User talk:JzG/Archive 132

Archive 125

←

Archive 130

Archive 131

Archive 132

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Your close

There actually was a strategy to my recommendation despite it not having a specific direction, but why didn't you go ahead and propose something yourself or at least make a suggestion to help get things back on track? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A unilateral sanction is not going to fly, and firther discussion will only cause more drama. A systematic solution would be a good thing. This argument is a plague on the project. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So I've recently learned and it's the silliest thing I've experienced yet, but what would you suggest as a systematic solution? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I figured it out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tomas Gorny

Are you sure the draft is similar to the previous copy? The second copy that was deleted [1] is identical to the 1st copy that was deleted [2] but both do not have the content from the Summer 2016 coverage [3] [4] [5]. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Alternaria tenuissima page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Etherington's reciprocity theorem page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Donald Henderson

On 25 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Donald Henderson, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Having a go at your question.

Quoting you, "Oh good, prolonged dramah. If anyone can summarise in less than ten thousand words why some people have such fanatical dedication to including or not including infoboxes I'd appreciate it, but this is not the place." Well, I had a go at it and attempted to not spare myself. Results at User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/Boxen Wars I. I may have cut too close to the bone with the satirical attempt, and if you feel that way as an Admin, feel free to wipe it. (I also mistakenly put a copy and blanked it at User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/Messier Article Collection - wipe that too if you wipe the other.) LaughingVulcan 00:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That all makes sense, but I am still struggling to understand some people's visceral hatred of info boxes. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

this and this kind of expressed (to me) where the hatred is coming from; a mustache on my mona lisa - something for idiots who will not/cannot honor or recognize the beauty and nuance I created, which actually mars the thing i worked on so hard. something like that. there is an ideal under there - a striving to write great prose and capture everything in a way that is beautiful - but also some harsh elitism and ownership, that makes infoboxes not just annoying but a cancer. an infobox on that article is a meal from elBulli with a twinkie slapped on it. Jytdog (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There is some weapons grade WP:OWN in there. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy, I reviewed the edit history of that biography beginning with inception. Have a look at this which is how the article looked September 30, 2010 - 6 years ago - and it was a FA then. It was February 28, 2010 that the new image and infobox were added. It was on August 10, 2011 that the infobox was removed with an edit summary reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Biographical_infoboxes which actually states: The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. I looked through the archives and could not find any signs of a consensus that supported removal. Now see Talk:Noël_Coward/Archive_1#WP:IMPROVE where there was actual discussion about the infobox. See Talk:Noël_Coward/Archive_1#Needs_an_infobox? which took place in late 2013 because it provides supporting evidence of the advocacy. It demonstrates to me that the disruption was not created by the editors who authored, improved and/or worked so hard to get the article promoted to FA or who later improved the article so I question whether WP:OWN is at play here although the signs are similar. What I see as the cause of the disruption is ADVOCACY involving a few anti-infobox editors who showed up on the scene in 2013 after the infobox was wrongfully removed in 2011 based on a fallacious premise of a consensus that never ocurred. Here we are 2 or 3 RfCs later, and again, there has not been a formal consensus that supports removal of the infobox. I guess we could blame infoboxes but they are merely a symptom of a disruptive advocacy that needs to be addressed. The proposal you initially mentioned may well be the only viable cure for the infobox dilemma but the advocacy behavior also needs serious consideration. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I have something tldr to post, but I just found my 2013 note to an infobox proponent—it's also a bit long but explains the issue well.

If more is wanted, read on.

Opponents of infoboxes argue that they highlight trivia and restrict the appearance of the lead image (that point is correct—when an infobox is added the image often ends up cramped). Further, anything useful in an infobox should be in the lead, and we have to assume that people are capable of reading the lead. However, the real issue centers on two points: infoboxes are not compulsory, and the proponents of infoboxes have been strongly pushing them for years. It's the relentless grind-grind-grind of the infobox proponents that has made the opponents turn on the flame throwers at the slightest suggestion of an infobox. I'm not saying the opponents haven't also been obnoxious, but the opponents generally behave very well and just develop featured articles when they are left alone—they only get obnoxious when the other group turn up. One stark illustration of problems in the proponents camp can be seen in this proposed decision which was a hair's breadth from site-banning one of the advocates; the proposed remedy failed only because a couple of arbs changed their position because they preferred such a dramatic remedy to fail than to be passed by a narrow margin. Consider this 29 August 2016 permalink which is essentially a call-to-arms for infobox proponents, although some familiarity with the issues is needed to figure that out (I see it's at MfD). I don't think there has ever been an attempt to mandate infoboxes—the proponents just knock off articles one-by-one relying on the opponents getting sufficiently upset that they will retire or be sanctioned. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, I know Mabs of old. He has always been irritating, right from the outset. He used to kvetch all the time about microformats and the like. He is a person with fixed ideas about look and feel and how the user should get a clean and consistent experience - and he is also a ferociously dedicated Wikipedian, who gives much of his spare time to helping people learn how to contribute to the project. I hold him in very high regard as a person: he is very honest and has deep wells of good faith. I've not met him in person, but he comes across as a conservationist, someone who is not a firebrand but instead a patient and diligent background worker. Yes the case came close to sitebanning him. I think that would have been a genuinely horrible thing to do, because I cannot come to any conclusion other than that he is absolutely all about the readers of the encyclopaedia.

