User talk:JzG/Archive 184

Archive 180

←

Archive 182

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

Archive 186

→

Archive 190

can you help quick on a page undergoing drastic vandalism?

JzG, Can you please protect Seneca Valley School District as their ip and new users beating the heck out of it. i've reported 3 users for avi and requested page protection but the rpp que is really long. here's where the rpp is Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Seneca_Valley_School_District. either way thx. ToeFungii (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

ToeFungii, semiprotected it. Guy (help!) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Because of the virus i've got a lot of time on my hands and really trying to get my feet deep into wp and vandals have attracted me. I know this would be less than usual, but can you give me the rollback privilege? If you look at my ToeFungii (talk · contribs) contributions I think you'll see i'm working pretty hard. The reason I'm asking isn't so much to be able to do the rollback as to be able to use STiki that apparently does a good job of id'ing potential vandalism. I'm a pretty conservative person, so i'm only reversing those things that i know and pass on those things that i'm uncertain and can't find applicable guidance on.

Either way, thank you very much for your help hopefully stopping some kids from going crazy. ToeFungii (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW I should add that i've reached out to Cassiopeia to be their trainee for counter vandalism. i've already read all the references. ToeFungii (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

Callanecc

Oversight changes

HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

• Discretionary sanctions have been authorized for all pages and edits related to COVID-19, to be logged at WP:GS/COVID19.
• Following a recent discussion on Meta-Wiki, the edit filter maintainer global group has been created.
• A request for comment has been proposed to create a new main page editor usergroup.
• A request for comment has been proposed to make the bureaucrat activity requirements more strict.

Technical news

• The Editing team has been working on the talk pages project. You can review the proposed design and share your thoughts on the talk page.
• Enterprisey created a script that will show a link to the proper Special:Undelete page when viewing a since-deleted revision, see User:Enterprisey/link-deleted-revs.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment closed with consensus to create a Village Pump-style page for communication with the Wikimedia Foundation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Q on your R&I edit comment "meta-analysis not independent"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=955558650

seems to go against WP:P&P, "secondary does not mean independent". Is there some other independence requirement you had in mind?

(Also, sorry to hear about the reasons for your typing difficulties. Now I understand why I got some one-word replies from you. Will keep in mind in future.) 73.149.246.232 (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Was this humor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=956176669&oldid=956176524 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.116.79 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OMG. --JBL (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

heh

i hadn't even noticed the socks above, I just patrol those talk pages so that I can add it to my spam database for daily checks. :) Praxidicae (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing the discussion

Hi, I saw that you closed my discussion here and really did not not understand which part of WP:BLP and WP:RS you are referring to. So, is it that we can add such info that is verified by reliable secondary sources to Korean artists or not? If not, why are western people allowed to have the relationship section, while Koreans are not allowed? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, yes, facts supported by reliable sources can be added, but if they are challenged by another editor it's your job to achieve consensus for inclusion. Guy (help!) 18:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

But if we need a Korean-artist-wide consensus like they do in the western artists article we need to have a bigger discussion like the one I opened. The editors that uses subjective reasons, such as “idol dating news is sensitive” and “Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo" are not using valid arguments and are going against WP:CENSOR and they are a many in numbers since they have always been taught that there was a consensus not include such info, while in reality there was not and it was just an old discussion between 2 editors that somehow made it a Korean-artist-wide rule to remove all dating info. Should I move the RfC here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea? CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, no we don't. Per existing policy and guidance, you can add a relationship that's reliably sourced, remove on if you think it's not reliably sourced, and if anyone challenges a specific addition then you discuss it on the Talk page. Guy (help!) 19:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I will post my initial text from the RfC (without tagging it with RfC) here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea and copy what you wrote "Per existing policy and guidance, you can add a relationship that's reliably sourced, remove on (only or on?) if you think it's not reliably sourced, and if anyone challenges a specific addition then you discuss it on the Talk page." and see what people say on the WikiProject Korea talk page. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

