undelete pages pretty often, e.g. stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam woeger or Slashdot subculture that got deleted for some bizarre reason like "the article was deleted so we don't need to keep the deletion nomination page" or "if we have a redirect people will inexorably expand it into an article" -- well, maybe in 2007 but certainly not now. The Kalloor AfD closed with nothing against a redirect, so I figured it would be fine inasmuch as there was no likelihood of someone reverting to the old version. With the Kate one, well, I thought I had read all of the discussion around it beforehand but I guess there was a separate thing which I missed -- am glad to re-delete if you are done with the thing. jp×g🗯️ 11:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JPxG, can you please have a look at Talk:Aimee_Knight#POV_Violations_by_user which was started by an IP editor. From my observation the opening statement contains some pretty egregious BLP violations which need to be redacted and then every diff between the statement and the redaction revdelled. TarnishedPath^talk 15:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Yeah, I will take a look at it. Looks like a total mess over there tbdesu... jp×g🗯️ 16:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx TarnishedPath^talk 22:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JPxG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that was a Good™ Block. Thanks! ——Serial Number 54129 09:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did have a moment of uncertainty, honestly, but I just decided to go with it... jp×g🗯️ 11:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]