User talk:JzG/Archive 107

Archive 100

←

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Your ANI close

Hi JzG. Your abrupt close of this ANI thread suppresses a legitimate and serious discussion about an editor's conduct. I think it's particularly faulty to close it as querulous, since the OP presented diffs, examples and clam explanations. While I doubt that you will reopen the thread, or actually intervene to address the reported issues, I at least want to go on record as strongly objecting to the close. Collect's battleground behavior which includes misrepresentation, edit warring, refusal to respond to legitimate questions, filibustering, false analogies, forum shopping, and personal attacks is damaging to the project. While I don't think that ANI is particularly well equipped to deal with it, the editors demoralized by his conduct should at least be able to present their evidence and have it objectively reviewed by uninvolved users. - MrX 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start an RFC. This is not an obvious quick-action case, and that is the only kind that can be fixed on ANI. Long experience indicates that ANI only makes things worse. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand and respect your view. RFC/U no longer exists, so I will explore other avenues of resolution.- MrX 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's only a battleground if there are two or more persons in dispute. It would behoove the lot of you well if you all (including Collect) disengaged. You file an arbcom case and it is going to go south on the lot of you.--MONGO 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. The issue with the ANI request is that it was not so much a request for review as a rallying cry to attract supporters, at least to my eyes. That is never a good idea, especially at that venue. I hadn't spotted RFC/U was shut down (though I can see why), but this still needs picking apart: content issues via RFC and AFD, conduct issues via DR. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Damn you

I did a coffee take at work this morning when I read your comments at WP:ARBREQ. An "unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness," indeed. HiDrNick! 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Thanks for this. Would you mind indicating the version you reverted back to? Perhaps in the log? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

this one, but actually all the ones I reviewed suck to a greater or lesser degree, so please feel at complete liberty to find a better one if you can, and remove the tags (other than AfD unless you find one that is actually credible sourced). That's no disrespect to those involved in trying to clean it up, there have been many spammy edits and a good number of good faith attempts to tone them down or clean them up, most of which amount to a turd-polishing exercise. It's hard to believe that a right-leaning group who have published books on scientific dissent to Darwinian evolution, would have escaped any substantial criticism or scrutiny ion the process. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a link to your closing comments. I hope you don't mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you, I think that adds meaningfully to the attempt to get a properly Wikipedian outcome. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan (2001–14)

You moved this without leaving a redirect, which has left behind a fantastic number of broken redirects, see User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects. I stopped counting at 50. I suppose the simplest thing to do is restore War in Afghanistan (2001–14) as a redirect to the new title and let the bot sort out all the resulting double-redirects, though the number does seem considerable overkill. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Six of the eight navboxes on the page linked to the old article and had to be corrected so the links would display correctly. These would be responsible for many broken links. Interestingly, as a rsesult of the move we now have War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and War in Afghanistan (2015–present). --AussieLegend (✉) 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page for War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Thanks for close. I was wonder if you could also move the talk page as it is still at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14).(Edit: talk page has been moved) I assume for the close at MRV you meant "Overturn (as No-consensus)" instead of just plain "No-consensus" (see Wikipedia:Move_review#Closing reviews). And yes I'm pretty sure they your comment at request for close will be true especially as the sides seem at least to me to be talking past each other. PaleAqua (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's about it, yes. I did click the box for talk page move, not sure why it didn't happen. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries, happens. My guess it that you got the don't leave redirect instead of the move talk page button. I've made a similar mistake on another wiki before. I added a slightly clarification to your close and fixed the formatting at move review. Hope you don't mind. Feel free to remove my clarification and/or edit the bolded bit if you wish, especially if I made a mistake. It's likely that the log page will be archived soon and the headers removed as all the other reviews on the page are also closed. PaleAqua (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

See the spanking-new ArbCom case just filed -- seems a bit too much, no? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit premature, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I could not understand what anybody could possibly object to in some of the essays, other than the fact that they describe the reaosns why they can't treat bullshit as fact, which some of them, at least, seem very determined to do. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and a question

Thank you, enormously, for closing that incredibly attenuated RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. I and I'm sure every one of us involved appreciate it every much. I'm not quite sure I understand what the result is. I think it means that running times need to be cited by third-party sources and not by measurement or a DVR reading, according to WP:NOR. Is that correct, or am I misreading? Thank you for any clarification / information, and again thank you for taking the very considerable amount of time to read that long RfC discussion. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. A reliable third party source is required. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect to what Tenebrae is asking, that both is and isn't true. WP:V requires that everything be verifiable, but not that everything be cited. Tenebrae is insisting that every running time be cited, essentially because that's the way that WP:FILM does it. However, there are arguments as to why this is not practical, the main one being that episode times vary, and because of this {{Infobox television}} does not ask for specific times, only an approximation, which every editor, except Tenebrae, agrees means that mandatory citing (which is beyond the requirements of WP:V) is not necessary. I agree with the aspect of your close that says we can't agree to ignore NOR, but that aspect of the discussion was ignored by everyone except Tenebrae. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to re-read WP:NOR. I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

NOR really isn't the issue. Tenebrae wants a citation for every running time, regardless of the source. Neither NOR or WP:V require citations for everything. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to my question, JzG. Again, all of us in the RfC appreciate all the time and effort you took. We know it wasn't easy.

