Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Query

Given that you've closed a related item recently, do you believe this new section accurately reflects consensus? GRBerry 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Poster child for wiki lawyering

The person that said Mike Godwin has a COI posted this on my talkpage. [1] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO

From a fellow (former) ABN AMRO customer (now with Bank of America), I say thank you, thank you, thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • De nada. I actually work for $SOFTWARECOMPANY and they are a customer of ours, as are many of the large banks and financial institutions. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gidonb did it again and changed the article back to ABN Amro. I suggest first changing it back and then protecting the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Steelbeard1 and JzG, just a few days ago there was a community decision that has to be respected. At en.wiki names are not decided by force but by joined deliberation and carefully inspecting and respecting our policies. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No there wasn't, there was a small discussion between a few interested parties - and it completely missed the point. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

When the changes were spread to related articles such as Bank of America and LaSalle Bank, those who follow those articles, such as myself, began to object. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is not locked yet, allowing me to change text back to ABN AMRO. Now can you protect it from further editing? Thanks again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remove your protection of this page, by the way. Since you have reverted to your preferred version multiple times, it was not appropriate for you to protect that version. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion archiving

In this edit [2] you removed your "delete" !vote from the discussion, thus preventing the archive being an accurate record of the debate. DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You !voted, then close in favour of your !vote, at the same time removing it (a strike with an explanation would have been the honest approach). DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope. I merely reconsidered how to handle the article. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sdhilio

Please check User:Sdhilio. He removed large parts in Russian Mafia without discussing this first on the talk page. Earlier, suspicion was raised the he might be the same as User:Mynameisstanley, see here. Mynameisstanley has stopped editing after a conlict. Sdhilio is now editing much the same pages as Mynameisstanley and behaves the same. Thank you. Mafia Expert (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I also alerted User talk:DGG. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is it just me, or are you doing to PrivateMusings what you just complained DuncanHill is doing to you? --barneca (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Nope, I am absolutely not following him round, in fact I make a point of actively not seeking him our - or anyone else with whom I've had any kind of dispute. I just noticed that he posted two threads on AN in very short order. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Indeed, considering I've just commented on another of your actions, following my own logic I should ask myself if I'm stalking you; I can assure you I'm not, so I'll back off on my own snide comment above. --barneca (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh! No, I don't feel you're intruding on my personal Wikispace, and I'm not at all offended, I took it entirely at face value, as a reasonable question. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

you say PotAMRO...

Is it possible that you could go for quite a long time, maybe forever, without implicitly or explicitly invoking IAR, beginning now? Given that some see your editing as problematic, you may not have as good a grasp of what is good for the encyclopedia as you'd like (by which i mean, in this case, using your admin tools to your advantage is wrong on principle, and it's a very sound principle). I also think that you were unjustifiably a jerk to PM, and that the manner of your speedy afd close gives the appearance of again being certain that community consensus should be in lockstep with your own judgment, while you don't particularly care if it isn't, since that would make it wrong. So yesterday was a bad day for you, from my point of view. 86.44.31.35 (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • So, is your edit to Rlevse's playground an indication that you are Rlevse, or are you some other editor who doesn't want to be identified? I tend not to listen to concerns from people who aren't prepared to put their name to them. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

Since you have put some time on First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana), I think you should have a look at what's going on. Feerzeey (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Guy

I've sort of dipped my toe in a recently established project over at Wikiversity talking about ethics and wikipedia. As part of my contributions to that project, I've brought up some of the details of last year as a 'case study'. You were clearly involved, and as such I thought you might like to know this was happening... you can review it here if you'd like to. best, Privatemusings (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Not really. The arbitration case got it right, I think. You are not evil, I think you are a very pleasant fellow, but your instincts are badly wrong in some areas and you are (or at least were last time I spent any time looking into it) in denial over the whole thing. It seems to me that you suffer an excess of zeal which is the root cause of most of that historical problem, and your assumption of ill faith smacks of those who rail against the unfairness of hidden CCTV cameras which catch them with their fingers in the till. Attempting to rewrite history is not really going to help, better to accept that you were foolish, got caught, and learn from it. Anyone can make a mistake. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
you know, there's wisdom in what you're saying... I'm certainly trying to think about it. You're also most welcome anytime over at my mentoring pages, if you'd like to chat further. I would. Privatemusings (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on AN