CherryPie94, there is no point, this is already standard Wikipedia practice. Guy (help!) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It might be a standard Wikipedia practice, but to Korean article editors it is not and they are constantly being told to remove those info because of the alleged 2 users consensus of removing all dating info, even if it is well sourced, if the artists break up, and they use the excuse of "it will be removed if they break up" to not allow other users to include it in the first place even if it has reliable sources and cover by over 5000 articles all over the internet include international news outlets. That is why I told you it is a big issue and they make up their own rules and enforce it on all Korean artists' pages without referencing or even looking at standard Wikipedia practice. All their reasons for removal or not inclusion are nonsense, such as “idol dating news is sensitive” and “Public relationships between celebrities in Korea are a bit taboo”, or only long term relationships are allowed and when I ask them when it become long term, they don't even know and different different duration of dating for each article before they deem it long term and allowed to be added. Can we get more admins to give their opinions? We really need a fair objective standard between Korean and western artists. Many of those Korean articles' editors make their own standards and do not care about Wikipedia's already established rules. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

User:SaltySaltyTears

is requesting unblock via UTRS. It's been a while. Second chance? Restore TPA and carry to WP:AN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, not my call - SaltySaltyTears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is CU-blocked by 5 albert square as a bad-hand (trolling) sockpuppet of Marteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They need to request unblock at their original account. Guy (help!) 13:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Mrwallace05

Special:Contributions/Quilliam333 is obviously a Mrwallace05 sock. Same as before with previous socks.[1][2][3] 2402:1980:8248:BD5A:98EE:2095:31AD:EF94 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Already blocked indef. 2402:1980:8249:4FE7:8C5F:7588:7D18:E7B7 (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

MUFON

Hi, I'm in a lost here. Can you explain why my editing on MUFON (adding reliable sources and info) was reverted? I've done hundreds of editions and contributions to Wiki, and I think I am pretty familiar with the guidelines, but this time I fail to understand what is happening. Thanks--Ernestolake (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernestolake, You were adding mufon.com and a Forbes contributor blog. Forbes contributor blogs are not reliable (see WP:RSP). And MUFON should not be self-sourced because of WP:PROFRINGE. Guy (help!) 19:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I had added the MUFON page info about the director's board only as a biographical reference on the educational/university background of those members. I don't think this could be labeled as biased. As per the Forbes link, this is not coming from a blog, but the official Website of that American business magazine, so I think it should be admitted as a source. Even Wikipedia recognizes it in the page dedicated to Forbes. Please, check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes If you think the professional/educational background of the board of directors in MUFON should not be posted from the Website, It's ok. But I think that the source from Forbes, should be accepted. I'll wait for your feedback to re-write the information. Thanks. --Ernestolake (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernestolake, See WP:PROFRINGE and the WP:RSP entry on Forbes contributor blogs. They are different from main Forbes content. Guy (help!) 22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, noted. I just edited the Forbes page to update the information regarding the supposedly official Website, according to your instructions. Thank you for clarifying this. --Ernestolake (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ernestolake, no, we do not do that, per WP:SELFREF. Guy (help!) 09:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry! :-( Another lesson learnt. --Ernestolake (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: Very useful page by the way. I'll keep it as a check source from now on. --Ernestolake (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, JzG. Just want to be sure everything is in order now. I really appreciate the help in clarifying me the issue related to the sources. I take pride in my contributions and I want to keep adding reliable data and quotes to Wiki. Do you think it will be possible for you to eliminate the notice you posted in my personal page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ernestolake? I understand that you have had some initial concerns when I insisted a couple of times on the Forbes source, but at that time I did not have the information you provided me later. I'd really appreciate this, as I have been always careful in this regard and I have always respect the rules and norms of this portal. Thanks in advance. Best regards.--Ernestolake (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Fantasy" royals

