User talk:JzG/Archive 124

Archive 120

←

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

→

Archive 130

You are not welcome on my talk page.

You are not welcome on my talk page. I agree with what you say here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=695528968&oldid=695528689 But because of your stances, my take on stuff as at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=673224961&oldid=673187425 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AElvey&type=revision&diff=699493947&oldid=699396455 - I have no interest in hearing from you; I find such 'feedback' to be closed-minded hostile and unhelpful. This is not an invitation to discussion. It's a notification. No discussion or defense is welcome.--Elvey^(t•c) 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet it's everybody else who has a "battleground mentality". Keep digging. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Like User:MastCell I am a fan of unintended irony. You gotta love somebody who accuses others of being "closed-minded hostile" and follows it up two sentences later with "No discussion or defense is welcome." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

With an attitude like that, I suspect Elvey may be headed for a restriction on this topic. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Pboshears

Thoughts on this? Not quite a WP:SPA, though close. Would you object to an unblock assuming the user adheres to the stated agreement? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am happy for you to use your judgment, if you think the user will stop pimping the fraudulent school then fine. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the article to my watchlist since the SPA dissenters will probably continue to be a nuisance (did you take a close look at the photo used for the article?) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply

There is nothing "fringe" about the reputable universities and institutions that conducted the studies, nor is there anything fringe about the maintstream sources that I have cited, all of which are in accordance with wikipedias policy. The fact is that the verifiable studies that I have cited have been routinely deleted by materialists who use bully tactics to force their agenda. If you are not familiar with wikipedias "neutral point of view" rule I urge you to study the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism . It is you who must desist. --Novoneiro (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Cryonics

Cryonics will not win any popularity contests, so just because some editors are against edits that improve its credibility does not mean the edits are incorrect. The point is that this new UK research network by prestigious scientists in Oxford, Cambridge and other institutions showcases that cryonics has some scientific acceptance. Basically, it demonstrates that reputed scientists support research into cryonics. As such, I think it is relevant to the topic of the paragraph on whether cryonics is scientifically feasible. If my sentence needs changing, please advise. If I'm mistaken please let me know. Tiddlypeep (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Or you could stop promoting a commercial entity. You have so little recent editing experience that your error is not a surprise, but your failure to acknowledge that your edits do not have consensus is a problem. Action may be taken to resolve this problem if you continue. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not a commercial entity, it is a research network, just a bunch of scientists getting together to support research on cryonics. Tiddlypeep (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

For information

I have mentioned you at User:Biscuittin/Reform of Wikipedia. Biscuittin (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Flow-Based Programming primary-inline tags

Season's Greetings, Guy! One of the changes you made to the Flow-Based Programming article was to add "primary-inline" tags in 4 places. I did look up the definition of this tag, and wonder if you could explain to me why it applies, and what should be done about it/them (since I can't modify the article). As I said a few days ago in jpaulm/talk, Technical Disclosure Bulletins are vetted by company lawyers and go to law firms all over the world (this document guarantees nobody can take out a patent to prevent the company (IBM) from using the concept) - it was in fact written by a lawyer, not by me; the IBM Systems Journal - http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/sjindex.html - is very highly regarded world-wide, and my manager had a senior architect vet that article before it went out; and the other two publications were by Wayne Stevens, who is not the author of the WP article, so that seems secondary to me. Clearly, I'm very confused! Help would be appreciated! Jpaulm (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It's still a primary source. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy, but what is "it"? I asked about 4 articles - maybe you're referring to the article I wrote (the SysJnl article), but what about the other three? So I'm OK with your removing the SysJnl article from the History section, but why can't it be moved down to External Links? My book should be able to be listed in External Links as well, surely? What are the rules about External Links - maybe you could point me at a WP guideline. TIA Jpaulm (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

All sources that I tagged as primary, are primary for the text they are offered to support. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at your changes from the WP point of view, as I understand them, and just noticed that reference 5 (the TDB) has my name on it. This is my error as it was in fact written by a lawyer whose name I have forgotten, if I ever knew it - so it's secondary, not primary. I didn't realize this error could have such serious implications, so I wasn't sufficiently careful! If we remove my name from this reference, can we then use it as evidence that FBP was invented in the early 70s (the statement you removed in History)? Of course, we may have to change it to the late 70s, as the first publication with my name on it is dated 1978. Would you be OK with that? (Of course, I would have to ask someone else to make the change). BTW The 1978 paper was cited in one article, and 5 patent applications - see http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractCitations.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5388019&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fstamp%2Fstamp.jsp%3Ftp%3D%26arnumber%3D5388019 . Can these be used as secondary sources? Help would be much appreciated! TIA Paul M. Jpaulm (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Discretionary Sanctions remedy which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed."