Hi JzG. Could you please explain these comments you made on the AN. Thank you. DockuHi 04:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

You previously helped with some editing disputes at Patrick T. McHenry. I've tried the BLP noticeboard, requesting a third opinion--and so far no response. I know admins are busy though. Here are the links where I've tried to work out the dispute: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Patrick_T._McHenry
Talk:Patrick_T._McHenry#Neutrality
User_talk:Ziegfest
User_talk:Ystava
Thanks!! Ystava (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO

Hello again. It looks as if the ABN AMRO article is unlocked now. Fortunately, the only edits at this writing have been positive ones, with the remaining "ABN Amro" references corrected to ABN AMRO. I guess it's time to monitor the article more closely to make sure there are no more edit and renaming wars. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

ABN AMRO vs. ABN Amro

As the admin who (rightly) renamed the article back to all caps, you might be interested in the discussion and request for move back to "ABN Amro": [3] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Croctotheface requested a formal move to 'ABN Amro' at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I have formally contested that move in WP:RM. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That guy just won't give up. I don't understand why he's so hung up on this. (I have a theory, but I wouldn't expect it from a guy who's been editing for 2 years already.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Two rebuttals were made in WP:RM. JPG-GR, who made the initial move which caused the renaming war, removed the rebuttals but I reinserted them to make it very, very clear that the move proposal is being contested. You may want to add your input in WP:RM Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Those "rebuttals" have now been added to the proper discussion area. WP:RM is for requested moves, not for their discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has now spread to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks) where I mention that we are not talking about ABN AMRO as a trademark, but as the legal name of a corporation. I suggest joining that discussion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there is now a discussion at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI notification

Just to inform you that User:C S has opened an ANI complaint on you here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP

I am proposing deletion of the entire set of articles on Neurolinguistic programming. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is an extraordinary pseudoscience that is so successful at disguising itself as real science that it had many people fooled for a long time. I'm amazed this has gone on for so long but enough is enough. I would appreciate any help on this as there is bound to be a bitter fight - there are a number of commercial interests involved and there is evidence of some inside support in Wikipedia itself. I have a separate file of information if you are interested, but for obvious reasons that cannot go on-wiki. Best. Peter Damian (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Brave but misguided. NLP is complete bollocks, but it is notable bollocks. We can easily justify an article on it. An article, not a dozen or more expounding its manifold wonders. That's the way to go on that one, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If you look at the first couple of comments on the AfD, you see that was the way I wanted to go. Tidy up the main NLP article (which currently does reflect the truth) and delete the subarticles, which are the real abomination. But having tried to follow the correct 'process' I am now told the only way to go is to attack each little subarticle one by one. Is that the way, do you think? Too painful, in my view. Peter Damian (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Gorgias

User is requesting unblock, claiming he has no idea what "LaRouche disruption" is. Since you handle a lot of this stuff, would you mind posting a little explanatory note for other admins (I'm not unblocking; I defer to you on this) with diffs? Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barresi

Hiya, I was perusing through indef full protected articles and ran across Paul Barresi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you protected back in april. Of course, since the protect reason involved lawyer-speak, I'm shying away from unprotecting it, so I figured I'd drop this on your talk page and let you go from there. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 07:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, the problem is that the ones agitating for unprotection are usually agitating precisely so they can put the disputed text back in. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Thalarajwali Khan. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Ctjf83Talk 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, well another admin deleted that, after I reverted you, so if you wanna put it back up Ctjf83Talk 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm! Guy did not create the article, and he is an admin who can make the decision of whether or not to speedy delete, so why did you slap this inappropriate template on his talk page in the first place. Moreover, it is considered bad form to use template on the talk pages of established users. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bio-Circle

