User talk:JzG/Archive 142

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Globalwarming Awareness2007 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Globalwarming Awareness2007. Since you had some involvement with the Globalwarming Awareness2007 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ben-franklin-montage-zoom2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ben-franklin-montage-zoom2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ben-franklin-montage-zoom1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ben-franklin-montage-zoom1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing of "Questions" on Talk:Mehmet Oz

Dear JzG, I've noticed that you've closed the discussions around my questions at Talk:Mehmet Oz#Questions. I've left a similar message here on this matter, but have since reverted it. After having taken the time to reflect on the events, I have decided that, as much as it hurt for me to have to read it, your judgement on the nature of my questions was correct. I'll take this as an opportunity to better learn how to better contribute to Wikipedia. I'll just end here by thanking you for this moment of learning, it has not only revealed the inadequacy of my attempt to help (due, I think, to my inexperience around here), but also a bit about myself.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 22:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Talk2chun: Thank you, that is an astonishingly open-minded response, and I really respect you for it. Don't feel bad: there is a huge disconnect between reality and how quackery is portrayed in some sections of the media. In particular, there is a constant and massive problem of false balance between talking heads parroting shonky claims made by quacks, and a token scientist presenting a summary of a literal mountain of diligent inquiry. Fake news is not new: it is endemic in lifestyle and "crunchy" magazines.

You were trying to do the right thing. I do not doubt that at all. Do peruse WP:FTN to peer into the abyss of crazy we get here sometimes! Guy (Help!) 22:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Talk2chun: Guy is not the only one. Many Wikipedians have a great deal of respect for those capable of admitting to some error and adjusting, myself among them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Feels like aspersion

Hello Guy. We all know about CRYBLP and that it's common. But to state that in the AE thread implies that my BLP concern was disingenuous or without merit, and I don't feel that conclusion is warranted at all. I can assure you it's not true. I was disappointed to see your post there. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I cannot fault Guy's sentiment that too many editors cry BLP in order to get around editing restrictions, and as a 'trump card' in various discussions. That being said, having looked through the diffs in the case, I saw them the same way Sandstein did: the wording used put the claim in wikivoice, which made it a legitimate BLP concern. I don't agree that changing the wording would have helped, as the whole passage is cited to an opinion piece, which is not an RS for making statements about the motivations of people other than the author (and the statement was about the motivations of those unhappy with Clapper). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with speedy deletion

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Steve_salis Now I really didn't read the page much and am entirely uninvolved with any previous issues but I feel like your G11 of Steve salis was a bit overstepping the bounds of G11 ("applies to pages that are 'exclusively' promotional"). Once again, I read about two lines of the article and obviously can't see it now but it really didn't seem applicable to apply a pure advertising deletion. I want to make it very clear that I'm not necessarily saying this article should exist, I'm solely saying I don't think it was bad enough for speedy deletion and should've gone to AfD. I'm also basing this off a quick Google search but once again, I've put about 3 mins into this so I could be completely wrong. [1] [2] [3]. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A repeat creation of a several-times-deleted and salted article by a SPA. It's spamming. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand that but that doesn't change CSD criteria... The article has never been given a AfD and I think it as a reasonably fleshed out article it deserves one. Just because an article had several previous CSD's doesn't mean it can never be an article right? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Spammers spamming spam is obvious promotion. Enabling spammers is not my favourite thing to do on Wikipedia.

Now consider: if we let every spammer whose article is deleted and salted, get away with re-creating it at a different (incorrect) capitalisation or other kludge,what do you think would be the effect on the project? When your spam article is deleted and salted, the solution is not to create it again at a different title. Ever. That is abuse. And adding process to slow down the process of cleaning up abuse, makes no sense. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Having read the newest version, I can assure you it was even worse than prior iterations, including a pathetic violation of WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS by citing something that happened to a business Salis now owns, a quarter of a century before he purchased it! It absolutely reeked of promotional intent. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Never said it wasn't vaguely promotional and never said it was a good article, just said I believed it was a misuse of CSD. Maybe at worst should've just been moved to draftspace, if not then as I keep saying a fair AfD, that way there is consensus in deletion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Close at WT:RS

Re your close at WT:RS, I reverted it, followed immediately by a resumption of the discussion by another editor. Upon further reflection I would be happy to move that to a more appropriate public venue if you can suggest one. WP:VPP? But that sort of thing needs to be allowed to happen somewhere public. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Autism and vaccines

[4] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Quite so. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologizes

That comment belongs in user talk page.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Paperwork

• CFCF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has requested an AE appeal, so if you want to open a discussion at AE, it would be logical to ask the user to fill out the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} on their talk page and then copy it over for them. At least, that is frequently done and people are used to it. Your post at AE gives the impression you are opening a third-party appeal. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, more WP:KUDZU. Sigh. I am just trying to help someone out. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Steve salis

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steve salis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Feel free to just archive this one too. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Because of course nothing is more important than aiding and abetting spammers. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No, because nothing is more important than building a complete and informative encyclopedia. I believe that is why we are all here isn't it? Obviously I might be wrong. No point in being rude here, I thought it was very obvious my aim isn't to "aid spammers". EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Protecting Wikipedia form spammers is crucial to its integrity. Enabling spammers is a shitty thing to do. We are done here. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Please advise

