User talk:JzG/Archive 196

Archive 190

←

Archive 194

Archive 195

Archive 196

Archive 197

Archive 198

→

Archive 200

WP:NOTFORUM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I noticed that you are using the Talk page to various articles as a forum for your personal opinion with no contribution and not related to the article at all. It is a disgrace for a admin that is active here for >15 years to do this. Please improve your behaviour, Thank you. On a side note: Think about if you should moderate articles where you are obviously biased in the first place, your history is full of very questionable decisions. Maybe ask other admins who are not biased to handle this, you are just human after all and your political bias is shining through --Judahclipt (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC) — Judahclipt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Clearly not a new editor, since their first edit was to revert your talk page post with the no forum link. Of course, your post... Doug Weller talk 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this IP. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this assumption. But if its true or not doesn't change anything about the content of the message. I think it is indisputable that the revert was justified and necessary. It was a personal plitical opinion forum post unrelated to the article and doesn't belong on a talk page of that article. Please note that WP:NOFORUM applies to admins too, thank you. This is espiecially important because in the article where JzG posted his political blog posts, other admins deleted based on WP:NOFORUM (just not JzGs forum post, for whatever reason). --Judahclipt (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Judahclipt, I see you accidentally removed my comment along witht he obvious trolling from the IP, but I don't mind as it was a musing and probably not that relevant to actual content. Enjoy your Wikipedia career, and I hope the CheckUsers don't spoil your day too badly. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that answer, however it is disappointing to see that you aren't even admitting your misbehaviour. A simple "sorry, i forgot, i will try to not make political forum posts on talk pages anymore" could have been so easy. Especially on a Talk page that has a nice yellow header reminding you of WP:NOTFORUM and other admins being active on said page deleting based on it. Let me quote your post again that is somehow relevant to an article talk page:

Trump knows that if he loses, he's screwed. Jail or not, he's bankrupt. Republicans are distancing themselves. Barr has reached a point where even he won't go further (there is a qualitative difference between nobbling a prosecution as a favor and starting one for political advantage). The only people still loyal to him are the original Trump campaign clown bus, less the ones who have gone to jail.,

Astonishing that someone who is 15y admin would make such political blog posts and surprising that no other admin who is enforcing WP:NOTFORUM takes action and that a new user has to remind you. btw. im fine if you want one of your friends to check my IP, if this helps you feel save and avoids possible conspiracy theories from you or Doug, so be it. Sorry if you feel attacked by getting reminded about basic wikipedia rules. --Judahclipt (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so you didn't understand the relevance. My bad, should have explained it better, but you could have asked.

The personality cult of Trump might survive him being jailed, but it won't survive him being broke. The unholy alliance of QAnon and other mad cultists, and foreign influence operators seeking to create an America open to corruption, know that they won't get the same kind of traction with Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Trump is I think the only significant figure in US politics who's argued for relaxation of laws to prevent foreign bribery by US businesses. So the stakes are incredibly high, and when the stakes are high outside, Wikipedia always feels the fallout. If the Biden conspiracy theory is going to get any serious traction it has to be reflected as fact, rather than as a conspiracy theory, in mainstream sources, before it unravels. And that's why we're seeing disruption at that page and others that are related.

Now we're both on the same page you can go back to your original account. Unless you're blocked? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must ask

I must ask you, why didn’t you back me up at the noticeboard? You said you’d support letting me edit talk pages. That may have been my only chance for weeks to get any editing privileges back. I would just like you to explain to me why you did not back me up (and openly oppose) when I went for an unban. Maybe it’s something we can work out so that next time I try you will advocate for me and not against me. Thanks Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I said I would support a self-aware appeal to reduce the scope. What you posted was... not that. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Understood. So, when I appeal again, what would I have to say to make you support the lowered ban? Would this do?

“I understand that in my previous edits, I added independent and unreliable sources. I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages on reliability and independence and promise not to add any of these types of sources again. If I am ever unsure again, I will make sure I ask at the talk page and gain consensus before adding information on living persons.”

