User talk:JzG/Archive 158

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

Archive 158

Archive 159

Archive 160

→

Archive 165

The only reason I brought it to AE

Hi, I just wanted to explain that the only reason I brought this dispute to AE is because of Thomas.W refusing to revert my challenge to the edit after multiple requests. It is a content dispute. And we are discussing that content on talk currently; but I found it pretty frustrating that he violated WP:1RR in order to protect a paragraph that literally said a professor was helping himself with a study and then, when expanded explanations were provided, refused to back down. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you try being less obnoxious, that might help. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 09:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Finally! It's about time! ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Major fumble, what a putz. I was distracted by coffee. Jeez. A dozen years at this and I can still make schoolboy mistakes. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

[1] —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Like Guy (Help!) 12:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

BTDT. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

[2] —PaleoNeonate – 13:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG/Predatory

Gave a little spitshine to User:JzG/Predatory. I hope you don't mind. A link to WP:CRAPWATCH would be nice, but I'll let you add that if you feel it's useful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

RE Courtesy blanking.

Since I am banned from Jimbo's talkpage (he has a habit of doing that with people who say things he doesnt want to hear) I will reply here: There is only one reason *not* to blank on request, and thats when the blanking is being done to make it difficult to see archived material - for its own sake. The entire point of blanking is to make material more difficult and harder to view. But there has to be a legitimate reason to do so, sensitive material, BLP concerns etc that do not rise to the level of requiring revision deletion. If there is any legitimate argument for blanking, then there is no reason not to do so. If the sole reason to blank is just 'I dont like this visible because it says things I dont agree with' that is not a good enough reason to deliberately obfuscate and hide (further) legitimate discource between editors. Its farcial anyway in that any editor who has navigated to an archived AFD is not going to be put off by a 'this page has been blanked'. Any editor can link directly to the diff. They can quote the entire thing if they want or print it on a t-shirt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have worked in the email response team. Do not underestimate the extent to which people can be upset with and obsessed by AfD debates they think paint them in an unfavourable light. Don't be evil. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to add that "just to shut them the hell up" also seems like a completely logical reason to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

True. For multiple values of "them", not all of which are editors. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You mean Them? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I am not in favour of, or against blanking in this case. However you wanted a reason not to blank - and the only one applicable is transparancy - hiding stuff for the sake of hiding stuff is not really in the spirit of things. (I also think you two both know me well enough to know I am quite happy to be first in line to remove material from sight where there is a genuine concern). Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand. My perspective here is as a former OTRS agent. When you get closer to the interaction between Wikpedia and the real world, I think you develop a default position of hiding stuff that even one reader finds personally hurtful, unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary. The history is still there, after all. And if it turns out to be gaming the system then it is basically WP:ROPE territory. A lot of the opposition seemed focused on MH, which is a terrible reason to enforce visibility of possibly offensive content about someone else. And I say that as one who agrees 100% with every word of Orangemike's statement. This is a transparently bogus journal. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, while 'just to make them shut up' may lead to a quiet life in the short term (and one I have used in the past), absent any corrective measures, it is essentially rewarding bad behaviour which will come back to bite you later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen calls for MH's desysopping (indeffing, actually, but with desysopping as a second, and possibly more reasonable choice) in at least three places. So I'll take a little medium-term quiet (the short-term quiet is already taken care of) while things proceed with all the dignity and grace for which the drama machine here on WP is so well known for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Slightly off topic Guy, but I would like to know if you had any response to your request for an explanation for MH's behaviour, or at least to know why he appears to be falling on his sword over it? This is not a request for details of any reply to you, just if there was one. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that I am no clearer as to his motivations. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. My thinking is along the lines of "imagine if he'd involved himself with the other Hitchens brother recently." -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely, there's only one? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Do no harm" is a good stance to take; however in practice it needs to be counterbalanced with "hell hath no fury like a Wikipedia community scorned". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for reference to your reversion of my edit here

It was unnecessary (and actually distracted from the point I was trying to bring to light). Again, apologies for that. Humanengr (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Block required.

