User talk:JzG/Archive 180

Archive 175

←

Archive 178

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

→

Archive 185

Vanity press removals

Some of these seem a bit unhelpful - for example this. Verification from the National Library that he wrote a book is sufficient verification for the statement that he wrote a book, regardless of whether the book itself was published on a vanity press. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, it's been tagged as self-published for over a year. I really don't know. It probably doesn't belong at all, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 22:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

This is taking a stance that is contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability, which does not provide a basis for shooting all self-published sources on sight without regard for the context in which they are used. This specific usage (having written a book that no one disputes that he wrote) is explicitly allowed per the "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" section of that policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to this point as to why getting militant about self-published books is unhelpful: while digging through newspaper archives to see if I could better source the article, that book that you were so keen to remove that he wrote? Still getting mentioned in national newspaper discussions of its subject 30 years later for its significance. It had a lengthy review in our newspaper of record, the Sydney Morning Herald, at the time of its publication (along with two smaller reviews) and again a decade later when it was re-released. I could probably write a clearly notable article with the sources I found - for a book published in a period that is usually a bit of a black hole for digitised Australian sources. Now, obviously you weren't to know this (I didn't know this either, I only follow the article because I watchlist all Australian articles for vandalism and was peeved at the removal of something so uncontentious) but it should serve as an example of why Wikipedia:Verifiability should actually be followed instead of just shooting stuff on sight without context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, sure, it's a self-published book, but if you have good sources for its significance then we can mention it without violating WP:UNDUE. What you're doing is spot on: improving the sourcing. I'm not even clear why we're having this argument. I followed up on a tag that had not been actioned in ages, you reacted by fixing the problem properly. This seems like Wikipedia working as designed to me? Guy (help!) 23:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't be bothered reworking that bit of the article in the end because I've got other stuff to do this morning, but it isn't violating WP:UNDUE to mention that somebody wrote a book they in fact wrote. Removing uncontentious and undisputed material in contexts where it's clearly permitted by WP:VERIFIABILITY is just an unhelpful practice in general, makes our content worse for no benefit, and makes it more difficult for people to improve later (hard to know there's a book that someone should improve the explanation of the significance of if somebody just whacked any mention of it because they were on a crusade). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to remove film review websites like BeyondHollywood.com – which I will say that I don't think you should do – removing the citation but leaving the review is bizarre. I don't understand why you would do that. My advice is to just leave the review alone. But if you must remove it, please remove both the citation and the review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I have no view on that site specifically, I am taking previous editors' assessments at face value on the basis of the tag being unchallenged for a long time. You're more than welcome to restore it and remove the tag based on your own assessment of its quality.

The vast majority of the tagged references I am looking at are vanity presses. Guy (help!) 09:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and The Drover's Wife: I also have concerns about these edits. There is discussion on my talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Fringe question

Also, UserJzG, I see you suggested to Guy Macon something that sounded like you were defending the fossil fuel climate change skeptic. In the light of that, I hope you don't mind if I ask whether you yourself hold any opinions unpopular with mainstream science and on which you would be at odds with Climate change consensus? (I'm not at all suggesting you do, I just want to encourage openness - for my part, I'm happy to reveal that in my opinion those who believe in what climate change scientists calls "skeptics" are at best deluded and at worst charlatans, and I'd be interested in your own opinions on such things.) User:Kevin Gʁrɰʋn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.20.243.245 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What a bizarre question. I don't think anybody who is familiar with my editing would be in any doubt of my position on any question of science versus quasi-religious dogma. Guy (help!) 08:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

more non-rs/spammy sources/unethical sources

So, I'm about to start a large RFC on ToI because I'm apparently a masochist but wanted to get some thoughts on it before I throw myself to the wolves. I haven't actually written it up because it's complicated but I don't want to dedicate a ton of time to something that will be immediately shot down. The crux of my argument is basically what I said here, so wanted a brief 2o if you have the time. (really the tl;dr is that much of what ToI is used to source on WP comes from their "news" outlet and all is published under the name TNN with no identifiable editorial staff or authors, which I find to be unethical and highly problematic and not just because of the contentious topic I linked, largely it's celeb gossipy-garbage.) Praxidicae (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I think you are right: it should be a "mostly unreliable" at least. Guy (help!) 19:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI re: Thucydides411

Are you sure that complaint isn't better suited for AE? Particularly in light of his previous AE topic ban on the same misconduct? I was not aware that AE did not consider longstanding patterns of disruption. Just a thought. Maybe it could be moved? SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I really can't decide. A TBAN is effectively a siteban since he's a WP:SPA. Guy (help!) 19:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

We'll see. ANI gets so chaotic I can barely follow the drift of those things. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, fair point. Guy (help!) 22:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Gavin McInnes

