User talk:JzG/Archive 170

Archive 165

←

Archive 168

Archive 169

Archive 170

Archive 171

Archive 172

→

Archive 175

Unprotect IPFS article

Can you please unprotect the IPFS article? There doesn't seem to be evidence that the page was subject to any form of spam. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. See if you can get consensus on Talk for your proposed edits. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Völva

In fairness to a new user who is already indeffed, please look at my note under the copyright violation rev-deletion request, which you removed along with it but may not have seen. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. This is just about making it harder to revert to the incorrect version as and when protection is dropped. But I am not wedded to it either way. Guy (help!) 20:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Guy applying a too-stringent ban on first-party references in Retrospect (software)?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your applying a too-stringent ban on first-party references. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_Guy_applying_a_too-stringent_ban_on_first-party_references_in_Retrospect_(software)?. The discussion is about the topic Retrospect (software).

AV1 page

All the contents of the AV1 page has been continually deleted by your actions.

It seems you have chosen to do because it relies too much on references to primary sources.

Sections like History or Purpose where quite bad but it is not a reason for deleting the whole article. Deleting all the contents is very disrespectful of the time the community has put in this article.

I can see on this page you have already done edits to add the {{Primary sources}} tag on some articles. I don't understand why you did not do that.

Even when I added them, you removed the tags without any other explication than Go back to Twitter and tell them to bring better sources. (I do not come from Twitter btw)

Please know that removing everything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases is not an option for a video codec. Technical details of the format can not be seen anywhere else. In the opposite case, you should also remove VVC entry and remove most of MPEG-4 AVC and other MPEG articles.

Can we have your view expressed more nuanced than just blanking the page on the talk page ? Alegui (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a response to the "nuanced" drive-by reverts to the massive bloated article prompted by Twitter. I'm very happy to discuss individual sources, improvement, what should be in and what out, per WP:NOT/WP:RS and such. I think that would be a good use of all our time. Guy (help!) 21:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not what the history tells. First, you deleted all the contents, even the good, without placing any warning tags or any message on the talk page. Then, the drive-by reverts begun. I think what would be a good use of all our time is not overreacting to a very small part of the community but rather add warnings tags on the page and explain what should be done on the talk page.Alegui (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What the history tells is that an article had a vast number of sources tagged as self-published / affiliated, and any attempt to remove these was resisted by a mob coordinated on Twitter. Guy (help!) 09:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Steven Menashi

I'm sorry but I saw that you semi-protected the Steven Menashi page. That's fine. However it is the user that has reported it that has been vandalizing the page by removing sourced info that he knows to be true (please see his talk page). Could you do something about that too? 37.71.137.194 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This is what Talk:Steven Menashi is for. Guy (help!) 17:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand, however he made a bad-faith report for "persistent vandalism" whereas he was the one removing very simple information about the subject's family history whereas I provided the video of the subject personally stating the info yesterday during the Senate confirmation hearing. Please see the article's edit history and his talk page. I am not talking about the article, but the behavior of the person - is such behaviour, who knows maybe animated by anti-Semitic animus, correct? 37.71.137.194 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

My "concocted" claim that there is no _outright_ ban on use of first-party references to software manuals

I'm also posting a copy of this comment to User:Cullen328's Talk page, since the relevant discussion has been archived.

First, I did not write the "whole" Retrospect (software) article "mainly from primary and affiliated sources". Currently there are 18 cites of primary sources out of 100 total cites. I'm sure you can see that 18% is nowhere close to 100%.

The cite that has just been inadvertently deleted by User: Uncle G is IMHO a good example of a "corner case" that shows the problems with your "The Wikipedia sourcing trifecta: reliable, independent and secondary" policy assertion. Up through mid-2006 Macs used to have Motorola/IBM PowerPC processors. Retrospect Inc. continued through 2018 to offer an optional Client that would back up and restore such Macs, whether running early versions of the Macintosh OS X or Classic Mac OS operating systems. Because of Apple's obsoleting of its old 32-bit API, Retrospect 16 can no longer back up PowerPC Macs. This was hardly cause for celebration; a fair number of Macintosh users with a 14-year-old accumulation of graphic files—including my friend—keep a PowerPC Mac around for occasional reading and editing of files created before 2006. Retrospect Inc. announced about a year ago that the next major version would eliminate their PowerPC Client; knowing some users would not be happy, they took the non-marketing step of burying this announcement as a Knowledge Base document on their website. Until TidBITS.com finally comes out with a review of Retrospect Mac 16, there is no secondary source. I think the loss of this feature deserves a brief-but-referenced mention in the article.

