User talk:JzG/Archive 183

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

→

Archive 190

/* April 2020 */

2 weeks ago user MrOllie was reverting every single edit I ever made. He threw personal attacks at me, and I reacted too. It was, however, also extremely unecessary for this person to revert every single edit and post multiple accusations on my page. He accused me of being paid to edit, and claimed that all his actions were due to his suspicion of me being paid to edit as well as my revisions 'not having the right citation'. This was clearly false because 80% of those edits at least are ones where there were no issues with citations. And even so, one that ONE citation he was referring to, I was simply replacing a citation with a better and more up to date one.

As a new user, this experience has been extremely frustrating and I am still facing accusations and this aforementioned user has received no warnings. Even though he has purposefully been problematic and attacking me. WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Counterproductive editing

@JzG: I will be reverting your mass deletion of material that had been there since forever. There are indeed still issues of tone. Note that just yesterday I flagged it as a folklore article in need of attention. If you want to police tone then you should do in before somebody puts three days of work into wikilinking the text. I haven't looked yet which text it was that you deleted, but it doesn't really matter whether it's the creation myth or the titles of the local king. There are almost always issues of tone in stories about the thirteenth century of any locality...go pick on one that isn't being worked on. I find mine in the Community Portal. The article needs the attention of a person who can do a deep dive into Jstor and I would prefer it not be me since I would have a steep learning curve. You may if you must remove the self-published texts from the bibliography, where they aren't hurting anything and are unlikely to be seen by anyone who doesn't have an acute interest in Igbo people; nobody else would read that far. My thought was that they appear to be local oral history and something that an Igbo historian can evaluate better than I. But fine, let's obey the letter of that policy even if I believe it is counterproductive in this case. I won't argue if you take it out of the reversion. Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, why? It violates WP:NPOV and is badly sourced or unsourced. Guy (help!) 20:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sortof take about three Chiba girls?I do a lot of these articles. This article tells us several things. It is an Igbo place. It has a holy place which is a jungle. It is in Biafra. Elinruby (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, I have friends who are Igbo (and others who are Yoruba). Doesn't matter. Vanity presses are vanity presses. Guy (help!) 21:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry incomplete answer. Switching to a device where I am not fighting the app. Elinruby (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, it's not available. Ok look. The time to delete the entire article was before someone started fixing it. Also, I came there because I saw it on a articl Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

List of articles needing wikilink. It actually has quite a few now but I left the flag up because it needs more work. But it is sourcable, just not by me I hope. There are actually important factual statements about the place in the article, which I mention above. It is a religiousplace. There is no question the topic is notable. You went too fast and only saw "underlined", but the are links to several peoples, three state governments I believe, and multiple local villages and local government areas all have wikilinks, which I just put there.there is only one actual reference, because I didn't want crack open Jstor, but when the local passion play or whatever it is has its own Wikipedia page then of course we work on the article. Ilet stand the reversion of the two self-published tooks Elinruby (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Tsk. There is some sort of gesture on this tablet that is making me hit publish somehow when I don't mean to, sorry about that. Let me know if you have trouble reading any of the above.Also, despite the sensational headline on that one reference, the aggregator and I think the newspaper are pretty reputable sources for Africa. I could be wrong bcause I usually don't do Nigeria, but I have done a lot of work with West African countries, and AllAfica stuff gets used all the time. As far as I am concerned nothing further needs to happen here since you probably don't want to revert the two self published sources. Whoever works on this will find them on their own when they run the article through Google any I guess. They come up onsearches of Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the typing. So we agree then, the self-published books out of the bibliography and the rest of it stands? Unless you can improve it of course. I just don't think it should be deleted. If you can figure out what to do about "progenitor" in the origin story, for example, that would be helpful. Or know if a reference Elinruby (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, let me look at it (working right now, sodding Visio diagrams). Guy (help!) 22:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG} fine. I did a little copy editing to make it read better. Wikiproject Nigeria has it flagged for assessment now also and I am happy for them to do whatever they think is right. Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, a Wikiproject for Igbos/Nigeria involving JzG? C. Odumegwu Ojukwu" or "Ikemba" was my paternal uncle, my father's first cousin! Small world, sorry to interrupt.--Carmaker1 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI

Some edit warring going on at Vaccination that you may want to have a look at [1] along with some violations of SOAPBOX, TPG, etc from a familiar user on the topic. They again seem to be refusing to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion with a "I propose we add/remove X because Y" type discussion on the talk page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

