User talk:JoJo Anthrax

Welcome!

Hello, JoJo Anthrax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Nyhavn. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Mlpearc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Kristy McNichol, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!


Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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! deisenbe (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow fights? Really?

Hi there - I'm curious why you take offense to that uncited statement in the University of Rochester page in such a stark way. College pages tend to have these sorts of innocent artifacts, and in this case, I believe it to be an accurate reflection of student life: http://www.rochester.edu/studentlife/galleries/pillowfight/index.html

One would hardly expect Dartmouth College page moderators to take down references to Keggy the Keg even though that might be met with an aghast 'Really?'.

Cheers, EOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EOSage (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I do not take offense at the content. I simply believe it is inane, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That other articles contain such content is not, in my opinion, a compelling reason for its inclusion here. Should we also include undoubtedly true but non-encyclopedic, un(reliably)sourced, "innocent artifacts" like "students eat lunch" and "students have sex with each other?" JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply! I understand your concerns regarding inanity and impropriety; however, I disagree with your execution of the concept in this case. Pages for universities tend to include information that is relevant to them -- a pillow fight on a quad organized by students and documented with photos certainly transcends the banality of dormroom relations and rises to the level of 'student life' or 'college culture'.
Indeed, one would omit 'students have sex' from an encyclopedia entry on a college as it is assumed that they do, indeed, have sex. However, one would add 'students do not have sex' in instances where some cultural phenomenon promotes an unexpected, emergent property[1]. Here, I see the students having pillow fights an important marker of the culture of the college, much like BYU's honor code prohibiting sexual relations between students.
Cheers,
EOS EOSage (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Church Educational System Honor Code". policy.byu.edu. Retrieved 2018-06-11.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JoJo Anthrax. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlightenment

Thanks, that was perfect - and very funny! I really thought it was his book, having looked at some pages on Amazon and at Draft:MissionGoldenAges both are equally incomprehensible. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'm glad to have helped. I have always had a weakness for the entertainingly unfathomable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

Barnstar of Existence
For existing (you can't contribute if you don't exist). - Ɔ\ꓕ ⱯƎꓶZ 22:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

Sad to see you leave, particularly given the circumstances, but I respect the principle behind it. I'm hoping that something can be done to salvage the current situation, but to be honest, I'm not very hopeful. After discussing with the CEO of Wikimedia, the disconnect seems even worse than I thought. I'm sure she is a nice enough person in real life, but the Foundation seems determined to control more and more of what happens here, while not having a clue what it actually takes to get thousands of volunteers working in relative harmony. For free. I'm not editing, and only sticking around a short while to see if there is any glimmer of hope, but I may not be far behind you. God speed and good luck in your future adventures. And thank you for your contributions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

FYI, don't edit the sandbox til the history is cleaned up ; ) See User_talk:Usedtobecool#Merge. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow, what a to do! I certainly won't be going anywhere near my wee sandbox anytime soon. Thanks again for all your efforts. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Lester Johnson has been accepted

John Lester Johnson, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial Phenomena Enquiry Network

I want to apologise to you for my earlier interaction with you over this article. You were right, I completely misjudged the sources here, and probably misjudged you too. Again, apologies. SpinningSpark 07:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this kind note. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for cleaning up the Ufology article! It's a thankless task but it really needed doing! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jackie Condon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All American.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query on undo on "Pentagon UFO Videos" Article

Hey there! I did a pretty substantial edit on the previously mentioned articles not too long ago and you seemed to undo it (I dont disagree per say, I just want to understand more of what you said). The edit itself had substantial references citing legitimate news sources and multiple interviews with first hand witnesses. Some of the references were made on considerable unreliable sites, that I recognise, but a huge majority of those referenced interviews are pretty well trusted, not to mention they are verified and trusted by the pentagon and DOD who have started an investigation and even opened an abnormal aerial phenomena unit because of the incident.

Also, I attempted to remain as neutral as possible and am by no means on the "fringe" nor a conspiracy theorist. I have remained un-opinionated and just stated the facts as is. One of the section's titles: "Cover Up" can be seen as inappropriate as it is not proved and disputed; I respect that this must be changed.

Otherwise, I would like some clarification if thats ok. Please use my talk page. Thanks.