JzG, I am a first time contributor and I am hoping you can help me. First, is there a way to take my time creating a page without it being deleted? Secondly, can you unprotect the topic Bio-Circle so I can finish my article. I am not trying to advertise and will gladly make necessary alterations. I am still learning how all this works. Thanks! Says Simple Simon (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This author asked me to unprotect the page at Bio-Circle and I have declined to do that; I think you were correct to protect the page notwithstanding that I wouldn't change your decision without consultation even if I thought you were wrong. However, I have restored the deleted material to a sandbox page for the user (see talk for the location) and advised him/her that WP:Deletion review would be the way to go. This editor seems to be canvassing a number of other editors/admins for support/assistance, and I thought you should be aware of the entire situation. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems fair to me. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I should add that I'm wrong on a minor point -- he only canvassed you and me, possibly because I was the last person to tag the article as spam and possibly because I took a moment and fixed the hang-on tag so that it would show properly. No good deed goes unpunished. I will keep an eye on the article if it goes to deletion review. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I diagnose a mixture of clueless newbie and conflict of interest. That is the norm in such cases, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Although not too positive, the term clueless newbie is pretty accurate Says Simple Simon (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The bearded lady

You know User:Gretab is "Fiery Angel" on Wikipedia Review, don't you? Actually, he also trolled the WRers. Here he is jerking around on Badlydrawnjeff's Request for Adminship [4]. --Folantin (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits that suppressed Meltzer Commission critiques

Hello, JzG,

The Meltzer Commission majority report is a controversial document, with defenders and critics. Your recent edits to the article on the Commission removed the article's discussion of published criticisms that have been made of the Commission's work (and of subsequent defenses of Commission majority positions made by Meltzer himself and his associate Adam Lerrick). They also suppressed a reference to an edited work in which both sides of this debate -- Lerrick and one of the critics -- had a full chance to express their views. I suggest that both balance and freedom of expression suffer from edits of this kind. I have endeavored to revert those parts of the edits which tended to suppress the account of the substantive critique, while preserving the elements of your edits that provided a more precise account than before of the voting within the commission. Nandt1 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Woops! I thought the edits had provided a more precise account of voting in the commission, but now that I checked the original report I see that the edits got the numbers wrong! I have corrected this. Nandt1 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • You know, I have never once seen the term "suppression" used in justifying a properly neutral edit. I will have a look and see if this is a first. I changed it in response to an OTRS complaint from the subject, so if the subject is wrong then he's wrong, but suppression? I don't think so. What on earth would be my justification for that? Guy (Help!) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see the changes made in April as a "neutral" edit. If I understand you correctly, "the subject" asked for the removal of coverage of published critiques of his own work, and this was then done (without public discussion?). This is neutral? I am entirely willing to debate the specifics of the language used in the article, if anything in the tone is considered too strong, but the fact remains that the edits made at the request of "the subject" both removed all reference to a book in which both his side and one of the critics each had free rein to make their case, and -- it would appear -- inserted an inaccurate account of the voting in the Commission. Nandt1 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have drafted a more mildly worded account of the controversy, which is now included in the article on Meltzer himself (rather than that on the commission). I would hope we could reach agreement on the appropriateness of wording that lies somewhere in the range covered by these two alternative drafts. Nandt1 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually the subject complained that material was being used to advance a POV, and that it was not correctly represented; he provided evidence that this was the case. Read WP:BLP very carefully. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having read WP:LP, I see nothing to suggest that an account of professional critiques of this subject's (public and highly controversial} work -- provided it is appropriately phrased -- should be unrepresented within Wikipedia. The subject's argument that the criticism "was not correctly represented" is hard to counter without seeing the evidence he provided, but the phrasing of the article prior to its April editing seems to me an accurate account of some of the central critiques presented, e.g., by de Ferranti in his debate with Meltzer's surrogate Lerrick. I repeat that, rather than trying to press a single POV, I am keen to encourage interested readers to explore both sides of the debate -- as set out respectively in Lerrick's defense and de Ferranti's challenge. This said, I will tone down the nature of the account of the critique just to make sure that is not an outstanding issue that anyone could reasonably object to. I hope this will then settle the matter. Nandt1 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process with FT2

