User talk:JzG/Archive 159

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 155

←

Archive 157

→

Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Creationism and NPOV and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

This arbitration case request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction_ban_violation?

Come on Guy, there was nowhere near a consensus there to re-indefinitely block MaranoFan. Would you consider re-considering that block? Thanks, Fish+Karate 11:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Look at the circumstances. An indef block, unblocked after 2 years, and within 24 hours the same wars are underway again and the combatants knocking six bells out of each other on ANI. I'd like to see some pretty decent evidence that this is not going to resume again. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well as I see it (and I know you may see it differently), MaranoFan was unblocked, made three (good) edits to three Meghan Trainor articles, and on each of the three was immediately reverted (4 minutes later, 3 minutes later, 3 minutes later) by Winkelvi, pretending he didn't remember he had an interaction ban with MaranoFan (having an IBAN is not, I imagine, something you forget, and the speed at which the reverts happened, on 3 articles Winklevi had never edited before, is telling). And when MaranoFan re-reverted, which I absolutely agree they should not have done, there's a post a few hours later on ANI calling for an indef block for MaranoFan for breaching the two-way interaction ban. Even though Winklevi broke it first. It's flagrant gaming to get MaranoFan blocked, and I can imagine why MaranoFan feels rather hard done by here. Blocking them both would have been harsh but fair. Blocking neither and leaving it at the warning Black Kite suggested at the bottom of the thread would have been more forgiving, but also fair. Blocking one but not the other is both harsh and unfair. Fish+Karate 12:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(1) As I see it, the indef block was probably too harsh, but I don't know what goes on behind the scenes and what's discussed there when these things are decided. (2) Fish and karate, by saying I'm "pretending" I don't remember the iban, I'm going to assume you either didn't read my explanation as to why I didn't remember, you don't care what I wrote, and/or you've never known anyone who's had cancer/chemo/radiation and what the frustrating and devastating side effects of all three are like. Especially when one is as old as I am, they can be even more exaggerated in negatively affecting memory. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just read the two AN/ANI discussions. FWIW, I don't think Guy made a bad call here. He's raised a very valid point: MF was less than 24 hours past an unblock for what looks like battleground behavior, and when presented with a reason (even though it was a good reason) to to resume that behavior, immediately did so.

I think that what's missing here is an appropriate response to the other editor, whose behavior was just as obviously bad. I'm not going to opine on what that response should be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a block on MF was within the bounds of discretion, but the AN discussion was heading in a different direction, and the whole thing smacks of gaming to me. Fish+Karate 13:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

So open it back up, or -better yet- start a new section to continue in that direction. I don't think anyone could fault you for that; you're pretty obviously right about what direction the thread was heading in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Would rather ask Guy to just reconsider his block, more threads don't help anyone. Fish+Karate 14:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Per "Note that if some other admin wants to unblock based on acceptance of suitable conditions, that's fine by me", and per general lack of consensus over the block, I spelled out in very clear and obvious terms what MaranoFan should not do, so there is no possible wiggle room. They have accepted the terms, so I've reduced the block to 24 hours. A word to Winkelvi; I have said that it is not MaranoFan's job to police the interaction ban, and it is not your job either. Please do not go looking for trouble. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That seems entirely appropriate to me. Thank you both. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The other point I would make is that MaranoFan self-identifies as being 17, and so their blocks would probably have occurred at a time before they could be considered a mature adult. I therefore expect the disruption to decrease as they simply grow up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. Fish+Karate 17:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Confused about revert rule and 1RR violations on the Campaign Against antisemitism page

I have requested advice on this, but I don't think anyone has specifically addressed my questions. Perhaps you can help? I'm concerned about getting two 1RR warnings on my talk page from an editor on this article. The last one was from an editor for simply changing a source to one of that same editors preferred sources without changing any text! Is this a valid or fair violation? Can I remove it? Will it be taken seriously if reported elsewhere? If so why are editors freely 'edit waring' effectively reverting content of the same section back within the hour without any violation warnings?

My more general concern, is that editors familiar with the various complex rules can use Wikipedia to intimidate those which they disagree with, whilst allowing others freedom to to what they want. This places some at a severe disadvantage. (Andromedean (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC))

MDPI

Greetings,

I distinctly recall that MDPI is considered to be a questionable source. Is that still so? It seems to be widely used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it is no better than OMICS. I will have a look at some of the cites. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Michael Hardy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 19:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm...

As someone who take BLP seriously, doncha think having an 800 word unsourced essay on your user page about Donald Trump is the least bit problematic? I haven't been paying all that much attention really, but it was pointed out by [bit.ly/2y6HtKh some of your fans]. GMG ^talk 19:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to state my biases. Don't you? Guy (Help!) 22:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you understand BLP as well as I do. I think you need to remove it, or I will start a thread to have it removed. GMG ^talk 01:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Since every part of my statement is either opinion clearly stated as such, or fact trivially sourced, I see no issue. Guy (Help!) 06:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, well. Let me brew some coffee and I guess I'll see you at ANI. GMG ^talk 11:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Obligatory notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GMG ^talk 12:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:JzG/Politics

User:JzG/Politics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:JzG/Politics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GMG ^talk 00:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Do not accuse others without proof

Stop accusing me without any proof of creating alternative accounts, that is higly immoral. I am not @Pol098, @Rtc or @Tgeorgescu. I have nothing to do with them. If you continue threatening me without proof I will have to inform others of your immoral accusations. User Talk:James343e (User:James343e) 15:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tonegents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 14:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What is your proof I am Tonegent? No, I am not him. Anyhow, I checked the historial of placebo and he only made one edition (whoever he is). So what is your "proof" I am Tonegent?User Talk:James343e (User:James343e) 15:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Any reasons

as to not invoking a CSD criterion and blocking, as to WP:COIN#Vijaya Bhaskar Jatoth?! ∯WBG^converse 13:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

