Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 181

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175←Archive 179Archive 180Archive 181Archive 182Archive 183→Archive 185

Fox News

Just a heads up, the article is under 1RR.[1][2] PackMecEng (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, first one was reverting a TBAN violation. Second was pattern vandalism by a likely meatpuppet (60 edits in > 2 years, repeating an edit that has been made numerous times by drive-by editors and reverted every time). This often appears to use aged but inactive accounts to get past PC protection - what's the going rate for an autoconfirmed account these days? Pretty cheap.
But I take your point, I'll leave it for now. Guy (help!) 21:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah I did not release you were calming an exemption for a banned user and vandalism. Not sure I see the second as vandalism but I see where you are coming from. But if you are claiming an exemption to 1RR or 3RR you need to state such in the edit summary or in a talk page section. Thanks for the clarification. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, yes, I had forgotten it was under 1RR. Normally the PC protection catches the worst. Guy (help!) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth I do not disagree with the reverts from a content point of view. PackMecEng (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, thanks. I am wondering if it needs ECP. This has been going on for months. Guy (help!) 22:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah seem around every week or two it happens again. Someone drops by and pulls the "the whole article is bias bs" deal. While I am sure it could use some tweaking I have yet to see that approach do anything productive. PackMecEng (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, the main beef seems to be with Fox being a conservative outlet. That seemingly uncontroversial fact is a major bone of contention for a minority who seem to think it's a neutral news org. Guy (help!) 22:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much yeah. It is to the right, it just depends on where you want to put the pin. I am sure we could go back and forth on what that means for reliability here. These days I tend to only use it on talk pages to have fun with people and only when I have a few other sources backing it up. It's rarely worth the hassle using it in article space. PackMecEng (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, I defer always to Benklerr's Network Propaganda - you can see the results of this effect at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/. Guy (help!) 22:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I have seen that passed around quite a bit. Not sure I am sold on it just yet. PackMecEng (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, recommended to me by Mike Godwin (smart dude). I suggest you read it. Guy (help!) 22:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Beyonce awards page

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit on Beyonce iwkipedia page that was reverted by some stans due to they are non-notable awards. I want to clarify that most of the awards you reverted actually exists but they don't have wikipedia page here. I'll provide you with some sources proving they are real and not from "blog"

I hope it clarifies my concern. THis awards exists but since they don't have a page here, they are not valid? THEY ARE VALID AND NOTABLE. It hurts me to see those person deleting those awards with proper links, I can understand them deleting it if that doesn't have proper citations but all of those have. I hope you get my point. Thanks Beyhiveboys (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You keep reinserting a massive chunk of badly sourced text. A notable award is one that has an article. An award that should be included in Wikipedia is one that has an article where reliable independent sources note that it was given (i.e. not just the Facebook page of the group handing out the award). And you, as a rather obvious fan, are not well placed to judge the significance, certainly not to the point of SHOUTING at much more experienced users. Guy (help!) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not shouting at anyone and also, I didn't put any blogsites or facebook as source for the awards. Please double-check your concerns. I sent the link above and I think it's not fair to claim they are non-notable since they are actually happening, they are giving awards, they are existing. Beyhiveboys (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Beyhiveboys, all caps is shouting. Guy (help!) 18:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Examples please