I have offered here an olive branch to FT2. Would you be prepared to help in mediating? Wikipedia has always been about forgiving and second chances (I do know a bit of the culture, I've been here since 2003) - I would like to see Flavius and Headley given a second chance. Peter Damian (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Good grief, me a mediator? Whatever next! I'm perfectly happy to do what I can, of course, but honestly, beyond both accepting that you are each acting in good faith and doing your very best to judge content entirely on its own merits and not impute motive, I would say that there is not much to do: you both seem to be decent people who simply got off on the wrong foot somehow. Admittedly it's hard to reforge a relationship once it has gone down the route of acrimony, but I know FT2 has it in him and I'm sure you do to, from our few interactions. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The issue is really how we deal with pseudoscience issues in Wikipedia. I have identified a number of cases where it seems to have been done badly, and I would like to see how we could learn from this (trying to look forwards, rather than backwards). I would particularly value your advice and help on the NLP issue because that seems a very difficult one. There is evidence of apparently reliable sources validating NLP. On the other hand, there are equally reliable sources suggesting it is complete pseudoscience. How do we deal with these cases? WP:FRINGE is not much help here. Could we adopt 'default' principles whereby if there is strong evidence of a pseudoscientific nature, the default is to prove that the given subject is not pseudoscience? I have looked at cases where editors are struggling to find reliable sources to keep material out of Wikipedia. For example, there are reliable sources to show that the 'classic' version of pseudoscience X is bunk, but nothing about the 'core' version of X, i.e. detractors claim that there are two different versions of the pseudoscience X, and that the RS only work against one of them (I have actually seen this being used). How do we modify policy to deal with such cases? I would like FT2 to be involved, because he clearly has strong views on the issue. And you, because of your obviously strong scientific background (I have linguistics-related higher degree, but know little of medicine). Best Peter Damian (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
FT2 has a good idea here, which is to convene an ad-hoc mediation group to assess and process the articles on NLP (as a prototype). I've added some thoughts to his, and I think there may be a proposal put up soon. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm doing my best to AGF but after this I am having great difficulty. Could you persuade your friend to check his sources very carefully in future. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Fredrick day, Allemandtando, Prisongangleader, etc. incarnation

As you blocked two of the above, I thought you should be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day as I strongly believe that User:Hank Pym is in fact the same user. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

knowledge instinct

I am not sure why the page was deleted, it has references to published sources: books and papers. Thank you. Romanilin (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

on being Sloan

I don't know why you would even claim that out of the blue! But if it is important for you to know I am not Sam Sloan, drop me a PM and I'll send you my cell# and you can call me and confirm that I am not Sam Sloan. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Just absolutely awesome!

Team GB are on form today! Cycling is the favourite sport of my family, of course, and Cooke, Pooley, Hoy, Wiggins and the team are inspirational, but the knighthood must surely go to Peter Keen who has delivered on what was thought by most to be an unachievable promise. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The ethics project is only just beginning

You said "any study which allows the concept of the supposed "ID cabal" to go unchallenged and makes no comment about the long-term tendentiousness of pro-ID editors is not useful to anyone in understanding one of the most serious issues on Wikipedia, that of long-term civil POV-pushing." I agree with that. The ethics project is only just beginning. Our main problem is a lack of people like yourself helping to create learning resources. WikiVersity is inclusive, not exclusive; meaning that multiple points of view are allowed - people are supposed to add their own point of view (justified by evidence - original research is encouraged) and not delete other points of view. Please help out. May I suggest you begin by creating a learning resource at http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/POV_pushing&action=edit&redlink=1 ? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • WAS, past experience indicates that if I try to correct crap all that happens is a shitstorm. People who are intent on finding a venue to promote their version of the ID dispute, the private mailing lists or whatever, have already heard what everybody else has to say and they simply aren't interested. I'm happy to discuss Privatemusings' past travails, but there is no way I'm going to get drawn into yet another debate around his presentation of the "facts" of why his ban was unjustified, because it bloody well was, he used sockpuppets and edit warred on an unbelievably sensitive BLP. I have no idea how to fix the fact that some people have decided that Wikipedia is run by an evil cabal, but I do know that even trying will lead me to lose my temper. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand. We are trying to get all sourced sides represented at that project. Sooner or later someone will add the perspective you just said. That perspective should definitely be added. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Eyers

