Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 114

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 110←Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115Archive 116→Archive 120

First Amendment

I was going to comment on your recent post on the infobox country page, but I figured it'd get lost there. Your argument says that "I don't think most Americans would be comfortable with Religion: Atheist in their infobox, even though this is formally and technically true from the First Amendment". This is completely wrong. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of an official state religion (correctly, as you stated, because of England's position), however it does not explicitly deny the existence of god. It does not even say that the existence of god is unknowable, which would make it agnostic. In fact, the Constitution specifically mentions god in Article VII: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." The United States is not an atheistic country, but a country where (in theory) any religion can be practiced, and it will never be at odds with an official state religion because there is not an official state religion. They were attempting to avoid the kind of outright religious bigotry and violence that happened in England between the Church of England and Roman Catholics. While it is a small point, and please don't think that I'm in any way upset about it, as I'm not, I thought it worth mentioning. Good day! Vyselink (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There is, constitutionally, no state religion. It is forbidden. Some of the founding fathers were atheists or deists, after all. You're engaging n a novel synthesis claiming that the use of the standard form for AD is endorsing religion. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be misreading or misunderstanding what I said. I am aware that, constitutionally, there is no state religion. I even stated that in the above, three times in fact, twice in the same sentence. But there being no official state religion does not mean "atheist". There is a difference between not allowing something and specifically saying that that something doesn't exist. The First Amendment makes no claims as far as the veracity of god is concerned, merely stating that the government can not "establish" an official religion in the same way that England did. Indeed, Jefferson wrote of the "wall of separation between Church & State", not that there was no Church. It is neither "formally" nor "technically" true that the US is atheist. The government is simply not allowed to also become the church, nor to place one religion, as far as legal aspects are concerned, above another. Vyselink (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"No official religion" is not the same as "atheist". Jehochman Talk 09:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps agnostic would be a better description. I doubt they'd be any happier with that. My point was that several of the founding fathers explicitly rejected xtianity, and some rejected religion outright. I think that having a religion parameter for any country that does not have an official state religion, is problematic on several levels. I am aware that we are all probably in violent agreement about most of the issues, I am pressed for time right now so have little leisure for nuance. I do understand the arguments. I was also being a little provocative, deliberately so, since a POV is being pushed and it seemed to me important to show the consequences of allowing POV to creep in. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country

Hi! Any chance you could move this comment[1] into the threaded discussion section? Threaded comment in the !voting sections tend to explode in size and make it hard to keep track of how the !votes are going. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a vote without a rationale is not the right way to do consensus. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
True, but in what way does that justify not responding in the threaded discussion section like everyone else? I am sure that there are a bunch of editors who think that particular !votes are flawed and would like to post threaded comments right below the !votes, and of course there are plenty of other editors who will be happy to post rebuttals below the comments, going back and forth for weeks. Having the threaded discussion in one place worked well for the last RfC and so far has been working well for this one.
Plus there is the aspect that some editors will see the big "DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION: and obey it, thus making it so that the editors most likely to follow the rules cannot easily disagree with your misplaced threaded comment.
I cannot enforce the "ground rules" in the RfC, but they were carefully written and have worked well so far, so I am once again going to politely request that you follow the same rules everyone else has been following. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
...aaaand we now have the second editor responding in the !vote section.[2] :( --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I see what you mean now. This is boring. Basically, the separate threaded discussion section is more or less bound to be ignored by a lot of people !voting. Meh. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I have asked for advice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎#RfC threaded comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Reynolds cancer charities

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Odoo

Hello - I don't think you respected the guidelines for deletion for the Wikipedia: Odoo page. Sure, I am just like others connected to the matter, but that does entitle you to ignore all presented evidence (which is mainly from independant sources) and the need for consensus? You've discarded all evidence presented on the basis of who presented it, which is against the Wikipedia guidelines for objective discussions based on evidence, not who is presenting it. Many pages about museums are maintained by their employees, does that mean that anything they write should be ignored ? From schools, universities to books, there is ample evidence that Odoo is notable and subject to in depth, independant reviews. Remember it's not just a company, it's a large open source project. Please reconsider this or let us know what additional evidence would be needed for undeletion. If not ok, we'll go through the deletion review process. Alexvdm01 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I disregarded single-purpose accounts. The sole remaining opinion was the nomination, which favoured delete. I also checked the history and deleted history and confirmed that the article was blatant advertising, just like the previous versions which were deleted. And there is virtually no involvement with this subject other than by SPAs. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Re. Single-purpose accounts. The page you refer to explicitly states that (quoting) " However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag. ", aka a SPA tag. Simply ignoring a point of view and brought facts because it comes from a possible SPA is not inline with Wikipedia policies. As per 'blatant advertising', please explain more concretely which parts were not factual or using a neutral point of view. With this interpretation, all company pages from Microsoft to Google & SAP should be deleted, because they may be suspicious of advertising. Alexvdm01 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
But they didn't. The article was spam when it was deleted the two previous times, and spam this time. One of us is an admin with ten years' experience, one of us has no contributions other than promoting this product, guess which one is more likely to understand policy? We're done here. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Any chance of getting the original text to salvage something from it? I am happy to start to write a new article that isn't spammy, I don't work for Odoo the company but I use Odoo the software at work.Alanbelllibertus (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

