User talk:JzG/Archive 128
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 125 | Archive 126 | Archive 127 | Archive 128 | Archive 129 | Archive 130 | → | Archive 135 |
Reference Desk RFC
I thought that there was consensus. I won't ask for closure review, but one or another of the Reference Desk regulars might. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really couldn't see it, though there is a slight numerical superiority on one side the weight of arguments is not overwhelming for either. I don't mind anyone asking for a review, but it seems to me as if everybody just stated their positions and few if any changed them as a result of the debate. Any change of this type would result in additional bureaucracy and potential impediments to restraining abuse so we'd obviously need strong agreement to implement it. Reviewing it again now, it looks like an attempt to legislate WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes well the problem was that there was a decent number of editors who thought an admin needed a clue. Since no admins wanted to wheel war over protections status, an attempt was made to codify duration so that we would not have desks closed to the general public for months at a time. There's nothing wrong with revising guidelines in order to seek more consistent behavior when opinions may differ. For the future: are you willing to listen to requests to lift semi-protection on the reference desks? Do you think it is reasonable to semi-protect a reference desk for 3 months? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given the incessant trolling? Sounds plausible. Anyway you can ask for unprotection at ANI, a consensus to unprotect is not going to be a wheel war. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here is where your uninvolvement is not helping, because there was not incessant trolling. We did have an admin removing tons of non-problematic posts because he thought they were from a banned user. I'm not going to argue the whole thing over again but if your rationale is that long-term protection is warranted due to incessant trolling, then I think you've not read the full facts, and I think this was a bad close, especially for proposal 2, which clearly has a rough consensus. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- You think. Me, I recall a lot of trolling on the drama boards. In any case, that's not the question. The question is, was there consensus? And the answer is, to my reading, no - at least not to the extent of producing new process. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- But no new process is called for in proposal 2 here [Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_122#Concrete_proposal]. Right? It just says that e.g. we should not semi-protect the desks because of unobjectionable posts that are claimed to originate from banned users. It also has over 2:1 !votes in support. I know WP is not a democracy but I also know consensus does not mean unanimity, and that rough consensus is often the goal. I will not argue the merits of the case here and I do agree with "no consensus" for proposal 1, but I don't see why you think there is no consensus on proposal 2. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you want the close reviewed, you are free to go to the admin noticeboard - this is always an option and I have no problem with it at all. I have explained my reasoning, and you are not bringing any new information over and above explaining your position, which I already read in the RfC. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- But no new process is called for in proposal 2 here [Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_122#Concrete_proposal]. Right? It just says that e.g. we should not semi-protect the desks because of unobjectionable posts that are claimed to originate from banned users. It also has over 2:1 !votes in support. I know WP is not a democracy but I also know consensus does not mean unanimity, and that rough consensus is often the goal. I will not argue the merits of the case here and I do agree with "no consensus" for proposal 1, but I don't see why you think there is no consensus on proposal 2. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- You think. Me, I recall a lot of trolling on the drama boards. In any case, that's not the question. The question is, was there consensus? And the answer is, to my reading, no - at least not to the extent of producing new process. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here is where your uninvolvement is not helping, because there was not incessant trolling. We did have an admin removing tons of non-problematic posts because he thought they were from a banned user. I'm not going to argue the whole thing over again but if your rationale is that long-term protection is warranted due to incessant trolling, then I think you've not read the full facts, and I think this was a bad close, especially for proposal 2, which clearly has a rough consensus. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given the incessant trolling? Sounds plausible. Anyway you can ask for unprotection at ANI, a consensus to unprotect is not going to be a wheel war. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes well the problem was that there was a decent number of editors who thought an admin needed a clue. Since no admins wanted to wheel war over protections status, an attempt was made to codify duration so that we would not have desks closed to the general public for months at a time. There's nothing wrong with revising guidelines in order to seek more consistent behavior when opinions may differ. For the future: are you willing to listen to requests to lift semi-protection on the reference desks? Do you think it is reasonable to semi-protect a reference desk for 3 months? SemanticMantis (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jasenovac concentration camp. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I don't like doing this with a fellow admin, but your actions are not appropriate. Consensus will be determined on the talk page, and edit-warring will achieve nothing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that an Admin has restored such crap to a live wiki page is frankly beyond belief. Probably the worst edit I have ever seen this year. Unbelievable. -Roxy the dog™ woof 09:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts
