Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 113

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115→Archive 120

Undeletion

Hi Guy, just to let you know that I undeleted Talk:Kashmir window, because I'm discussing whether there are RS for the article. I deleted the article as unsourced, but sources are now being offered (though probably not good enough). I'll delete the talk page if the article can't be restored. Best, Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing IP Report

I have reported User:81.153.49.115 and User:81.158.98.205 for suspected sockpuppetry. Since you've reverted edits by both of them, I thought you might by interested in this. The report is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/81.153.49.115. Compassionate727 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Good Job

Wonderful job dealing with problematic editors. I'll vote to give you a well deserved raise! :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=664546752&oldid=664539352 Bill Huffman (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bish

Bish is on a break, Guy. You'll need to find someone else to deal with the issue you raised. I think the recent in-fighting has got a bit too much. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

GM food RFC

Note about this RfC where you !voted. I tweaked the statement to make it more clear that it is about eating GM food and health. I'm notifying each person who !voted, in case that matters to you. Sorry for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC close re persondata removal

Hi, Guy. You recently closed this RfC: Should Persondata template be deprecated and methodically removed from articles?. The introduction at that RfC included a plan for the migration of any newly input persondata to be migrated to Wikidata. Based on that condition, the RfC was seen by many, including myself, as a no-brainer. Nothing lost? All data transferred to Wikidata. Sure, absolutely. Well, we now have one of the more out-spoken proponents of the deprecation and deletion of persondata now demanding the immediate deletion of all persondata, disregarding the condition to "transfer any new data to Wikidata, then remove methodically," as outlined in the RfC.

Can you take a look at these two discussions, Wikipedia:Bot requests#Remove persondata and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 24, and see if this is what you intended in your close of the RfC? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This partisan description badly mischaracterises those discussions, and the RfC itself. The plan in the RfC's introduction was not a "condition"; it was not discussed as such during the RfC, and it was preceded by the caveat "I have compiled a rough plan... This is my own plan, and doesn't necessarily have to be the way we do it.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Andy, as you so often do, you overstate your case. I have asked for a clarification, and it's not partisan. It's a question of whether we delete everything immediately, or whether we migrate persondata that has been newly added since the last wikidata bot run, and whether we contemplate further migrating things like married name variants of our female subjects. If that qualifies as "partisan," then apparently I don't understand the meaning of the word. This is about what is best for Wikipedia, not whether we get to delete all of the persondata templates today. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my description of your comment: it is partisan (whether or not you understand that term), and misrepresenting. Your repeated ignoring of the pointers I have given you, to where these issues I have already been discussed and decided - to ensure what is best for Wikipedia - is tiresome, but here they are again: "I suggest you read the lengthy and detailed discussion of data import under the RfC; and on the pages linked from there, on Wikidata.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, you stand by it, Andy. Your ability to find a "partisan" argument in face of obvious middle ground is legendary. So why don't we just let the nice administrator review the RfC as to what was discussed, what he contemplated when he closed it, and go from there? Sound fair? Or do we need to spill more "partisan" ink all over this poor man's talk page? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Andy, ping me off-wiki. You are in danger of WP:NCR. Seriously, calm down, it can be done slowly and methodically, and let people come to terms with it over a period of time. Seriously, just chill a bit and you'll win the battle for hearts and minds. Nobody doubts your commitment or passion, but you have a positive genius for rubbing people up the wrong way! Guy (Help!) 21:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

An Honest Liar

Yes. I contributed the caricature of Allison DuBois that Randi used back when he made a handful of Weekly Commentaries about her on his website, beginning around the time that that TV show Medium premiered, as well as a caricature of Randi himself that he commissioned me to do, and three text pieces for that site. All of the links for those are now dead, with the exception of this one. I read Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer regularly, and have edited other WP articles related to scientific skepticism, which you can see here, most notably the Michael Shermer article. Nightscream (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Awesome! I get a bit irritated with people in the skeptic work who seem to think that GSOW was the originator of Wikipedia's reality-based community. A lot of us predate GSOW by a loooong time :-) Have you joined GSOW? I haven't but I know Susan a bit (and Simon Singh a bit better, I even met Edzard Ernst last year). Guy (Help!) 22:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't know it was an actual organization or group. I think all skepticism should be transparent, and not "guerilla" in nature, and although I reduced my overall WP activity over a year ago, I like interacting with fellow skeptics, so thanks, I just "liked" it on FB. Nightscream (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Take The Time

