User talk:JzG/Archive 141

Archive 135

←

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

→

Archive 145

Username question

I noticed a recently new username, NPOVarticleNow, pop up at some articles with messages like these.[1][2]. Do you think a username like this violates WP:U policy (trolling may be closest, but I seem to vaguely recall that policies have been frowned upon as usernames) where it should be sent over to WP:UAA, or is it more of a case for just getting more eyes over at WP:FTN? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like WP:CGTW#15 applies here. Manul ~ talk 03:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Linking NVIC as an "NPOV source" on Mercola? Riiiiight. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

are you about?

Are you available for some rev deletes? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

01:10 here and heading for bed, sorry. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway. Night. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI about acupuncture trials

I was honestly surprised your number was correct. PubMed lists 4335 published clinical trials on acupuncture going back to 1970 in all languages. I will still never understand what motivates someone to look at that publication history and think, "Hmm. The last 4334 clinical trials have not answered whether acupuncture works. Let's do another crappy study that won't teach us anything." Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a case of keep asking until you get the answer you want. Except that the trajectory is the wrong way for the trypanophiles. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

People's cube editing

Are the snarky edit messages [3] [4] really necessary? Karunamon ^✉ 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You stop the POV editing, and I'll stop the snarky summaries. Deal? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Right. I see no other way this is going to be resolved. I have created a post at ANi about this issue:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Karunamon ^✉ 03:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have submitted a request at AE regarding your accusations of sockpuppetry on the AN/i page [5]. Karunamon ^✉ 08:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, JzG. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Blimey, it's come round again! Guy (Help!) 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

ALEC

Hey Guy. I'll initiate talk page discussions on the issues that have come up today. I do wish you had followed the BRD convention and initiated discussion yourself instead of re-reverting me. Just sayin'. No hard feelings. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please consider doing some homework before making inaccurate, inflammatory comments like, "I get it: you odn't like liberal sources." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Will you let me know when you're done responding to all of the threads? That way I can take them all to RSN in one fell swoop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And I got an EC trying to reply here in addition to all the ECs on the Talk page. I'm working now. Laters. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. Let me know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Earflaps

There are still plenty of articles that need deleting. Do you think it's clear cut enough that I can take care of them myself? There's another case on it's way so it seems stupid to waste time tagging them and having other admins needlessly review them, but I just wanted a second opinion before I start anything. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

From the point of view of minimising drama, these are the criteria I'd apply:

1. Created by a sock (e.g. Earflaps) rather than the master;
2. Created after the block of the master;
3. More than 80% of content is original.

You can, legitimately, nuke anything created by the sock after the master was blocked, and you can G11 anything obviously promotional by the master, but these are more likely to cause drama if there have been edits by others.

There are people who will try to keep articles created by paid editors as a WP:POINT. Some of the worst are now banned, but there are enough that you risk a storm if you engage in wholesale nuking.

Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok cheers. It's mainly music articles that are left which while they appear okish but digging down reveals crap sources and a generally promotional tone. I'll go slowly and only delete the worst. SmartSE (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Moorpark College

Please let me finish adding details about the presidency. The president doesn't have to be notable; the college is. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-notable individuals cited to blogs? Maybe not. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The TCS isn't exactly a blog. I realize Google says so, but it's a small newspaper with print and digital editions. But no matter; I'll use another small newspaper, the Acorn, along with the college's own website, which is reliable for who the college appoints. YoPienso (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I've over-cited the interim presidency of Luskin, cutting out unnecessary fluff, and the current presidency of Luis P. Sanchez. I'm sure you'll want to remove some of the lower-quality sources, all of which I've separated into their own ref numbers. I'm partial to the Santa Maria Times, which is a largish paper and mentions Luskin in the announcement about Sanchez. The Ventura County Star is also fine, imho, and the student newspaper should be reliable enough for its own president and is the only one that gives the Feb. 23 date. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I never added the Acorn ref, though it's the most detailed on Luskin, because the article's about the college, not an interim president. YoPienso (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand why we even need to mention him. He did a job of some minor local importance, for a short time. It's not important to the history of the place. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Continuity and recentness.

Maybe we should move the comments on each of our talk pages to the article talk page so if anybody's watching the page they can help. YoPienso (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Brain Fingerprinting, Lawrence Farwell, and Neuroscientist1

I am writing to ask for your help. Before I reply to your comments on the brain fingerprinting talk page and my talk page, I need to clean up my status on Wikipedia.

I have added a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest to my user page. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was unaware of the requirement to do this until you brought it to my attention.

I do not know how to rectify the following: Neuroscientist1 and two other users are listed as suspected sock-puppets of Lawrence Farwell. That accusation is partly correct, but due to my ignorance rather than deception.

I started contributing as Lawrence Farwell. When I realized that people on Wikipedia almost universally use something else other than actual first and last names as user names, I stopped using Lawrence Farwell and created a new account under Neuroscientist1. This is what I have done in other contexts, such as changing email accounts, and I thought it was the right thing to do. I did not know that this was against the rules here. I did not know there was such a thing as a sock puppet until I was accused (correctly, as I now know) of creating one. I would like to straighten this out. I have looked through various help pages, and I have not yet found a way to do this. I understand that the two accounts may be merged and continue under the Neuroscientist1 name, but I have not found anything in the help system that tells me how to do that.