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Archived discussion

"Best known for" closure

I realize the numeric situation seemed fairly clear at the time you made your closure, but it was still closed rather early, after only half a day, and given the fact that several well-respected editors have now registered "opposes", would you mind reopening the discussion to give those concerns a proper airing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see the discussion closed this quickly. I agree that it would be a good idea to reopen it and let all viewpoints air. In particular, Drmies makes good points but they are not in themselves the reasons I started the thread, and that deserves an explanation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You are both wasting peoples time. The current situation is edits (when identified) of 'best known for' get reverted on site as they are socking. The result of the community actually banning them is that the process gets done a little quicker and a proper discussion has to be had to allow them to edit again. Assuming you could rustle up another 4 or 5 people to make decent counter-arguments in favour of not community banning (at the moment they boil down to 'they make good edits sometimes' which isnt a very persuasive or weighty argument), it will make no difference to their edits being reverted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, if you don't think the ban discussion is a good use of your time then ignore it. However there are several people who would love for this situation to be resolved properly. There has been rather a bit of disagreement on how this user should be handled, and if they are indeed defacto banned, and this is going to settle the matter. I would like to see it run its entire 24 hours as the banning policy requires, this person is a wiki-lawyer and I don't want them to have a valid point about their ban not being proper.

I also think some of the claims snuck in after the close need a good solid refuting. HighInBC 03:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think the drama needs stringing out then revert, I don't mind. I am currently in South Africa on business and have no time to deal with this right now. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Hi Guy.There is an individual on the Manitonquat page, Horse Dancing, that I am having a problem with. He seems to have a COI (he interacted with Manitonquat regularly on a personal level up until about 20 years ago and admitted to being in direct contact with him currently) and is vehemently denying any COI. He stated he created an alternate user account to post on Native American topics but has thus far only participated in the Manitonquat article. I posted to his talk page about the COI because it was muddying up other pages and his reply to me was rather insulting. I don't know how to create a COI report or even if one is actually warranted. Could you please offer some advice? Thank you Indigenous girl (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

OneSky

Wondering if you can review my request at WP:COIN#OneSky - removal of COI notice by editor who has a COI. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What scientific, verifiable proof do you have that RT is a propaganda station?

Just curious, would love to see the sources for myself, since no one else certainly has. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• See [1], [2], [3], [4] and so on ad nauseam. More tot he point, is there any reliable source which credits RT with a neutral position? Guy (Help!) 10:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban of Darkfrog24

I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.

What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?

I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?

What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?

I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?

I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Your response to a topic ban is to ask for help in productively planning for what you do to pick the issue right back up again when the ban expires? And your best idea for where to get advice on this is one of the most evil bastards on the project? You are doing this wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but whom do you mean by "evil bastard"? I sent the same message to all the admins who participated in the block.

My view on this matter up until now has been "it is okay to participate in discussions of WP:LQ just not to initiate one" and it is clear you don't think that's the way to go. But not everyone who participated got a topic ban, so clearly simply doing so wasn't the problem. In your opinion, what is? There is clearly a disconnect between my view of this issue and yours and I am trying to resolve it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy is in fact a very nice person, not an evil bastard at all, but his Wikipedia persona often concentrates on topic areas that are infested by lunatics. He has developed a particularly decisive style of interaction, which for some people would justify his self-deprecating description above. I hope it will save Guy's time if I suggest that it would be wise for you to leave entirely and forever the subject area of your ban. Any return should be undertaken very cautiously and very, very briefly. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• See also: User_talk:KillerChihuahua § Regarding_topic_ban_of_Darkfrog24
• KillerChihuahua 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Backed out change from Flow Based Programming page

Can I ask why you backed out my change to the FBP page? It is a Reference to a paper from M A Jackson, a recognised expert. GeraldByrne (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That article is plagued by primary sourcing and statements from personal knowledge that push the limits of WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Hassan Rebell unblocked