Please explain why my edits were reverted

Hello JzG: Please explain why you have reverted all my carefully planned edits to the biopsychosocial model page. If I do not hear from you, I am going to explore this matter further. Sandyshore (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sandyshore, oh do feel free to "explore this matter further". I reverted your edits because they clearly reflect a non-neutral point of view (they were, bluntly, promotional). Guy (help!) 20:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello JzG/Guy: The edits I did are NOT AT ALL promotional – in fact I spent quite a few days carefully planning the edits. I used good peer reviewed academic articles as supporting references to replace/add to the old references cited in the article. I have explained a few of the edits I did in more detail below (it would take too long to explain all the edits). You can reply and tell me why you think they are ‘promotional.’
- The section “Current Model” cites an article (Borrell-Carrió et al) that was published more then 15 years ago! I replaced it with a 2020 article as well as a 2018 article published in Lancet that is available online. This is not promotional – this is stating the current state that is based on academic research.
- In the “History” section, there were a couple of sentences that make unsupported claims (sentences “For example, a person may have a genetic predisposition ……… cognitive factors must trigger the illness). These sentences do not have a reference citation and also research shows that just the opposite may be the case (see the reference “Culverhouse, R. C., et al. (2018). Collaborative meta-analysis finds no evidence of a strong interaction between stress and 5-HTTLPR genotype contributing to the development of depression. Molecular psychiatry, 23(1), 133”).
- The other edits I did also have good explanations, which are too long to write here. This biopsychosocial Wikipedia article also deviates from the main focus of the article by unnecessarily talking about things like the mind-body dualism. Also some sentences are written in a child-like (non academic) manner.
(By the way, I was not finished with my edits, when you reverted the edits.)
Sandyshore (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Sandyshore, you know who is the one person int he world who cannot objectively assess the quality of your edits? You. Guy (help!) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
JzG, Sorry, I do not agree with you. I am not new to academic writing. Please provide me detailed reasons as to why you deleted each one of my edits. Also, how can you support an old reference published more than 15 years ago (Borrell-Carrió et al 2014) compared to new academic references published in 2018 and 2020? Additionally, how can you support unsupported claims that are not even accompanied by references?
Sandyshore (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Sandyshore, of course you don't agree. Guy (help!) 22:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Hi, sorry, I'm not seeing what indicates that [3] is a preprint? The paper itself shows it was published in Vol. 37:1185.
Also, you reverted too much - the third edit was a REFSPC correction not related to that paper. 73.69.184.160 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, I looked at it on SSRN ("Tommorow's Research Today") and did not see the publication ref. You should probably use the DOI not the link to SSRN as the copyright status is unclear. Guy (help!) 14:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The SSRN page doesn't appear to provide a DOI. I'm not of the academic world - do you know how to obtain it? 73.69.184.160 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing in the cited paper to back up the spelling / transcription change from "Wong Yoke Fun" to "Wong Yook Fun". I am not knowledgeable in Chinese (either Mandarin or Taishanese), but I do note that Wong Kim Ark's four sons used three different Chinese characters (possibly homonyms?) for the second syllable of each one's name, so it is not indisputably obvious here that the transcription of the first son's name must contain a typo. In the absence of a reliable source displaying knowledge of Chinese (written form and/or any spoken dialect), I would be inclined to go with the spelling of Wong (Yoke? Yook?) Fun's name as given in the oldest known reliable source (namely, the transcript of his immigration hearing). If there exist sources other than Bethany Berger's unsubstantiated change of the spelling in her paper, this could certainly change things. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Richwales, could easily be a typo. Guy (help!) 19:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Which one are you saying could easily be a typo? The paper by Berger? Or the immigration hearing transcript? And how should we determine this? Even if the transcript might be in error, I don't think we would be entitled to contradict the transcript without high-quality sources, such as mentions of Wong Yoke/Yook Fun in other places that do not, in turn, cite Wikipedia as their authority. We might possibly be able to use the mentioning of other Chinese immigrants to the US who happened to have the same character (毓) in their names — though it would probably be difficult to cite that sort of information in this context without committing WP:SYNTH.
Given, again, the fact that Wong Kim Ark's four sons did not all have the same word / syllable / character in their names, it seems plausible that they may have been given personal names that were intentionally homonyms or near-homonyms in their native dialect (Taishanese). It would probably be advisable at this point to enlist the help of Wikipedians who speak / read / write Chinese, and especially to find someone who is familiar with Taishanese, and ask them to comment on the sons' names. Several years ago, when I was working intensively on this article to raise it to Featured Article status, there was at least one person around who knew Taishanese and who commented on the pronunciation of "Wong Kim Ark" in the man's native dialect; I'll try tracking down this editor. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Richwales, the Berger paper. Guy (help!) 19:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Understood, and agreed. Absent some additional information from reliable sources putting forth "the real/correct" transcription of the son's name, it should stay as it is cited in the immigration hearing transcript (i.e., Yoke, not Yook). With all possible respect for Prof. Berger, there is nothing in her paper suggesting she is an authority on Chinese name transcription (in general, or the Taishanese dialect in particular). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Right, please search the Berger paper - its text uses "Wong Yook Fun" exclusively, while its citations contain references to documents using both spellings. If we leave the WP article as is, we at least need a note about the inconsistency, but then we're preferring one public document over others - if we're going to do that, why not side with consistency and what appears to be an well-researched paper published in a reviewed journal? 73.69.184.160 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The first question that needs to be answered here is to determine on what basis (if any) Berger decided to use the "Wong Yook Fun" spelling in her paper. As best I can tell, she provided no sources to justify this decision of hers. So, even though her paper was published in a reviewed journal and appears on balance to be well researched, this does not by itself constitute sufficient reason to conclude that she is right on this particular point. The immigration hearing record, on the other hand, was written at the time of the events, and it is generally known that some/many of the officials involved in hearings such as this (including, at the very least, the interpreters) were familiar enough with Chinese (and specifically with the Taishanese dialect) that if "Yoke" were an obviously misspelled transcription, someone would probably have pointed it out at the time. As for adding a note about the inconsistency — since you are proposing to cite Berger's paper in connection with Wong Yoke Fun's unsuccessful attempt to immigrate to the US, I could go along with adding a comment to the Berger paper citation saying something like "In this paper, Berger unexplainedly spells Wong Kim Ark's son's name as 'Wong Yook Fun'" — but I would definitely not support changing the spelling of his name everywhere else in the article solely on the basis of Berger's choice of spelling.
FWIW, I found Berger's e-mail address and have written her in an attempt to get clarification on this matter. I'll let people know what, if anything, I hear back. I will also seek input from the "Asian Americans" and "China" WikiProjects regarding the names of Wong's four sons, as discussed above. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I heard back from Bethany Berger (the author of the paper under discussion). She said she had found multiple spellings for the various sons' names in her research — including some sources with "Wong Yook Fun" — and that she had chosen the "Wong Yook Fun" spelling "just to have a common spelling".