Who would have believed it but the text of this now deleted (G12) article was from the subject's own website and had a copyright tag on it. Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mechatronix On move

i already tried to remove the deficiency but u didnt review it ...

otherwise tell me how to remove the deficiency

Thankyou Y@C!7

i have have removed many deficienies ... i guess i should move it back

thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasirmturk (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bugle

Thanks for your help on The Bugle. Wasn't sure what to make of that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page Yogeshwar Dutt

Can you please advise me as to why you believe that page Yogeshwar Dutt is worthy of deletion. He is a Wrestler at the Olympics and is a bronze medalist at the 15th Asian games. He is a winner of the gold in the 2008 Asian championship. The reason given for deltion is "Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person". I am just in the process of beefing up this page. Isnt winning a Gold in an Asian championship not a matter of significance for a real person? Please review the facts again and undelete. Appreciate your help and understanding of my request. Regards Arunram (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi you will notice, that in Afd for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yogeshwar_Dutt everyone voted unanimously voted keep. and that all olympians are deemed noteworthy. As per WP:ATHLETE. I see no reason why it was sent for Immediate delete. More so, you have mentioned in your nomination that "Probably systemic bias, being Indian" which was probably speculative and uncalled for. Respondents have also clearly indicated that they found easy evidences of notability on Google rather quickly (refer user GlassCobra's comment). Please do the necessary due diligence before you nominate deletes as an admin. There are well established norms that require all of us to follow. They save us all valuable time. In my case I am fairly familiar with Wikipedia process. I wonder how a new wikipedia contributor would have reacted to the delete nomination? It might have demotivated them. Best regards Arunram (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I am not a fan of unsourced BLPs, never have been. I'm happy that the article was improved. As to why it was tagged, you'd have to ask whoever tagged it, I have no idea. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings

You've got a point. The way I originally structured the mentorship proposal, any single arbitrator could reimpose the full sanction on an emergency basis. If problems do arise I pledge to initiate or endorse necessary containment measures.

If I may offer an alternate way of looking at this, most successful Wikipedians start out in article space and spend a baseline of time and work there before branching out into other namespaces. Those who get heavily involved in other areas without that article space grounding tend to develop off-target ideas about site dynamics. It could work out pretty well if Privatemusings does something like raise a cricket player's biography from start-class to GA. The hands-on experience of reverting vandalism, dealing with spammers, POV pushers, etc. really gives a new perspective, and PM is bright and empathetic enough to apply that experience. With respect, DurovaCharge! 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Call me cynical but I think all of that can be achieved without going near BLPs. Three months of that kind of activity and not one edit to a BLP, and evidence of dropping the Evil Arbcom meme and a permanent injunction away from di Stefano, that would satisfy me. But he's already been on about the very article where he precipitated the problem. That is an extremely bad sign, IMO. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • While "PM is bright and empathetic"; he has also displayed very bad judgement. It is not clear to me what the cause of this bad judgement is; but bad judgement is sometimes caused by psychological factors that can not be fixed by teaching or experience. Let's be careful here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources on possible pseudoscience

I've made a large number of edits to the NLP article in a 'neutral' way, i.e. nothing contentious, merging of duplicate material, copy editing, trimming fat, improving style and thread, all that good stuff. Seems to have gone down well with the NLP contingent (as I judge them to be). But now for the problem I have encountered many times before. Any possibly PS subject will certainly have apparently reliable sources supporting (or appearing to support) the claims. I reference the problem here. Is there any method or policy in Wikipedia that allows us to deal with this kind of issue? Best Peter Damian (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Try EMRD (link is to a wiki where I am making comparisons between Wikipedia treatment of subjects, and rationalist and scientific treatment. Peter Damian (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't know about my history with Greg Kohs, then? Guy (Help!) 19:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't. I have no connection with MWB apart from it is a useful Wiki. I am not Greg by the way!!! Peter Damian (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I know you are not Greg. If I thought you were, you would not have been able to leave that comment :o) Guy (Help!) 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for MyWikiBiz