Methinks you may have the most organized TP of all the admins...and it doesn't surprise me one bit. I'm just not sure if it's the result of proper husband training by the angel you married, or if you may be afflicted with OCD. 🤔 Regardless, I actually have another reason for being here so I'll start by saying there were times I thought you were a grumpy ole grizzly bear, but as time progressed, I got to know you better so now I'm sure of it...LOL. Matter-of-factly, I actually came to realize that while you sometimes appear to be a grumpy ole grizzly, you're actually more like Smokey The Bear but not in the sense of saving forests. It appears you're on a mission to save people from making bad health choices...which is a noble endeavor but actually doesn't eliminate grumpy; however, it is closer to being bearable; therefore, it actually is a bear of sorts, so please bear that in mind. I now think of you as Bearable, the Huggable Health Bear but I digress, so back on point. At another user's TP, you said "...which purport to show that homeopathy works. Yes, homeopathy, the canonical quack remedy, whose every premise is abject nonsense on a stick." I have to retort (strictly for fun) by reminding you that, for decades, many of Mom's home remedies were denigrated and written off as "an old wives' tale". I have no doubt the latter was accurate for the most part, were it not for the following: [1] and others like it. But above all we have to acknowledge the humanities (philosophically perhaps) while keeping everything in perspective as demonstrated in the following manuscript, [2]. It's as clear as looking through a fog. In closing, no one can deny the truth in your statement, "there are enormous numbers of clinical trials - mostly crappy, I acknowledge, but some, at least superficially well designed". It is unequivocal based on one's perspective. Quantum physics has been a target of ridicule, particularly when it delves into unlimited possibilities and things science cannot readily explain. The following may or may not peak your interest - you are probably already aware, [3]. I just thought the technology was quite fascinating as it appears to validate some of the original assumptions of quantum mechanics. [4]. Atsme📞📧 23:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Organised? Hell no. I curate it a bit, if you look at the archive you'll see that I was at one time a very busy admin (much less so now) so I had to manage the page ruthlessly or it would never load. I am quite grumpy, but as you say, for a reason. It's not about saving people from making bad health choices though - that would be a Sisyphean task indeed. My goal is to prevent Wikipedia form being yet another site regurgitating the same old fallacious nonsense. Wikipedia should be a reality-based encyclopaedia. People trust us, and we should respect that trust by not lying to them and not allowing peddlers of bullshit to lie to them either. And that applies to all peddlers of bullshit: Rossi's e-cat, Kevin Trudeau's diet scams, Robert O. Young's alkalunacy, the Burzynski clinic's cancer quackery, the Heartland Institute's climate change denialism and so on. Hence my great delight at Jimbo's lunatic charlatans comment: I think I am right and that this reality-based bias is by design.
- Have you encountered pharmacognosy? That's the reality-based field based on herbalism. Most new drugs start from a natural compound. Old wives' tales may or may not be based on a kernel of truth, but being an old wives' tale does not validate the idea. People believed for thousands of years that illness was caused by an imbalance of the humours and could be cured by bloodletting, purging and so on. That was always bollocks, but it was only discarded when science got involved. The core difference between science and quackery is that when quackery fans conduct a test, they are looking to prove their belief, whereas when science tests it, they are looking to test the belief. The history of aspirin is a perfect example of this in action.
- Quantum, of course, is weird. That weirdness has been exploited by cranks. Murray Gell-Mann coined the term quantum flapdoodle and it was entirely apt for the likes of Chopra and his "quantum mysticism" (see also Lynne McTaggart's book The Field, which is unmitigated arse gravy. I do not understand quantum theory, because for that you need much better maths than I have, but I have at least enough understanding to realise that Lionel Milgrom's assertion that homeopathy works by "patient-practitioner-remedy entanglement" is abject nonsense on a stick, invoking as it does three-way entanglement of non-entangled non-quantum objects. As a first approximation, anybody invoking the term quantum outside the specific realm of particle physics is probably bullshitting.