I definitely intend to discuss at RSN the question of whether primary sources in software manuals should be ipso facto banned from WP articles. My guess is that, if you want to establish a rule stating this, you'll lose. After all, let's look at the announcement of Windows 10's 2015 release, which is reference 13 in the Windows 10 article and is not in the infobox. If the editor of an article about such a widely-used piece of software had to fall back on a first-party reference for its release, IMHO that would make your policy impossible to officially state except as a niggling refinement of Primary sources should be used carefully. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• DovidBenAvraham You are very determinedly ignoring the point. There is no absolute prohibition on kicking yourself in the nuts, but it remains a terrible idea. The onus is firmly on you to demonstrate that any challenged information is significant, and the only way to do that is to show it has been covered by independent sources. Not Tidbits reprinting a press release, not the user manual, but independent sources. You must now demonstrate competence to edit within the rules that everyone else but you seems to understand. Guy (help!) 14:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Some levity

frozen waterfall, Minnehaha Falls in Minneapolis, Minnesota

In diff, I take issue with: " cryonics ...the commercially lucrative but scientifically insupportable freezing of recently deceased individuals, or parts thereof (normally the brain).". As I believe that frozen individuals, or parts thereof (e.g. brain), meet the scientific definition of being frozen in cryo temperatures. The science issue seems to be with the unfreezing part (+freezing damage) and subsequent post-death+freezing/unfreezing resuscitation - but the freezing bit seems umm, solid. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding more seriousness than this rather silly topic merits, I did think about this, and the fact is that I cannot conceive of a scientifically supportable reason for freezing the brains (or in the case of Epstein the brain and dick) of a dead person. We can find out everything we need to know about the science of freezing squishy objects without the need to defraud real people or use human biological waste. Guy (help!) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Deep freezing for Cannibalism? I've had turkey, lamb, and ox balls (recipe here for lamb). Guess I've been living in a cave - haven't heard about Epstein's wishes in this regard (and jeez - you'd think a multi-millionaire would go for the whole-body treatment). Anyways - just chilling out. :-).Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what food would taste like after it's had its blood replaced with antifreeze and been frozen in liquid nitrogen. This is not an experiment I am eager to undertake, either. Guy (help!) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Mail for you

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.— RexxS (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A question...

Hello JzG, I see that you are a sysop here and wanted some guidance for a question that has come up in es.wiki. I have edited here and created a few articles and remember seeing some place (I don't remember where) that, if you add a phrase or paragraph from an external source that is in a foreign language and you translate that phrase using your own words, you add something like "translated by user". Not sure exactly of the wording, but I do remember seeing something like that. In any case, would it be appropriate to say "Translated by (here inserted name of user who did the translation, for example Maragm). Thank you and regards, Maragm (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Maragm I actually don't know, so I suggest you ask at WP:RSN. Guy (help!) 12:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

KingofGangsters Block

Hi, this user contacted me and was looking to get out of his block early, I wanted to check if you had any objection before granting his request. --WGFinley (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

WGFinley That shows every indication that he accepts the issue, so fine by me. Guy (help!) 21:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Nobody has proved there isn't a dragon in my garage, either."

I know, I shouldn't say this, but that made me laugh. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Is AUM investigation OR/SYNTH

Since you're up to speed on the CESNUR discussion, would you advise us over at Talk:CESNUR#Is_Aum_Investigation_WP:OR/SYNTH? Feoffer (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRAPWATCH update

BTW, we now support basic DOI detection. It's not quite perfect yet, the bot lists what it detects, but it doesn't yet link to the articles. This should improve within the next few updates once User:JLaTondre has a chance to get to it. However, what now needs to be done is to add the actual DOI prefixes to WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP to the bot knows what to look for. If would greatly help if, when you have a chance, you could to take the information from User:JzG/Predatory and put that into the appropriate {{JCW-selected}} templates. For example, changing

• {{JCW-selected|Academic Research Journals|source=BLP}} → {{JCW-selected|Academic Research Journals|doi=10.14662|source=BLP}}

like this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually there weren't that many, so I them all myself. However, if you come across additional DOI prefixes, do update WP:CRAPWATCH/SETUP! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Nu?