Guy, please can you block me indefinitely to enforce a lengthy break. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Science Publishing Group

Any opinions on this article? --Calton | Talk 09:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A perfect example of how difficult it is to source a Wikipedia article about a fake journal pubisher. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Charlene McMann

I am curious as to your decision to move the page. I note you started the 3rd nomination to delete the article and mentioned about refactoring the article for the charity. As far as my quick scan go, only 1 admin (sort of) agreed. Fast forward to the community site ban, which you have also raised the same point again, and once again, I counted only 1 admin agreed with you.

If the community voted over and over again (3 times in a row, ignoring the first nomination) to keep the status quo - changing it today would seem like you are short-cutting the nomination process, and overriding the community's decision because you wanted the refactoring.

Besides that, the article is not all about the (defunct) charity. The fact that she had her own talk show on TV, wrote a book, etc. had nothing to with the said charity, and preceded the founding of the organization.

I would like to understand your thoughts on this matter. --Cahk (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is about he ractivities connected to the charity, only. There are no sources about anything else. Per WP:BLP1E, if we're writing about the event, then title it after the event. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP1E was explicitly brought up more than several times, and each time the argument did not succeed (which would otherwise result in the article being deleted). Of the 14 citations, 2,4,5,7,8,9,10,11 are not related to the felony case at hand. Assuming Wikipedia is still a consensus-building community, then why are the views of the others not valued? The 3rd nomination (which you started) failed to delete the article. Refactoring without any discussion (or even as much as a talk page note) would appear as though one person is overriding the discussion of the many editors involved. --Cahk (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I am very much tempted to move the article back to its place unless you like to chime in on my comments above. FWIW, the organization was actually less notable than the person referred to. --Cahk (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Block log redaction

Hi JzG, I noticed that you used revision deletion to hide entries in GorillaWarfare's block log and your own block log – both of which involved an admin blocking oneself. I know that it's somewhat mortifying to have this in your log forever, but a line that says

• 09:42, August 25, 2018 (Username or IP removed) (log details removed) (edit summary removed)

is arguably more confusing to the community and will probably lead to more questions in the future. If it were unredacted instead, anyone looking at the block log can look at the reason for unblocking and immediately deduce that it was an erroneous entry.

Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction is the relevant policy here, which states that Log redaction (outside of the limited scope of RD#2 for the move and delete logs) is intended solely for grossly improper content, and is not permitted for ordinary matters; the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs whether or not proper. Essentially, it is not common practice to redact block logs for mistakes like this, and for these reasons, I think the block log entries should be unredacted. Mz7 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Erroneous blocks are erroneous. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but they're not something that should be hidden from the community. In the past, many editors have requested that their own erroneous block log entries be redacted, and we have consistently denied these requests as both unnecessary and reducing transparency. I don't see why an exception is justified here. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand that's your view, I disagree. I won't stand in the way of anyone who reverses it but I don't see any reason to retain a "badge of shame" caused by an honest mistake. Guy (Help!) 08:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I just wanted to jump in here and say that I've revered both uses of RevisionDeletion. There was a community discussion about this not so long a go (but I can't find the link now) and the consensus was that mistaken blocks should not be revision deleted. If we're going to start using admin tools to do this it needs to be with community approval and a policy change IMHO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, I couldn't find it either, I had the impression that the reaction was "meh" and no badges of shame due to other people's errors, but it sees I was wrong about that and the community in its infinite wisdom wants blocks made in error to remain visible in order to something something censorship something ;-) Guy (Help!) 13:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying offline

Re your two comments "The consensus among the reality-based community absolutely establishes this distinction. The difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy is that a conspiracy theory has no objectively valid basis. Thus: Russia interfered in the 2016 US election is not a conspiracy theory, but 'deep state Russia witch hunt' is." and "I am referring tot he difference between those who believe in conspiracy theories and those who prefer empirically established reality."

Are you saying that those who at this point question whether Russia interfered in the 2016 US election do not approach reality empirically? Humanengr (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can say this: It's a commonly expressed sentiment that explanations that invoke a conspiracy and which have supporting evidence are not "conspiracy theories". I strongly suspect that is Guy's position, and I very strongly advise you to stop pursuing this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, I haven’t yet found any other “<x> theory” besides “conspiracy theory” where "explanations that invoke <x> and which have supporting evidence are not '<x> theories’.” (Google search: site:en.wikipedia.org intitle:theory -“conspiracy theory”) If what you say is true re “conspiracy theory", that would seem rather unique. Humanengr (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Re your charge of "cherry-picking": You claimed that "Conspiracy theories are also false beliefs, by definition” citing several sources. That prompted me to thoroughly search each of those sources. None offered that “definition”. Given that, I doubted asking you to provide specific verbiage would be productive and so reported what I found. I believe your charge is unfair. Humanengr (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Global Wireless Solutions