- It's not that I don't acknowledge the humanities - I am after all a classical singer in my spare time - but the humanities do nto deal in empirical fact the way science does. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Oliver James (psychologist)
Your edit to Oliver James (psychologist) is a bit odd. You removed a list of his research papers because "All primary sourced. Please bring secondary sources discussing his work." This is odd. The article lists his books. Why shouldn't it list his papers? Once they are listed, it might as well link to them. cagliost (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is a problem with papers presented as "X has written a paper on Y (Source: X's paper on Y)", especially when they are on controversial topics. We really need reliable independent sources that establish the significance and reception of such things. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
deleted Wikipedia:nrrwdomain
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NRRWDOMAIN&action=submit
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Narrow_domain_articles --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Australian head of state
Howdy administrator JzG. Does your closure of the WP:POLITICS Rfc concerning this topic, effect the entire project? Right now, an editor is reverting my change of a redirect Australian head of state from Australian head of state dispute to Monarchy of Australia. Please check & give clarification. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I am the editor in question. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Australian head of state dispute, where there is an (informal) proposal to move Australian head of state dispute to Head of state of Australia. StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
We just wish to know, how to handle these re-directs. PS - Perhaps you'll need your tin hat, afterall :) GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think I will not pile in there as the article on the "dispute" looks to me like it needs to die, based as it is on an obviously fringe view. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- At the moment, it's a very difficult article to kill off. IMHO, it should've had an Afd, weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hard to believe that intelligent people cannot understand the difference between the Governor-General's role and that of the queen. Harder still to believe that this misconception persists here even after the patient explanations in the RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Someday, Wikipedia is gonna put me into a rubber room ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hard to believe that intelligent people cannot understand the difference between the Governor-General's role and that of the queen. Harder still to believe that this misconception persists here even after the patient explanations in the RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- At the moment, it's a very difficult article to kill off. IMHO, it should've had an Afd, weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps, deleting such re-directs would be best. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Unjustified discussion closure
Please revert your closure of Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Narrow domain articles you wrote that "The WP:FORUMSHOP is closed for business. This is being discussed elsewhere." in this edit
- If you are right with this statement then you are not an uninvolved editor and violating procedures.
- If you are not right with this statement then there was no reason to close the discussion.
Therefore, I kindly ask you to revert your change.
Also I find your use of the word "foolishness" highly inappropriate.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
--Asterixf2 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the belly laugh. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Asterixf2 (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it a full moon tonight? HighInBC 03:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like Asterixf2 has donned the Spider-Man suit. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
They are just deleting!
They deleted 9 times Strato I of Sidon. Böri (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- For reasons that were explained multiple times: we do not normally include red links in disambiguation pages. This is not the place for this discussion, though. That would be Talk:Straton. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I'll write on Straton-talk page. Böri (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Michael Weist
Hello Guy, I see you have tried to help an inexperienced editor with his draft article. I do agree, some may be being a little heavy handed with the user. I do, however have a concern with moving the draft from the draft space to his user page [5] though, as now there seems to a case for WP:CSD#U5. Would it be better served to be either deeper in his sub-pages ie User:Weist.michael/Michael Weist or back in the draft space? The user is definitely trying to get the page into the main space so he can impress his idol [6]. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Meh. I usually send them to user space anmd leave them for a while, then if the user doesn't edit any articles unrelated to self-promotion I would nuke as U5. Open to persuasion otherwise, or you could ask at the drama board to see if that's the current practice (I am woefully unaware of new process). Guy (Help!) 22:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have no interest in getting involved in WP:CESSPIT, I just wanted to try and understand the logic, which I now do. Thank you McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! Not seen that one. Bookmarked. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review for User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth
An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No article about