Regarding the users brainfingerprinting and brainf, they are not sock puppets of Lawrence Farwell. I have no idea who they are. If you take a glance at what they have written, I think it will be obvious to you that they are not the same person as Lawrence Farwell and Neuroscientist1. I graduated from Harvard and have a PhD, and their demonstrated educational level is something short of a high school education.

Could you please (1) instruct me how to merge Lawrence Farwell and Neuroscientist1 and keep the latter name, or refer me to a source for that information; and (2) eliminate brainf and brainfingerprinting as suspected sock puppets of Lawrence Farwell? Neuroscientist1 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you please disclose the other accounts that you have actually used? Is User:Roguesimulant one of them? We cannot delete accounts. What you can do to avoid getting indefinitely blocked for SOCKing, is 1) disclose on the User page of each SOCK account that it was a SOCK account made in ignorance of the policy by (main account - the one you intend to keep using) and that you will never use it again. 2) On the (main account) user page list those other accounts, noting that you were SOCKing in ignorance of the policy and will not use them anymore. The key things are disclosure (especially of all the socks on the main account page) and not using them any more. Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So it's not so much that you have a dog in this fight, in fact, you are the dog. You won't be editing any articles directly, will you? Guy (Help!) 09:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog and Guy for the info. In answer to your questions, the only two accounts I have ever used are Lawrence Farwell and Neuroscientist1. I stopped using the former and started using the latter in an attempt to in effect change my Wikipedia user name. I never forgot that I had done that, nor did I attempt to hide it or to in any way deceive anyone. I have never used Roguesimulant, brainf, or brainfingerprinting. I have no idea who they are. I will make the necessary disclosures when I return from my current travels. Also, I have read in the help system that there is no way to merge accounts, but it is possible to change account names. (I understand that it is not possible to delete an account.) I plan to change my account name, to substitute something else for the Lawrence Farwell name. Regarding editing articles directly, I am a neuroscientist, and if you take peer-reviewed publications, education, and testimony as an expert witness in court as an indication, I am among the most accomplished in my field. Experts in neuroscience are obviously the most qualified to write and edit articles on neuroscience. I have considerable expertise and publications beyond brain fingerprinting. There has been controversy on brain fingerprinting, but my other peer-reviewed publications have been cited thousands of times in subsequent scientific articles -- much more than my brain fingerprinting publications -- and to my knowledge no one criticized my science in any of those. I am not THE dog (or a major Wikipedia contributor) in other areas of neuroscience outside of brain fingerprinting, but I am arguably one of the top dogs. Again, IMHO, the neuroscientists who are experts in the field are the best qualified to write about neuroscience. I'm not the only one who thinks that. I wrote the invited article on brain fingerprinting for the Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. IMHO, I can make a contribution to many different articles on various realms of neuroscience. I have no plans to do so anytime soon, however. I have other things to do that are of more interest to me. Again, thanks for the information. I'll put it to good use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroscientist1 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: I just looked at the brain fingerprinting article and I now see why you were asking about Roguesimulant. As I said above, that is not me. I have no idea who it is. I did not encourage anyone to edit the brain fingerprinting page. (Apologies for neglecting to sign the above edit -- it was obviously from me, even without the autosign.) Neuroscientist1 (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the SOCKs, there is only one, Neuroscientist1. I do not want to revert to my original username, Lawrence Farwell, and I couldn't even if I wanted to, because after not using that account since 2008 I do not remember the password and I do not have access to the email that I used then. I have disclosed this situation on Neuroscientist1 and Lawrence Farwell's pages. I submitted a request for a name change, in which I described the entire situation. There must be a way to straighten out the situation, and I'm working on it.Neuroscientist1 (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

help desk thread

An article you deleted (per CSD G5) Emit (artist) (created in 2014) was mentioned on the help desk at Wikipedia:Help desk#Emit (artist). FYI. RJFJR (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing

Hello JzG. Following your intervention in the ANI thread I filed recently, I wondered if you were aware of this, and if so, what is your view of it? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Resent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Transmed Holding - Article Deletion

Hello,

You recently deleted an article I wrote about Transmed Holding due to some "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" , I have done my best to remove all promotional language in addition i have requested an edit to my article where admins would have it more neutral taking into consideration that this company is not my employer, family, friend and is not owned by any of my family or friends and i am not getting paid to write this article; therefore i have no idea why would someone state that i have a conflict of interest . Therefore i would like to know if it is possible to restore the article in order for me or any other admin to edit it by removing the promotional language.

I am aware that you must be super busy, however i would appreciate your assistance regarding this matter.

Thank you A AyaJoumaa (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I award you this barnstar for using the word "chiroquacktor". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 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 Acupuncture 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) 00:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing "br" from "charlatans" userbox

The forced line break in User:JzG/charlatans currently makes its text render like this in my browser:

This user resists the POV
        pushing of
   lunatic charlatans.