AussieLegend, with all respect, please abide by the RfC's admin-closed decision. An admin is explaining directly to you that this is, indeed, an OR issue. I trust and hope you will not be inserting uncited claims of purported running times based on your personal observations. A DVR reading is not primary content of a television show, as the plot would be, any more so than a theater marquee is primary content of a movie. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in replaying the debate. If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question. The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no"< for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. As you said, "A reliable third party source is required", one way or another. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And whether it's cited inline, noted in the text or whatever, is of no relevance tot he narrow question, so do beware of the trap of thinking that source necessarily equals inline cited source at the point of reference. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Understood. In any instance I mention this, I say only "third-party source required" and leave it at that. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@JzG:I understand that you don't want to replay the debate, and I'm not asking you to do that. You have addressed my concerns by saying If someone wants to start an RfC to discuss whether inline citation is required in the infobox or not, always assuming that the source of the figure is established from reliable independent sources, then that is a different question. Funnily enough, that's what Tenebrae was trying to achieve with the discussion. The first part of the RfC question was Do TV-show running times in the TV infobox require a citation, so it's not another question, it's the same one. Your close seems to concentrate on the second part of the question. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand. The RfC had two questions packed together. The nature of one, meant that if the two were considered together, only one outcome is possible per policy. Feel free to unpack the separate question of inline citations. In fact, I positively encourage you to do so. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, RfC respondents only addressed the issue of requirements for citations, not the OR issue, which is something I was trying to get across to Tenebrae, who now thinks that your close means that citations have to be supplied. I do understand what you're saying though. Thanks for your patience. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for clogging up your talk page even further, but I'm afraid I don't see how your interpretation is compatible with policy. There are two types of information allowed on Wikipedia per WP:V, WP:OR, etc.: information explicitly supported by reliable sources in the same article (although some leeway is given to the exact placement of citations, they must always be present somewhere in the same article), and information that Wikipedia editors are permitted to enter themselves (e.g. routine calculations). You've just stated that the latter is inapplicable here, so it must be the former... and yet you claim that citations may or may not be required? Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for JzG, obviously, but if something is cited in the article body, then it doesn't have to be cited in the infobox. That might be at least part of what was meant. Also, separately, just for accuracy's sake: One post says, "Tenebrae ... now thinks that your close means that citations have to be supplied." Actually, that's not really correct. I noted at 19:00, 20 March 2015, that I say only "third-party source required". All good.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

The purpose of this message is to remind you that the consensus reached in the deletion review regarding BDD's improper closure of a debate regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect, which you closed approximately two and a half hours ago, is still awaiting enactment. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just came by to post this same reminder. Does your close mean that you will relist it, or that someone else should relist it? I'm not too familiar with the ins-and-outs of deletion reviews, but I see that you also closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 8#Intercollegiate Studies Institute and have already carried out the required action; perhaps you just missed the other one? Ivanvector (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone else needs to relist it, if people still want it listed. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the actual rationale to do that myself, and don't want to botch it up for you all. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What you just said doesn't make the least bit of sense. Either implement the consensus or revert your close and let someone else perform it properly. For the future: drive-by mass-closing of DRVs is ill-advised. Quality > quantity, etc. If you're not 'sufficiently familiar with the actual rationale' (what's that even mean?), what made you believe you were qualified to close the DRV in the first place? 79.35.38.183 (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I am a bit puzzled why you would believe that there was consensus enough in the deletion review to close as "relist at Rfd" but then question whether "people still want it listed" - that is what you are supposed to have judged. I have relisted the Rfd myself, as the logical interpretation of your "relist" closing comment. Ivanvector (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Basically, there was no consensus in the review. Good faith arguments were made for a relist, and thus a wider debate. The review debate was a stalemate. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to badger you about this, I'd like to understand so that I'm not doing anything out of context. If there was no consensus in the review, shouldn't you have closed the review as "no consensus"? You explicitly closed it as "relist". Or did you mean to relist the deletion review? Man, this is a lot of headache for a redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. The review had no consensus but in as much as anything could be drawn from it ,it was the fact that a relist is unproblematic (which is often not the case - sometimes relisting after a review is pure disruption). So I guess "no consensus, no prejudice against relist" would be a better close. Do you want me to change it? Guy (Help!) 09:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No consensus?! Did you even read the discussion before closing it, or did you just look at the words in bold in front of people's statements and took a guess? You needn't answer, one look at your list of contributions is enough to know it was the latter, you only took 3 minutes to analyze the thing. I advise you to slow down a bit - don't close until you know what you're closing or you may find yourself deprived of the ability to close one day. Quality, not quantity. 79.35.38.183 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course I did (I often return two or three times to a thing before closing). My statement references comments made in the body. However, the text in bold is a significant indicator of the overall intent of the person !voting. I have been here a while, this is not exactly terra ingognita for me. Your route to challenge is WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

