User talk:JzG/Archive 123

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

→

Archive 130

Edit Quest!

	Edit Quest!
	Titusfox has requested that you join them for an afternoon of questing, slaying and looting at Edit Quest, the Wikipedia Based RPG! I Hope to see you there! TF { Contribs } { Edit Quest! } 19:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Funny edit conflict

Hi Guy. Funny I was not warned of an edit conflict when I added to a section you already hatted at ANI. Sorry about that. I think I will leave it in place though, as it provides additional info the user is likely not aware of. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Guy (Help!) 19:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:MBUSHIstory

Hello, Guy. Is User:MBUSHIstory's current user page kosher? It reads to me like a personal attack on two editors, so I'm wondering if it should be blanked. (User talk:MBUSHIstory contains the same message, but I'm guessing that is not as much of an issue?...) Anyway, I'm just looking for an "official" opinion on this. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I have dealt with it. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dominic Frisby

Dominic Frisby is the co-host of Money Pit, and I've just spotted that he co-authored bits of Mark Curry-era Catchphrase from the credits (I got up early to watch a repeat of a Fifteen to One grand final and stayed on to watch it after recognizing my old school nurse as one of the contestants). Could you unprotect that article?--Launchballer 06:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Try Draft:Dominic Frisby. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What a mess that was! I can't say I'm a fan of AfC - my article on Monyaka was ossifying there for many months while I was operating anonymously - but I've reworked the book reviews into continuous prose and added reciprocal links to all articles linked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Dominic Frisby. I'll do a proper search for him in Wikipedia later but how's it looking now?--Launchballer 10:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Duggar

I have reverted your revert at the Josh Duggar article for the following reasons: You stated in your edit summary, "Actually, no, there is a difference in character between those who sell cars and those who only sell used cars". I can't even imagine why you, an administrator and editor of over a decade, would think that's a valid reason to add content. We don't add content to BLPs in order to imply an article subject has a particular kind of "character" based on what their profession and/or business is. We don't make judgements about the character of article subjects - especially living article subjects - nor do we try to lead readers to reach such conclusions based on article content. Such a mindset is POV. Certainly, you can see that, right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I am not only an administrator: I am also someone who has, during more than half a century of existence on this planet, visited car dealerships. In the US and in Europe. In both the US and Europe, there are two kinds of car salespeople: those who work in the big dealerships that sell both new and used cars, and those who work in the second tier where only used cars are sold. That is why the term "used-car salesman" exists as a separate entity. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, who hasn't visited a car dealership? I know a few people who have sold used cars. They were people of exemplary character. I've know a few people who sold new cars. They were not of exemplary character. Regardless, who they are character-wise has zero relevance to their profession in regard to this, or any Wikipedia article. Sorry, but your reasoning is WP:OR POV and with that POV you are attempting to add unnecessary content to the article in order to imply the subject of a BLP is of low character. There are just so many things wrong with that entire scenario I can't believe you are even suggesting it to be legitimate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

So what? The fact remains that "used-car salesman" is a specific term of art that is widely understood. See Automobile salesperson: "Salesmen are employed by new car dealerships or used car dealerships". Two separate categories of dealership, understood as such by, as far as I can make out, the world and his dog. Guy (Help!) 01:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"Widely understood" is POV, not encyclopedic, and has no business being added to a BLP for the reasons you stated. And you know it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Josh Duggar. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop. Discuss on article talk page per BRD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This comes across as sour grapes about the topic ban. The sources say "used car lot" and "used car salesman". Take it out altogether or include it in full, I don't give a shit. Guy (Help!) 01:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. This doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with the (now non-existent and reversed) topic ban. It has to do with you edit warring over something you recklessly and carelessly wanted included because - as you, yourself stated - you wanted a POV impression given to readers about the subject of a BLP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You say. In other news, the sources back "used car salesman" as presently in the article and sourced to the Washington Post. Ironic that you reject the Mail (which is ideologically supportive of Duggar-style views) so we end up with WaPo, which ain't so much. So it goes. In case you hadn't noticed, I live in a country where the Duggar clan are essentially unknown. I have no dog in this fight at all. Guy (Help!) 01:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I do say. Why would I give a shit about your one comment at an appeal where the reason for the appeal was rescinded? I don't and you really need to give that idea a rest. As far as the DM goes, I haven't rejected it as a RS, Wikipedia rejects is as a RS (last time I knew). The Washington Post is now, and always has been, a RS. Where you live means nothing to me, ergo, no reason to bring it up in relation to this. What does matter to me is that you are still defending your OR POV that basically should be filed into oblivion with the notion that "all Brits are snobs". Such personal feelings and beliefs have no place in editing BLPs. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yada, yada, yada. Sources say "used car salesman" and describe his business as a "used car lot". Why would we say anything different? Don't bother answering, I actually don't care. Guy (Help!) 01:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Your reasons for adding it were inappropriate and against policy. You know it but continue to defend it and come up with new reasons why you were justified. And if you truly didn't care, you wouldn't keep responding and continuing to defend your undefendable position and edit summary. Now, you may remove this, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Good seeing you around