CringeFringe22 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your comments on my talk page

I really liked the tips and I'm sure they will be of great help, even more that I'm very new here. So, I will read all this before doing any editing here on Wikipedia, so I don't make any mistakes.--HunoEru (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HunoEru I am happy to have helped. Feel free to ask me here any questions that might arise. Alternatively, to cast a wider net for such questions, you can always go to WP:TEAHOUSE, which is exactly what it claims to be: A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia. Happy editing! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to pull together that thorough report at WP:ANI. As frustrating as it's been trying to communicate with that editor, I'm not sure that it's reached an obvious enough level of disruption for the community to decide action is needed, but it's worth a shot, eh? Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: No problem. The disruption has become too caustic, with no end in sight. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Condensed because failed WP:AN appeal has been archived

Below are examples of what I believe to be pro-fringe POV-pushing behavior by Gtoffoletto in the broad area of UFOs, a behavior that contributed to their topic ban. The diffs are presented here because in this discussion I claimed to have them, Gtoffoletto "challenged" me to present them, and I believe presenting them at this Talk page might help prevent Gtoffoletto from inadvertently violating their topic ban. There is no intention or interest on my part to (re)initiate a debate/discussion/litigation of any sort. Again: I claimed to have diffs, I was fairly challenged to produce them, and here they are. It is abundantly clear that Gtoffoletto does not believe that any of these edits, most of which were reverted, represent POV-pushing. Talk page comments are excluded.

The creation by Gtoffoletto of USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO Incidents (ultimately merged into Pentagon UFO videos) was itself a massive POV-push, along with their subsequent edits to it (two examples: this and this). Edits to Luis Elizondo (now a redirect following its AfD) were a POV-push (for example, here, here, here, here, here, and here. POV-pushing edits are evident at Ufology (for example, here, here, here, here, and here), and also at To the Stars (for example, here, here, here, and here). Lastly, posts at WP:FTN also display POV-pushing (for example, here and here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - UFO pentagon videos

Please note - there is an ongoing RFC discussion about this, which you were previously involved in Here

Activity level?

Like you, I have dozens of UFO related pages on my watchlist as the result of years of volunteer service at WP:FTN. Lately there seems to be a surge of advocacy activity on UFO-related pages along with the appearance of new accounts as well as some older users with low edit counts. Has Netflix released some new provocative series? Has Joe Rogan featured some incendiary guests? Has Qanaon dropped some ET-related crumbs? Or is it just the end of August when many people are on vacation and their fancy turns to All Things Ufology? I'm truly puzzled. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie I too have observed the increase in activity, especially from the single-edit crowd. I am at a loss to explain it, but outside of some natural stochastic process I suspect continued coverage of the Pentagon UFO Report is a contributing factor. With the passage of time additional exposure at the level of Discovery Channel-type SHOCKING TRUTHS REVEALED!!! is to be expected, especially given the emergence of things like this. I do like, however, the idea of a seasonal phenomenon (affective disorder?) when a young man's fancy turns to UFOs. Perhaps this is the time of year when young women are most likely to terminate their relationships with said young men? Out with the old and in with the new at the start of the school year. If the standard response to such heartbreak - drinking heavily at the local watering hole for several weeks with a clutch of old timers who are always complaining about their wives and taxes - is sadly unavailable due to covid restrictions, perhaps pushing pseudoscience on Wikipedia becomes a viable option? Young people these days. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is, it's definitely the season for it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap. Definitely time to hit the Caol Ila. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to make a wisecrack about Yeti piloting UAPs at Talk:Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and mistakenly hit one-click-archiver. Ah, well, maybe it's for the best... - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You archived the most cogent thread on that page?! Why I oughta... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. But keep up the good work and someday you may be inducted into the OWEDTRWSMRTMC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the instructions I am receiving from outer space suggest otherwise. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Pentagon videos - Dispute resolution noticeboard

There is a dispute resolution open at the DR noticeboard in which you have been involved Here Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've removed all the Green Fireball content... why?

The information contained on the green fireball page was invaluable to me as a witness. I wish you'd not removed it all!!! Now the majority of the page is just saying it's a meteor thing and psuedo-science, WHICH IT'S NOT!!!

