Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115←Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123→Archive 125

Recordstraightsetter

You recently blocked Psts1st as one of the likely sockpuppets that have descended on Frank Gaffney. Could you also review Recordstraightsetter who is also a brand new editor who only made that change [1]? The backlog at SPI has left a number of his other socks floating around indefinitely so I thought it might be easier to just make a direct request. (For the record, for reasons based on off-Wiki knowledge, I believe there will be a coming deluge of newly minted editors attempting to make this change.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I take exception to this note. This user reverted a large amount of information by multiple editors made, apparently when the editor was on vacation. See these diffs: [diff1] [diff2] [diff3] [diff4] [diff5] These edits removed language that added balance to these pages that were discussed on the talk pages. I regret there was no effort made to discuss this editor's massive changes on the talk pages. After these reverts were reversed several times, this editor started filing false SPI, SPA, meat puppet and other charges against me. This editor also has been complaining about me on multiple Wikipedia pages. I have posted this note because I don't want this editor's false comments to go unchallenged. I have backed out of making any further changes to these pages since I am tired of the bickering and I don't want to be involved in an edit war. It is my hope that other editors and admins will fix these pages over time because they have such obvious POV and RS problems. Perhaps my extensive talk comments on the Gaffney page will help. I have nothing to do with these alleged sock puppets and I resent this person continually making false charges against me.Zeke1999 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to block your sockpuppets, and if you continue then I will also block you. Bye. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 09:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do block any accounts you think are sockpuppets. I've tried to follow Wikipedia rules. Users who break the rules to create accounts to delete text from articles I have been disputing aren't doing me any favors. I value my Wikipedia account and I'm not going to jeopardize it by doing something stupid. Best wishes.Zeke1999 (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate

You probably have more knowledge in these matters, but since the ArbCom case is open, do you think it would be better to mention at the case's talk page the recent spat of edit warring at glyphosate (as opposed to AN3)? I'm wondering if it's just better to lock down the page until the case is over. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

BLHandler

Hey Guy, I have done some major upgrading on the BLHandler. It is only difficult to test everything, so there may be some errors which may bork the system. Please do double check after using it. It should now work for both XLinkBot's revertlist as well as the Spam-blacklist, and as sources it uses WT:WPSPAM, XLinkBot revertlist requests, the Spam blacklist talk and the /Local reports generated by COIBot. Happy hunting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fabulous! Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Question

Shouldn't saint be capitalized? Well...at least as it applies to your better half? (I hope it makes her smile when you tell her what I wrote, if you do.) While I appreciate your appreciation for humorous sarcasm, I actually do appreciate the giving of your time and steadfastness in your beliefs. Perhaps that tops the reasons for why I like you. I've always been a believer in,"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Happy editing! Atsme📞📧 18:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a proper noun, so no. It is, however, capitalised when referring to my (very) old school. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

a thankyou for me

for identifying a filehost in ANI, I deserve thanksMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of EL

Guy, the links in those articles were already cleared as RS, other editors were involved and aware of the self-cite and the links are useful. What exactly are you attempting to do? Do you really believe you're helping to improve the encyclopedia with what you're doing? Atsme📞📧 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