Johann Rudolf Rengger (1795-1832) on English Wikipedia... (but we see that article in German, Russian and in Spanish.) / No article about Ramona-Ann Gale / No article about Bertha Morris Parker (1890-1980), but we see that article on Croatian Wikipedia. / No article about Vladimir Stchepinsky / No article about Ron Carter, the author of The Coming Of Civilization. / They wrote books about history, geology, archaeology, paleontology, etc. / No article about the Sarcophagus of the Mourning Women (in the Istanbul Archaeology Museums)and Strato I of Sidon. Böri (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{Sofixit}} Guy (Help!) 14:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. But where will I write them? Which page? I didn't get that part! Böri (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Vladimir Stchepinsky, for example. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. But where will I write them? Which page? I didn't get that part! Böri (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I came across an editor working on this page and it is almost completely unsourced. It seems like a candidate for an AfD but "looks like a hoax" is not a valued rationale for deletion. You know the field of alternative medicine better than I so I was hoping you could offer your opinion. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sadly the subject is all too real. I will look tomorrow, I have just got back form a long evening premiering a new work by Bob Chilcott. Guy (Help!) 00:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Starting point only because the paper cites a whole bunch of RS, like Mayo Clinic, New England Journal of Medicine, etc. There also appears to be several books available as well. I see where MastCell and DGG both have edited a bit. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧 04:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've emailed a couple of friends who are well known investigators of quackery. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Starting point only because the paper cites a whole bunch of RS, like Mayo Clinic, New England Journal of Medicine, etc. There also appears to be several books available as well. I see where MastCell and DGG both have edited a bit. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧 04:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Legobot undid your edit
Please see [7]. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is quite odd. Anyway, lack of consensus for the preciseness of change is evident per your evaluation (& inclusion of Palestine shall continue). Thanks.--Neve–selbert 10:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your close removed again. Neve-selbert (talk · contribs) thinks you closed Rfc with no consensus and not listing Palestine independently. Kindly clarify. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spirit Ethanol: JzG noted that there is sufficient support for the retention of the inclusion of Palestine, and I fully agree and respect his meantime judgment.--Neve–selbert 11:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Listed independently, no consensus on inclusion as subentry to Israel. Looking forward to JzG's clarification. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spirit Ethanol: This "subentry to Israel" nonsense is really getting a bit old now, so please have the courtesy to refrain from such unfounded spin. Besides, I got rid of the footnote you hated; surely, this must be some consolation? Per WP:3RR I shall leave your NPOV-breaching edit only for the time being.--Neve–selbert 11:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I quote JzG "First the easy bit: there is clear consensus that treating Palestine as a sub-state of Israel is simply wrong. It's separate or nothing." RfC result is list Palestine separately, and not a substate. Looking forward to JzG's clarification. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spirit Ethanol: Um, I would refer you to WP:VOTE. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the number of votes in favour of your motion is irrelevant. It is the strength of argument that duly counts. Indeed, I have rebutted every single mythological argument against the status quo. If you were to happen to read on, he then went on to add: "That depends on whether partially recognised states should be included or not, and opinion is divided."—hence your reverting of my revert of your revert was premature and wrong. He then went on to clearly state that "in the mean time there is I think sufficient support for the inclusion of Palestine pending that discussion", and that would be the status quo of yesterday. Please, kindly revert until you gain concrete consensus for a concrete alternative.--Neve–selbert 22:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- RfC result is final, I refer you to In case it was not clear. Feel free to inquire with JzG over there if you have any doubts about the RfC result. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spirit Ethanol: Yes, the Rfc result is final. I have replied to JzG on the section of the talk page of which you have referred me to. I agreed with the two points made by him. His evaluation did not however allow you free rein to implement your POV edits. It is due for a revert sooner or later as it is a blatant misinterpretation of the evaluation.--Neve–selbert 22:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- RfC result is final, I refer you to In case it was not clear. Feel free to inquire with JzG over there if you have any doubts about the RfC result. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spirit Ethanol: Um, I would refer you to WP:VOTE. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and the number of votes in favour of your motion is irrelevant. It is the strength of argument that duly counts. Indeed, I have rebutted every single mythological argument against the status quo. If you were to happen to read on, he then went on to add: "That depends on whether partially recognised states should be included or not, and opinion is divided."—hence your reverting of my revert of your revert was premature and wrong. He then went on to clearly state that "in the mean time there is I think sufficient support for the inclusion of Palestine pending that discussion", and that would be the status quo of yesterday. Please, kindly revert until you gain concrete consensus for a concrete alternative.--Neve–selbert 22:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I quote JzG "First the easy bit: there is clear consensus that treating Palestine as a sub-state of Israel is simply wrong. It's separate or nothing." RfC result is list Palestine separately, and not a substate. Looking forward to JzG's clarification. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spirit Ethanol: This "subentry to Israel" nonsense is really getting a bit old now, so please have the courtesy to refrain from such unfounded spin. Besides, I got rid of the footnote you hated; surely, this must be some consolation? Per WP:3RR I shall leave your NPOV-breaching edit only for the time being.--Neve–selbert 11:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Listed independently, no consensus on inclusion as subentry to Israel. Looking forward to JzG's clarification. