User talk:JzG/Archive 191

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 185

←

Archive 189

→

Clarification - UK is not US

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey dude, i noticed a statement you made in a discussion about me and i wanted to discuss this with you here as this is very important.

"331dot, We get this in the UK all the time. The coroner returns a verdict of unlawful killing. If the sole suspect is then not convicted, there is a conflict between the sources. But Stayfree 76 has been a relentlessly disruptive voice at that article, so I would support a narrow TBAN. Guy"

1. this incident did not happen in the UK. Our legal systems are entirely different in how this is handled and you cannot use UK legal understanding in US legal matters. in my state of AZ, it is legal to walk into a bank with a loaded AR15 slung over my shoulder...

2. in the US, the coroner makes no claim as to the legality of the situation. (a homicide does not mean it was a crime inherently). for example, in the US we have the second ammendment and the right to defend oneself or property. if an american shoots another in self defense that is justified that is not a crime. The coroner would see, for example, 2 gunshot wounds to the chest, right? ok, well they have no idea the situation and if it was justified. the only way a person is a murderer is if they are convicted and it is not a conflict of sources if they are given a non guilty verdict as that IS the final authority in the matter any other, in your words "sources" would be null.

Stayfree76 (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, I am rather familiar with the similarities (both US and UK are based on common law) and differences. In this case two medical examiners have ruled that the death was homicide (in English law parlance, "unlawful killing", but the same finding). You may not be aware, incidentally, that the office of coroner derives from the old English corouner, itself a derivative of the Anglo-French curuner, from the Latin custos placitorum coronae, i.e. guardian of the interests of the crown. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, sorry my man, thats not how it works. i will defer to my username on this one. 76 aka 1776, meaning the queen has no power here. see our own Criminal_law_of_the_United_States. it states "The validity of common law crimes varies at the state level. Although most states have abolished common law crimes, some have enacted "reception" statutes recognizing common law crimes when no similar statutory crime exists."

this means that no, this is not about common law and is in criminal law territory. like i said, the UK and the US are no where close to being the same legally.Stayfree76 (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, dude, my ancestor persuaded Arnold to surrender West Point. And more to the point, I have 16 years experience and over 140,000 edits to Wikipedia, you have a total of 136, so I probably know more about how Wikipedia policies work than you do.

Fact: George Floyd's death was a homicide.

Fact: Charges have been filed, including against Derek Chauvin.

Fact: You are on a fast track to bannination. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Fact: in the US, being charged means nothing if you are given a non guilty verdict...

i did not mention anything about policy so i am unclear what you are trying to say. Also, just because you have experience in something doesn't mean you much if you don't build on that experience. i don't understand how you would be able to justify a ban as in you are the one being aggressive and i am just trying to have a civil conversation about a misunderstanding of how the US works. also, what is the saying? also, that is a bold claim that should probably come with some kind of proof. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, and? The ME's verdict of homicide still stands. You don't go back and get the autopsy report rewritten because the jury did not convict the killer. RS say it was homicide, so we say it was homicide. If you have a problem with that then you need to take it up with the sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

i think you need to go learn up what a Homicide is. The legality of homicide depends on the situation which is what the courts are there to decide, not the coroner. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, here's the deal: you stop trying to use Wikipedia to fix the fact that the sources are "wrong", and I'll stop advocating for your removal from the article that is the primary topic of your obsession. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

i never said the sources are wrong. i simply said, a homicide is not a murder by any definition. another person also corrected you on this in the admin noticeboard. i am not obsessed with this topic, either. i have posted to 5 different wikis, 3 of them are based on the same event. lastly, i am not the only person to say this/ bring this up to you, but you are free to do what you will, and personally, i am not worried about your disdain for me. Stayfree76 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

June 4, 2020: "The former Minneapolis Police officer who pressed his knee into George Floyd's neck was charged on Wednesday with a new, more serious count of second-degree murder, and the three other officers on scene during his killing were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder." -- Source: CNN[1]

That's over two months ago. One would think that someone who lectures others about the exact meaning of the charges against the police officers would at least type "charges filed in george floyd case" into a search engine and see what the actual charges are. I have no disdain for you, but I am disappointed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also add that prosecutors decide what to charge someone with based upon what the police, forensics investigators, and coroner give them. For example, if the coroner rules "accidental death" a murder charge is unlikely. A coroner ruling of "homicide" needs to be added to other evidence. For example, a letter detailing the plans to kill the person would likely result in a first-degree murder charge, even though it isn't the coroner who gives the prosecutor the letter. For a detailed explanation of what the charge of second degree murder is, see Murder#Degrees of murder. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Guys, you're wrong if you think both US and UK are based on common law: true of some parts of the UK, but the Acts of Union mean that Scots law continues to have a somewhat different basis. Similarly, no coroners – the government website assures me that these matters are dealt with by the Procurator fiscal. An unreliable source tells me not all US states have coroners. Don't think this makes any difference to the argument, but if you're gonna be pedantic....... dave souza, talk 17:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dave souza, oh I know, one of m'chums is a Scottish lawyer. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: not but a few comments above yours i said in the US, being charged means nothing if you are given a non guilty verdict.... That is FINAL. any american can be charged with any crime at any time, but depending on the situation could warrant immediate dismissal, but in this case is going to trial. if whoever gets a sentence not guilty, then that is it, its as if nothing ever happened, and it cannot be held against them in any way. i mean, you can even get convicted felonies/misdemeanors expunged which remove them from your record, making it like they never happened either. Stayfree76 (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You are confusing the actor and the act. Yes, if a perpetrator is not found guilty, he or she is legally considered to be innocent. But that does not change the fact that a homicide took place. It may be a case of justifiable homicide, or it may be homicide by a different or even an unknown person, or it may simply be that the perpetrator had friends in the jury. But the act of homicide still happened. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Stayfree76, OK. So you are now arguing the toss with at least five editors, three of whom are admins, all of us have been active here since at least 2008, and we have a total of around half a million edits between us. You've been here less than six weeks, you have 150 edits, and virtually all of them are argufying on this one topic. I call troll. Bye. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 I happened across this discussion on the admin page. What caught my attention was your attempts to bully this user with your supposed Authority because you have made so many edits. Your ancestry and you're 16 years mean nothing here and editor's like you that try to intimidate and throw your weight around are a major problem on Wikipedia. Stop acting like a bully. The argument made by stayfree76 seemed perfectly reasonable to me. WP:VESTED Jackhammer111 (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Question re: a statement you made about primary and secondary sources in closing an RS/N discussion