The entire thing seems to me to come down to ILIKEIT versus IDONTLIKEIT. I understand that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds but I don't actually see any solution to this short of a global decision to either always have or always omit infoboxes, as we had in the School Wars. I was on the losing side in the School Wars. I sincerely believe that we should not have an article unless there actually are substantive sources, but proponents of schools would smother every debate with the assertion of "inherent notability" and claim that directories and team listings amount to substantive sources. I think they are wrong, but it weas absolutely clear that consensus was with them - or if not consensu then the loudest mob. So I stopped trying to delete crappy articles on tiny schools with no hope of ever being covered by a reliable independent source, because while Wikipedia is not a directory, it is a directory of schools. I lost. I suck it up. I don't like it, but I live with it.

The venom I see from infoboxers is on the same level as I saw from school warriors. And while I understand your point about images and such, having started increasingly accessing Wikipedia from mobile devices, including my car, which has built-in Wikilocoations, I can also see that the immersive experience of the large screen web browser is not the be-all-and-end-all that it once was. So I think we have to have a final debate and settle it one way or the other, all or none, because otherwise this fight is never going to end. If that debate happens I will vote narrowly for boxes just because of mobile devices, but I remain open to genuinely persuasive arguments otherwise.

I don't think the current situation is going to work because as far as I can see people are not making up their minds article by article, the discussion is dominated by whichever group was at the article first. An article heading for FA which has no infobox, will always be a battleground if someone tries to add it. If it does have a box, it's likely someone will try to remove it, and then we'll have the fight. Most articles where a box is added, it is entirely uncontroversial. Most boxes are never removed. So we're going to end up with a de facto standard that a noisy group reject and fight over, I reckon. That's not good. I would rather have the fight once and be done with it. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and just to eb clear: the comment to whihc you linked, sums it up perfectly IMO. A solutiont hat says "keep fighting it out article by article" is not a solution. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally I am looking forward to discretionary sanctions, as what will happen is the few hardcore Infobox pushers who are the catalyst for a lot of the arguments will end up topic banned from adding infoboxs (as no admin is going to siteban over it) as examples, most sensible editors will subsequently get the message, everything calms down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I find the term "infobox pusher" very telling. Presumably you're equally happy for the restriction to be applied to the hardcore infobox reverters? IMO anyone who thinks the problem here is only caused by one "side" is definitely part of the problem. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You could do worse that read what Geogre wrote on this topic over 10 years ago, in August 2006: User:Geogre/Templates. This controversy has been smouldering for a least that long, occasionally breaking out into conflagration, but the arguments on either side have barely changed. The last time ArbCom considered it, their solution was effectively, "keep fighting it out article by article". So here we are, with the "paralyzing fights" Geogre cautioned against.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.120 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Of all the old-timers, I think I miss Geogre most. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Disgusting

You, JzG, ought to be fucking ashamed of yourself for this. Who the hell do you think you are, calling into question someone's mental state? What a truly vile thing to say. If I see you making comments like this again, I will seek to have you desysoped and blocked. You will, no doubt, delete this upon sight, like you did the thread I've linked to. Be be rest assured, I have it saved and will use it where I see fit. Good day to you. Cassianto^Talk 18:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Operation Backhoe proceeds apace, I see. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your futile links, just watch your behaviour in future. Cassianto^Talk 22:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hippocrete n: a hypocritical agglomeration of horseshit. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

So, you see...

...it actually was about behavior although your intervention did help calm things down a bit. My recommendation at AN/I was to solicit input about the behavior, and it was actually proving to be productive input because both sides were participating with helpful suggestions for resolution. I think your close was a bit premature but you are far more experienced at this than I will ever be. The case at ArbCom may result in a helpful resolution more in line with your way of thinking. Thank you for your efforts. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing

I am a fairly new editor and trying to learn the ropes. You recently closed a discussion on the Rolfing page stating that the good sources all consider Rolfing as pseudoscience. True, but I think the majority of the sources do not consider it quackery and that's the main POV problem even among non-practitioners like me. I have been gathering material from my local library so we'd have a better representation of information available. Based on this, I have found some good sources that consider Rolfing a reasonable treatment in some situations. I have let this project slip to the back burner, but will finish it up in the next day. Since the discussion on the Talk page has been closed, how would I go about adding this information? Thatcher57 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good sources that consider pseudoscience to be an appropriate treatment? That should be interesting. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at this a few weeks ago after it showed up at one of the noticeboards. I hadnt heard of it before (it sounds ridiculous just from the name, like something involving a muppet pianist) so tried to find out more about it. I could not find a single MEDRS compliant source that claimed 'Rolfing' had any benefit. The only positive sources I found that were *not* quackery/pseudo related, were along the lines of 'well the patient feels better afterwards'. Which is basically placebo. It has no physical benefit that a good masseuse could not do better. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Bhalchandra Dattatray Mondhe

