User talk:JzG/Archive 24

So much for that.

I'm entirely supportive of your actions. Please do not leave, Wikipedia benefits from your presence. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hold 'em, don't fold 'em

I've been taking some unwarranted shit over the past few days as well.. but I won't let it get me down, and I really hope you won't either, WP needs JzG. I was pretty stunned to read you had been blocked, and without knowing the exact ins and outs of the BLP / wheel war deal it seems most who have posted on ANI are behind you. Deiz talk 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been around in a while but it sucks to see you even contemplating leaving. I hope you reconsider, but please take all the time you need. Stay happy. Best wishes, ~ Riana ⁂ 08:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a break. And hope you return as soon as you feel able. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Never surrender

Let's face it, you're one of the absolute best admins we've got, and a Wikipedia without you would be a far worse place. I don't say this kind of shit often (the last time I recall was in '05 when RickK left) but Wikipedia absolutely needs you. At the very least, don't leave over some piddly little block that most on ANI felt was unnexessary and unwarranted. It's times like this that we need you most of all. Keep your head up and never, ever surrender. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on Starblind, you do need a break, but don't leave completely. Do some article writing for a while and comeback when you feel ready. That what I do at times Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Eusebeus 16:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Come back rested and ready

Take a break if you like, but the Sanity Squad needs you. Besides, we have too few editors who know the delights of Portsmouth Sinfonia. Raymond Arritt 15:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

fx: Portsmouth Sinfonia playing Also sprach Zarathustra.

Please come back when you can. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not just this idiocy with Baby 81, it's the whole culture. People seem to delight in process and bending over backwards to give self-evident idiots the benefit of the doubt, to the detriment of people who actually want to improve the encyclopaedia. A couple of tabloid stories is not what I call multiple independent sources, I think that human-interest stories in the press are just about 100% worthless as primary sources for an article and not much use for filler either. I don't have a problem with Jeff, because his focus is pop culture and I know we have a problem with sourcing pop culture articles within policy, and we need people who understand and love pop culture to help us fix that, but all these articles on the cause du jour of less-than-serious newspapers simply do not belong in an encyclopaedia; they have no evident lasting impact or significance. Yet the fact of their being covered in a couple of papers during the slow news season is deemed to be "multiple sources", ignoring of course the fact that all papers have space to fill and shamelessly fill it with whatever tittle-tattle happens to be doing the rounds. Like the erectile dysfunction crap in Rudy Giuliani. Does anybody who is even remotely serious about politics actually give a shit about that? It is pointless nonsense publicised by his detractors in order to belittle him; it's no more significant than someone being bald or short-sighted, undeniably common in men of his age, not in any way a distinguishing feature (hey, you look like Rudy Giuliani, but I'd like to be sure, so if you wouldn't mind...)

In short there are too many idiots and too few people prepared to tell them to fuck off. And yes, that is precisely what we should tell them, because anything less encourages endless debates and Wikilawyering. Want to tell the world that Lance Armstrong takes drugs? Fuck off. At least until he has stopped successfully suing the newspapers for saying it. Want to tell the world about the evil world Jewish conspiracy? Fuck off, forever, and never even think about coming back. Want to tell the world how the scientists are all wrong? Fuck off - until it's in Nature, anyway. Want to out someone as a paedophile? Not here. Want to explain how 9/11 is a conspiracy and no plane crashed into the pentagon? Web space is cheap, get some of your own.

The real problem, though, which underlies all of this, is that I am a depressive, and these people are making me angry and that makes me depressed. I know how people feel when their neighbourhood is vandalised or overrun with beer-swilling louts. The louts may think they own the place, but in the end they don't, and the people who are prepared to put the time, money and effort into building the neighbourhood should get more consideration than those who view it only as a venue for their own selfish pleasure. Wikipedia will be a better place when Jonathan Barber grows up, to name but one persistent offender. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)