Hello, I have left a response to your speedy deletion tag on the Global Wireless Solutions talk page. Please let me know if you have any concerns and I hope this can be resolved immediately. Scwiki3 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

My concerns are best addressed by deleting this spam, which was rather obviously created for an undisclosed payment and for which you are now being paid in turn. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not create the page and cannot speak to that. However I can tell you that I am only being paid to clean up the page and make it entirely encyclopedic and non-promotional. The importance of this company within the telecommunications industry cannot be understated and my intentions are completely legitimate. I have made no efforts in further advertising the company and in fact have been doing the opposite. All advertising language has been removed and I have been making the page consistent with Wikipedia's style. Please read my comments in the Global Wireless Solutions talk page to fully understand the credibility of the page and please understand the legitimacy of my intentions. Scwiki3 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I have been looking at the text you proposed, and most of it is based on press releases - a phenomenon known as churnalism which absolutely dominates the trade press, which is where most of it appears. Also: I am not a fan of paid editors. I don't see why volunteers should have to clean up promotional crap. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

All of the text I have proposed have objective news article sources that do not include links to Global Wireless Solutions press releases or so much as refer to them. Furthermore, the benchmarking industry is unique in that news outlets report on numbers/information given to them by benchmarking firms as the network test results cannot be shared any other way. Each benchmarking firm measures and ranks operator performances in different ways and it is up to them to share this data. Also, I am not a paid editor, I am a paid contributor. There are very distinct differences between the titles. One is legitimate within the wikipedia community (paid contributor), one is not (paid editor). Scwiki3 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have seen your edits within the page, removing sources with churnalism and erasing the recognition section, and happily accept them. As I said before, my only intentions are to make the page encyclopedic and consistent with wikipedia styles. I am happy to work with you to resolve the "speedy deletion" & "press release" tags, so let me know if you have any other feedback. Thanks. Scwiki3 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, your intentions are to earn money. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Audrey Mestre

The problem with the source should have been immediately treated this way. Not a criticism, just FYI. GregorB (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Three connected accounts

User:Rohan SDeshmukh, User:Rahul subhashDeshmukh and User:Ad2brandmedia are clearly connected as you can see they are all pushing the same spammy biography; but, JzG, what should I/we do? Hope all's well. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe ... Ark Encounter

Re:[3] Would you like to comment at my recent query? I was hoping a return to the original "religious theme park" was an obvious good choice. Shenme (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Your recent editing history at Autism Speaks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Sorry to template a regular, but I need to be sure you have been properly notified. SummerPhD^v2.0 16:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That is hypocrisy of the first order. I made changes, you reverted them, I then introduced different changes with better sources, you reverted again, and again, and again. You display blatant WP:OWNership tendencies on that article. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You boldly made changes. I reverted them and asked you to discuss the issues. That's WP:BRD, except that you did not discuss, you restore essentially the same POV to the article with some bad sources. I reverted those and started the discussion you did not start. You restored your edits. I added maintenance templates. You removed them, added some sources and went to the talk page as if the sources were there when I said they weren't. Check the article's changes since you accused me of WP:OWN. You've made several changes, claiming a consensus based on an editor griping about a 3 year old grudge who has not discussed any of the changes and block the addition of maintenance tags. This is the material they are arguing about, not your POV additions. They merely saw a dispute, saw that I was challenging some material that reflects negatively on the group and decided that their enemy's enemy is their friend. They might agree with you, but they haven't discussed any of the material so it's impossible to know. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

And in the discussion you displayed WP:OWN, and still do. Now go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Unimportant question.

I'm curious. Were you empowered by RfA, or are you one of the Hardy Boys? If the latter, then my theory doesn't make sense. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 12:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No idea what you mean, JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) might tell you? Guy (Help!) 13:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hardy Boys. For info. just in case. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 13:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the bit about "They live in an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue." That's our Guy, for sure. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought they went cycling around the country tackling mysteries and solving crime? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 13:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that I am one of the least mysterious or intriguing people on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)