They are self-published. So: yes. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, sir but you are mistaken. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alligator_gar/Archive_1 for the Gar article. Also see the TPs of the articles you're removing links to important information for no reason. Your motives are not made in GF and are certainly not helpful in improving the encyclopedia. Atsme📞📧 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
And I checked the website. The page describing the editorial board? There isn't one. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced the external links. In my view as an editor of animal behaviour content, they benefit the encyclopaedia. Guy, this really is not a good idea considering ArbCom.DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
And painting yourself as a neutral arbiter is a good idea? Feel free never to post here ever again. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, there was an editorial board when the documentaries were produced, and every bit of that information was reviewed by renowned biologists and academics. The credit roll on the programs confirm it. The programs were televised internationally, and in the US on PBS affiliates. The PBS documentaries also serve as WP:V the same way any information in a transcript from any other PBS program would be WP:V. The fact that the website has the informaiton available in text simply made more sense to cite the text. Your actions are unwarranted, and certainly not helpful to WP. Why don't you just go ahead and remove all the video footage from those articles, too. I really don't care anymore what you do. You've proven to me now who you really are and what your motives are, and that is a major heartbreak for me. Atsme📞📧 21:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I will have a closer look. Frankly, you need a new web designer. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I bet they wouldn't turn down any friendly volunteers...(hint, hint). Atsme📞📧 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, what do you think about creating a whole new media section in Wikipedia where we can upload free educational programs on encyclopedic topics? Do you think something like that would fly? Do you think it's worthy of me making a proposal to WMF? I can probably wrangle up some volunteer voice talent to read articles for us, too. It could be like a free version of Kindle, so to speak. You're the computer guy - what do you think? Would they go for it? Atsme📞📧 22:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like Wikiversity to me. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 07:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm...thx for the Wikiversity info. When I said programs, I was thinking a/v media as in PBS programs, tv shows, video & DVD, not uploaded docs, pdf, and the like. Is the WP server(s) capable of streaming a lot of data, and if not, what would it require? Hopefully not a separate building. Those are some of the questions I need help with so I'll know what to include in my proposal, provided it sounds feasible. Atsme📞📧 00:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea on that. I suspect it would be rejected as mission creep, but you'd have to ask. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
See the "Education" section at the following link: [2] It's coming sooner than later. Times they are a changing. Any idea who I should contact? Atsme📞📧 19:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Brandon and Leah

Is there something that can be done about the deadnaming left in the Brandon and Leah article regarding Caitlyn Jenner? As you have pointed out on CheckingFax's talk page, we just don't do it in Wikipedia. When the article was protected due to the deadnaming and DS violations, the wrong version was kept, but as far as I understand, it's a version against policy. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Put in a {{editprotected}} request. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
When I do so, is there specific policy I can name that would support the need for the change, or is mentioning the DS code on articles associated with Jenner enough? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Just state your case neutrally. That should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry you feel that way. I'm doing my best to follow policy. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I don't recall every discussing the tipping line for "unduly self-serving". Looks like I've stirred up a hornet's nest, or maybe just stumbled on a nest that was already stirred up? --Ronz (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The latter, I think. Incidentally, I am sure you will find this amusing. Check the main source (last link at the bottom). Guy (Help!) 09:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DN-boards1

Hi Guy, thanks for taking some time out to examine and handle the issue with User:DN-boards1. In regards to cleaning up the mess they made, I nominated almost a dozen created or recreated articles from this user ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). I think that it's fine to let them run their course (unless there's a specific policy of immediate reversion based on the topic ban) because the consensuses on these are either years old or never explicitly stated, and thus a complete AfD will allow for quicker and less controversial action in the future, but I know that there's also a practice of tagging/striking out !votes and comments from blocked socks/topic banned individuals to make things clearer for the closing admin. DN-boards1 commented at every AfD but I do not want to tag/strike out their comments myself, since that might seem sketchy. Do you have any thoughts? Canadian Paul 20:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if there is any suspect activity on those, please. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I certainly will. Thanks again muchly for helping out. Canadian Paul 21:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your creation of the page Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans, I award you The Brilliant Idea Barnstar.

Epic. — Cirt (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zeke1999

Thank you very much for your action on this.

The sockmaster has been inactive but the sock IP is still active -- can you block that one as well, at least temporarily?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: - Done. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Update: FYI, both the sockmaster and sock are now appealing their blocks, both posted their appeals within about one hour of each other, both appeals with large-amounts-of-text, again. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I will leave it to others to review. I think we're better off without these warriors, so I'm not really interested in arguing the toss with him. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy and quacks created actual harm during medical treatment of Ebola

Please see Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa#Homeopathy_and_quacks_created_actual_harm_during_medical_treatment_of_Ebola.