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Spirit Ethanol: JzG noted that there is sufficient support for the retention of the inclusion of Palestine, and I fully agree and respect his meantime judgment.--Neve–selbert 11:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Guy, I think your intention is entirely clear but still one person wants to argue. Please indicate whether this is a correct statement of your intention: "Palestine should not be shown on the list as an indented item beneath Israel". Thanks. Zerotalk 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your close removed again. Neve-selbert (talk · contribs) thinks you closed Rfc with no consensus and not listing Palestine independently. Kindly clarify. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, but I am indeed not the only person in favour of the status quo. Users Zoltan Bukovszky, Bogdan Uleia and GoodDay have also favoured the retention of the status quo. Please may I clarify, indenting Palestine underneath Israel simply demonstrates the lack of full independence the former has from the latter. A two-state solution does not exist, hence I support the retention of the status quo. Although, I should note, that there were in-fact a few other editors over at the Rfc that actually supported removing Palestine and other partially-recognised states altogether; I do not support this option. I have interpreted your evaluation as to keep the status quo retaining Palestine pending another discussion seeking local consensus (as the Rfc was originally launched without preceding discussion on the talk page) for further clarification. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 00:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- What part of "no" was not clear? Seriously? The one thing that is unambiguously established is that Palestine should not be indented under Israel in this table. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- We are referring to a list and not a table. Palestine lacks full sovereignty from Israel and is hence underneath the Israel entry. Local consensus was ignored prior to the Rfc, yet apparently SE can get away with this. The question of the Rfc was fundamentally whether or not Palestine should be considered as a sub-state of Israel. The answer was No and I agreed. But the premise of the question was wrong and inaccurate and hence the Rfc was entirely illegitimate. It should and must be appealed and repealed in due course. I shall be taking action against this extraordinary lack of judgment in the morning.--Neve–selbert 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have a great idea for you: stop wikilawyering and accept the consensus. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am afraid that the consensus was misled in a conniving manner. The premise of the Rfc question was 100% wrong.--Neve–selbert 01:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- As an outsider to this dispute, that reads to me as "I did not get the result I wanted, so will carry on as if nothing happened". Guy (Help!) 11:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am also of the opinion that the way the RfC question was worded gave ample grounds for misunderstanding, and has quite probably influenced the outcome. Those of us who supported the indentation expressed clearly that we do not regard Palestine as a "sub-state" of Israel, and have no intention of expressing anything of the like. The indentation was meant to be the indication of the current situation (lack of complete, effective independence), consistent with how similar situations are depicted throughout the whole article. One editor opined during the debate that on closer inspection this solution is both clear and consistent. However, if the majority either disagrees with our opinion, or didn't really look into our reasons for doing it this way, then there's not much we can do. As a side note: if the majority of editors interprets the indentation as indicative of a "sub-state" status, that means that the depiction of other indented entities might also need to be reviewed (e.g. Guernsey and Jersey appear under the United Kingdom indented, while there are not even part of the UK, and Western Sahara, which also lacks complete independence, appears under Morocco, indented). ZBukov (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Same applies. At what point was modern-day Palestine part of Israel, by the way? Other than through illegal occupation, that is. I am not an expert on this history of the region. I know it was part of Mandatory Palestine, part of which became Israel, but I don't know when the Gaza Strip, say, was ever a legitimate part of Israel. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am also of the opinion that the way the RfC question was worded gave ample grounds for misunderstanding, and has quite probably influenced the outcome. Those of us who supported the indentation expressed clearly that we do not regard Palestine as a "sub-state" of Israel, and have no intention of expressing anything of the like. The indentation was meant to be the indication of the current situation (lack of complete, effective independence), consistent with how similar situations are depicted throughout the whole article. One editor opined during the debate that on closer inspection this solution is both clear and consistent. However, if the majority either disagrees with our opinion, or didn't really look into our reasons for doing it this way, then there's not much we can do. As a side note: if the majority of editors interprets the indentation as indicative of a "sub-state" status, that means that the depiction of other indented entities might also need to be reviewed (e.g. Guernsey and Jersey appear under the United Kingdom indented, while there are not even part of the UK, and Western Sahara, which also lacks complete independence, appears under Morocco, indented). ZBukov (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- As an outsider to this dispute, that reads to me as "I did not get the result I wanted, so will carry on as if nothing happened". Guy (Help!) 11:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am afraid that the consensus was misled in a conniving manner. The premise of the Rfc question was 100% wrong.--Neve–selbert 01:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have a great idea for you: stop wikilawyering and accept the consensus. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- We are referring to a list and not a table. Palestine lacks full sovereignty from Israel and is hence underneath the Israel entry. Local consensus was ignored prior to the Rfc, yet apparently SE can get away with this. The question of the Rfc was fundamentally whether or not Palestine should be considered as a sub-state of Israel. The answer was No and I agreed. But the premise of the question was wrong and inaccurate and hence the Rfc was entirely illegitimate. It should and must be appealed and repealed in due course. I shall be taking action against this extraordinary lack of judgment in the morning.