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MyWikiBiz. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Neıl ☄ 13:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It would help if you could get the WR regulars to list those of their number whose bans, restirctions and vanity articles they are trying to get overturned, rather than adopting this piecemeal approach. Will there be another attempt on behalf of Bagley? Is Brandt on the list? Surely not JB196 and his vanity article on his self-published book? Guy (Help!) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge instinct

I restored the page and lost your name. So I went to request deletion review, and there I found who deleted the page. I think I understand the problem better now. I will get the copyright note on the original web page, that will not be a problem. I also changed the style of the page to be neutral, hopefully. Will this prevent another deletion? If you still want to delete that's fine, but I'd like to know if you will give me permission to restore it when I get the copyright on the original page. Thank you Romanilin (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Nothing to do with me, if the original author wants to email the copyright release then there are instructions on WP:C but few authors are prepared to release copyright under GFDL, as is required, because there is no restriction on rephrasing, reuse or redistribution. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardwire

I need your assistance please. You deleted Hardwire as you felt my page was blantent advertising. I indeed posted it for my company and attempted to model it after the many other companies on there to create an editorial site as search engines bring it to the first page. What makes Hardwire different than our many competitors like Honeywell, DSM,Dragon Armor to name a few who are still on Wikipedia? I reviewed the rules and felt I followed the guidelines. I am not comfortable posting Hardwire again until I understand what was so blantent compared to other companies. Thank you very much for your help. Sshardwire (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Man with a tan

Can you look into him again? Should be obvious he's a troll to you but some AGF fuckwits with no common sense are letting him get away with everything. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for showing common sense and getting this pest off Wikipedia 81.149.250.228 (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Dingstersdie/Sandbox

Could you undelete this temporarily so non-admins can look at the content? It would be of assistance for the DRV in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It's amazing how many articles like this are absolutely notable but have never attracted a single non-maintenance edit, let alone creation of an article, by anyone not intimately connected with the subject. The guy is a spammer. We should just block him and leave his spam gone, he has never contributed anythign other than self-promotion to the wiki, just like redsuperted. Spammers piss me off, and not only because of their abuse of Wikipedia - we have to have a mail infrastructure that can handle at least a million inbound messages a day, but between 95% and 99% of them are deleetd by our spam filters - and bear in mind that most fo the more dedicated spammers don't even get as far as the filter because they are on DNS blacklists. The inbound pipe handles up to 20,000,000 connection attempts a day, and of those less than one tenth of one percent amount to legitimate mail that someone actually wants. Drown them in a vat of bovine faeces, I say. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Doggie spam

You beat me to it, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I show these to You?.....

....without being blocked? You said that you wanted verified facts.

I'm not trying to do anything wrong here, just proving that there are people out there who will shoot anything that moves. That is why I don't go into wooded areas myself. I'm nearly 7' myself and not skinny, not fat either. Maybe you can help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, novel synthesis. X shoots at Bigfoot, therefore Bigfoot is real. Except that the reliable sources say otherwise. Your links are an interesting aside and nothing more. "Oh, look, more random Bigfoot links". Poeple willl read them or not but they are useless as sources especially for ther inference you seek to draw from them. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I live in a area where people will shoot people for tresspassing, etc. I'm just stating that there are some people who will shoot at anything, not about bigfoot being real. The recent hoax in Georgia has people asking questions about people shooting at bigfoot. Thanks for the help. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) :)
Can the TV News link be used to prove how people will shoot at anything, especially at some idiot in a costume? 205.240.146.233 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC) :)
It's not clear to me why you would want to prove that; I don't really see any context in which the fact that some people are trigger-happy would merit inclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Long ago, I was in another area of the US, and during "deer season", every year, a group of people made the woods unsafe until recently. These are the kind of people I'm referring to. Do you hunt? 205.240.146.233 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hunt? No. I'm English, hunting here means something different anyway, but I've never hunted. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Over here, for hunting deer, you get a good gun, like 30-30. You may sit in one place and let the deer approach you(cover up your scent. Nothing personal, if a deer smell a human, other predator, it'll "snort", run the other way). When it is in range, you shoot at it. IF you hit it, kill it, you put a US Game & Fish tag on it, take it by the Game Warden, who may remove any data tags on it placed by a group that is doing scientific work, then you take it home, skin it out, place the meat in the freezer, any horns, "rack" on your wall. I really do appreciate your help on this matter. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to tell you that in the US, you'll need a hunting license. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
What is a "interesting aside"? 205.240.146.233 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I seeing you already have some dealings with Peter Damian so I thought I'd ask you advice. Over the last couple of days Peter has deleted large portions of the Clean Language and David Grove (Clean Language) articles. Initially he Redirected the Clean Language article to a user page while the David Grove article has had categories and references removed wholesale.