What do you think of my suggestion ?

— Cirt (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Poem

There once was a terrible admin whose operating system was multitasking so he banned in parallel the editors of body odour smell and then came the end of this poem

81.158.98.214 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Anonymous Fan

Block Rationale

You blocked Sanstalk (talk · contribs) for sockpuppetry, and the reason is evident [13], yet in your blocking rationale you linked to the WP:HERE essay instead of an actual policy page. Do you think editors should be blocked for an essay reason in favor of a policy reason? Doc talk 11:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Not here to build an encyclopaedia" is a valid standard block rationale. In order to block as a definite sock, I would have to identify the master. This is undoubtedly a puppet, sock or meat, and is not here to help. Regardless, the block is not likely to be controversial and the user can appeal if he thinks the block is unjustified. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
An essay stating that one is "not here to build an encyclopaedia" should never be a standard block rationale for any administrator. You must see how this "interpretive" rationale can be twisted. It's completely subjective and is absolutely not in the blocking policy! Disruption in the form of WP:SOCK is a concrete rationale to block. An established admin like yourself using the HERE essay in block rationales is a sad indication of things to come. It's a slippery slope. Doc talk 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary. See WP:CLUE, WP:BURO and WP:5P. This is someone who is only here to cause drama and use Wikipedia as a venue to attack someone else. He can, bluntly, fuck off. We don't need him, we don't need to spin out the process of getting rid of him. That's my final word on the matter, so if you want to discuss it further I suggest WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No need for ANI. Just please consider linking to WP:SOCK, the policy, instead of WP:HERE, the information page, when issuing block rationales for sockpuppetry. Cheers :) Doc talk 12:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

For the remainder of the GMO case, you are prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, and insinuating about SageRad on any of the case pages. If you have any evidence of self-stated conflicts of interest please email it to the committee. While I can't forbid you from interacting with them on other parts of the project, the committee will view continuing your behavior in another forum in a very dim light. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I already have emailed the committee what it needs to know. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

You recently offered a statement in 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/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Inverted ping

I mentioned you pseudo-critically at User talk:Tribscent08#Universal Medicine.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Marriage Squeeze

See Marriage_squeeze

You reverted my edit when I used a secondary sources stating that it was not an appropriate source. Then you reverted my edit when I used two peer-reviewed primary sources. What evidence DO you find acceptable? AsianWeek apparently.

By deleting any explanation for the marriage squeeze that isn't based on negative attributes of African-American men, you are continuing with the racial stereotyping that is so damaging. There are scientists who believe in a more racially neutral explanation for the marriage squeeze (based on height or skin tone) but anyone reading wikipedia would not know that and are only getting the racist received wisdom that marrying a Black person is necessarily marrying down.

I am not asking you to adjudicate on which hypothesis you think is true, but just allow the wikipedia article to reflect ALL the various hypotheses that are in the scientific literature.

Please re-think your reverts.Nsxsvn (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please re-think being a WP:SPA devoted to pushing this speculative stuff. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am new to wikipedia - I don't even know if this is the correct place for this kind of discussion - sorry if it isn't. I had hoped that wikipedia would be open to alternative views (Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views) when stated with an NPOV. I don't want to enter into an edit war but would like to have an open and respectful discussion on the topic. Could you direct me to the correct forum for such a discussion. Nsxsvn (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention appreciated

JzG,

You previously commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Attention_needed_at_Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FZeke1999.

No action has been taken at the case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000 -- in over two (2) weeks.

Could use some admin action there, please.

Also: this one is an easy WP:DUCK case, with a smoking-gun-DIFF for ya: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

The 2nd one involves ongoing disruption of our site's WP:GA Quality improvement process, socking, and block evasion -- so we could really use some admin action there as the problem issue is ongoing.