None that I can see, but moving back to Draft is generally uncontroversial in UPE, whereas deletion may cause drama if the content itself is not obviously spam. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

great creidt

<<uncontrollable giggling>> My initial impulse was to whip out my Lawgiver and go Judge Dredd on them. Sometimes the ANI crowd frowns on that sort of unilateral action, so I took a breath and posted instead.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Heh! Guy (Help!) 08:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart

I took care of a big chunk of these in mainspace today. I saw you were doing it too. I think we have almost all of them out now. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Good job, both. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Currently 145 to review, 4 definite valid links, around 200 removed. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

re:my revert: per WP:BREITBART "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary" RocketDwiki (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

so, the "It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary" at WP:BREITBART is ignorable, then? RocketDwiki (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

UoPeople

Hi JzG I have noticed you reverted my edits on UoPeople. Ok I understand the issue about press realeases but I had added three more sources one from IB on the student count number, one secondary source regarding the MBA accreditation from DEAC and a third one regarding the ranking. Why were those also reverted? Weatherextremes (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Faith & climate change

I wanted to discuss this comment, but replying in thread didn't seem to be an appropriate forum, so I am bringing my comments here. I don't think you can so easily blow off things like "belief in young-earth creationism" as "simply wrong" while allowing for other non-provable faiths being that which reasonable people can disagree as it cannot be proven wrong scientifically. No doubt there is substantial physical evidence supporting the view of evolution, and no physical evidence for young-earth creationism. But young-earth creationism believes that God (or whatever higher power) created the earth including with all that physical evidence (ie god put those dinosaur bones there, god backdated the carbon dating for those bones, etc.). There is no scientific way to prove that didn't happen, all we can do is say that such beliefs are not scientifically based (like other claims of faith).

You are closer with climate change denial. Its basically impossible to say that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas that increases temperature (there are no claims of faith here). But doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the IPCC on exactly how much of a feedback mechanism is occurring. Even the IPCC says that a doubling of CO2 would be "extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C." That's a HUGE range. A person who thinks that a doubling of CO2 causes only 1°C increase in temperature could easily think that it isn't worth worrying about. Many times I see people claiming that climate change isn't real, they really mean (if you ask them about it in more detail) is they disagree with the claims of how bad it is or will be (not that CO2 has no effect on climate). -Obsidi (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can (and should) blow off belief in YEC as simply wrong. It is wrong, and in fact it is one of the most dangerously wrong things around, as believers have worked long and hard to undermine science in order to try to replace fact with their preferred religious dogma in schools. The basis of YEC is functionally indistinguishable from the belief that the universe was created one second ago, or that we are living in a simulation. It asserts a discontinuity for which no evidence exists, and insists that this belief has a validity on a par with scientific conclusions that are both internally and externally consistent, and do not involve the supernatural. It's a classic case of Russell's teapot. If God intended us to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and that life originated by special creation, he put an awful lot of work into making it impossible for any intellectually honest investigation to conclude anything other than that this did not happen. Even the Catholic Church supports evolution (actually not a big surprise as the Jesuits have always been great astronomers).

Climate change is undeniable, there is minor debate about the degree of forcing but if you look at the literature you see that the error bars get smaller year by year and it is by now virtually impossible to find any mainstream dissent from the view that human activity is a significant factor. At that point you get into the precautionary principle and the question of how much work it's worth putting in to stop the problem. Reasonable people can indeed differ on that, but as you acknowledge, it's impossible for any intellectually honest person to deny it is happening, and bordering on criminal to adopt public policies predicated on the idea that it isn't, or that it's not a problem. In the debate over how much to do to stop climate change, "nothing at all" is not a defensible answer, and "make it worse" should result in summary ejection from public office. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is not on "par with scientific conclusions" and that it shouldn't be taught in public schools. And yes, YEC makes a lot of very unlikely assumptions. And it is functionally indistinguishable from the belief that the universe was created one second ago, or that we are living in a simulation. But none of those (created 1 second ago or a simulation) can be scientifically proven not to be true either. I think people should just accept that YEC is faith like any other faith, and as such shouldn't be taught in public schools, and has no basis in fact. There are an awful lot of faiths out there that believe all kinds of crazy things. Look at the Catholic Church that you cite: Transubstantiation (that wafer and wine, it's not really bread and wine at all, it is actually the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ), Baptism (no matter how badly you behaved before, its all ok now!), heaven and hell, a virgin got pregnant (etc.). I think if you look hard at just about any faith you will see a ton of stuff like this, YEC is just one more example.

The precautionary principle can run multiple ways. How much harm are we going to cause to the economy on the chance that global warming feedback is as bad as is claimed? It isn't like the methods we have to make climate change better have zero cost, so we must balance these. It is after all unreasonable to cause more harm to the economy then the harm global warming itself will cause. And then there is technological advancement. Say it will costs 1/100th to fix global warming once technology has advanced another 100 years, it sure wouldn't be very smart to fix it right now if the harm over those 100 years isn't bigger than 99/100 the cost of fixing it today. We just don't know exactly what that will be and so reasonable people can disagree about what should be done or even if it is worth fixing at all right now. -Obsidi (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I refer you again to Russell's teapot and also to Hitchens' razor. I also invite you to read the recently added opening para of my essay. This is about the difference between philosophical truth and scientific truth, the former being based on the quality of rhetoric and not in any way dependent on empirical validity, the latter being based entirely on empirical validity regardless of its philosophical truthiness. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)