I am still waiting to hear back from the WikiProjects with any ideas on the proper transcription, or why the four sons apparently had different "generation names" (even if the generation names reportedly sounded the same, my limited understanding has been that this part of each of their names would normally be identical for all the brothers).

In the meantime, I would recommend that the "Wong Yoke Fun" spelling (from the young man's immigration hearing transcript) should be kept as is, but subject to possible revision depending on what additional information can be found. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Bela Bose

I understand that blog are not good sources, and I generally don't use them. However, for the subject of this article, the blogspot piece appears to be the best source. It is a translation of an article in Hindi that was written for the subject's birthday. I was going to write on the talk page that I will draw on it extensively. To me there seems to be no doubt about its authenticity. I request you to take a look at the source and, if you are convinced, to restore the deleted matter. Thanks a lot. Amuk (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. Please read blogs for blog in the first line.Amuk (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We cannot use blogs as sources by policy. It is not acceptable, particularly in this topic area. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 04:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
JzG and Roxy, I request you to take a look at the source in question. While it is hosted on blogspot, it is not a blog but an article. It has a wealth of detail about the subject and is based on an interview with her. In my opinion it belongs to the class of primary sources. While not as good as secondary sources, such sources are used in biography articles for certain kinds of information. Please do take a look at the source. Thanks a lot! Amuk (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Looked. It is a blog. You cannot use it as a source. 21:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC) this was me Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 22:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Amuk, There's no evidence of authority oir editorial oversight. It's a blogh post. Guy (help!) 09:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the source. I still feel it has the ring of authenticity, but won't press the point. Stay safe. Amuk (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your block of User:StopFnLyinnn

Hello JzG,

Whilst patrolling the BlockList recently for Supreme Genghis Khan sockpuppets, I noticed that you blocked the user StopFnLyinnn and suppressed their edits, even though they haven't edited since 2015. As somebody who hasn't regularly edited Wikipedia in a while, I am just curious as to why you decided to block them after this long period of inactivity, as well as suppress their edits - is it some new policy or consensus to do so? Were their edits particularly offensive to warrant suppression, or just ordinary vandalism, and who's to say that (all possible username violations aside) they couldn't have come back to contribute in good faith at some point since they didn't vandalise enough to get blocked the first time around?

Thank you,

Passengerpigeon (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Passengerpigeon, the username is an obvious troll, the edits needed revdeleting, and there's a market for aged accounts, so there's no real point leaving it able to edit. Guy (help!) 19:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I understand, but what do you mean by "a market for aged accounts"? Passengerpigeon (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Passengerpigeon, you can buy Wikipedia accounts on the black market. Guy (help!) 20:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

A question

Hi, I saw that you recently deleted article List of early Slav rulers per basic Wiki guidlines. I consider the article to be quite good and with solid refs. Is it possible and would it be okay for me to restore it? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sadko, if you first check all the refs in detail, then sure. This is a WP:CSD#G5 (created by a blocked user evading a block). Guy (help!) 22:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

I shan't unrevert on the VC article, but can you please avoid snarky comments like " You know better than this". You are confusing unreliable content with reliable facts. If an unreliable source says 'it is the case that p', then we cannot claim p. But the fact that the unreliable source claimed p is indeed a fact. As I said, I shan't unrevert. Peter Damian (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Damian, you added blatant WP:OR. And yes, you do know better than that. Guy (help!) 13:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Alan J. Cooper