Would you support this? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Lima Bean Farmer, you need to say what you would do differently. That might include checking at RSN when looking at a source, for example. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point! Let me try this again:

“I understand that in my previous edits, I added independent and unreliable sources. I have reviewed the Wikipedia pages on reliability and independence and promise not to add any of these types of sources again. Before adding any information (to mainspace or talk pages), I will first check wikipedia:RSPSOURCES to see the reliability of the source. For any large additions, I will do this and gain consensus on the talk page before adding any sources that go with more than a couple of names. If I am ever unsure again, I will make sure I ask at the talk page and gain consensus before adding information on living persons.”

Is this better? Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

Dona nobis pacem

music today, - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn that I heard on 3 October, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore as she played for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories less musical, moar black&white, a great conductor, a great editor, both appreciated too little --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I added a bit more background behind the apples. On ANI, you said "needs to stop" and I asked "how?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Strange otherworldly phenomenon at WP:JIMBOTALK

Am I misinterpreting the diffs or did Atsme modify Bus stop's comment in the course of this diff to remove wording which Bus stop then re-inserted in this subsequent response to you? Perhaps telepathy or extraterrestrials are involved. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 11:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That's definitely curious. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is obviously^{[Citation Needed]} a case of ""timefoolery" as documented in this completely reliable^{[Citation Needed]} source:[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I'm not sure what you mean by "timefoolery"? I thought you meant that maybe they were mixing multiple edits into the link so I checked and no, it's Atsme removing that comment and adding other things all in one go, with Bus Stop re-adding the wording on reply to JzG.

• 20:52, 17 October 2020‎ Bus stop talk contribs‎ 178,364 bytes +263‎ →‎Some specific cases undo
• 21:17, 17 October 2020‎ Atsme talk contribs‎ 180,748 bytes +2,384‎ →‎Some specific cases: add Jimbo quotes undo
• 21:23, 17 October 2020‎ JzG talk contribs‎ 180,986 bytes +238‎ →‎Some specific cases: Replying to Bus stop (using reply-link) undo
• 21:43, 17 October 2020‎ Bus stop talk contribs‎ 181,574 bytes +588‎ →‎Why I am quitting Wikipedia after 16 years undo

There are no edits in between. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"Timefoolery" refers to the source I linked to, where America's Most Trusted News Source^{[Citation Needed]} says "a singing jewel will descend from the heavens and mystically bless you with fabulous space-time powers. We're not 100 percent sure why this happens, but it does. And as a result, the Cracked editorial board has been forced to place a strict ban on what we colloquially call 'timefoolery' (or 'sportsalmanacking'). In other words, all contributors are forbidden from using their Time-Lord abilities to assist in the research or writing of articles. Otherwise, our site would just be a laundry list of tomorrow's lotto numbers and excerpts from William Shakespeare's upcoming play. (Spoiler alert: He was Thomas Pynchon all along!)"

In case you missed it,[2] we are all joking about something that appears at first glance to require time travel. Carefully explaining[3] that time-travel was not actually involved rather spoils the joke.

BTW, did you click on the "Citation Needed" links above, or did you, like most people, assume without checking that you know what they link to? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

To be explicit, the original joke was that these edits kinda sorta make it look like Bus stop is a sock of Atsme or vice-versa, or perhaps there are two users but they are participating in some sort of gestalt hive mind, rather than time travel; JzG has had to evict some socks already in the course of recent JIMBOTALK discussions. But I was amused to learn of the term "timefoolery" and that is an amusing Cracked article.

If that is sockpuppetry, though, that is some major long-haul stuff, given that the Atsme account dates to 2011 and the Bus stop account dates to 2006. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 18:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Struthious Bandersnatch, why didn't you simply ask me what happened on my UTP? You could've at least pinged me or Bus stop when you noticed something irregular instead of disturbing two Guys for nothing? FYI, here is the explanation. For future reference, I don't do socks, or play little kid games on WP, but you might catch me at a WikiCon with a sockpuppet 🧦✋🏻 on my hand having a little fun. Cheers!! 🍺 Atsme 💬 📧 23:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Atsme: I did convey that it seemed unlikely, given how long both you and Bus stop have been editing. The reason I mentioned it here is because it's an admin who has already been investigating sockpuppetry in the same talk page discussion who would know whether it all adds up to be obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring as proposed in the WP:SIGNS of Sockpuppetry essay.
    I'm glad it turned out to be innocuous, though it would have been kind of cool if one of the supernatural phenomena explanations turned out to be real. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 00:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I confess—I am Atsme—we are joined at the hips—we've created a new genitalia—it has a co-creationist bent with a little dangling thing at the end. It's really quite cute. I was thinking of entering it in a competition for weirdness but Atsme feels that would be a violation of basic morality. Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Like hell - that just sounds too freaking weird, even for me. 🙈🙉🙊 Atsme 💬 📧 00:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I retract my weirdness, Atsme. I'm cracking up. I no longer know right from wrong. Please accept my apology. Bus stop (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