This edit showed you rushed through, seen a couple links that didn't work and deleted them. 5 minutes of your time and you would have found corrected links, plus one in the internet archive. Take the time to do the editing right, don't assume that someone will come along and clean up after you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, WP:PRIMARY did not fit here. The information was soured with reliable sources, it was the links that were out of date. {{Dead link}} would have been a better choice. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it did. X won Y award, link to Y award page on Y website is a primary source. But the root of the problem is that the domain lapsed many months ago and is now a blog with a nice set of spam links. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, had you taken the time, you would have noticed the website was changed from rtnda.org to rtdna.org. Some quick work would have gotten all those links working again. You chose the easy route and chose to assume someone else would clean up the mess. Next time, take the time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well thank you for at least telling me that, so I can fix any others I see. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantams Banter (podcast)

Hi there - intrigued to know why you believe there was consensus to keep; ignoring the sock- and meat-puppets, it was a clear 3-2 !vote in favour of deletion, with significantly stronger arguments in favour of deletion. Surely a better outcome would have been to relist or userfy as suggested? GiantSnowman 16:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Note that discount does not mean ignore. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, a helpful response... GiantSnowman 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought so. WP:DRV is the correct venue to challenge deletion decisions, after all. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Documentation for {{Rfc top}}?...

Hello, Guy! Is there any chance you can add some Template documentation to {{Rfc top}} (and {{Rfc bottom}}?)? If you're busy, I can try and do it myself, but there's no guarantee that I'll do a good job of it, or even do it right! But let me know... --IJBall (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Block of IP

The IP you just blocked also has a named account, User:Nitrobutane per this. Would you please consider blocking that account too? Thx. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not in use, but feel free to issue a sock warning. Any admin will probably block if he returns. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
ok, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I am restoring a less inflammatory title to the first of the two racial threads at the ref desk, I would not oppose them being closed or removed, but the OP seems to be the big problem, and others who've given answers might feel stepped on. In any case, I'd like to ask you to watch the miscellaneous ref desk in case there's another breakout of edit warring over this, and have mentioned your name in the talk page discussion there. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 1:04 am, Today (UTC−4)

JzG, you'll note there are multiple minor vandalisms that have crept back into the page after I last fixed them. I am fixing my signature, I assume you won't care about the rest. Thanks for bearing the brunt of this. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a character set incompatibly rather than vandalism in most cases, but not a problem anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cerne Abbas Giant units

Hello Guy. I want to ask you about the precise meaning of your adjudication on Talk:Cerne Abbas Giant. It was on the question there as to whether WP:MOSUNIT applies to the article. The general agreement was that it did, and you confirmed that.

The question was not actually about whether the primary units in the article should be changed from imperial to metric though, if it were there might have been more people interested. However, an editor has, on the basis of your adjudication, now flipped all the units in the article to be metric primary. This is despite him (and me as it happens) having been warned about the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom which states that consensus is required to flip units either way on UK articles.

Will you clarify for me whether your adjudication removes the need to seek consensus to flip the units in that article please.