[1] Jehochman ^Talk 20:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Was slow in changing it. Geogre and KillerChihuahua are back, and I could not be happier. Guy (help!) 22:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen Geogre yet. Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Templates

Please delete these timelines as well since you hate my work so much and side with well known vandal who nominated my E24 timeline for deletion and whose account has been deleted by admin (but I guess that doesn't matter): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lukeno94

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mercedes-Benz_W126_timeline   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mercedes-Benz_R107_and_C107_timeline 

At least be consistent since they're of same design as E24, it makes no sense to delete just one.

Peter 23:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

You are free to nominate them for deletion if you like, I have no opinion on the content itself at all, I only care about the fact that this was content deleted after a legitimate deletion debate, re-created by you out of process, and then re-created again at different title. Guy (help!) 10:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Those templates are of exactly the same style and purpose so why can't I recreate e24 then? I thought I'm dealing with humans and not robots… btw Facebook doesn't cause cancer, facbeook is cancer.

Peter 19:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain ECP of Ahmed Pasha Mohd

"Offensive name" seems woefully inadequate as a rationale and fails to provide reasoning as to why ECP would apply. I'm not an admin so I can't see the history, but I'm assuming a non-noatable person tried to create it repeatedly. If so, why wasn't a block of the user or autoconfirmed protection tried first? At a bare minimum, I request that you update the rationale for ECP; What you have now is inadequate, IMNSHO. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Did it come up as "offensive name"? I clicked WP:SALT. The user doesn't understand he's not supposed to create an autobiography. Guy (help!) 17:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, then why not block the user? It doesn't seem to make much sense to block that page creation for all but a selected group when you could block the single problem user. Buffs (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, the log reads

This page has been protected so only extended confirmed users can create it. The latest protection log entry is provided below for reference.

• 11:09, 23 September 2019 JzG talk contribs protected Ahmed Pasha Mohd [Create=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) (Offensive name) (hist | change) (thank)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I dragged something instead of clicking it. Doesn't make any difference, but I'll fix it in a minute. Guy (help!) 18:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I would argue it indeed does make a difference. Someone by that name is a prominent landlord/landowner in India. I could easily see such a page being reasonably created. Buffs (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Feynman Prize awardees

There was a recent RfC that endorsed keeping the list of awardees in the article. I take it that this was a good faith edit and you were unaware of the RfC. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

RfCs don't trump policy, though. Guy (help!) 20:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Looks delicious, but is it gluten free? Guy (help!) 17:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

warning: block?

Your warning does not appear to be heeded. Also see User talk:Soibangla#CrowdStrike. X1\ (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I think I deleted your comment by mistake, could you restore it? I have IT issues at the moment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

IDW study

Hello, thanks for reaching out. I am not trying to start an edit war, but I did I make a change to the Intellectual Dark Web wikipedia page in response to an edit that I saw a user from the IDW subreddit make to this page (to whom I can not prove actually made the change)

https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/dbuxm5/flawed_youtube_study_posted_recently_is_reference/f25cfmi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

If you look at these compared revisions from the user Intellectual Dark Trance

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_dark_web&type=revision&diff=919469155&oldid=917846719

I am under the impression that this user wanted to change the wording of this paragraph in order to downplay the IDW community's correlation with the alt right, despite the fact that the referenced study came to a different conclusion. This user even took a small quotation from section 6 of the study that appears to downplay the correlation, despite the whole of the study coming to a different conclusion.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.08313.pdf

If you look at the discussion of this study (section 8) it's clear that the authors came to the conclusion that there was indeed a growing correlation between the communities IDW, alt-lite, and alt right.

I wasn't exactly sure what to do with IntellectualDarkTrance's edit so I added my own paragraph at the end. I would be fine with it if both of our changes were reverted, or I could reword my own paragraph with some guidance on how to be consistent. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this.

This is my edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intellectual_dark_web&type=revision&diff=919419650&oldid=919417225 — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneRazor (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneRazor (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

StoneRazor, I suggest you discuss it on the Talk page. Guy (help!) 18:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Tiny typo

On your user page, in the "Note to admins", you seem to have wanted to link DGG's talkpage:

... debate on the admin boards.DGG]] also has my permission...

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)