User talk:JzG/Archive 186

Archive 180

←

Archive 184

Archive 185

Archive 186

Archive 187

Archive 188

→

Archive 190

Really good edits mostly

Hi, I've seen some of your edits and generally agree you are very good at keeping bad edits out. But I saw a page edit you did on Mathew Staver and where you said the citations added were promotional. It seems like many I looked at that were changed were citations that are neutral and allowed on many pages. They aren't controversial or glorifying anyone. I am curious at why you think they are promos. I disagee, anyway. --Althecomputergal 00:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Althecomputergal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althecomputergal (talk • contribs)

I believe that you are referring to this edit by "The Other Guy":[1]

The changes were promotional and it was right to remove them. In particular, changing "known for litigation for religious freedom, against abortion and LGBTQ rights" to "known for litigating issues involving abortion and religious freedom." was promotional. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, yes, also including peer ratings and other promotional stuff. It's an inexperienced eidtor with quite a lot of comments on their talk page: Ihaveadreamagain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And the OP has 16 edits, which is as suspicious as it gets. Guy (help!) 13:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I brought this up at RSNB so that there will be an entry in the archives: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Martindale-Hubbell (lawyers.com, nolo.com, martindale.com). --Guy Macon (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, @guymacon I was the one who change it TO this, not from this: "known for litigation for religious freedom, against abortion and LGBTQ rights" - see - my version is most succinct and cleaner https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=961638416&oldid=961518532

After that I was having trouble with choosing the right category (organization vs boards) and with html in the sidebar, which resulted in extra edits that I should have planned better. Now I have learned how to do those correctly. Then I added occupation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961665888 which is definitely not promotional. I added board membership, which is a standard category so it cannot be promotional https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961666557 . Next, I added a citation to a newspaper and a cite to the Rolling Stone (def reliable source and not promotional) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961675707 . Then as link to CSPAN videos, which seems both reliable and pertinent. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961676058 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961676999 and added the two topics of testimony before congress that I was able to find links for on CSPAN https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961677159 to the existing sentence. Then I added a missing citation for two sentence that had none: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961677566 and (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathew_Staver&diff=next&oldid=961678264

I cannot see how that is not permitted as "promotional." The OP has 16 edits, which is because I have doing one at a time because that is how I find it easiest to edit. I finish one item or thought at a time. I haven't seen a mention on Wikipedia to the number of edits an editor can make in one sitting. As long as they are appropriate, they should not be all reverted, just revert the ones that are problematic -- the only one arguably promotional would be a rating. As you can see, I added very few words to the entire piece and nothing that could be considered commentary. --Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Ihaveadreamagain, are you also Althecomputergal ? Guy (help!) 15:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not fond of computers. Regarding the process for a longer edit, can I just copy what I put above and put it on the Talk page for the page to be edited? I just realized I should have picked a shorter name since I have to sign all these; live and learn! -- (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Ihaveadreamagain

Ihaveadreamagain, yoiu just type ~~~~ and the signature is generated automagically. Guy (help!) 15:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, no words. No more copy and paste! Ihaveadreamagain (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ihaveadreamagain, ikr? We should put a hint in the edit box or something... Guy (help!) 16:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I learn something that helps me know about promos in the tearoom from a question asked and ansered - "see our page about promotion. In general, anything that seems primarily designed to promote or praise someone or something (or attack either) is not acceptable. Promotion can include commercial advertising, but extends much farther. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, and when they are not, that may be promotion." The page about promotion linked to WP:Spam so promotion is spamming and that explains it. WP:Advocacy , to. Althecomputergal 16:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althecomputergal (talk • contribs)

Cancel

Why did you cancel my edit? You saw the section User talk:Materialscientist#Cancel. Охранник Леса (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Охранник Леса, this is at WP:ANI. We do not need multiple venues for discussion. See you there. Guy (help!) 16:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. I didn't know what to do at the time (I thought that the section about edit warring would remain deleted), thus I made the section about you. Охранник Леса (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I found out that it is not possible to restore unresolved sections after recreating the archived section. Охранник Леса (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