Hi. Given how the situation at Alan J. Cooper appears to have settled somewhat, I'm thinking it might be helpful for us to un-revdel one or more of the intervening edits on the page, so that non-admins trying to improve the article in good faith can see what had previously been done and take helpful advantage of their earlier work. Perhaps the last revision prior to the point where I stepped in with my chainsaw? Your thoughts on this? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Richwales, I think it is safe enough, if any warriors step in to try to revert to that then we can take action, but I think that NatGertler is a safe pair of hands. Guy (help!) 17:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee and a thank you

Here's a digital cup of coffee for you! Thank you for believing in me and for your help!
StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

StrangeloveFan101, oh, thank you! Honestly, I am sorry it was such a pain for you, but I think it's all calm and lovely now, so happy editing. Guy (help!) 14:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
It's fine. I get why I was blocked. But, I'm just gonna take it as a learning experience and move on. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen Gérard Gertoux?

I don't know if it's of interest to you, but I just ran into it and thought it might be. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Make sure you read the talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, it's fucking Buckaroo Banzai! Guy (help!) 20:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm no relation to the lead (Peter Weller). Doug Weller talk 20:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Heading text

Hey Guy,

Thanks for the comments. Just one question. Why do you assume that I have some improper relationship with the gallery or its owners? I rather resent that. I am planning to rewrite, but can you give me any specific examples -- actual words or phrases -- that make it sound like advertising? I have asked the same question of other Wikipedia editors, and my question has been ignored.

Thanks. --Moleppa (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Good day. I didn't know that typing with ALL CAPS is shouting here, my apologies. Beyhiveboys (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Just looking for a response

I am new to this at Wikipedia and know that I may not be following protocols in communicating with editors, but I'm not sure what is going on.

First, I see that you have deleted the page "Pilar Corrias Gallery" because "(Repeatedly recreated)." I have not recreated the page. Please explain this to me.

Also, there seems to be a page with the same title from 2018, which I didn't make.

Finally, in an earlier exchange, I asked to you give me examples of words or phrases that make the article too much like an advertisement. I just need an idea where to start. I haven't received any response.

These questions are not asked in anger, but out of real curiosity and a willingness to learn: Have you ignored my earlier requests for information because I have somehow offended you or because I have unwittingly transgressed some kind of Wikipedia standards of politeness? I have had at least a couple of editors speaking very critically about the article, but no one has responded to my actual requests for help. Any help would be appreciated. --Moleppa (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Moleppa, it has been created several times before, and has been a focus of undisclosed paid editing including through abuse of multiple accounts. In other words, it's been spammed. Guy (help!) 14:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Spammed

Thanks for your response. A little background. I had nothing to do with any earlier versions of this article. I created my version first on 27 March 2020. My daughter, who knows someone from the gallery, made me aware of the gallery and the important work it does in promoting female and avant-garde artists. I’m a professional writer who often writes about the arts. When I failed to find anything about it on Wikipedia, I thought it might deserve a Wikipedia page. I asked for some more information about the gallery and, based on what I received, I wrote the article. I have never visited the gallery (I live in Denmark) and have never met the gallery’s owner or staff. So, the question is, is there a way forward? Or has the past spamming completely disqualified the gallery as a Wikipedia subject? Can I re-access the article and rewrite it with less “promotional” language and better references, although I’m not sure how many really reputable references there are? Thanks again for the help. --Moleppa (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Moleppa, https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Moleppa tells a story. And the story is: you probably have a dog in this fight. Guy (help!) 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Am I in trouble?

Again, thanks for your time and trouble, but I really don’t understand what you mean by “you probably have a dog in this fight.” I looked at the statistics page and, while not understanding it 100%, I think it backs up my story: I started to create a page on 26 March and finished it on 27 March. I created two pages: one for the gallery and one for the gallery owner. What DOESN’T makes sense to me, however, is that I NEVER edited these two pages: “Women for Trump” and “Seyntex,” although they are listed as if I edited them. I have no idea where those two came from. I don’t even remember ever visiting them. I feel that you are accusing me of doing something that I didn’t do, but I don’t understand what it is. Maybe I have made some kind of mistake in how to do things, but I have not done anything unethical, if that is what you are implying. I really hate to keep questioning you, but I really want to know what’s going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleppa (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC) --Moleppa (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_181&oldid=949670513"