... which seems far from optimal. Removing the forced "br" makes it a lot better:

  This user resists the POV
pushing of lunatic charlatans.

Why is it there in the first place? Should I just go ahead and remove it? --Artoria2e5 contrib 06:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

To stop a line break. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Kneelift Jacobs?

I was browsing my Facebook page yesterday, and a button popped up I'd never seen before telling me that I had 10 "filtered messages" from Facebook Messenger. News to me.

One of them was from December 2013 from one "Kneelift Jacobs" (a fake account, obviously) containing some vile slurs which referred to you and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz with reference to a physically improbable act. Any idea what it was about? --Calton | Talk 01:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No idea! I suppose a more exact date might remind me. Perhaps something to do with Sheldrake? Guy (Help!) 11:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User: 175.140.191.34

Hello JzG, Could I please draw your attention to the activities of 175.140.191.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on User talk:Materialscientist. I have warned this troll twice about unconstructive editing, but they are still inserting their nonsense. Can I leave this with you please. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh. Sprot for a week but Materialscientist might unprotect if he prefers. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: David A.R. White Article for Deletion

I have added citations from IMDB and Fox News to the article to improve its compliance with GNG. I'd also note that while he is known for his work within the Christian film industry, he is a key player within the industry. To remove the article would significantly undermine Wikipedia's coverage of this industry. davemackey (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

IMDB is user-edited and does not establish notability. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Okay, how about this article from Deadline Hollywood, or this one from Something Awful (yes, I am aware the article rips the film to shreds), or this one from the blaze.davemackey (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

I have a question for you... At what point would you consider it disruption when an editor (an IP editor if that matters) continues to baldly assert false claims on an article talk page for the purpose of changing a rather long-standing consensus? I'm asking because I'm not quite sure how to deal with someone who is pushing a POV this bizarre without engaging in the usual tactics of personal attacks and raging against "the cabal".

Note that the consensus is not likely to change, as it's been established multiple times. If you want to see specifically what I'm referring to, it's the Breitbart talk page starting from the thread pointed to by that link. The claim the IP is pushing is that "Far-right" politics has no relationship whatsoever to "right-wing" politics. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC is the correct route IMO. That will rapidly yield an unambiguous consensus, and if the IP continues to agitate then the talk page can be sprotected. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Another question

Have you read Crislip's piece on SBM today yet? Roxy the dog. bark 19:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I have. Good stuff. I had been completely unaware of the dire threat posed by grizzly bears to our young children in school until I read the first paragraph of that article. The rest was pretty much nothing new, though. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking, 'good, another reliable source' grist to the mill thing. Roxy the dog. bark 20:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Well now I feel chagrined... Yes, of course this is a good source. It's not a MEDRS source, but it's good enough to speak to the issue of the reliability of Chinese studies. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Nice reference to Sturgeon's Law. Even the legendary Kilgore Trout could not make this shit up. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers

I was just going to use the thanks button, but it doesn't allow for any details. Thanks for the two week block instead of a site ban. I was pretty sure an admin was going to come along and site ban "per obvious consensus", and I am glad there are still admins with judgement I trust who are still willing to use that judgement and overrule a pure vote count.

I expect the betting odds are in favor of an eventual indef block, and I don't even particularly like the editor in question, but I really think this was the right thing to try. A deposit has been made in your karmic bank account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Uri Geller and the CIA

Well this is going to be fun... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the legions of the credulous will be all over us. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Although the release of that many primary documents is a fascinating read. Some of the personal notes are pretty good. Reminds me of when the US diplomatic cables were released. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Cool! I've needed a new invisible ink recipe for a while now... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I particularly like this document. It reminds me of a certain song... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

O.o Am I the only one who thinks the part of the diagram at points 9, 10 & 11 does not look very sanitised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. The stick figure is clearly celebrating something. Likely that very lack of sanitation. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you found them at FRINGE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bobby G. Can't Swim

Dear JzG, I would like to create an article about this 1999 crime drama film, however I see you deleted the page back in 2007. How do we start again? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It was a WP:CSD#G11, just write a non-spam article based on good sources, no need for any special permission. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, take a look at my first draft here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Invertzoo/Bobby_G._Can%27t_Swim

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The movie got mixed-to-positive reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes, but you only have one positive review. I would suggest including the RT score (70%) and adding two more positive reviews, and one negative review to maintain a balance. Other than that, I for one approve of the draft. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, you might want to scale down this image and upload it under fair use terms to illustrate the film. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

OK I will try to do that. What is the story on the image used in this article:

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_G._Can't_Swim

Invertzoo (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The page describes a fair use rationale... I would wager that you'd be fine to appropriate it to the English WP with the English disclaimers and the same info (except to add that it was duplicated from it.wp), but you might want to talk to someone more familiar with fair use. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have much time, and now I have to get back to working on my own research -- writing a shell paper for a rapidly coming up publication deadline. I put the film article up live now, so If anyone would be kind enough to add anything to it -- the images or whatever seems appropriate, that would be great! Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)