LegacyVisual

Howdy hello Guy. You dealt with User:LegacyVisual last week, and their issues have continued. I can take this to ANI if you'd like, but it seemed easier to just ask you first. During their one week partial block, they were unhelpful and uncooperative. They seem to believe that most users they've interacted with are the same? See this weird diff, calling Arch Dude a CIA officer. I tried to talk with them further, they responded by blanking the entirety of Talk:Tigre people. Their block is now over, and they have promptly returned to their past editing. They made [2] [3] these unfactual edits that went against the sourcing, despite my repeated pleas to ask them for their sources. See also [4] accusing MJL of "showing an intense desire for power". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG case request declined

The case request "JzG" that you are a party to has been declined by the committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. A permanent link to the declined case can be accessed through this wikilink.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit @ 'Syed Jawad Naqvi'

Hi!, it is regarding your this edit @ article Syed Jawad Naqvi. I checked the ".xyz" links, they seem to be image repository of the archive of sahafat.in, website of a print newspaper. The links in this case don't look like to be spam. Can you please give a look? Thanks.--Fz^tc_s 15:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Faizhaider, is it an official repository? If not, it would probably be a WP:C issue. Any idea? Guy (help!) 15:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The link to .xyz flows from main website, it is like,

http://www.sahafat.in/index.html has a menu link to http://www.sahafat.in/archive_index.html, where, on selection of a date, archived newspaper is loaded in image format, the location of this image is at www.sahafat.xyz; so it seems to be legit.--Fz^tc_s 16:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please let me know if in this case ".xyz" domain is okay to use? Thanks.--Fz^tc_s 09:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll be reverting your edit, if you feel otherwise you can undo it.--Fz^tc_s 19:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is section header of discussion.The discussion is about the topic McKenzie method. Thank you. NDenPT (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Langan

Did the topic ban proposal pass? I'm asking because I saw edits on the page since, at least by Johnnyyiu, and the thread seems to have been archived without a clear close. That BLP is a new page for me but I've been discovering the related long-standing mess... And no related past CUs? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed recent editing inactivity, I hope you'll be back again when you feel like it. It was nice to work on Wikipedia with you, —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anything came from that WP:AN discussion since people felt that the existing sanctions regarding BLP and pseudoscience were sufficient. That has been working and problematic editors can probably be handled by normal action. BTW there is a related discussion at the bottom of my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, it's mentioned in the original case, I have tagged the article as under PS and BLP sanctions. Guy (help!) 13:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, and welcome back, —PaleoNeonate – 13:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

AP noticeboard?

Did the idea of an "American Politics noticeboard" ever go anywhere? I was just thinking that I'd like to post a "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone might need watchful eyeballs" message to one, if it existed. The article is not currently in awful shape — a mite disorganized, and with some sources that are yellow-carded at WP:RSP, and it'll probably be needing a move in the near future — but it's the kind of topic that attracts disruption. XOR'easter (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of The New Adventures of Old Christine and its producers and actors

Thank you for protecting The New Adventures of Old Christine article. We are having a similar problem with the the same editor using Special:Contributions/2601:1C0:6902:64D0:3D64:E961:9AEA:2A6B to disruptively edit the article for Kari Lizer, the producer of the show—as well as articles for its actors. This user has edited from 2601:1C0:6902:64D0:DC36:684E:C9D5:31F5, 2601:1c0:c803:1300:51b3:34a6:716e:3671, and 2601:1c0:6902:64d0:5c10:eb25:72f3:d440. It appears to me that IP range 2601:1C0:6902:64D0:*:*:*:* needs to be blocked. Thank you for checking on this matter. Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Using rollback on all of Sdkb's template changes, even ones unrelated to welcome templates

Hi JzG, I noticed you used rollback to revert this change Sdkb made to the proposals for a new editnotice for the COVID-19 sanctions.

This change wasn't in any way related to the current thread at ANI about welcome templates, was made a couple of weeks ago now, and wasn't even made to the current template - it was to a proposal for a new version which I'd initially made, and which Sdkb later created another variant of. You can see the full discussion here at the Village Pump (helpfully, it's been archived with no consensus reached).

I'm not sure this comes under the rollback criteria - did you mean to roll it back?