I witnessed it first hand, and I know it's real, so you removing all that information is horrifying, that you can just delete it and not let other people who might witness it also use it. PLEASE ADD IT BACK IN!!!!

Despite your evident sense of horror (Happy Halloween, by the way), my answer is no. The earlier version of the article was, as I wrote on the Talk page, not even close to being encyclopedic, as it was dominated by unsourced or poorly sourced content that ran afoul of WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:PUFFERY, and likely additional Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is a collaborative project, however, so if you have any reliable, independent secondary sources that report these objects as not being, as you phrase it, a meteor thing and psuedo-science, please include them in the article. If you are uncertain about what qualifies as a reliable, independent secondary source for fringe topics like this, please read WP:FRIND. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glad it's there on the history at least. The part that mentions they were seen in Manchester UK was cited as being sourced from a book, which I bought and did indeed contain the relevant info. If your requirement for showing information on the topic of UFOs is "it must be scientifically verifiable", you'll delete all of it. You've basically removed information that any witnesses out there could use to further study the phenomenon, and left the stuff that calls it "woo". Your opinion on the subject shines through dramatically, you believe it's all crazy talk. You've left me fuming.

Firstly, Wikipedia utilizes particular policies and guidelines in determining what does, and what does not, appear on its pages. I explicitly provided links to some of those policies and guidelines in my previous message, and I will do so again for you here: WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:FRIND, and WP:PUFFERY. I ask that you click those links and read the material therein. Secondly, as an editor (like you) I do not and indeed can not impose any "requirement" for what appears on a page, "scientifically verifiable" or not. We only include content that is reported in secondary, independent reliable sources. It is immaterial if that content meets, or does not meet, our personal opinions/standards of The Truth, or whether it makes us "fume." Thirdly, not all sources, including books, are reliable sources. Please read WP:RS for a full explanation of that policy. Lastly, it is good form on Wikipedia to sign all of your Talk page messages. You do so by typing four tildes (~) immediately after whatever you write. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you delete all content on religion, consciousness, and history, while you're at it then. Just delete everything you consider unreliable. Remove all information that has a contentious viewpoint. And remove all valuable information that can guide further research on unproven hypotheses. Ridiculous. Following the rules doesn't make you right in what you're doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.33.48 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are done here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution for Malmstrom Air Force Base and others sighting on UFO sightings in the United States

Hi JoJo Anthrax, I would like to formally inform you that I have started a Dispute Resolution between you and I, so as to hopefully resolve our differing interpretations of the information present in the sources that I had extracted to use in my entry. I hope for a fruitful resolution that will satisfy both of us. Thank you. [1]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#UFO_sightings_in_the_United_States_discussion

Chantern15 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Just wanted to give some recognition to you for being a vicious predatory defender of the wiki. Thanks for your work with Ariel Fernandez and their socks! --Trialpears (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Trialpears: Thank you for this kind gesture, and for all your help in this matter. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice regarding Ariel Fernandez

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Fernandez

Thanks for the perspective and analysis re Arifer - I agree that a “no harm no foul” philosophy seems to dominate the consensus thinking on inclusion of references to EOCs, even as the subjects actions on and off WP belie that very thinking. I thinks it’s what lawyers call “consciousness of guilt”. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongTimeObserver (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Way to wield that hatchet

Cleaner of Cruft
Great work cleaning cruft out of Alexander Cockburn! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immortality

Based on your edit-summary and the fact that I did not eat pizza in 1890, that means I'm not going to die, right? DMacks (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I hate to be the one to break this to you, but...are you familiar with the Bruce Willis character in The Sixth Sense? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last evening, my wife and I were discussing what we were going to get for dinner this evening (our weekly take-out or dine-out night) and she mentioned she could go for pizza, but with the grease and cheese and fat and carbs it's really not healthy. I told her that eating pizza would lower her risk of heart disease and death. She asked if I was lying, and I said yes, and she punched me in the arm. I should have just directed her to Wikipedia, and saved myself an arm-punch.
Despite all that, we're still having pizza tonight. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lol - FlightTime (open channel) 15:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Hope the pizza was good though. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few hours still till pizza time. :( ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hope the pizza is good dough. OK, time for me to retire for the weekend. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of WP:NPOV, WP: MULTIUSER & WP:IDHT

Given that you have recently made allegations on me relating to WP:NPOV, WP: MULTIUSER & WP:IDHT please take your concerns to an appropriate venue such as WP:ANI. Otherwise, please cease making such allegations.