Thank you for taking a look,

— Cirt (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added a new report with WP:DUCK evidence, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama. Perhaps you can have a look ? Action would be appreciated here to stop blatant disruption of our Quality review processes including WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:FLC. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW

What the heck does "phwooooaar!" mean? Is this something they failed to teach me during my year at a British university? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A coarse expression of lust directed at a young, attractive female, typically by readers of The Sun. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
My 12 months in British academia did not allow for a lot of time to read The Sun. Should I consider myself culturally deprived? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There is precious little of culture in The Sun, so probably not :-) Guy (Help!) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Where I really don't want to be...

I'm feeling a little sad and down in the dumps. ArbCom is not where I want to be because I don't like being exposed to such negative thoughts about people we should respect and hold in high regard. It exposes our underbelly for all the world to see. I prefer to be behind the camera. At times it seems like ArbCom is survival of the fittest and I'm so out of shape it's not even funny. Que sera sera. I hold you and Tryptofish in high regard despite the fact you are both from what I affectionately refer to as the "other side" . Your impression of me and several others is way off base but oh well, chacun a son gout (sorry this iPad won't allow me to place accents where they belong so you'll have to wing it). I was a bit of a science geek as a kid - had a microscope and dissecting kit when I was like 9 yrs. old - but it got me in a bit of trouble because of my curiousity over the derogatory term, "bird-brain". And no, it wasn't a term frequently used against me. I didn't know the mockingbird was the State bird of Texas; therefore, protected. I also didn't realize how tiny a bird brain actually is, or that it required a microscope far more powerful than the one Santa brought me. Atsme📞📧 18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's brutal. I told you it was, and I suggested you be removed as a party precisely because it is brutal. I think it's unlikely you will be sanctioned, but I think it has been said before that Arbcom workshop pages are where people are left to display the behaviour that Arbcom are scrutinising. Many people have dug their own graves there. If you want my advice, walk away and leave it. That won't make it any worse for you and may well make it better. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Good advice, but I'm not sure what an endorsement from me is worth. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Favor

Can you strike out this comment? Thank you. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 07:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Early close

Hi. Why was this (opener: Samwalton9) RfC closed two days early? The default RfC duration's 30 days. I do genuinely think that as this involved something which, as you pointed out, is 'capable of causing more damage at a stroke than almost anything else', it should get at least the full 30 days. A guideline for the filter extension's been asked for for a long time; ending the discussion prematurely/early doesn't seem an obvious choice.

As you might imagine my interest isn't purely academic (I'd been working on it for a few days). As it stood, I'd have commented and opposed it, as inadequate to the point it's not fit for purpose. Additionally, major concerns already raised during the discussion hadn't yet been addressed imo. Obviously completing tasks early is attractive, but honestly if there was an RfC I'd never dream would be closed early it would've been this one. (By virtue of the above, affects so many etc.) Thanks --31.185.222.136 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think that the two extra days would have changed anything given that the voting was 30-4 in favour and only one person had voted in the past 3 weeks? Sam Walton (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, conceivably, or I wouldn't bring it up. I think that question's oddly framed. It was still active, with new comments + voting added as recently as 58 minutes before, when it was suddenly closed with days still to go. As an aside those were from one of the EFMs. Was this discussed off-wiki?
On the other aspect you brought up: wp:PAG/RFC say stuff about numerical vote counts. Looking at it I see several writing "Support" for something other than the proposal or without having the slightest idea of what was being asked. A few more participants gave comments not in favour of the text in Discussion, too. --31.185.222.136 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It's quite disingenuous to point out the recent vote given that the last edit prior to that was three weeks before. There wasn't any off-wiki discussion that I'm aware of. If you really don't think it was closed properly then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures and take the matter to WP:AN. Sam Walton (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Though first, this person needs to log in, because the number of IPs honestly participating in the arcana of process is approximately zero. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_121&oldid=1144365405"