Cheers, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, this was a mass rollback due to large scale undiscussed changes, I didn't look for individual discussions. I have restored that edit. Guy (help!) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

B...but taking up the mop is meant to turn you into a lizard who never makes mistakes! Thanks for being so quick to check it over, I appreciate your hard work! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, :-) Guy (help!) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Guy, I've left a note at the ANI thread on this issue but I wanted to reach out directly to ask that you self-revert the mass-rollback (at minimum, the ones from before the grant of TPE and unrelated to {{welcome}}). To mass-rollback a non-vandal's edits without evidence of real widespread problems and without reading the individual edits is inappropriate and, in my view, a misuse of rollback. Many of the reverts you made were entirely unrelated to the ANI thread and they go back to well before the welcome templates were being implemented. I understand why you did what you did and I don't fault you for acting on the information you had in the moment but this went too far back. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I also just noticed User_talk:Pppery#Cleaning_up_ANI_mess, which may be relevant. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

L235, I don't think I undid any prior to TPE? I notice that the doc ones have been reviewed and reversed by others, which is fine. Is there anything left to do here, please? Guy (help!) 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: You may have accidentally pushed a wrong button — you undid edits going back years. The piecemeal fixes have handled only a small fraction of those; there is massive cleanup left to be done. I'm obviously an involved party, but my advice would be the same as Kevin's: to self-revert your rollbacks as quickly and comprehensively as you can, and to manually undo any that you're no longer able to automatically self-revert (the longer we wait, the more of those there will be and the longer the reintroduced errors will be present to readers).

Regarding the ANI thread more generally, I trust that you will thoroughly read my comment and the subsequent replies and decide whether to self-revert your close/de-bitting based on that, but I think it's clear that it was made (through no fault of yours) lacking vital context and does not at all reflect the current direction of the discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi JzG. It makes more sense that you didn't intend to revert any prior to the grant of TPE, so I've gone through some of them and undid them. It's taking quite a bit of time and I need to go for tonight so if you've got time to help clean this up I'd appreciate it if you could help. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

L235, thanks - sorry about that, I did sort by date and stopped at that date, but obviously screwed up. Le sigh. Guy (help!) 09:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Following up

JzG, it has now been well over a month, and you have still not cleaned up after yourself despite multiple follow-ups (e.g. [5]). If you want to do the responsible thing, here is the list of your rollback edits — go through each one, and revert yourself if it was not a wrapperification. I'll give you one week, at which point if you are still shirking responsibility, I'll give up and handle the remainder myself. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake

Hi JzG, it's not really appropriate for you to be handling article protection at Rupert Sheldrake, even if it's restoring a previous setting, which is probably not now required. You are an involved editor, so please unprotect it, then if you wish protection to be applied, go to WP:RFPP and request it. It's perhaps worth noting that your edit summary comments don't stand up in some respects. You reverted a "good faith" edit, but then protected it on the strength of "persistent disruptive editing". I cannot see anything persistent here, and despite the continuing arguments over this article, there have not been any major problems with edit warring and the like. Regards, Arcturus (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted an IP that made a contentious change, and wondered why the edit had been possible because I know that it was permanently semiprotected due to Tumbleman socks (still an ongoing LTA). The protection log tells the story, but in any case I notified the other admins in case this was a misinterpretation of what they intended. You were on hiatus for about 13 years, so you may have missed the Tumbleman thing. Guy (help!) 11:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comment at the noticeboard noted. If the protection sticks I may request unprotection at RFPP, but I'll give it a short while. Never heard of Tumbleman. Arcturus (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, sure. See user:Tumbleman/user:SAS81/meta:user:WWHP/meta:user:Rome Viharo and search the admin board archives. Tumbleman's normal off-wiki monicker is well known, and he is an advocate for Sheldrake, Chopra and a number of other cranks. He created an entire website dedicated to bitching about this, at enormous length. Guy (help!) 12:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again JzG, for info, I posted this at WP:RFPP. Arcturus (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, you forgot to mention the context. I fixed that for you. Guy (help!) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback on St Christopher Iba Mar Diop

• St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi JzG, I hope this is the appropriate way to contact you as I'm a very inexperienced at editing Wiki. I noticed that you recently rolled back the St. Christopher page. I had made suggestions in the talk page and heard some good assessments there. Is there something that you disagree with in particular? The school is currently active, but no longer situated in Luton. The International Medical Education Directory no longer exists and has been replaced with the World Directory of Medical Schools. Students are eligible to take the United States Medical Exams by the Educational Commission of Foreign Medical Graduates. Medical degrees from this school are considered acceptable in Canada. I thought I cited sources properly, but I may not have done it appropriately. If you could browse through the talk page, you can see my thought process before making the changes. The article is tagged as needing update to reflect recent events and newly available information, so I thought I was doing the right thing. Any feedback or help would be much appreciated. I originally made the edits as user Sunbeam, but I changed my username afterwards. Kind regards. ATharanee (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