I noticed that you suggested that a CU would not be necessary. That suggests to me you don't really think I'm a another user. Or maybe you just feel you outrage is above the rules. Carter00000 (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter00000: Do not ever again post on my Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

Hello. You might be interested in a comment made on Talk:Kevin Knuth. Here is the diff: [1]. I made an appropriate reply that it looks like a personal attack and is off topic [2]. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe I should have removed it. Well, at least my remark and the other could be hatted. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Good

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 16:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Sources for UFO articles

Hi, Your arguments do not make sense. Ufologist is not an insult, but an expert in the study of UFOs. Vallée has been recognized as an expert in this field for years by most people. And you confuse 2 things: facts and interpretation. For facts, we only need a detailed and accurate report. The sources I used are detailed and accurate. You need better arguments for refusing them. Yann (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann:. I believe you really need to read WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:FRINGE (particularly the subsection WP:FRIND). Also, as I have already suggested to you, prior to adding any more material that is sourced to Vallée, Druffel, Shough, or any other advocate of fringe science, you should seek WP:CONSENSUS for your edits at the appropriate Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been quite longer than you, and I know very well the pages you linked above. Your interpretation of these pages is quite nonsense IMHO. Yann (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been [here] quite longer than you As compelling arguments go, that isn't one. Once again - please stop adding unreliable, non-FRIND material to UFO articles. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing comments raising POV concerns is violation of wikipedia policies

Your recent erasing of my comments about POV concerns, which are NOT my "personal opinion", but a list a of very concrete objections, is wrong. It appears that this article is heavily censored, to the point of even talk page comments being removed, a big NO NO at least a couple of years ago here. You will be reported, and a request for comment will be made, as this violates wikipedia civility and other policies. The article as I checked now version from 2012 was far more balanced, it appears it has undergone some very unhealthy process, part of which you are. DO NOT REMOVE MY talk page entries, which rise concrete POV concerns about articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.111.189 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@109.121.111.189: When your comments violate the behavioral guideline WP:TPG, you should expect them to be reverted. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure at ANI

The reason I didn't see your closure at ANI was because you put it in the "wrong" place, or at least it's not the place I normally see it. Is that how you always do it? Is it a choice I didn't know existed?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, a result of editing too quickly. If only I had waited two more minutes, I wouldn't have been blocked along with everyone else. :) JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! --Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Please don't repeat the phrases used by vandals in your reports at AIV. Your last report included potentially libelous content that had already been oversighted from the article, which in turn I had to oversight when you reported it at the noticeboard. Thank you,-- Ponyobons mots 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: That was pretty stupid of me. Thank you for the smack. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No no no! There was no smack, that's why I said please twice! -- Ponyobons mots 21:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A trout for you

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The next time you think it is a good idea to comment multiple times in a discussion, please smack yourself on the head with a large sack of WP:COAL. OK? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we interacted a bit today, I wanted to stop by your user page and talk page to get to know you a little. I did a year of grad school in Scotland and love single malt as well. And I enjoyed reading about the 1971 Monty Python sketch called The Fish-Slapping Dance. Thanks for your help to me today. Jjhake (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottygang (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting for the record that within 30 minutes of filing that EW notice the nominator was indef blocked. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Future of shortwave

Can you add a citation here to a source for the new info? Someone could check the Radio World article, not find it there, and slap a "not found in citation" 'cite needed' tag on it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly add a citation, and will do so later. But as I wrote in the edit summary I am uncertain if it is a RS. I don't see why it shouldn't be, but I can also understand if some editors consider it to be insufficiently authoritative or exhaustive, or if its provenance is unclear. The chance of false negatives (i.e., an active broadcaster is not included on the site's list) seems to me low, but one never knows. I do know, and I understand this is WP:OR, the broadcasters I removed are still active on SW frequencies: for example, an hour ago using my wee Eton radio from here in Europe (where I am 'on assignment' for the next nine months), DW was on 15275 and VoA was on 15250. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think World Radio TV Handbook plus www.short-wave.info will suffice. There are periodic drive-by nitpickers who slap citation needed tags on the article because they don't see something in the citation that is included in the article. This is my selfish attempt to avoid future maintenance drudgery. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding those references - I needed to step away from the computer for a while. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued vandalism at the Shroud of Turin talk page