british

yes hello

"I am British,"

unobjectionable

"I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled)"

that is certainly one widely-accepted spelling, though it's important to remember that the spelling of words usually reflects historical pronunciation (sometimes in languages other than English) and so in that sense is arbitrary.

"and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school."

yes but unfortunately most dialects of english have undergone enormous change in the last few hundred years -- and many of the most commonly-spoken and highly-regarded british dialects are in fact much more 'recent', in a certain sense, than american dialects.

basically what i'm saying is that you should learn to speak like a person from the west country if you want historical english on your side.

thanks, your friend, in unity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.6.19 (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point is answered by the second half of the sentence. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Carmen, Cebu

Hi! Thanks for dealing with the revdel at Carmen, Cebu. But I'm afraid you haven't gone back far enough; the first copyvio by user Frozenfire46 was added in revision 651017488 at 09:31, 12 March 2015, and the revdeletion should go back to that version, inclusive. Could you have another crack at it, or would you rather I restored the copyvio-revdel request? Many thanks either way, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Missed the crud below the line, didn't scroll down far enough to see it. I think it's fixed now? Let me know if not. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, perfect, fixed now! Thank you so much! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Any time. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please explain your action after the close of Griffin's AfD...

[1] Deleting these links was inappropriate, so please revert. I have requested a review of the close. Atsme☯^Consult 14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. All I did was to stop them appearing in the link search results. I do that all the time, it helps when monitoring sites like whale.to which occasionally get proposed as sources by poeple who don't understand our sourcing policy. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thx. One more question - what harm is it for those links to be listed in the search results? Will it have any effect on my request to review the close? Atsme☯^Consult 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, no effect at all. The text is still in there, it's just that the MediaWiki software doesn't parse them as active links. Readers can still see what the source is and copy-paste into a browser window. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, Guy. (imaginary smiley emoji) Atsme☯^Consult 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Kristina451's indef-block

Hi. What do you currently think about Kristina451's indefinite block which you imposed on 4 March? She requested a (second) review of her block on the 10th, in which she answered a question from PhilKnight about the outing allegation. No one has touched her second block review request (now almost two weeks old). I also see that the SPI she filed against Sophie.grothendieck was closed several days ago. I'm currently leaning towards unblocking Kristina451 at this time, but I would like to hear from you first before taking any action. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this one where oversight rights are needed to review the diffs? Guy (Help!) 06:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm an Oversighter. After a more careful review of the suppressed info, I'm not totally convinced it could all have come from WHOIS, and I've posted a request for clarification on her talk page. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's messy. Feel free to unblock if you get a satisfactory explanation, I was only the first mop-wielder to pass by and I freely admit to knowing very little about the root of the dispute. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential edit warring on the Strauss and Howe page

It appears you've edited the same material more than 3 times at the Strauss Howe page in the last four days. I don't know if that technically qualifies as edit warring, but don't edit the same material again.

104.173.225.10 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What a coincidence. So have you. And only one of us has taken it to the Talk page with a rationale (that would be me). Guy (Help!) 08:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll spare you the stop sign warning. But as of today, you've edited the same material on the Strauss Howe page four or five times in the last five days. This clearly meets the Wikipedia definition of edit warring. If you do it again we'll need to go to an admin page. Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Odd that you seem to think your own edits are immune from this.Your reverts are running one ahead of mine (see WP:3RR). You are edit-warring for inclusion of self-published primary sources, see WP:RS and WP:V for the kind of sources that Wikipedia requires. Any material (and especially links) that is challenged, can be removed, and should stay out until consensus is achieved for inclusion. If you check my edit history (JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) you'll see that I have a good deal of experience in issues of sourcing. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not true, your edit history on Strauss and Howe clearly meets edit warring and mine does not. Count them please. The Strauss and Howe books are not self-published -- so please stop eradicating them from Wikipedia.104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That is flat wrong. An edit war requires two or more participants. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)