I noticed that you were the last editor who applied protection on the article, pending changes, so I thought about asking here instead of RFPP. I wondered if it couldn't temporarily be raised to semi-protection considering the recent pollution that pending changes can't prevent? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, no objections, do you want me to do it? Guy (help!) 23:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I hoped so, thank you very much, —PaleoNeonate – 23:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

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/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

@JzG: Can you please protect the article Hiram Edson it has been persistantly vandalized. Catfurball (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason for Assange's extradition

Hi Guy, in your RfC comment about the GRU sentence at Julian Assange, you wrote that "this is why Assange is being extradited". I just wanted to point out that this is not the reason why Assange is being extradited. He has been charged in the US with various espionage counts related to WikiLeaks' 2010 publications. I can see how the idea that he was being extradited for links to the GRU would make the GRU indictments more important in his biography, but that's not the reason for his extradition. I would suggest that you strike through the part of your comment that I quoted above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, ah, bless - you think the US government are being honest about why they want him. How sweet. Guy (help!) 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but this is starting to sound like conspiracy-theory territory. Do you have any reliable sources that back up your assertions about Assange's extradition being motivated by WikiLeaks' 2016 US election publications? You're free to entertain whatever theories you'd like in private, but those theories can't be a basis for article content unless they're well sourced.

Your RfC comment makes a statement of fact that is unfounded in RS (and which flatly contradicts what RS say about the reasons for Assange's extradition). That may be misleading to editors who are not well informed on the subject. That's why I'm suggesting you strike it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, ask yourself this: other than shitting on Obama's legacy, have you ever noticed Donald Trump giving a damn about anything that did not reflect directly on his personal reputation, especially the illegitimacy of his presidency? Did you notice that he tried to bribe Assange to deny Russian involvement in 2016 by offering a pardon? Guy (help!) 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't get the relevance to what I asked you. You grounded your vote at the RfC on a factual assertion that is contradicted by RS reporting on the subject. I politely asked you if you would strike the incorrect statement. I don't see how Donald Trump or Barack Obama's legacy are relevant to what I'm asking you. Do Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:RS policies matter to you? -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikitable error

Hi there, just wanted to bring your attention to something. In this edit at Military history of France, which your summary describes as relating to a vanity press, you actually just shifted the placement of a wikitable, which broke it. I only mention it because I'm seeing this error a lot lately, and it seems that I've seen similar edits made by you, causing it to happen. No big deal, just a heads up in case you were unaware! Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just in case it's useful, I ran across another one just now: this edit of Economy of Lithuania. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Jessicapierce, that's interesting - the edit tot he Wikitable code appears to have been done by AWB under one of its standard fixes, it's unrelated to the regex I was applying. Since you understand the issue, would you mind noting it at WT:AWB please? Guy (help!) 07:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say I super-DUPER understand it - this is not really my area! BUt sure, I'll be glad to post what I know on that page. Thanks much! Jessicapierce (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Resumption of Cassandrathesceptic activity

Hi, last September I was relieved at the action you took to block the activities of User:Cassandrathesceptic, here after this ANI discussion. I noticed the transparent, if somewhat more circumspect, resumption of the editing campaign under IP User:92.13.79.121. I lodged a detailed sockpuppet investigation case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cassandrathesceptic but am disappointed to see that it is to be closed, with the reason given "IP edits too old". I'd like to nip this resumption of activity in the bud. Would you agree that the quacking is unmistakable? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker, not seeing it myself, but feel free to ask for more eyes at WP:ANI. Certainly both are Carphone Warehouse IPs. Guy (help!) 21:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I should maybe have pointed out the most glaring two examples, each being a post by the recent IP which effectively paraphrases an old post, raising the very same points and quoting the same passage from the article, verbatim: cf this with this,and this with the initial post here. But good suggestion to go to ANI, if you're not convinced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Mutt Lunker, I think you may well be right, but I would like more patient and diligent review first, so please yes do take it to ANI. Guy (help!) 22:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Vaccines and autism

You may want to have a look over there. Some...interesting edits being done challenging the need for Jenny McCarthy's picture in the article based on (IMO) very flawed arguments (since McCarthy is specifically named as "one of the most outspoken critics", which she is, and since she also published a book on the topic just like RFK). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Staffan Jacobson

I am doing some recherche on different Swedish authors . I found Staffan Jacobson and his 10 year old blog delivering good information about some of these. I saw that the English article on Staffan is an orphan. So I saw the possibility to link this article, because he writes about the importance of Bengt Anderberg . Now Bengt Anderberg has a link to Staffan and his blog . The second step was to make two dots vanish beneath the bibliography , that some other user had left. i call it cleaning. I don't understand your point about disruptive editing and threatening me. I improved a stub article. Ubuy (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)--Ubuy (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

MFB/WL reversion?