HubPages Mediawiki addition

I replied to your comment there a while ago. I am not sure if you watch it. Graywalls (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, thanks, I do, but it can get buried a way down the ol' watchlist. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel obligated to bring this up

About [4], please consider WP:PROXYING, regardless of whether or not you personally agreed with the community's decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

After I hit save, I realized that that comes across as more confrontational than what I intended, so please let me dial it back a bit. It's just that I feel that banned means banned, and using a talk page to suggest content edits (or anything other than requesting an appeal or clarification) might be a reason to shut off talk page access, but I felt it would be better to bring this up with you instead of going to a drama board with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, oh, thanks - didn't spot that this was a bannination not just a block. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, this stuff gets confusing for me too. There was a lengthy community discussion, a review of the close, and a review of the review of the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, not surprised. I can lose track,m there are so many disruptive users baned these days. It used to be a rare thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo

You coming to this page to stir up trouble with terms like "fash" and "neo-nazi apologist" is not productive or helpful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, oh, is he not popular with the fash then? Seems to me he is, but then, I don't;t have your degree of objectivity, with a quarter of your edits being to three articles, two on Muslim women and one on an Islamophobic grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, right, you got me, you must be referring to Linda Sarsour which I helped elevate to GA status. What a horrible contribution to the encyclopedia. More WP:SOAPBOXING is really what the Andy Ngo talk page needs, excuse me for questioning you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, and is she Muslim? And is Ilhan Omar Miuslim? So that's two Muslim women and an Islamophobic grifter, and that's 25% of your edits. I see a pattern. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? I can edit whatever page I please, and I have no idea what you mean by "a pattern." And no, I don't shy away from controversial pages, and I'm very proud of my edits at Linda Sarsour, which helped bring a contentious article to a sufficient level of neutrality to earn GA status. You are violating WP:CIVIL with these repugnant accusations, WP:BLP by calling the subject of an article "Islamophobic" (I have not seen that in the New York Times, Washington Post, or any other reputable source, and even if so, you should be attributing those statements), and WP:SOAPBOX with your off-topic and disruptive rants about the subject at Andy Ngo about the same. Adminship is not a license to bully others or violate the tenets of talk page discussion. I really find your conduct here baffling. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

AE Complaint

Hi Guy, I have mentioned you in an AE report here: [5]. I'm not requesting that action be taken against you, but I have suggested that given your views expressed at Talk:Julian Assange, you probably shouldn't be acting as an admin there. -Darouet (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

YGM, if you're awake

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.— Atsme 💬 📧 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your excellent, calm rebuttal of the Hunter Biden conspiracy theory at Jimbo's talk page. It's much appreciated. Jr8825 • Talk 00:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Link insertion audit

Is there a way to run a check on whose been inserting certain links like the "COI" link to evaluate if it's worthy of reporting? It looks like the COI bot link is populated only after the links have been reported Graywalls (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Graywalls, COIBot has a "poke" page where you can add a link to request that the link be generated, you'd need to ask Beetstra to add you to the trusted users group for that. There are also IRC channels where you can request the bot generate a report. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

2020-10 mainstreaming blood libel

Hello,

In Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory#Talk page mention you wrote « it's unclear to me how, for example, something like the blood libel could be transformed by being mainstreamed by grifters into anything other than an antisemitic conspiracy theory. » FYI, according to Richard Landes, Nidra Poller and some other proponents of the Muhammad al-Durrah conspiracy theory, claiming that the israeli army kill children is blood libel. [6] Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE?