Hi, In closing the RS/N discussion on Professor's blog posts, you wrote "any contentious self-published source even by an expert should be excluded unless commented on by reliable secondary sources - there is no global shortage of motivated opinions, such that we need to include them from primary sources." I'm still a learner-stage editor, and your use of "primary" vs. "secondary" is inconsistent with my understanding of WP's use of these terms from WP:PSTS. Seems to me that an academic blog about Islamic law draws on primary sources such as the Quran, and the blog itself is a secondary source. But you're characterizing the blog as a primary source. Can you help me understand why? Thanks. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your email

I have passed on all the details of the case to legal@wikimedia.org. Best if I let them deal with it. W C M_email 07:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, It's not that Horace Ronson thing is it? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

More royalcruft (leighrayment.com)

We have over 3,000 citations to this website per leighrayment.com it appears to have recently been replaced to with a norwegian language cybersquatting page, but the archives clearly show it's another garden variety royalcruft site. is this already in your auto-royalcruft removal script? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, it was discussed at RSN; Leigh Rayment was said by one or two editors to be an amateur expert of some reputation but he died on 1 Feb 2019. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/2020 Infobox television channel redesign proposal. Raymie (t • c) 07:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Osteopathy

There’s a proposal for a merge at Talk:Osteopathy which (IMO) shouldn’t happen, but I think there are a couple of potential merges/redirects relating to osteopathy/osteopathic medicine which are worth discussing. Is there somewhere centralised to discuss this (maybe WP:FTN?) or should it be done via the talk pages of the various articles? Brunton (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

United Artists

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M SERIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M TRYING TO PROVE THAT UNITED ARTISTS WAS REVIVED AS A FILM DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIKE IT USED TO BE AND NOT ONE OF MGM'S DIGITAL UNITS, AND THAT THE FRIGGIN "UNITED ARTISTS IS A DIGITAL PRODUCTION COMPANY" AND "UNITED ARTISTS RELEASING IS MIRROR" CLAIMS ARE NOTHING BUT LIES AND HOAXES, BUT NOBODY GIVES A SH*T BECAUSE THEY'RE A*SWIPES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* D:< 201.184.178.60 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

what the fuck are you on about? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The Gold Bar Reporter

Hi did you delete The Gold Bar Reporter? If so could you please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gold Bar Reporter (2nd nomination), one way or the other. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: As I mentioned on the ANI thread, I restored the article as I don't think a WP:A7 delete was in policy for the many reasons discussed there. I'm not particularly convinced we can make a decent article out of this, but if you believe we can, I think we should give you the chance. Even if I act on your suggestion that you're not fussed about which way the AfD closes, I'm not sure I can do a WP:SNOW delete close after two days and as many editors commenting. The AfD will be closed one way or another soon enough. In case it's not clear, I'm not assuming malice on Guy's behalf, I assume he made the (easy to make) mistake of looking at the current revision of the article instead of checking all previous revisions (been there, done that), which does meet A7 on its own merits. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, it was an A7 as it stood. Maybe there's more to it, but it literally just said it's a forum and had a link. Anyway, you fixed it, so thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Unsure but

Hmm do you think it would be possible for Swmpshield2 to be a Wikitam331 sock? Not too conclusive but I saw a few interactions like at the article you mentioned as well as at 2017 Equifax data breach, and there seems to be two months between the block and first edit... However, one edited music related articles and the other more China related ones. —Paleo Neonate – 11:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and both talk page blankers. —Paleo Neonate – 11:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

A BIG thank you for (not in anyway) improving the article Is Genesis History? every small step in providing a balanced article that scans well and allows for further additions obviously helps build a better wiki, if you feel at any time that it needs rewording, do so, do not revert ~~like an arse~~ and lose work and such impetus that this might provide.121.99.108.78 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for the original phasing, the message is still valid though, edit and improve rather the undo and roll-back.121.99.108.78 (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

"The film was re-released in around 850 theaters for an anniversary showing on February 22, 2018, with a bonus scene of Wheaton College students requested a screening, all members of a creationist club touring the Ark Encounter, a creationist attraction operated by Answers in Genesis" is worse English than what it replaces, and less clear. Your other edit was reverted by Ian.thomson, not me. The talk page is at talk:Is Genesis History?. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Something odd?

I don't really know what to do about this (if there is anything to do), but I figured I'd let someone know who might have better sense. There seem to be a couple new accounts with similar names that are just thanking tons of pages: [2][3]. So there's that? Jlevi (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The specific edits are not public information it seems? Can admins see them? I remember sometimes being thanked by single-use socks to bring my attention somewhere. If we knew what the edits were, it would be easier to determine if it's harassment, covert leadership attempts, etc... —Paleo Neonate – 11:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Both accounts thanked me for this edit: [4]. Jlevi (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI I created a discussion at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Empty_accounts_thanking_hundreds_of_times_for_contributing_to_controversial_pages Citing (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)