User talk:JzG/Archive 118

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

Archive 119

Archive 120

→

Archive 125

Ha!

From Reductress, the "women's news" analog of The Onion: [1] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 08:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Heh! [Like]. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 10:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Robbie Glover

Please don't delete drafts I have been working on, without at least giving me (or the page creator) the courtesy of a deletion notice. I see none on my page or the creator's talk page. Just because it was deleted years ago for G11, does not mean it always has to be deleted. The whole point of Draft space is to allow users to create a document in an area which is non-indexed by the search engines. The document has been reviewed by the AFC reviewers, none of which have suggested that it is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", and have given valid suggestions to improve the document. Maybe you are just a deletionist, or do you have there some particular axe to grind against this individual, if so I suggest you keep such things away from Wikipedia. I intend to keep improving this page until a reviewer accepts it - which is the way the WP:AFC should work, not by people coming in at random and deleting pages. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This guy has been trying to spam his article onto Wikipedia for years. Sorry, I hate spammers. BLP, not sumitted for over a year, blah blah. And he's a spammer. That. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have rephrased a fair amount to start to bring it into a Wikipedia standard (as was suggested by the first reviewer), bad references (self-promotional) are also being removed. Not sure of your date calculations, the last review (as clearly shown) was 2nd Jan this year. Since then I have had major issues with PC and also very busy outside WP. PC is now repaired and I am starting to catch up with the backlog of thing I need to do. He may have started with a very badly written article, I do not dispute that. However there is certainly enough notability for an article (any singer with two number one hits would probably be the same), the issue is finding suitable acceptable references, as those number ones were over a large portion of Eastern Europe, and therefore are very difficult to track down - I may be in the UK, but I'm not travelling to Macedonia just to track down references. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I just wish you hadn't touched it. Rewarding spammers by fixing their spam so that they can have their article is not something I would ever do. And this guy is a spammer: multiple socks, multiple re-creations, emails demanding inclusion, and absolutely no interest whatsoever in wikipedia other than as a venue to promote himself. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Giant GRB Ring

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant GRB Ring: note the original paper is in MNRAS, with a preprint also posted on arxiv. I don't think this changes the outcome, but you might want to amend your statement. --Amble (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please wait for more sources for Black Book Market Research article

Hi Guy - I wanted to notify you that I restored the article you removed, Black Book Market Research. There are additional sources of notability on the company web site, so I thought you'd prefer to wait until I can finish adding them, and then have a notability discussion if you still feel the group is unambiguous advertising and promotion. Cheers Mate.TechnoTalk (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please take your advertorial elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding deletion of my page

Hi! I see that you deleted my page Draft:Randy_Clark_(evangelist) on July 14. Reason: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW)) Could you explain this any more for me? I wasn’t attempting to create any advertising; were you referring to some sort of adware that got infected into the page? Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Randy_Clark_(evangelist) Josephcotten.global (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Joseph Cotten

You are the web development specialist for the subject. See WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING. That seems to be your sole purpose here. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just curious why you reverted on Brian Leiter. Thanks.Philosophy Junkie (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, JzG, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, shiny! For the confused, my first edit was as Just zis Guy, you know? on 20 August 2004. Which was my wedding anniversary, not sure why I was editing that day. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Access to medical sources through The Wikipedia Library

Hi Guy, thanks for your interest in various medical sources available from The Wikipedia Library. We need some responses from you to process your requests:

1. I have just sent you an email for DynaMed with a form to fill out
2. I sent you an email regarding Royal Pharmaceutical Society about 2 weeks ago and have not yet got a response - let me know if you didn't get it (it does sometimes end up in spam)
3. For Cochrane Library, there is a form linked from the top of the page to fill out so that your details are passed along to them

We're working on a method to streamline our application process, but for the moment we've still got a lot of forms. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Mum is moving house, you know how it is! I have the emails and will reply this weekend. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, just ping me when it's all done and I can run everything through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Swivel-eyed loon

I note that BLP policy applies in talk pages and your description is a classic violation of BLP policy. I suggest a removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Although I happen to love the description and (properly referenced) would love to see it used in more articles. You have a great gift for turn of phrase. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not my phrase, it is usually attributed to "an unnamed senior Tory" (as a phrase, at least) and its application to Monckton comes from Richard North. The provenance will be clear to anyone in the UK, as coined it applies to rabid Europhobes (which Monckton is), defectors to UKIP (again, he is) and cranks (again, the jury is in with a unanimous verdict). Monckton is the canonical example of the species I would say. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! This is why I love wikipedia! Thanks! "Swivel-eyed loon", heh. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The poor chap also has a real medical condition which makes him appear like a swivel eyed loon. Marty Feldman had the same condition. For info only. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Feldman had UKIPitis? Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No. He was a comic genius. </stating the obvious> -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