Please note too that the editor in question is (if I understood User:Kahastok's remarks in Talk:Westminster Bridge correctly) notorious for finding excuses to flip units in UK articles to metric even when they clearly should be imperial. Timpace (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said, consensus is that MOSUNITS applies. The question of whether metric or imperial should lead in that article, was not asked, although several people voiced an opinion. The RfC was not a consensus to change the article. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to see You

I haven't seen you in a while, caught your name in passing at ANI. I've been here over a decade now and I'm still here. Quite a ride. Thanks for all your help! :-) -OberRanks (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What-ho, always good to see a few of the old guard still hanging in there. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC

So this RfC was closed...but what exactly was the outcome? I'm a bit confused. Eman235/talk 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A thing like http://i.imgur.com/IkdRP2g.png - but I agree that the RfC was a bit nebulous. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It was indeed, but are we going to change the layout or not? Eman235/talk 21:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There was clear agreement (among that small band) that it should be tweaked as per the final suggestion. At least so it seemed to me. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
When? Eman235/talk 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Any time, I guess. Or were you expecting me to make the change? I just assessed the debate. Any admin (or probably template editor)) can make the change. My template-fu is weak so I'm likely not the best person. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look very hard...haha. I guess any admin could do it, but the question is will they see it? Eman235/talk 23:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You could ask at WP:AN, lots of helpful folks there. I daren't, I am sure I would botch it. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Asked. Eman235/talk 23:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

trolling accusation re unfounded Brian Peppers article review

While I appreciate the well considered comments of the most commenters even if I disagree, I do not appreciate unfounded accusations of trolling. I take these matters very seriously. I have spent many years considering this subject (since 2007) and only now have brought it up. I believe you owe me an apology.

Here is a link to the unfounded accusation:Unfounded Accusation

Pilotbob (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

PilotBob, if you were thinking about this issue, you obviously spent no time whatsover in any research into sources, in any consideration of actual Wikipedia policy, in any noting of the history, in any thought about human dignity, or even in understanding the plain meaning of the adjectives you employ at DRV -- every single one of them being false. Nor, apparently, did you spare any time over the last 7+ years to read the advice you were given in 2007:
While I believe you were acting in good faith in nominating this article for deletion review, you would've done well to take the advice provided for you at the help desk. The Peppers issue has been discussed, and discussed, and discussed again. As you have not brought up any new source information, nor any manner in which the previous concerns could be addressed, I have closed the discussion. If you can find a significant amount of source material which may allow a full encyclopedic article to be written, you may want to open the discussion later on, but please keep in mind that we've been trolled ad nauseum on this issue, so if you're going to bring a case it better be airtight. And calling people "wikinazis" will not help your credibility either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The adjective you're looking for is not "unfounded"; the correct adjectives are "default" or "historically well-earned". --Calton | Talk 08:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Pilotbob, having reviewed your history of contributions to Wikipedia, my conclusion was (and is) that you have been here long enough to know better. I have no idea what you thought you would achieve but in the past four years you have done virtually nothing on Wikipedia other than contribute to a tiny number of deletion-related discussions on internet memes. If you don't want to be called a troll then you might want to try not initiating debates that you know full well can only be toxic. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dominic Frisby

I had just finished User:Penbat/Dominic Frisby and tried to launch it into mainspace but encountered this - Dominic Frisby. I believe that these days Frisby is clearly notable and I have made a point of not using a promotional tone.--Penbat (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Still a bit thin. The "biographical" sources are all clearly provided by his PR. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If you dont agree I am happy to argue my case at WP:DELREV.--Penbat (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I'm with Guy here: it completely lacks reliable secondary sourcing. The short bios on HuffPo etc. don't count as secondary sourcing and while they may prove he wrote something for them, that in its own right does not guarantee notability, nor should such blurbs (which is essentially what they are) used to verify facts in a BLP. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project

You removed a reference from Lunar Orbiter Image Recovery Project, saying that it is a primary source, and secondary sources are needed for fringe viewpoints. (1) It does not seem like a fringe viewpoint to me, and (2) you aren't likely to find a secondary source for that, and a primary source is better than no source. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If the only source is a climate denialist blog then it's not a significant fact! Guy (Help!) 09:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Was that one from a climate denialist blog? I didn't read it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It was indeed. [1]. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
OK then! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC about an article that you have recently commented on is ongoing at: Talk: Dennis Hastert - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Carniola Further reading