never mind, I got it User:Alanbelllibertus/Odoo would appreciate any comments on problem areas, unsourced claims or promotional bits to make it more suitable for inclusion. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I pruned the laundry lists. The only non-primary source in that entire article is a namecheck in an awards listing. You have yet to present a single non-trivial reliable independent source to establish notability and offset past spamming. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
yeah, I get that, only just started on it and I have had no prior involvement in the article. Not going to resubmit it until it deserves to exist. I am a bit surprised that the links to the awards are considered primary - not being primary to the subject of the article, but I will hunt about for reliable sources for them. I am not keen on the big list of things ERP systems do, it is just a list of capabilities, doesn't relate to Odoo in a very specific way and that thing about 6 groups of features is just arbitary original research or opinion. Under the name OpenERP it had a somewhat more established notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbelllibertus (talk • contribs) 12:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
OK it is not perfect, some bits I could certainly improve, but not based on reliable non-primary sources. Has enough been done to establish notability and all the promotional stuff been pruned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbelllibertus (talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Alanbelllibertus/Odoo

I kindly ask you to let others have their pass on the article. For instance, I particularly cannot understand why the version history was removed. I did notice the number of single purpose accounts that only edit topics related to this article and agree that it is a problem. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Spamming over a long period. And I am letting others have a go, I edited the draft to show the problems with it. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
anyone can edit it (please do) and I would imagine the version history could be put behind it if the article gets to the point of being ready for re-inclusion in main space. Alanbelllibertus (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to do so. It was deleted as failing core standards, after all. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Julian Gardner

As you recently commented in an AfD discussion for [[Julian Gardner (poker player)], you may be interested in an ongoing discussion at its talk page regarding whether some information should remain in the article if it is to be kept. If you would like to comment, please feel free to do so. Thanks for contributing to the deletion discussion! ~ RobTalk 03:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Page "primo-vascular system"

As I could reconstitute the story, in 2005 the first characterization was published, in 2010 an international symposium was held and contributions published in a book in 2012. What has been a red herring for me is to realize that no other symposium was later held, and that some contributors worked on other topics: scientists do not do that on a promising subject. The current state of this research is that there is no consensus on the very existence to this 'system' [3] and the original laboratory is still struggling to bring independent labs to reproduce its results [4]

Given that, the current article is extremely misleading in confidently stating things as true that simply are not proven. This should be changed as soon as possible. The situation may change later if reliable independent confirmation get published, of course. I think there is enough published material in reputable publications to make this topic notable as 'fringe' science, so it could be rewritten taking that into account. Or since currently there is no way for anybody to distinguish between a fraud case or a case of pathological science struggling to become mainstream, by simply deleting it, as you wanted. I think the call is yours on that.

Syl 19:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

And you remain a single purpose account promoting a fringe scientific subject as if it has genuine validity. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Odd. I made a passing comment at AE, is all. However, the parties are:

I don't see myself wanting to take or initiate admin action against any of these. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

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/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Serviceman

Please recover the template because the template was previously nominated for deletion for the same "reason" and the admin didn't delete it. VS6507 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A mis-spelled template whose only editor is you, and which is not used anywhere? What is the point? Guy (Help!) 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Mis-spelled? I wouldn't say so. I was working on an article that required that template. Can you recover it and then move it to my user space? VS6507 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The template was spelled "seviceman", sans the r. Would {{Infobox military person}} not work for your purposes? Alakzi (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Especially since it's been hanging around unused with repeated requests for deletion for quite some time. We would not have a template called "serviceman" anyway, not all forces personnel are men. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your request