I've done a WP:ROPE unblock of this user. Since you have a notice saying it's ok to undo your blocks if the reviewing admin thinks it's ok, and he'd had an appeal on his talk page for just over a month with no reply I decided to just do it without a discussion here. Hopefully there will be no further issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I suspect the user will not last long but I'm happy to let you give him the benefit of what doubt there might be. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cryonics organizations

I have mentioned the issues regarding Cryonics in the article talk page following advice on WP:FTN. I look forward to further discussions. Tiddlypeep (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Harold Holt

When you closed the RfC, did you notice the book source about Marjorie Gillespie saying she was, in her own words, "Harold Holt's lover"? The presence of coverage by notable and respected publishers should remove any attributes of "tabloid tittle-tattle". I understand that it may not be to the liking of some, but notability and verifiability have been long met here. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Did you notice the bit where she equivocated and said it was an emotional not a physical affair? Guy (Help!) 11:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This could be elaborated upon, but the fact is she said the word "lover" and our job is to relay this to our readers. This is not some tabloid allegation, which is the whole idea behind this neverending story. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 13:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have zero interest in the subject (which is why I am a good person to close the RfC). If you want to challenge the close, go to WP:ANI. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I also have zero interest in the subject matter, but somehow I was brought into that situation and now all I care about is the community consensus, which in my opinion is not reflected in the close, as I just explained. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 19:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well how about you take your zero interest and walk away? Guy (Help!) 01:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How about no? Maybe you shouldn't close RfC's if your zero interest causes you to read only a select percentage of the discussion and close it with blatant disregard towards hard earned consensus (and from what I have just witnessed, basic civility as well). EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 05:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh great idea, we should leave RfC closes to those who already have a strong opinion, that won't cause drama at all. On the subject of incivility, passive-aggressive comments are not appreciated. As I said, if you want to challenge the RfC close then go to the noticeboards, I am not interested in rehashing it on my talk page, and it would be the wrong venue anyway. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your impeccably executed meta-demonstration of what I just referred to as "read[ing] only a select percentage of the discussion". I also applaud the juxtaposition of quotes in consecutive replies: "Well how about you take your zero interest and walk away?" directly followed by "passive-aggressive comments are not appreciated". (Sigh of desperation) Now we're done here. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about the contentiousness going on at WP:RSN

I know that when a lack of competence leads to disruptive behavior (such as insisting that OR should be in an article and trying to own the article to keep it in, to cite a recent example in which I was involved) the admins can step in, and I know that you -being involved- aren't in a good position to step in even if it gets to that point, but I was curious if there was a point at which continuing a fruitless argument in wikispace/talkspace could warrant admin intervention. I'm not asking for it, mind, just asking if it would be a possibility if things don't die down at the linked thread. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the real risk is to articles. The best course is to look for evidence that fringe proponents are pushing for POV edits to mainspace, or actively recruiting other fringe proponents when they are failing in an attempt to get fringe views into mainspace. And if the topic area is under sanction - climate change, GMOs etc - then AE is the right venue. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If I may comment, I can imagine there might be many specific cases which can be helped by discussion on RSN. It really depends on the type of case. But that board is definitely best for specific cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Oh, I agree. I don't see any risk to WP in the discussion, per se. I just see something that can bog down editors who aren't ideologically opposed to skepticism, as they're drawn in to argue about something, rather than editing articles. Anyways, it doesn't matter as the discussion at the RSN has been closed, and the discussion at FTN has petered out. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

True, but frankly people are likely to get bored and walk away - the risk is if the POV-pushers choose to interpret this as acquiescence. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Fun

This is where things get interesting. QuackGuru (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI

I was going to be silly, and just "warn you" (my previous message, which I reverted). But the ANI has turned into a discussion, so I recanted. Sorry :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Closed discussion at BLP Noticeboard

My first and last posts to the thread you just closed at the BLP Noticeboard were to note that the disputed statement is not supported by the sources cited in the article. From WP:BLP:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

As far as I'm aware, no one in that thread or in the Talk discussion at the article has pointed to specific content in the sources cited in the article to validate that they support the statement. If I'm mistaken, please point me to the evidence. Otherwise, please help me understand how that's not a BLP violation. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You failed to persuade at the Talk page, and you failed equally at BLPN. Now, as they say, go and WP:SYN no more. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the non-response to my request.CFredkin (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)