Hello. The four volumes listed as further reading in Carniola are English translations of work done in 1875 by August Dimitz, living in Ljubljana in what was then the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The actual publisher is the Slovenian Genealogical Society International, Inc., Xlibris simply did the printing. There was an editor as well as the translator, but I was not sure if I could add the editor's name as well as the translator in a citation with an author. The guy who did the translation is now in the references. I do not own these books, but suggest that they might be inline cites for some of the points needing a source. I used the amazon links to the books, as you can read the ebook version text to see the 2013 foreword and the 1875 foreword in each volume, and see the text. SGSI makes the books available, yes, but I do not think anyone is using Wikipedia to sell anything. The books are wholly pertinent to the history of Carniola. I will ask if anyone who owns the books can use them to support statements made, and move the volume(s) into the References, up from Further reading. It is an improvement to have English language sources on Carniola, I think, for English Wikipedia. If you do not like the url to the amazon pages, then simply take that out. I added the SGSI page explaining the books and why they had them translated, but I am not sure if the link I used is for members only, as I am a member. There is a front page to the website that anyone can see, but it does not have the notice about the books. The main link is http://www.sloveniangenealogy.org/ if the link I used does not work for everyone. --Prairieplant (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, they are sales pages on xlibris, a vanity press. Feel free to cite the originals. Wikipedia doesn't mind sending the reader to a library! Guy (Help!) 21:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The original text from 1875 is in Slovene and this page has enough Slovene language references, I think. The translation is a service, putting historical documents in the reach of English language Wikipedia. I see lots of Wikipedia pages that link books to amazon, so if that offends you, you have your work cut out for you. Xlibris is not mentioned in the citations, because SGSI published it. Amazon provided the isbn numbers for each volume to me, as I could take it from Amazon's listing or the page image. I tested each to see that it links through to World Cat on the Book sources page. Did you test the link I added to External links? It would help to know if the front page of the web site has to be changed for the exact page. For me, the link works, but it also shows my membership. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The fact that other pages link to Amazon sales pages is a constant problem, and does not make it a good idea. The ISBN is fine, we have a book finder that people can use to find it at multiple sellers, libraries and collections. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your decision

I don't know why you are not blocking sahinahi.com

If you don't block, they will come back again. Bollywood movie pages don't have large number of page watchers. The spam links stay for weeks before someone notices. They are getting benefit by using Wikipedia for advertisement. If you refuse to blacklist, then what will be my next step?Cosmic  Emperor  18:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Because there's little recent evidence, and because it typically takes a while to make up our minds on blacklisting. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
But you didn't tell me how did you found this user Djdgr8 so quickly, as it took me one hour to track that IP 66.108.136.121.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#sahinahi.com I want to know the shortcut.--Cosmic  Emperor  06:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Block of Michael thomas 89

Hi JzG, user:Michael thomas 89 has contacted me via email with questions about why he and user:Neilmacleod were blocked. I thought that a proper explanation would be best coming from you as the blocking admin. Could you maybe leave a note on his talk page when you get a chance? Thanks. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at the admin boards. The two accounts are either one person or closely related, and the article is blatant advertising. Frankly, we are being trolled. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantams Banter (podcast)

Could I get you to re-evaluate your close of this AfD. The SPI into this case was closed yesterday, resulting in all but two of the editors who argued that the article should be kept being blocked for sockpuppetry. Of the two remaining keep !voters, one is an IP making a non-policy argument, who is probably also a sockpuppet. Given that there is only legitimate keep argument, there is clearly no longer a consensus to keep the article. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I consider myself a pretty staunch deletionist, am uninvolved, and endorse the close. Yeah, the AFD was a laundry hamper, but when you evaluate the arguments grounded in policy, you come up with "no consensus" at best. HiDrNick! 17:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It needs a clean AfD. To make life simpler you could also prune the article of unreliably sourced material. That would probably clarify matters. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_113&oldid=1138925491"