ATharanee, the changes did not reflect the sources. Wikipedia is not really the place to whitewash fraudulent institutions. Guy (help!) 08:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your prompt response. Which of the changes I made, did you believe to disagree with sources? If you could point to specific edits that require further sources, or contradict current sources, please let me know. The main source I was using is this entry in World Directory of Medical Schools, and most of the information was taken directly from there. Please note, I did not remove any information regarding the BBC scandal in the U.K. (2007) nor previous licensure disapproval in certain U.S. states. My desire was not to whitewash (as I left negative publicity for the reader to judge), but to give a balanced view of the present situation. Further updates are still necessary. Medical licensure now appears acceptable in Alabama (seen in the liscence endorsement here), Arkansas (the physician in this article did his residency at University of Arkansas), and Texas (seen in the liscence endorsements here). Many of the references are dead links as well. I'd like to request that you reconsider the large scale rollback after contemplating the current situation impartially, and only rollback items that do not reflect cited sources. However, if you still think it appropriate then I'll leave it be. I enjoy Wikipedia (more reading than editing), and realize it's part of a group concious. I may be unconciously biased. Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to Wikipedia. ATharanee (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

ATharanee, talk page is over yonder ----> Guy (help!) 14:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tumbleman

The word Tumbleman has taken me on a trip. And I don't even know what it means! El_C 15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, Heh! Guy (help!) 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory - "in this vain"?

Yeah, self-promotion. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I did think that this was unintentionally accurate...

That user has done nothing here other than self-promotion. Including an autobiography. Guy (help!) 16:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment

Guy, I find I disagree with you a lot but I think your handling and insight with respect to SashiRolls was exemplary. It was good to see someone note the process was getting short changed even if the target was unpopular. This also extends to your reaching out after the discussion was closed. I personally don't agree with the closing and feel that the "consensus" was a stretch given the number of objections and irregularities that were raised later in the process after editors had a chance to consider that this wasn't such a clear cut case. It's good to see someone stick up for an editor who appears to be getting shorted rather and oppose what may be a mob reaction to an controversial editor. Springee (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Springee, thank you. I appreciate that. Guy (help!) 12:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• +1 more - of late, I too believe your insight in this case and cases like it have indeed been exemplary. Kudos to you, Guy. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Guy, I would also like to thank you for your wisdom in this matter. El_C 13:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Royalark.net and worldstatemen.org

Hi, I notice that these two websites are listed on your userpage as "Genealogy spam" and that they have been deprecated. I'm not questioning the decision, because clearly you are committed to reliability of sources used on Wikipedia, but I wondered if there was a link to the reasoning behind the classification as depreciated, or a discussion. The reason I'm asking is that these sites have information about Indonesian history such as the years of rule of the Sumatran sultanates and the flags of the constituent states of the United States of Indonesia that are very hard to find elsewhere, so it's a bit of a shame that these websites are now not usable. Thanks and stay well. 05:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The issue is that they are self-published sites by non-expert fans, and include information which is not factually accurate (e.g. characterising people as royalty when the countries have been republics for a long time). There are links to at least one debate at WP:DEPS and you can also search the archives at WP:RSN. Both have been tagged in places as {{sps}}, in some cases for years, but with further links added in the same article regardless. Guy (help!) 07:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the close

Thanks for the close Guy! That was very long and very contentious and I'm sorry for my own role in raising the temperature. Hopefully we can all get back to our lives now!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, it was a difficult situation with deeply-held feelings in play on all sides. I hope people will be able to make up and collaborate, because everybody involved seemed to me to be trying their best to build a great encyclopaedia. Guy (help!) 20:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I too would like to say that after reading your closure of that discussion, I found it to be very nuanced and reasonable. I would definitely like to see more of your closures of hard issues. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, thank you. I don't think I am especially insightful, but this seemed to be one where I could probably thread the needle. Guy (help!) 21:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)