--Neve–selbert 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- What part of "no" was not clear? Seriously? The one thing that is unambiguously established is that Palestine should not be indented under Israel in this table. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, but I am indeed not the only person in favour of the status quo. Users Zoltan Bukovszky, Bogdan Uleia and GoodDay have also favoured the retention of the status quo. Please may I clarify, indenting Palestine underneath Israel simply demonstrates the lack of full independence the former has from the latter. A two-state solution does not exist, hence I support the retention of the status quo. Although, I should note, that there were in-fact a few other editors over at the Rfc that actually supported removing Palestine and other partially-recognised states altogether; I do not support this option. I have interpreted your evaluation as to keep the status quo retaining Palestine pending another discussion seeking local consensus (as the Rfc was originally launched without preceding discussion on the talk page) for further clarification. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 00:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
theft? LOL
You used "infoboxen" <g>. Collect (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Aye, the -en plural used to be very common on the uk.rec.cycling newsgroup back in the day, especially in the words of my lapsed e-chum Mr. Larrington. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
April 1
Please stop reverting my changes on the vaxxed page. I have added fully cited information that balances out the page. The page before my edits were truly 1 sided and biased. I have NOT violated any of the Wikipedia rules. You are the one in violation. Conzar (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp
Looking at the DRV for User:Fullphill/Gemma Booth, someone raised the issue of User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp, which you deleted as a U5. It's not eligible for U5 because a) Draft articles aren't U5 eligible b) the article survived an MfD and thus U5 isn't applicable unless there is a newly discovered copyright violation. Given all that, would you mind restoring the draft? Hobit (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not a draft, it's an abandoned user space page written by someone who has not edited in years. The determination of a small number of people to keep this cruft is utterly mystifying. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I hope you'd agree it's not a U5 speedy candidate and so should be restored. IAR has it's time and place, but it's rarely applicable in speedy deletions and I don't see it fitting in this case. I can't see the material, so I could be off, but based on the MfD, it looks like people felt it was a draft. Even if it's not, the previous MfD means U5 can't be used. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It always was a U5 candidate. Failure to tag it as such was an oversight by the person who MfD'd it, and the MfD arguments missed the fundamental policy issue that Wikipedia is not a repository for indefinite hosting of promotional content by editors who are not taking any active part in the project. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but you can't speedy something under U5 that has survived a deletion discussion. Do you disagree with that (it's right in CSD)? Are you claiming IAR here? Something else? Hobit (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it was userfied by MSGJ (who did not delete it) and you went ahead and deleted it. NOTWEBHOST only has provisions for when people treat userspace as a forum, which was not spotted by anyone except thine own eyes. I'm not here to get it back, just here to annoy you for using NOTWEBHOST as you see fit. Cheers. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 20:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I invite you to consider the immense contributions that Acresant1123 has made to the project: Acresant1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Wikipedia is not Geocities. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, it was userfied by MSGJ (who did not delete it) and you went ahead and deleted it. NOTWEBHOST only has provisions for when people treat userspace as a forum, which was not spotted by anyone except thine own eyes. I'm not here to get it back, just here to annoy you for using NOTWEBHOST as you see fit. Cheers. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 20:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but you can't speedy something under U5 that has survived a deletion discussion. Do you disagree with that (it's right in CSD)? Are you claiming IAR here? Something else? Hobit (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- It always was a U5 candidate. Failure to tag it as such was an oversight by the person who MfD'd it, and the MfD arguments missed the fundamental policy issue that Wikipedia is not a repository for indefinite hosting of promotional content by editors who are not taking any active part in the project. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I hope you'd agree it's not a U5 speedy candidate and so should be restored. IAR has it's time and place, but it's rarely applicable in speedy deletions and I don't see it fitting in this case. I can't see the material, so I could be off, but based on the MfD, it looks like people felt it was a draft. Even if it's not, the previous MfD means U5 can't be used. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Guy, you aren't going to convince them of anything. I've tried to get at least a standard for drafts started at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Wording_for_stale_userspace_drafts since it's clearly not going to be WP:N (or even WP:V and whether or it a damn thing is true). I've trying for "no conceivable potential for an article" and response is to support "old drafts left around forever are harmless and you all are wasting time" so what's the point if the only result will be that WP:UP and the MFD header and other pages reflect their own reality and will probably just get demoted as they become more out of scope with reality here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review for User:Acresant1123/Chaz Knapp
- An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chaz Knapp. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)