I've reverted his edits but he has reapplied them and given different reasons for making them at Talk:Clean Language where I am attempting to engage him. Looking at his edits and talk page there appears to be a lot of history here so I was wondering if you could suggest the best way to go forward? - SimonLyall (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for cutting the article down were that Clean Language is not linked to anywhere else except user pages. It has a crufty link to a company called 'The Clean Collection'. I also considerably cut down the article David Grove which is about the person who invented this concept - here is the original article which reads like self-promotion. I have said to Lyall that if he can find any authoritative, reliable sources to support notability, then fine. Seems reasonable. Not sure what he means by 'has a lot of history'. Peter Damian (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gastrich

What do you think about this? I am opposed, but figured since you were involved in the banning you can give some ideas. We66er (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I think "the manner in which these links are added is starting to look spammy" doesn't apply here, since I am not adding any links to that domain anywhere else, and I'm a long time editor. Surely the fact that some unrelated IPs spammed this domain elsewhere shouldn't forbid adding a useful resource from that domain? This particular usage is quite useful, it's an audio interview with the curator of the museum which is the subject of the article. There aren't others like that which I could find. Could you reconsider, please? --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The domain is being spammed, is of no evident encyclopaedic merit, and is not usable as a source (like other self-published sources). And I don't think we need anything associated with Gastrich on this site, it took us many months to get rid of him last time round. You're not adding it as a source, I note, just as a link. There must be other links which don't have connotations of spam and (very) banned users. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Computational forensics

For a retired user, you sure are active. ;) As noted in my CSD notice, the text of that article was ripped from multiple articles published on that site. As per your edit summary when you removed the CSD, I have taken all of the copyvio material out of the article, leaving a single sentence. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It's not easy to pick it apart, and yes I did check. If you could give me three or four links to compare then I'll gleefully nuke it, I hate copyvios. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I really do not understand. IEEE Computer Science press is independent and all publications undergo peer-review by three in-depended experts. When I now try to publish that material, I also rush into conflict with copyright laws. So, could some one please advice me,whether I really need to rewrite the whole stuff section in the NO-FREE -- Coreyrfreeman (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The point is that it's your work that you are trying to republish on Wikipedia. We look for contributions to be at arm's length. You can certainly suggest your papers, and the sources from which you compiled them, on the discussion page, but you should leave it to others to write up the text from them. This is a routine measure to preserve WP:NPOV - there have been instances in the past of cranks who have a small body of published work and seek to rewrite Wikipedia content to reflect that body even though it is unrepresentative of the mainstream view. What you write reads to me as perfectly reasonable, but we (Wikipedia editors) are not really qualified to judge, so we need to collect multiple independent sources and overview papers and form that we can give the non-specialist's view of what the specialists think, as it were. And yes, I know it is counter-intuitive for someone who is involved in academic publishing; the two models are superficially similar but actually profoundly different and you're not the first to have this problem. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up, the User:Otolemur crassicaudatus user is a detractor from the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal. Many of the articles I submitted were indeed stubs and marked as such. I tended to only add more as I came across material in the research of other topics. The notable exception is Kenny Young (Ufologist), since I'm the director of the Kenny Young Archives and as such have access to loads of source material, both digital and old-fashioned paper. Since Wikipedia discourages original research, I will be moving to a personal wiki, maybe someone else will be interested in filling out those stubs. SeanFromIT (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a fair idea. We're not against coverage fo the paranormal, but it's very hard when the sources are often distinctly strange. It's got to eb said that most of the paranormal magazines have such a long history of publishing batshit insane ideas that they are not going to be taken seriously as sources for what day of the week it is, let alone an article subject :-) Like I said, I am more than happy to help you get deleted content moved over if you like. Wikia also offers a place to host special-interest wikis - there may already be a paranormal Wikia. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Burden of evidence