Hey... you're not dead! I thought you threw in the towel years ago. :) -- Kendrick7^talk 11:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I am old, but not so old that I give up easily :-) I do less than I used to because over the last five or six years I have been given more and more work and responsibility. Which is fun, but saps the energy I used to have for playing whack-a-mole with vandals. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Similar story here. I used to have all the time in the world to futz about with the wiki at work while the computer was doing its thing in the background. Now the computer is ~70x faster. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Hello. This is a message to inform you that a clarification request that you were involved in, pertaining to the Privatemusings arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t), has been archived with no action. You can now find it here. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Natalac

How can I activate a wikipedia Draft page? https://trademarks.justia.com/863/72/natalac-86372570.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yameka (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Go away, spammer. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Poverty Inc.

I've started a discussion on Talk:Poverty Inc. (Gary Null film) based on your recent reversion of my edits. I of course welcome the editing of my edits, but I was quite surprised that you simply reverted all of my many edits and didn't seem to find anything in them worth keeping. Please respond and let me know why you think my edits were a "massive WP:NPOV violation", but your edits, which removed all positive reviews/awards received by the movie (and a bunch of other stuff), were not. It seems a bit odd. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If I could trout myself, I would! Another editor pointed out to me on the talk page that I was editing the wrong page. Apparently two different movies with the same title came out in 2014....and I was accidentally editing the wrong one. Sorry for the trouble, and for my part in accidentally promoting fringe theories. Lol. Happy holidays :) Safehaven86 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Heh! Easily done, no harm, no foul. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi,

Sorry, I don't know how to send you a message on wiki, but I found this interface so I guess you'll be recieving this picture of a cat along with the message.

  I am writing to you in hope that you could kindly help me in providing possible suggestions to improve the article-edit that I participated in.

If you have found anything of value in yesterday's edit, I would be interested in finding our common ground. I acknowledge your observation of the edit being based on personal observation, yet I would really love to hear your opinion on the matter.

Best wishes and happy holidays! B. Kovacic

Bk1729 (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JzG!

Happy New Year!

JzG,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Discretionary sanctions message- Electronic harassment Talk

I don't understand you leaving this message below on my Talk page. I have done no edits in Wikipedia so far. I am a learner. I am attempting to discuss the article in question not disrupt a controversial topic. I am attempting to clarify the controversy. I sincerely believe that two views on the subject are valid within Wikipedia Guidelines, not just the Delusions view. An article with only one view is no longer about a controversy. I thought I was behaving appropriately by discussing my ideas in the Talk section in the attempt to reach consensus as to how to describe what is meant by 'electronic harassment' and the two quite varying views of it.

"The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions." Jed Stuart (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 January

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

• On the Chiropractic page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case modified

DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case modified

Your help is needed

Hi, Guy, and Happy New Year. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but an editor for whom an RfC didn't fall his way in March is now ignoring the RfC outcome and your very words, and making disruptive changes with false claims about the RfC.

As you said here regarding the infobox television template's "runtime" parameter" "The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no" for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. --Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet User:AussieLegend is saying the RfC outcome was different. He's insisting on making an uncited claim of running time at New Girl, offering no citation either in the infobox or in the article body. Worse, he's accusing me to edit-warring though we're allowing to revert vandalism, which a direct contradiction of an RfC outcome and insistence on original research would be. Could you possibly join the discussion at Talk:New Girl before things blow up? Indeed, ab apparent tag-team editor today tried to remove the agreed-upon wording from the infobox template! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:ANI. If AussieLegend is including unsourced runtimes, he needs to be formally warned and if necessarily blocked, but that needs review by more than one pair of eyes. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: - Could you please take some time to read the RfC and your closing comments, as well as the evidence at AN3 again? Contrary to what Tenebrae said, I'm basing the RfC outcome on what you actually wrote at the RfC and in your clarification, which Tenebrae was obviously not satisfied with. However, this is not about me. This is about Tenebrae edit-warring while 3 different editors have reverted him. Tangential to this is his uncivil behaviour towards other editors, telling one he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if he doesn't know how to cite.[1] For the record, to head off Tenbrae's edit warring, I actually went to the trouble of citing the episode runtime at New Girl.[2] The runtime that had been in the article for a very long time was easily verifiable, but Tenebrae didn't even bother adding {{citation needed}}. He just deleted verifiable information, as he has done at other articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, but Tenebrae just seems to want to be combative. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How about if you stop adding unsourced information? Find a source: fine; edit-war unsourced material back in: not fine. Very, very simple. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RE your comment at AE.