Am I mistaken, or does this history show a sole focus on pushing BLP violating smears and content? -- Valjean (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This latest one is clearly too far. I have deleted identical sections in two articles and warned two editors, but stronger warnings and measures are needed. Unreliable sources should not appear on talk pages as back-up for BLP vios or content suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Small note

Hi JzG, I just wanted to let you know I removed two comments that were very much WP:NOTFORUM material from a discussion you closed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=985389328&oldid=985387677

I also don't think the accounts they came from, User:Krischik and User:Bjorklund21 make a lot of sense, especially the Krischik one. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Also this is... interesting... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WisDom-UK&diff=prev&oldid=985331716 IHateAccounts (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings Krischik ^T 21:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Krischik, Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion pages are not the same as the article pages. If Wikipedia starts to censor the discussion pages then the Wikipedia moderators have reached a totally new level of authoritarianism. The Wikipedia moderators have been autocrats for years which is the reason I stopped contributing or donating for that matter. I only came here after Wikipedia hit the news again for political bias. And to my dismay I saw that now even the discussion pages are full of “discussion closed”. And as I now know: Also deleting criticism of censorship. Krischik ^T 21:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not an experiment in free speech, not a place to promote conspiracy theories. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

[ https://xkcd.com/1357/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, never truer than it is today. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Gay Frogs United Will Never Be Defeated: Kiss A Gay Frog Today!!

What do you think of this edit [7] (and several similar edits in the user's history)?

I personally don't like the use of "Controversies" when there really is no controversy -- when every source says the subject of the page is bad and zero sources say that it is good. But I am not sure about "public behavior"; it sort of implies something done in public as opposed to, say, on twitter.

The only replacements that I have come up with all involve the word "craptacular"... --Guy Macon (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, it’s hard to see the merit of a controversies section in an article on someone as unhinged as Jones. What has he done that isn’t controversial? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violation

Hi JzG,

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=985443845 seems to be a violation of the policy especially since the accusation has been shown false by Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-corruption-burisma-biden-trump-giuliani/2020/06/14/9ca28342-adb1-11ea-a43b-be9f6494a87d_story.html IHateAccounts (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: this seems to be a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cpurick&diff=prev&oldid=985543697 IHateAccounts (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A full list of all the nonsense and conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and believed by his sycophants.

George T. Conway III closes with: "I believe that if the president somehow does lose, he might 'have to leave the country.' I believe he probably should." -- Valjean (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, A full list? Ain't nobody got time for that. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

LMAO! Good point. -- Valjean (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Roy McCoy

Hi JzG, I just thought I should let you know about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl#Anti-fascist. He's ranting about David Ray Griffin on that page now. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Roy is here to write an encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKillings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl&type=revision&diff=985781162&oldid=985764218 IHateAccounts (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

still October harvest

... you archive fast. Please explain what the idea is behind redirecting talk pages to user pages? (I nominated articles by banned and blocked users for GA, DYK?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, if a user is banned (rather than just blocked) we often redirect the talk page to the user page, so people directed to talk by semi-automated tools don't leave messages expecting a reply, and also to flag that they may want to look closer at the content they were there to talk about. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong about leaving a message? (I face "no reply" quite often from users around.) Why make it hard to find information what kind of user that was for us others? - I see many talk pages of users retired or dead when reminding of Precious, and sometimes I clean up a bit. One of the best talk pages I know is by a banned user. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

ping --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

look! - stunning photo by a banned user --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I really don't have strong feelings on this. I redirect talk pages if I see what seems to me to be good faith people commenting there who might not otherwise realise that they're not going to get a reply. If anyone wants to undo the redirect I'm not going to object. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I had good contact to the user in question, so may be biased and won't interfere. - Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews in German, but music and scene. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Just in case I misrepresented you

You made a comment about B2C on 30 Sept/1st Oct (sorry not got exact diff) which led to an attempt to rewrite WP:NPA. I have only just noticed the drama and don't intend to follow it but hope that what I have said on the NPA talk page does not misrepresent you or Calton the other admin/editor. Apologies if what I think you and Calton said was my misreading. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you can ignore this as stale, I didn't misrepresent you evidently - and it has already been called by Johnuniq here. So off to the shops. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, heh! Thanks for the note, though. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)