Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Smelling pistakes

In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have C7 radiculopathy, so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa.

Hi JzG! I was going through some old ArbCom cases and ran into one where you had added some statements. I realized that I haven't spoken to you in quite some time, and I see that you haven't made any edits since May... That sucks! I don't want to see someone like you go! If anything, I hope that you're doing well and that you're happy and that you'll someday return here. I just wanted to leave you a message and let you know that I was thinking about you... Keep in touch. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it goes without saying, despite the fact that I'm saying it, that many of us feel the same way. Happy new year Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't cross paths very often lately, JzG, but we could really use you back. If you get the urge to return, please say "Yes!" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October JzG sighting at WP:RSN. Does my heart good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to hear from you! I have spent the past two-and-a-bit years working at incredibly high stress for a hospital. In that time I have retired around 80% of their legacy application and server estate, instituted architectural guidelines and piloted the process for demand review, reduced the measured risk burden by around 80%, instituted objective risk monitoring using Tenable, and I've just proposed (and had accepted) a plan to remediate or mitigate most of the rest. I have, in short, been busy in that there real life of which you read, and that really wasn't going to fit in with having to be nice to people who sincerely believe that Ashlii Babbit was the real victim of the "legitimate political discourse" on Jan 6 2020.

I have a week's leave. I have 28 days to take before year end, having managed I think three days off this year so far (including weekends). And because I have an offshore team and an onshore customer, my working day can be 8am to 3am.

I thought I'd drop in :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 18:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, sounds like, umm..., a lot of responsibility. There will be plenty for you to do here when you are free! Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you dropped by! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you're OK - and busy, by the sounds of things! Hope you enjoy your break. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Guy doesn't look at Talk:Alexander technique real soon now, where Eddy is being accused of plagiarism, I may be forced to contact him on bookfarce. That would mean giving Guy my real name. He always forgets me. - Roxy the dog 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try never to remember people's RW names unless they are "out" on Wikipedia. Even when they out themselves, this has led to huge problems, e.g. with a user whose identity was revealed by accident off-wiki, showing him to be the source of fact-washing his own side in Wikipedia disputes via a journalist. That ended badly for everyone. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy see the little JzG! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hah! Good to see you're still around!  RasputinAXP  20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a few months late, but welcome back! Wishing you well. starship.paint (exalt) 09:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome indeed! Just came across your signature here. It's always great to run in to another 'old-timer'. Hope you're well, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

`

The Scholarly peer review process by major journals looks for and rejects pseudoscholarship. The editors reject over 90% of the submissions and insist that well established experts agree that the submission is high quality and original. the experts are anonymous and have no ties to authors.

You assume that secret $$$$ donors are in control. Not true. The main scholarly journals like Am Econ Review are supported by dues from members (usually university professors), not by pressure groups or think tanks. Am Econ Society has 17,000 members (they pay $100 a year plus thousands of academic libraries pay up to $3500 a year for the journal) --take a look at the actual articles that are published by American Economic Review. Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe, idiosyncratic, whatever. Take a step back: what if someone comes in and claims that the Cato Institute is a major scholarly endeavour? Literally all I am asking is one independent source that comments on this report, so we don't end up substituting our judgment for that of the outside world. I freely admit I may be over fussy here, but I have seen far too many people seeking to include sources based solely on their existence and editors' own assertions of their obviously inherent merit. Nothing personal here, at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the judgment of the team of editors of a major scholarly journal is the best reliable source we will ever get on Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What major scholarly journal? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on the talk page of the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Loop quantum gravity is a fringe theory that exists almost exclusively in mainstream, respected, peer-reviewed journals. Not all fringe theories are lunatic conspiracy theories, but all must be handled per WP:FRINGE.

There are also considerations such as the replication crisis that show that, while peer-reviewed publication is our best standard for accuracy, it's not infallible.

I don't know what, exactly, is being discussed here, but I know the argument that just because something was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it's necessarily true and due is nonsense. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look at this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's cult of personality from a admin perspective relating to users. I cant raise any sort of socking investigation request, as I don't have evidence. But there are multiple 'new' editors on this discussion. Very unusual activity and skill levels for all new editors. One of them (I dont want to name names, but has engaged with me there a lot) supposedly is a couple months old account and has already had two noticeboard events. Maybe nothing for you to do, not sure. Just please have a look. Looks like some sort of political battle there (on both sides), maybe not something you can do anything about just wanted to raise my concerns. Just kinda one of these random articles that I found myself editing when the former president of the country wound up in the news for her conviction in absentia which I found interesting. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of SPAs there? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia it states: "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship. Crucially, this means that Wikipedia content is not based on a popularity contest. In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view. In such cases, Wikipedia depends on the most reliable sources to verify content, and Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is." Rjensen (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Have you seen my user page and edit history, at all? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of bibliometrics In economics, the American Economic Review (AER) is part of an elite group including Journal of Political Economy, Econometrica, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the and the Review of Economic Studies. That mean s AER decisions are among of the most reliable independent sources Wikipedia depends on because it reflects the consensus of the national economics academic experts. Erasing a summary of one of its reliable articles was a bad mistake. The editor who got erased was citing a highly reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it's economics, a field where Truth and fact have equal status. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to be worried. :D I was thinking of your "Hooke's test" the other day. Someone had mentioned Hooke with respect to the microscope. I forgot he was involved with that since I normally think of him for Hooke's Law. Anyway, hope all is well! Springee (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If I have improved people's awareness of "England's Leonardo" then I have honoured my father's memory. Thanks, my friend :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 23:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]