Hi, in the discussion "Labeling modern descendants of nobility with theoretical titles: NPOV, BLP, NOR and other policy problems" on the NPOV noticeboard [4]Red Rock Canyon said "Just from looking at the Karl von Habsburg article, this is clearly an issue. He's labeled as "Archduke of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia" in the infobox, but he's not. There is no Archduke of Austria, no Prince of Hungary, Bohemia, or Croatia. He's certainly notable on his own merits, but all these titles are nonsense. They should be mentioned in the article, but only as historical curiosities" and you replied "and the bogus navbox needs to go." I could not agree more, and I would like to ask your advice since you are an admin. It frustrates me to see editors saying these things need to be removed, but no one is removing them. Does that discussion at NPOV noticeboard give me any kind of authorization to start taking all that WP:CB out? If I take it out monarchy fans, or whatever they should be called, will put them right back in again, I am pretty sure, that's what happened when I tried to deal with this stuff before, and they will argue your arm off that all those people in that navbox with the ludicrous honorifics "HI & RH" which means His or Her Imperial and Royal Highness Archduke or Archduchess Whatever really are Imperial and Royal Highnesses Archduke or Archduchess Whatever even though the Austrian government abolished royal titles more than a hundred years ago and using royal titles like that in Austria is illegal. Royal "fans" say the governments can't abolish titles like that, they exist independently of governments, or something, I never really understood their way of thinking, if that's what it is. The only arguments they use that ever made any sense to me were WP:RS or WP:COMMONNAME, ie, look here's this royalist handbook that says so and so is still an Imperial and Royal Highness and here's proof that people still call them that, so it is their name by COMMONNAME.  SMcCandlish says a WP:VPPOL RfC should be set up, and I asked him to do it, as he knows how and I don't, he agrees but is very busy and doesn't look forward to the conflict it would cause (and I know that trying to take those ridiculous "fantasy" titles out of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of articles they are in would cause a LOT of conflict). But I think they should be removed, everything I see on that noticeboard shows agreement they should be removed, and I want to remove them! What do you think I should do? Should I wait for the WP:VPPOL RfC to be set up? Or should I just go ahead and start trying to get rid of that nonsense even though it will probably cause edit wars and drama? Thanks for any advice.Smeat75 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, forget it. Sorry to bother you. I wish I hadn't seen that message on the NPOV notice board. I put those ridiculous articles about fake royals out of my head seven years ago and I am going to do that again, I have better things to do.Smeat75 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		Guy, Thanks for the info and cooperation! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf De nada, my friend. I read the same article this morning. Guy (help!) 17:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#RfC on welcome template standardisation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, good stuff, thanks. Guy (help!) 09:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SLA

Responses over the next few days may not meet Wikipedia's sub-nanosecond SLA. I am playing with my train set.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkgCpKI37rc

Chill :-) Guy (help!) 09:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Haven't heard "Sailing By" in some years. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 15:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, Tyne, Dogger, Fisher, German Bight: Rain, Good. North Utsire, South Utsire: Fog, mildly disappointing. Forth, Fifth, Forties, Fities, sun, bloody marvellous... Guy (help!) 16:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've just nodded off. Any Merkians lurking need an explanation? -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, let them wonder. Meanwhile, you need this in your life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9QumF93PpY Guy (help!) 16:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful, srsly, and I had never heard that before. Thanks. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 16:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, and yer actual Brian Perkins, too. Guy (help!) 16:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I’d only heard Les himself doing it.Brunton (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Eric Weinstein Edit Warring

I added a section on the administrator's noticeboard about this. My problem with the section is that it is just odd as it is not explained relative to anything else, what is the point that is being made? That this guy gave a talk that he thought was smart and no one else did and didn't come? I have nothing against including the information if it is notable but said notability needs to be explained. Did this event create a huge backlash against him? Was this talk super widely known before? Was its undue importance to the field widely spread in the popular media before it was debunked by physicists? I could imagine any of these to be true and I would agree that it would then be notable, however if that is the case it needs to be explained. Otherwise it just is embarrassing rather than embarrassing and notable. You need to differentiate between a story like Tom Cruise went to the bathroom in his pants and everyone laughed at him, to Tom Cruise went to the bathroom in his pants and everyone laughed at him which sources relate gave him the initial motivation to become an actor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like you could come up with a better metaphor than a BLP-violating thing about Tom Cruise.--Jorm (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		So refreshing to come across someone who is actively committed to the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you for all of your work. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for all your contributions, I admire it. Yoleaux (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Drassow