I believe this will give a list of every edit Kww has ever made to an edit filter. It says "recent" changes so maybe some changes are omitted, but since it goes back to 2011 I'm tempted to believe it is a complete list. The list doesn't differentiate between filters he created and ones he simply edited though. I don't think there is a simple way of making that distinction. Dragons flight (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SanFranBan

I've restored this soft redirect for two reasons. First, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#Wikipedia:SanFranBan is still underway with the redirect creator opposing deletion, so I think we should wait for the discussion to finish. Second, I saw that the deletion summary was WP:CSD#G8 but m:Global bans does exist - did we make a mistake somewhere? Deryck C. 17:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mitrabarun filter

You might wish to correct your description of filter 644. It prevented his IPs from editing any page with "Kww" in the name, not from writing about me. He was free to complain about me anywhere he wanted, but he needed to stop vandalizing my user and talk pages.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Revert

Sorry, I saw the edit summary that said no ref for that, but there were two RS refs at the very end of the sentence for it. I assumed you were unaware. I'll let the discussion play out at talk. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Just stopped at the talk page. The RfC is concluded. Consensus was to include the full name. This is the second RfC to so conclude. FYI. Capitalismojo (talk)
Fine with that. I added the name long ago and was reverted, IIRC, but facts have a habit of becoming public over time. Thanks for the note. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Planetshakers Wiki page: suggestion to be deleted discussion

Hey JcZ Hope you are doing great. Your notice on suggestion to delete Planetshakers wiki page brought me to your talk page. Just like to hear your reasoning behind your request. Thanks. Ps: I have undone few of your changes that you made to the wiki page before your suggestion to delete post. Lets us first before we make changes to the page. If you are interested there is also a section in Planetshakers talk page around the topic visually appealing. I am happy to discuss there as well if you wish.~

So you restored some of the unsourced or self-sourced junk that was bloating it out. Not such a good idea. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Guy, I am interested in healthy conversation not always appreciate the use of inappropriate use of words. Well how can we work together here to get to an outcome. How would you recommend these content to be sourced, most of these information were in their church site (not very interested in advertising the church) and preexisted information in this wiki page for a while. Cheers. 27.33.93.67 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that this content is never added to Wikipedia ever again. Under any circumstances. At all. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is that, what problem do you see with the content? As far as I can see they were accurate and relevant to the subject this wiki page is about Samuelkraj (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting!! Thanks for pasting this link Guy. Had a quick read through. Let me go through again. Think there are lot of room for me to improve with my editing. Talk soon. Cheers Samuelkraj (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:World_War_I_infobox#RfC_(14_April_2015)

Can you please clarify your closing comments? There is disagreement as to what you meant. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In as much as there is a consensus, it is not to include it in the infobox. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Shrubbery

Template:Shrubbery has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Liz Read! Talk! 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Jeremyhick45's talk page.
Message added 13:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jeremyhick45 (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Documentation for {{Rfc top}}, revisited

Hello, Guy! I just wanted to let you know that I somehow managed to figure it out(!) so I've added documentation to the template(s) you authored: {{Rfc top}} (and {{Rfc bottom}} – separately, I also made a cosmetic alteration to {{Rfc bottom}} that will hopefully improve it...). Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that, in case there are any issues, or you want to make an changes or improvements to the new documentation. Cheers! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Did I really create them? Bloody hell. I had totally forgotten! Guy (Help!) 09:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you did! Anyway, I'm kind of glad that I got a chance to do this, as it forced me to learn the template documentation process... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock

I just noticed you blocked the IP at AN that posted a huge laundry list of allegations / conjecture as a sock (this guy was recently blocked for trolling, harassment and socking - and keeps coming back to harass editors with his socks). See here for recent SPI [5]. What he posted to AN was a copy paste recreation of the MFD deleted sandbox of master and the same content what his later socks have been copying over. Although you blocked his first IP [6] but he's hopped [7]. Please follow WP:DENY for the sock's edits as you deem appropriate and possibly a suitable prevention block. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your previous block on ANI - please see new discussion on problem user

Hi there JzG, you previously blocked this user: Blocklog for "Sparkzilla"

The user was later reinstated after five years. They have gone on to get banned on Wikia, and they are spamming links to their for-profit website on user talk pages. Please see here:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User using AfD process to spam promotional links to for-profit site

I believe it's appropriate to notify you directly because of your history on ANI evaluating this user's conduct in 2007.

Thank you very much JzG. -- Aronzak (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_114&oldid=1038528676"