We've got an IP book spammer going crazy with links: [5] I think all have been reverted but not sure how best to warn this one. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Resubmitting Deleted Page

Hello. I wanted to let you know that, after getting some (unsolicited) help and guidance from a more experienced editor, I've rewritten the Jaros, Baum & Bolles article in a sandbox he created. He moved it to a draft and, after a bit more work, he's recommending that I move it to the main page. If you would like to review it, it is still in the draft state. Draft:Jaros, Baum & Bolles (JB&B). Thanks.JAGG102502 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

JAGG102502, you've really got to lose all the PR-talk if you want to have any hope of that article making its way into mainspace. By any chance did you copy (or closely paraphrase) this from the company's own materials? If so you at least need to cite those materials as references. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Please see my (unfortunately lengthy) response to your note on my talk page. Could you show me what you mean by "PR-talk" please? Thanks.JAGG102502 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Batchelor-Harley.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Batchelor-Harley.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann

No offense, and of course I agree with your position on content, but should you really be applying page protection over a dispute that you're plainly involved in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it'a WP:BLP. This is quite a big deal. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's a big deal, but I'm not sure about BLP, as they were deleting negative content that you wanted restored. But even if it's a BLP vio, does that exempt you from WP:INVOLVED? I mean the guy has been edit warring with you among others, so you apply page protection and threaten to block them? Is that really appropriate? Why not ask someone else to wield the mop? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bright line rule. This is a big deal: essentially implying that it's just some random journalists' word for it that Podesta is not complicit in child abuse? No. I mean, just NO. Not even close to acceptable. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I see your BLP angle better now. And to repeat, I wholeheartedly agree with your position on content. Nonetheless, and speaking only from inexperience here since I'm not an admin, but I think you should not have imposed the page protection or threatened the block yourself. You could easily have brought this to an uninvolved admin. Admin tools aren't supposed to be your trump card to "win" content disputes, even when it's a BLP dispute and you're unequivocably right. Thanks for posting the ANI request for review. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My involvement is entirely down to resisting exactly this problem. It's not really involvement. It's all policing BLP. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Policing BLP, while important, isn't purely an administrative role (see WP:INVOLVED). Anyone can do it. But, you requested review at ANI, and that would seem to "cure" the problem. I just wish I hadn't had to call you out first. Oh well. Let bygones be bygones. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See, I am old-fashioned. In my world, yes, it is. I only arrived there because of a problem, and if every admin who tries to fix a problem is involved because of it, you rapidly run out of admins. Not that I don't see your point (so I posted it to ANI for review) but ultimately, this is pretty clear cut to me. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Gonna jump on on Guy's side, here. That was an obvious enough BLP vio that Guy's involvement shouldn't get in the way of him doing his admin job. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can somebody explain to me how can an admin come to a discussion, provide 0 argumentation and then post this "3RR does not apply to reverting BLP violations. This stops now. I left a warning on your talk page, if you continue, I will block you." This guy at this point am pretty sure has absolutely no idea what I am talking about but goes and undoes any edits. Nergaal (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ben Swann. It's quite common for inexperienced editors to imagine that free speech or personal opinion is sufficient justification for edit warring, but WP:BLP is quite explicit. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also add that a functional result of BLP is that if an editor (not an admin) has a good faith argument that its a BLP violation, any removals on that basis are exempt from edit-warring/3rr rules. So I or anyone else could theoretically have removed it everytime it was re-added unless a consensus discussion at an appropriate venue determined it wasnt a BLP violation. That always ends up in an admin coming along and protecting the page without the alleged violation until discussion is completed. (If I have to do that more than two or three times I request page protection anyway.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A user contacted me. Can you confirm the appropriateness of the block on user:Ellaqmentry? Here is where I am in looking at this user - Seems to have been blocked twice for being a sock, but I do not see an SPI Their supposed sock is not a blocked account this user never edited an article they were on a contentious talk page, but I do not see an accusation of inappropriate discussion except that of course talk about acupuncture never ends I know there were other admins involved but you seemed to have spent a fair amount of time here. I do not want to start a discussion but I would like to confirm whether blocking process was followed. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941 § Sockpuppet POV pusher at Acupuncture. The user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to whitewash the article on Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to reflect the beliefs of practitioners rather than empirical fact. It's WP:DUCK and WP:NOTHERE, bringing off-wiki activism to "fix" our "bias" driven by acupuncture advocates who hate the fact that reliable sources identify acupuncture as pseudoscientific. If the user is unblocked then we'll have a brief and noisy war on talk followed by a topic ban. There is no benefit to the project from going through that just so we can give a POV-pusher a second chance to try to burn out the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

NP. Thankless task you have their, dealing with disgruntled POV-pushers. Guy (Help!)

Kobi Arad (musician)

Hi, I'm writing to you to ask an advice about Kobi Arad wiki article. I'm trying to create a page about him, and as I can see several attempts were declined and articles were deleted. Please tell me is it possible to make some edits for this article and meet all the requirements? Thanks. Кость Лінивець (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

SBH

What happened? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Dunno, it started off working as normal but ended up not adding the blacklist entry or log. Might be a one-off, so I won't report a bug unless it happens again. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried after you ... seemed to work. Some glitch in connection maybe? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Could be, I will clear caches and try again. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)