I am going to make one more polite request for you to cease vandalism of my comments on the Shroud of Turin talk page before I escalate the matter. Kindly restore. Thank you. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I strongly suggest that you do not restore them. You are repeatedly vandalizing that page, and you have been warned about it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned you about your vandalism and improper deletion of important comments. Please cease. 69.124.88.234 (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly think I have vandalized that page, then I invite you to "escalate" (to use your phrase) the matter. Perhaps you can make a complaint about me at WP:ANI, or WP:AE? I have no problem with that. Alternatively, you can familiarize yourself with how to edit Wikipedia constructively by reading WP:NOT and WP:TPG, and then begin to edit appropriately. In a nutshell: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum like Facebook, X, Reddit, etc. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another trout for you

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

If you ever again think it is a good/helpful/positive idea to make any contribution whatsoever to an ArbCom case, please consider the likely possibility that the idea is in truth really, really stupid. If you decide to make such a contribution anyway, hit yourself repeatedly with this trout until you are rendered unconscious. OK? Are we clear on that one? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there seems to be no wikilove template with 20 cigars (either in addition to or without cocaine)

The Zen Garden Award Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
Rjjiii (talk) 08:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Dr. Freud! Thanks very much for this message, R. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that the editor at BLPN has warnings for - BLP violations!

Not a surprise though. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Yeah, right? I'm shocked, shocked. But I wasn't going to say anything, being an "ardent attack dog" and all. And while I have your eyeballs, so to speak, THANK YOU for your continuing help in this topic area. Not all admins would make that positive effort, and the bullshit being hurled at LuckyLouie, one of the project's best editors, is becoming obscene. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, naturally, they removed my Contentious Topics notification from their Talk page. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I sabotage Wikipedia's pseudo-intellectual pretenses with impugnitu?

question MiltonDooby (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

answer - I don't think you can. But I'm just a simple editor. I suggest that you ask your question at the tea house. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo

Engage on the talk page before further mass removals of content. Thank you. Two users have now challenged you there. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two users have now challenged you there. That is an inaccurate description, as the comment by Schazjmd is hardly a "challenge." But they can characterize it themself here, if they so wish. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can on the talk page for Luis Elizondo, which is where to discuss a local content dispute. I was giving you a courtesy notification here. Let's make the article better and leave all our subject biases in the garbage/outside, where they belong. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can on the talk page for Luis Elizondo. Wrong. You made a comment here, on my Talk page, that I believe is a mischaracterization of Schazjmd's comment elsewhere. They can thus respond here, and I invite them to do so. You are in no position to tell editors that they cannot provide comments on the Talk pages of other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine by me, whatever works for everyone. But let's continue the Talk:Luis Elizondo discussion there. You did in fact turn up a lurking BLP issue in the lede that even I missed going over that article like a hawk for BLP violations after it was attacked a few weeks ago. Great work helping improve the article, User:JoJoe Anthrax! Thanks! -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on the talk page of the article was only to point out that Elizondo's involvement with AATIP was what the Pentagon and some reporters questioned. Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong?

Not sure what you mean by this. We've had this discussion for over a month. It's at the top of VPP, and I linked to it in the RfC intro saying it's the continuation. We discussed doing an RfC, we'd discussed possible alternatives to FTN for weeks -- most of us didn't want to change FTN from the start. When I said I reviewed FTN threads, that's what I did, which was an attempt to inject data into the discussion.