He shares that with Monckton for sure (I know Feldman's work of old), I was referring to the reason for the swivel eyes. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Graves disease. There are many things for which Monckton could be said to deserve condemnation, but his medical condition should be off limits. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I do know this (my wife has Graves, but without the eye problems). I was being flippant. The term "swivel-eyed loon" is about opinions, not physical appearance. Its provenance makes that pretty clear. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I can be pretty dense sometimes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, this is a limitation of non-real-time text-based interaction, I was not clear enough in the first place. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Academy of Achievement. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC) (suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Notification_of_suspicious_behavior_by_administrator regarding suspicious behavior. The thread is Notification of suspicious behavior by administrator.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechnoTalk (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Clarification please

You have repeatedly talked about "the issues identified" and I have repeatedly told you that no evidence of "persistent battleground behaviour" was present by The Blade of the Northern Lights". On the contrary I have presented Sandstein and Cla68 who say the opposite. Could you substantiate your claim?MOMENTO (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your review of the Wiki Education handbook on writing biography articles

Hello! I work with the non-profit Wiki Education Foundation. We're creating a handbook for student editors in higher ed who are assigned to write biographies on Wikipedia. I hoped you might be willing to spare some time to review the text of that brochure and offer comments on its Talk page? You can find it here. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental guiding rule is: the subject doesn't have to like it, but they should at least acknowledge that it is fair. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

less quackery or more acurate ?

JzG, let me try to answer your question: "why are you so determined to make naturopathy look less like the quackery it is". As I told you earlier, I think that life is more interesting when swimming against the mainstream. If I would be a lawyer, I would be the devil's advocate, but it would not mean that I would support the devil. Did I in any way support quackery ? I don't think so. Do you realize that a WP:BIAS can happen in both ways ? Did you realize that some "good willing" editors and admins are becoming insane as soon as it concerns quackery ? One of them did even rephrase the Constitution because, according to his opinion, it was too favorable to quackery. Is it in line with Wikipedia principles ? Why did you not join this interesting Talk section ? There are enough admins and editors fighting against quackery here. Editors and admins shall not be fighting for pros or cons. They shall simply apply WP:V in a neutral and objective way. I don't want quackery to be seen less quackery. I want Naturopathy article (and all WP articles at a later stage...) to be less WP:BIAS, to be more in line with WP:RS and WP:RS/MC, even when such sources can be seen "too favorable" by cons. I will not hesitate to revert undue pros if need be... but other editors and admins are faster than me for reverting pros. Who else is reverting undue cons ?! Maybe I am too much involved and too much SPA for the moment. I have taken naturopathy as my sandbox for understanding Wikipedia. For my learning curve, I could have choosen other "hot" article like Holocaust or Palestine... But I have choosen Naturopathy simply because I can better understand the pros and cons. Paulmartin357 (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not swim against the mainstream. This is by design. Special pleading is unwelcome here: naturopathy is quackery, we tell it like it is. This is precisely in line with our foundational goals (see Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans). To accuse reality-based editors of being insane because they oppose addition of special pleading into articles on quackery, says much more about you than it does about them. The fight against quackery is necessary and will not go away: Wikipedia has become one of the most important places for quacks to have their incorrect beliefs reflected as fact, and that means the reality-based community has to act as gatekeepers. The fact that you have done virtually nothing on Wikipedia other than advocate for naturopathy, is a red flag. Lecturing long-term editors and admins on neutrality and Wikipedia's purpose is another. Some of us have experienced vicious personal attacks as a result of defending neutrality, and being hectored by a single-purpose account who apparently doesn't understand the difference between WP:NPOV and m:MPOV doesn't go down well. How I spend my limited time is my business, not yours, and I do hope you will eventually give a simple yes/no answer to the question you keep evading on that Talk page: do you practice this particular form of quackery. Don't bother replying here, one venue for this tedious banging of heads is quite sufficient. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not pretend that WP is swimming against the mainstream. If you are "believing" that quoting the Constitution is "a special pleading", then we are having a big problem here. If you are "believing" that rephrasing the Constitution is in line with WP:PG, then we are having a big problem here. I am "believing" that if an Encyclopedia is twisting the text of the Consitution, then it is an insane situation. Fighting quackery (which is good and necessary) shall not prevent to remain objective and to respect WP:NPOV. An Encyclopedia is not an "endictment". It is "NPOV information". I did never "advocate" for Naturopathy. I did add new reliable sources (some of it disturbing the "strong beliefs" of some other editors) and did check existing poor sources (idem). "Beliefs" are making people blind. There is not a "good side of belief" and a "bad side of belief". There is only "beliefs". "Beliefs" are bad. If we cannot question the unquestionnable (swimming against mainstream), then we are blind, then we are running the risk to produce biased information with good faith. If you are "believing" that I am too much SPA here, please designate another "hot" article where I will demonstrate my ability to "question the unquestionnable". Check Naturopathy article in French (much quieter than here). I have proposed to remove lots of "quackery" content there. Paulmartin357 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You said "life is more interesting when swimming against the mainstream". So it might be, but on Wikipedia it tends to be interesting in the sense of "may you live in interesting times" - Wikipedia is, by design, a mainstream encyclopaedia, and is not the place to "fix|" the "problem" that the mainstream rejects this or that delusional nonsense. Now, as I said, I have no interest in discussing this further here, the article talk page is the correct venue. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to be misunderstood. For sure, Wikipedia is mainstream and shall remain mainstream. But "swimming against the mainstream" means "questionning the unquestionable" (this is a very scientific attitude indeed), because the "mainstream attitude" can drive into errors and mistakes, simply because people tend to become blind in the mainstream. I will not bother you further here about this topic. Thanks for your answers and for your time. Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What part of "take your special pleading elsewhere" are you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 23:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, JzG. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GMO articles. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Everett Stern Page"