You created this and marked it as a guideline. Please note a discussion at its talk page. Could you please link there to the ArbCom findings you say support it? Thanks. Edison2 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Waywts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.216.197 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a lazy bastard

Looking back at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Wikiarrangementeditor edit warring I see you blocked them. Was it for anything like this. I had a look through Wikiarrangementeditor's contributions but didn't see anything quickly (lazy). I've asked Vroom123 if they are the same. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge Instinct

The copyright release email has been sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, let me know if that is OK and whether the two deleted pages can be restored. Thank you, Romanilin (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • That won't actually help get over the fact that it is a one-man neologism. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't mind making this part of Perlovsky page as opposed to separate page. However I'd prefer that the other page on neural modeling fields that was deleted stays as a separate page and there will be a couple more pages as well, after the copyright problem is cleared. Thanks, Romanilin (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I did not receive any reply from permissions-en@wikimedia.org, my impression was that I am supposed to hear from them, is that not right? Being new to wikipedia I am not sure how things work yet, thanks Romanilin (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Taemyr's inappropriate comment.

I would take your advice, but by Taemyr (talk · contribs)'s reckless personal attack[6](I've learned that using someone's block log to attack people in an irrelevant matter is clear violation of WP:NPA), I strongly take offense, and the situation is getting worse by the user. Could you please remove the highly inappropriate and irrelevant mockery from the ANI? Or can I remove his attacks by myself? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to comment

I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to handle the dispute at Talk:Human nose#Jewish Nose, hooked nose, hawk nose, jewish six? -- Donald Albury 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I did look in but could not really offer anything sensible, especially since I kept thinking of Monty Python's Life of Brian (and I think Brian pronounced hebe incorrectly; the flower is pronounced hee-bee but as far as I know the colloquial contraction of Hebrew is pronounced heeb). So: sorry not to comment, but as you see my thoughts on the issue are so woolly as to be worse than useless :-( Guy (Help!) 12:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That's OK, I'm taking the article off my watch list, along with a number of others that repeatedly offend my sense of what an encyclopedia should be. This strikes close to how I feel. -- Donald Albury 15:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh yes. There are a good many articles that I have removed from my watchlist for exactly the same reason. Some people seem to think there is no effective difference between Wikipedia and a toilet wall. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice

Thanks for the notice about the AfD on Dan Schneider (writer)‎. I don't edit as much as I used to, so I might have missed the AfD otherwise. I've reverted the article to a version similar to the one I originally wrote, which uses plenty of reliable sources and firmly establishes notability. But I'm not sure what to do about the SPAs. I think the SPAs and the spam links are stirring people up about this article. But I don't believe a good article should be deleted b/c of the actions of editors we disagree with. I hope you can check out this situation and help. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy request

Hello, I'd appreciate a copy of the proposed article draft which you deleted. I do not have an updated backup copy and I would like to be able to access the draft text for my own external files. Please take a moment to provide me with the content of the deleted page: User:Dr. B. R. Lang/proposed article. Thank you, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour

Either delete your doppleganger user pages or create a user page for yourself. So when I type user:JzG in the box on the left and click Go I get the right guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.143.58 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Your AFD has gone sideways. rootology (C)(T) 23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Spam whitelist/ED

"This is because you want your ED links enabled?"

This was a request only for the "about us" page, not for the entire website or anything like that. Could you possibly take a closer look, please. —Giggy 02:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Email

Would you mind if I emailed you or vice versa? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_34&oldid=1141505713"