So please tell me what you are having trouble to assume good faith about. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelRiv: Thanks for your message. As I noted explicitly here, I assumed, and continue to assume, good faith on your part. None of my comments in that discussion can be interpreted otherwise. That you, however, believe I am "having trouble" with that guideline is...noted (more on that below). I also note that some of your comments in that thread, including "everyone voting here should probably consider at least glancing" and "the problem of FTN having non-specialist editors claiming authority," can be readily interpreted as aspersions. Minor aspersions, surely, but aspersions nonetheless. Comments of that sort indicate a personalization of the discussion that, if perhaps understandable, are inappropriate. It's always best, per WP:PA, to restrict comments to content/comments, not contributors. That isn't always easy, but it is a good policy.
But look, if you believe any editors at that discussion, including me, are violating behavioral policies and/or guidelines, please make a report at WP:ANI or some other venue. I have no problem with that. I wouldn't recommend that course of action in this particular case, but it is important for editors to formally address what they perceive to be intractable, disruptive behaviors that interfere with the project's mission. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2

Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that I struck part of your comment as I believe it is an aspersion, or at least an assumption of bad faith, to say that Graham87 is deliberately attempting to mislead the community. Thanks. also, the admin's name is Graham87; the '2' indicates that this is their second RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Long time since I read that book, but if I recall correctly doublespeak misled not just the audience but also those who used it. Using doublespeak internalized a distorted way of thinking. Calling something someone wrote doublespeak insults that piece of text, but not the writer imho, because a lot of the victims of doublespeak repeated stuff they heard from others. Doublespeak harmed those who deliberately used it and those who were victims of it alike. I am no Orwell scholar but this is what I believe to be true based on vague memories from a long time ago. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we need to be pretty strict in the sense that a personal attack needs to be both an attack and personal. Meaning it needs to attack the person, and not something they said or did. Not all unkindness is a personal attack but the two often get conflated. Polygnotus (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I'll definitely defer to you on the Orwell! I haven't read that book and don't know how the word was originally used. In common usage, though (and I'll reference Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster), doublespeak is intentionally obscuring the meaning of your words through ambiguous or vague language. In other words, someone who is engaging in doublespeak is intentionally misleading the listener. Accusing someone of that without hard evidence, I would say, is an attack against the person.
In that light, I'm going to reinstate the {{rpa}}, but I do appreciate your stopping by my talk page and voicing your concerns. Please feel free to continue doing that when you think I've goofed up. If JoJo Anthrax didn't mean to say that Graham87 was intentionally misleading RfA voters, they're free to rewrite their comment in a way that doesn't claim as much. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: OK, I don't feel strongly about such things anyway. In my view, me telling User:Example "you are lying" or "you are intentionally misleading people" would also not qualify as a personal attack, because it is a comment on behaviour and not the person (as opposed to: "you are a liar" which would be a personal attack if User:Example was a real person). But of course there are cultural differences and RFA's have long been a battleground so I understand the push for less hostility. And monitor lizards are the best lizards. Polygnotus (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. I would say it's more precisely an aspersion. Hear hear on monitor lizards :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an aspersion because it has evidence. An aspersion is an unevidenced accusation. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned here, I decided to not restore the content you dislike not because I no longer stand by my comment - I do, and it simply is not an attack or aspersion - but because I have no interest in prolonging that tangent, at least not on that page. I am happy to continue the discussion here. But look, if you really believe I made a bad-faith personal attack/aspersion so egregious that it justified you deleting my comment, perhaps you should haul me to ANI. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: For the record, "naked double-speak" is clearly a comment about what Graham87 wrote and absolutely, positively not a comment on Graham87 themself, so (imo, for whatever little that is worth) it is not a personal attack. And although I really dislike my comments being edited by someone other than me prior to discussing it with me, I recognize that the action was not done in bad faith, and I do thank you for coming to my Talk page to explain the action. Not everyone would perform that simple courtesy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only "incivility" was perhaps the reference to double speak; the remainder was a perfectly adequate reason to oppose ("Graham872 is unqualified to possess administrative tools" is pretty much what every single other opposer is saying. If someone said that about me neither I nor anyone else would bat an eyelid). SerialNumber54129 14:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Fix ping. SerialNumber54129 14:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: love your humor

And don't forget Vaginal seeding

I won't, thanks to you. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: Thanks. My mission to spread the Good News of vaginal seeding is finally succeeding! Do you get that one? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback in UFO articles

You recently rolled back edits to several UFO-related pages, stating that I needed to add an RS. I had noted a week ago on the Ufology talk page the reasons for this change, but no one bothered to reply. The reasons are quite self-evident: the image you have restored is not by PM, as its Commons page records. Please read the comments on Talk:Ufology, and if you still have concerns please post them there, but I believe my reasoning is sound. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]