You may want to be aware that I've asked on User:Drassow's talkpage about why he wrote the following on Slugger O'Toole's talk page on 5 May about me:" "Sounds like you're the different side of the same coin for atheism. You're acting like a manchild over Slugger being in favor of a synonymous term that makes sense contextually." As this is personal abuse I wanted to give them a chance to explain or apologise before I progress the matter. Not sure if you are aware but he actually threw the same insult at you on one of the admin boards - "Response to petty manchild". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=953413077&oldid=953412117) Contaldo80 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I already responded, and left said response for over 14 hours without receiving a response. It's not my fault you can't look at a page's history. Drassow (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, civil POV-pushers like Slugger are a problem because they provoke neutral editors to inappropriate reactions. That's why I choose not to deal with him any more. Don't let him or his acolytes provoke you. Guy (help!) 07:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleting page

Hi, could you delete Draft:Aybars İbak ?

because this article is a draft and that draft was rejected. Selingunus (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Selingunus, eligible for G13 in a couple of days. Guy (help!) 07:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? i dont understand. Will you delete? Selingunus (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Selingunus, WP:CSD#G13: eligible for deletion 6 months after the last edit. Guy (help!) 20:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. But according to me. Its time to delete Selingunus (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

ToddGrande

You might want to take a look at this user's edits. I think his heart is in the right place, but some of his anti-conspiracy theories and anti-populism edits are kind of over the top. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Hi JzG thank you for interacting on the Sword of the Spirit article. I would love to contribute to this article and would appreciate guidance on doing so as I feel I am facing some challenges in doing this myself. Linn C Doyle (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Remember my spam list?

Well those geniuses did a big dumb. Can we mass blacklist these? Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Buttar

Hi JzG. Since page protection was removed from Rashid Buttar there has been a steady stream of anon IP SPAs all making the same edit (i.e. whitewashing/removal of sourced content). Just today had one from Kazakhstan[5] and one from Spain.[6] Can we restrict editing to only confirmed users to solve the issue with the anon IPs. Asking you as I have never requested page protection before and not sure of the mechanism, and it appeared that you had protected the page previously. Thanks and best wishes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, semiprotected for another year. Guy (help!) 21:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about your comment

Hey, I had a question about your comment here. What did you mean when you said that I "have low numbers of edits in total, all or mostly centred around this or reelated topics"? Thanks,VR _talk 12:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Translation of the above = "You are both behaving like newbies" imho. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, yeah, pretty much. Guy (help!) 13:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

to do something about the articles on non-existent "royals". Didn't take long for the sort of opposition I encountered when I tried to deal with this issue before to surface. I am likely to lose motivation to keep arguing about it.Smeat75 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thanks for taking care of this [7]. It is a load off my mind, believe me. We should have a separate 'pedia for these types of editors.

It would be sheer chaos and this would be and an instance where the inmates are running the asylum :>) I say let 'em have it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, no problem. Guy (help!) 20:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman

Hi, Guy! I want to explain why I declined your request at RFPP for protection of Vernon Coleman. The problem is that the other users (one confirmed editor, one IP) are removing a recently added description “conspiracy theorist” to the lead sentence, and you are restoring it. But that description was only added to the article in the past week, by an IP, and AFAICT has not been in the article before that time. And there is nothing in the article text to substantiate it. I hated to turn down your request, but it looks to me as if this is a matter for the talk page rather than protection. Thanks for your understanding. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, frair enough. Tis true though. He also pimps homeopathy and various other fraudulent fake health products. Guy (help!) 23:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I totally believe it. Anybody who claims you are more likely to be killed by your doctor than... well, you know. But it doesn't use that phrase in the article anywhere. Maybe the article text would be the place to start. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, yeah, all good, raised it on Talk. Guy (help!) 00:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)