"Its not going to change". Well it wont with that attitude mister! Although more seriously this is why I have started taking a less-than-relaxed attitude to this sort of bollocks recently. If people actually started taking action sooner when the fringe loons started their pattern of behaviour, we wouldnt be down the line having endless arguments on talkpages with people with the critical thinking capacity of a doorknob. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's never going to change because it's not only a problem here. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the article "Andrei Siderski"

Hi, could you please explain why article "Andrei Siderski" was deleted? There were added 4 references for third party resources, including municipal library and online magazines. Thank you.

Which time? The article has been deleted more than once. And the most likely answer is: because you are engaging in blatant promotion. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

: @Guy JzG: First time content for this article was copied from other article (Siderski), but I have deleted this content by myself as inappropriate. Second time there was stated a shortened information only from confirmed third party resources. Which content is considered as a promotion, but not as confirmed information about a person? Thank you for response.

Food Matters

Hi JzG: I noticed that you deleted Food Matters as a copyvio, but you did not provide a url in the rationale. I noticed upon searches that many sites appear to have copied the content from the Wikipedia article, in which cases this would not be a copyvio. For example, notice how this site actually has the [1] in it, which was also in the deleted version of the article. The [1] indicates that this was simply copied from the Wikipedia article, because it indicates an inline citation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Per the above, could you please provide a url upon which you based the deletion of the article upon? Again, this may not actually be a copyvio. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of the article text was derived from a series of cut & paste edits from IMDB, made by an anonymous IP editor in February 2015. At the time the article was deleted a day ago, the majority of the article's text – a summary of the film's content – was still word-for-word identical. (To add insult to injury, that same section of the article had borne an unresolved, ignored cleanup tag since March 2015.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• All right, and thanks for the detailed reply; much appreciated. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• To notify other readers about the specifics of this matter, I have copied your reply above (with attribution) to Talk:Food Matters#Copyvio issues. Thanks again. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to ToAT for explaining while I was busy. Yes, that is what I also found. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

Hi, is it possible to protect, or semi-protect the Universal Medicine article? Seems a couple of revisionists have decided to try and gut it. I've reverted but can see a pattern developing. 79616gr (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 79616gr (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, return the article "Andrei Siderski" for improving

For the second time (the second deleted article "Andrei Siderski") there was stated a shortened information and only from confirmed third party resources (including municipal library and online magazines). Could you please clarify, which content in the last version of the article "Andrei Siderski" was considered as a "blatant promotion", but not as a confirmed information about a notable person? In addition to the included references, there is also a reference to the article (created since 2008) about this person on ru.Wikipedia.org - "Сидерский, Андрей Владимирович" (in Russian): https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 . You can see through Google Translate, that all information is confirmed, and can be additionaly resourced by lots of resources (but mainly in Russian). Could it be a problem that resources are in Russian (not in English)? I hope, Google Translate can solve all problems with checking. In any case I will improve this article (if you return it) by adding mentioned above reference. Thank you for your response.

The problem is promotion of someone without credible evidence of meeting our inclusion guidelines. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you appear to work for a gallery that is currently exhibiting his work, so you have a vested interest in having an article. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Hi JzG: I noticed a recent block you performed. At the Edit warring noticeboard, another user closed the case with the result "(Result: I weep for the future of the project)". However, since the case was brought against me, I would appreciate an update there to reflect the result that actually occurred (e.g. boomerang, in which the discussion creator was blocked), if you would be willing to do so. I was not edit warring, and was simply following proper procedure in re the AfD matters (see WP:WITHDRAWN), so I feel that a more accurate result being stated there is in order. The ambiguous result there could be misinterpreted by others that I was edit warring, when I was not. Thanks for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)