You reverted my expansion of The McLain Family Band saying "Massive overuse of WikiLeaks a non-authoritaticve source". The sources I was using were United States Department of State cables that I cited using {{WikiLeaks cable}} (whose purpose is "[providing] a uniform method of formatting references to United States diplomatic cables initially released by WikiLeaks). They're primary sources, yes, but that's fine in the presence of the secondary sources on which the article is based. I don't understand the prohibition of the USDOS documents. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Fourthords, Wikileaks is not an authoritative source for this. You can cite US government documents to the US government, but you should not be using this primary source. Guy (help!) 07:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits on "pro-life"/"anti-abortion"

I'm concerned by your decision to make dozens of edits all at once to pages redescribing people and organizations as anti-abortion instead of pro-life. I don't think the limited article naming consensus is a mandate for such broad renaming.--Jahaza (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Keep up the good work Guy! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Agree with Roxy. Great job, Guy! Keep up the correct terminology!--Jorm (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jahaza: It looks like JzG is simply implementing the community consensus established at Talk:United_States_anti-abortion_movement/Archive_8#Requested_move_19_May_2018 ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The consensus was to move those two pages, not replace all links. PackMecEng (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this about removing links? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)No? I said replacing links above... PackMecEng (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. Is this about replacing links? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes. PackMecEng (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't it say redescribing people and organizations as anti-abortion instead of pro-life? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Jahaza, those links are redirects. We renamed the articles to anti-abortion movement and abortion rights movement in 2018, because "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are framing language. It's also less confusing to the reader: seeing someone called "pro-life" and "pro-gun" and "pro-death penalty" all together is only understandable if you're aware that pro-life is a marketing term for anti-abortion (most British readers, for example, will be unaware of this). That's why we moved the articles, and that's why, nearly two years later, I am fixing the redirects. Guy (help!) 22:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, that is what the OP said. If you notice my comment was in reply to Awilley's asertion that this is the result of community consensus. I was explaining that that was not the case. Though if you want to bring it back to the OP's comment you could take is a mandate for such broad renaming as them asking about changing the links. Though I will say I really do not care much either way, I was merely correcting a misconception. PackMecEng (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

His AWB run is replacing links, but I think correctly. If we have an article about topic "X" and the title of the article is "X" then the links in other articles should also use the name (and spelling) of X. If X is moved to Y, then incoming links should also be updated. If the sources call it X, or Y, then we should also call it X (or Y) in all mentions of the topic in wiki voice. So, we say Yogurt, not Yoghurt, in both the article title and in wiki voice in other articles. That way, the reader knows what we’re talking about. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You forgot the talk page stalker tag. PackMecEng (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. You were just being pedantic. I understand that. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you still fail to understand what is going on here. Awhilly said something in correct and I corrected it. Not sure why you are fighting this? I don't even necessarily disagree with what JzG is doing here. Very odd. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You could be right in that I fail to understand. Would the links still work if Guy hadn';t changed them? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they went to a redirect. All that is happening is a change from a redirect to another redirect. Going from pro-life to anti-abortion both target anti-abortion movement. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, correct, so anti-abortion is more correct (X is anti-abortion movement would be ungrammatical, X is a member of the anti-abortion movement is clumsy and probably wrong, X is anti-abortion is correct). Guy (help!) 23:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered anti-abortion? That way it gets rid of a redirect and does not sound silly. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, that's what I'm doing, right? pro-life --> anti-abortion, except where they are consistent life ethic advocates in which case I am pitching for that if I can source it. Guy (help!) 09:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about using [anti-abortion movement|anti-abortion] instead of just [anti-abortion]. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, Oh, OK. Yes, that is a fair point. Thank you. Guy (help!) 20:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good work! This has been needed for a long time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, no "mandate" is needed, since the rationale for the move was that the terms are not NPOV. And I am checking every one: direct quotes and organization names are acceptable, it's only the label that's misleading. Where I see it, I am also doing pro-choice (and will do a second batch of edits to fix those which mention pro-choice and not pro-life). I am only using AWB because it's slightly fewer clicks, and I have problems with my right hand right now. Guy (help!) 22:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup none required and none given. Agreed. PackMecEng (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (?) The edit to significantly reduce this explanation, with the same edit summary, didn't escape notice, FWIW. What's the reasoning for that change? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, Wikipedia is not for mission statements. Guy (help!) 15:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Ventilator

Howdy, I re-added the reliable sources FYI, but kept the 'projects' section out. Victor Grigas (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Victorgrigas, you introduced one unreliable source and one primary / self-published one. Guy (help!) 20:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

uttoxeter town FC

restoring article but removed blog ref - please delete carefully as you are also removing information that does not reference the blog and uses sources used and accepted by non league task force. the information is correct though. - Thanks Nathan

When a blog is provided as a supporting sources for a fact, one may remove the fact along with the blog. Guy (help!) 20:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)