Hello. It seems you have recently deleted this page. This is surprising, as it is currently discussed at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhalchandra Dattatray Mondhe. Is Wikipedia no longer based on consensus? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Karan Jani

The biography/article Karan Jani was created and is being expanded by Karan Jani himself. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Userfied. See {{nn-userfy}} for a handy template. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question

Are you sure the draft is similar to the previous copy? The second copy that was deleted [6] is identical to the 1st copy that was deleted [7] but both do not have the content from the Summer 2016 coverage [8] [9] [10]. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

EOMA68 page

hi JzG you've provided [CORRECTION: not you - somebody else] a totally inaccurate "summary" of EOMA68 which is totally factually misleading. EOMA68 is *NOT* a "CPU board standard". please check your facts (reading the 5 years of mailing list archives and reading the standard) before contributing further, or CONSULT ME before making further edits which are factually incorrect. thank you Lkcl (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC) CORRECTION: it wasn't you, it was someone else. gods what a mess people are making by being ignorant of the standard and its history. *sigh*. ok so, i don't know why you removed the ecocomputing white paper link, but after reverting the past three edits i've restored what you did: i trust your judgement here. Lkcl (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

EOMA68 page

hi guy, i received your notification: you include no less than five separate things which are all, i'm sorry to have to point out, plain wrong. i can't even begin to answer them all in a reasonable amount of time. if you're happy to "tone it down" a notch (i.e. not go straight to Defcon 1) i'm happy to respond to the five (or possibly six) separate points... but bear in mind that like you i am busy and don't have an infinite amount of time. Lkcl (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

guy, i'm very sorry but you've reverted edits which put *false and misleading information* - factually incorrect statements - into the EOMA68 page. can you explain why you are putting false information into a wikipedia page? until you can explain why you're doing that i've reverted the reversion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EOMA-68&oldid=738069837 Lkcl (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: spamming of pirated copy of Vaxxed

Special:Contributions/95.178.202.153. We can probably expect more of this. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Xlinkbot is removing it. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

globalresearch.ca

Hey Guy: I meant to reply to your WP:RSN post, but didn't get to it before it was archived. I agree that globalresearch tends towards the conspiratorial, but I don't believe it is appropriate to blanket ban it from use, for several reasons. The first is that both its creator Michel Chossudovsky and some of its contributors are notable figures, despite their often unorthodox beliefs. The second is that many of their positions - for instance stating that Syrian rebel forces are equipped, financed and trained by various NATO powers, or that Turkey has supported rebel groups - are not particularly controversial. The third is that a brief search on LexisNexis shows they are regularly cited in the press, or reposted by aggregators archived by LexisNexis.

All that said, I would suggest that if globalresearch is used in an article (big if), it should probably always be used with attribution, either to the site or the specific contributor. I have no reason to believe they have any special reporting teams that would lead them to be a reliable source of news, instead of just opinion. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say we should not use it as a source. It is full of conspiracist claptrap. If an opinion is truly notable, it will be published somewhere more reliable I think. The key is in the comment you make: the beliefs of those who run the site is unorthodox, therefore any peer review or editorial oversight is going to have a clear bias which runs counter to strict factual accuracy. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Editorial bias can be found even in major outlets, sometimes proudly. I wouldn't compare globalresearch to those, and I don't even like the site, but I think the fact that they get aggregated and have such a following makes it impossible to rule out their use with attribution in all cases. -Darouet (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For what? The fringe opinions of its authors, on their articles only? If the fringe opinion has not been published elsewhere then how do we know it's notable? Guy (Help!) 20:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

As an example, Project Censored cites them in their 2013 list of topics receiving inadequate coverage. In most cases globalresearch has actually just reposted material from more mainstream sources. These two cited articles come from globalresearch directly: [11] and [12], and are listed by project censored in their publication.

I also see in LexisNexis that globalresearch is cited in third world or smaller press - BusinessWorld, The Herald (Zimbabwe), The Daily Independent (Ashland newspaper), Weekly Cutting Edge (Lahore, Pakistan), Mail & Guardian, Cape Times, The Hamilton Spectator, The Nation (Thailand), etc. So yes, they could theoretically be cited for the opinions of their authors or the site, as they were taken seriously enough to be printed in other newspapers, which are collated by LexisNexis.

Again, I'm not trying to turn this one around on you to argue that globalresearch should just be used as a source. On the contrary I think they for the most part shouldn't be. But I'm also showing you that despite your opinion, their site's publications and views are sometimes taken seriously, and it's unwarranted to say it can never be used in any case, including with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you wanted to take it back to RSN I'd be willing to post some of this there, to get wider community feedback. I'd also be curious. I don't think I've ever cited them, and I don't read their site, but I've heard of Chossudovsky and have found, looking at LexisNexis, that they have some presence. -Darouet (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm I actually removed one of their quotes at Robespierre. -Darouet (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 September

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 Spindle checkpoint page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)