Please remove the COI Tags and all of the media comments from the Talk Page. The posts are not neutral or fair to the subject. The article does not have a conflict.Everettstern (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC) I personally emailed the emergency response team a couple of months ago about the user who is making the conflict claim. I need the admins to see the full scope of the situation. What do I do and how do I resolve this? If there is anything in the article that is not true then I encourage anyone to remove it. I am not writing the article. I did pay one person to make changes after the page was attacked and after I was threatened. Should I post the emails to the Admins or explain the situation? Please provide me with detailed instructions as I am not used to this system. The allegations being made against me are serious and I want to resolve this right away. Thank you for your time and help.Everettstern (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bickering"

Hi, I don't like the implication in your closure that I'm "bickering". Please note that I put in a lot of hard work and made substantial improvements to the article in question. I have tracked down and cited some very relevant and important historical sources. I am still reviewing my sources (I need to translate some of them) and intend to use them to further improve the article. There was no disruptive behaviour on my part and at no point did I "bicker" with anyone. The thread I opened at ANI was short and sweet, I gave just the facts without using any emotive terms. Please don't "lump" me, like it says on my user page I am here to create content, not to start drama. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not just you, it's everybody. Just leave each other alone and get on with your day. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"It's not just you, it's everybody". "Leave each other alone". You missed the entire point of what I wrote there. To reiterate:

I am doing the research and substantially improving the article in question. I am not bickering or point scoring. I resent being lumped in with this person, and I resent the implication that I am in any way to blame for the disruption which was unilaterally initiated by this person.

Your suggestion that I should be topic banned from this article was also rather infuriating after the work I put into it. Please think before you casually dismiss me like this. Do you remember what it's like to be a content creator? MaxBrowne (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes the response is always going to be "a plague on both your houses". This is one of those times. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

In other words you just don't give a shit. Not a good attitude for an admin. Bullied kids get this all the time, some other kid picks on him, teacher tells them "you two stop fighting!" as if the bullied kid is equally to blame for it. Clearly you did not look into this in sufficient detail before you made that closure with your thoughtless comments. And as for continuing to lump me like this - well, I'd be in violation of WP:NPA if I said what I'm actually thinking. I deliberately kept things as low-key as possible, but still I get the "plague on both your houses" crap from you. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit war at Marriage squeeze

You insist the edits by User:MichaelBLewis72 are self-promotion, yet the reference he adds is *peer-reviewed* article in a *scientific journal*, not a blog or website. I encountered reference to Lewis' article outside wikipedia and thought it has to have its place in Marriage squeeze. As I have no affiliation to Lewis and/or his works, you cannot remove material by saying "self promotion". Alliumnsk (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is WP:PRIMARY and promoting someone who has abused the project for self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see him abusing the project now. He may have been banned, but his materials are not blacklisted. I see you are now abusing the project goals. Alliumnsk (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Be a bit careful when confusing admins with ten years' experience of "abusing the project's goals". You are promoting primary sourced material by someone banned from Wikipedia for promoting exactly that material, and you have fewer than 100 edits. That puts you in a rather dodgy place. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a rule which prevents me adding it, or are you inventing it? I am not promoting it. The article is not complete without all points of view. If there were any others articles on the topic, I would add them. Alliumnsk (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Per the link below, could you please take a look at the Multiple Chemical Sensativieis or Idiopathic Environmental Intolerence page? You mentioned blocking a user who keeps making spurious edits (e.g. the chemical companies are assassinating opposition voices and silencing research that would show their crimes), but he keeps logging on with different accounts and reverting. It's already a completely pseudoscience article, but it really shouldn't have discussion that begins with "much like tobacco companies in the past, chemical companies are now...", degrades into discussion of murder attempts by chemical companies and then goes only deeper off the reservation from there. Obviously none of these edits are sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athana — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientificMethodGuy (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)