And someone who sounds very familiar may be back on the talk page. Perhaps a checkuser is in order. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me to improve the Draft:Apostolic_Movement which you rejected the publication? Progettistauniversale (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Progettistauniversale, I invited you to the teahouse, that's a really good place to ask gfor guidance. Otherwise I can only point you to the notability guidleine and sourcing policy. Sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. The policy explains what this means and the teahouse volunteers can explain further, they have endless patience. Guy (help!) 14:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Need help in administrators' noticeboard discussion

Hi JzG, could you take a look again in this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Actually, im the first who reported about that case, but it seems like my report has been archived. Really need your opinion about that case, especially for MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop the Church

I think you're recent edits are excellent and capture the issues in a neutral and correct way. I would be keen to continue to work with you to improve this and other articles. Thank you for your work. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, thank you. Experience at Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggests we may have an issue with Slugger O'Toole if we want to keep it neutral. Guy (help!) 07:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy also for your kind intervention on the administration board. I am genuinely worried that a number of articles are being distorted in favour of a narrative palatable to Catholicism. I don't pretend that all my edits are brilliant and perfect but I am at least striving for some sort of neutral objectivity because I believe this is fundamentally important to the average reader and is part of why wikipedia is such a unique resource. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Another page that may warrant protection

Children's Health Defense-seems to be getting vandalized a lot lately with anti-vaxx people trying to remove well-sourced information. It may warrant semi-protection. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823, I am watching it, yes. Guy (help!) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG vs Guy

Hi. Thanks for getting involved at Stop the Church. It's helpful to have outside voices sometimes to breakup logjams and move discussions along. I didn't realize that while your username is JzG, your signature is Guy. Is there a reason? I thought I was dealing with two different users. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, my name is Guy and my original username was Just zis Guy, you know?. Guy (help!) 10:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I see. You may want to consider changing it to avoid any future confusion. Thanks again for your help. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, It's been that way for about 15 years, I don't see any pressing need to change. Guy (help!) 16:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Energy medicine

You reverted this edit as though the addition was more ridiculous of an idea than the rest of the article. Is that even possible? Natureium (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Natureium, fair point Guy (help!) 18:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein and DS

As the admin who applied DS to Jeffrey Epstein, you may wish to remind User:Eternal Father of its meaning before it's too late. [2] --Calton | Talk 01:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Calton: WP:AE is normally the place to request action against an editor that violates ArbCom-based discretionary sanctions. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

OhKayeSierra, thios is more likely to end up with a WP:NOTHERE block at the current rate. Guy (help!) 18:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The boomerang never quits. OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tobacco industry playbook has been accepted

Tobacco industry playbook, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Just read it, I can't do that, wish I could. Thx. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, what, write an article? Yeah, it's a thing I forget about sometimes: good to do. Guy (help!) 16:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

AfC? What the? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, two reasons: first, I push newbies and others to use AfC so I think it's right for me to eat my own dogfood. Second, I clearly think this is a notable and important topic and the article is reasonably put together, but I would be the last to claim that I am a neutral arbiter, so it was worth running it by an experienced new article reviewer for a cross-check. Guy (help!) 16:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. You were lucky you didn't get the standard multi-month wait that most authors of drafts that aren't easy declines get to enjoy. I added some cats for you (miaow). GirthSummit _(blether) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed - write an article - I cant do it. My skillz = Snark and a bit of detail pickiness. "You'd love wikipedia" said BobRayner to me all those years ago! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, we need gnomes too. Guy (help!) 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thank you :-) Guy (help!) 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Standing offer: if you ever want to skip the AfC queue, but want a review, I had an NPP hat before I got my admin T-shirt, and will be happy to oblige. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you are most kind, I will remember this. Guy (help!) 21:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories and talk pages

Guy: Thanks for moving the article page but there's a discrepancy between the talk pages. The main article talk page is still at Talk:Unofficial Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappearance theories and the talk archive is at Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories/Archive 1. There is also a Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 conspiracy theories that is a redirect so I can't make the move myself. Can you delete the redirect talk page and move the main talk page to the correct place? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Potentially problematic editor

Hi--reaching out to you because you interacted with this very new editor here in one of a few discussions that have arisen around his various attempts to remove far right descriptions, and especially the phrase "far right", from a variety of pages (and to include "far left" on Unidas Podemos). The editor sometimes seems good-faith, and he has made plenty of constructive edits, mostly in edits to a series of seemingly random topics the first couple of weeks after he registered his account. Since then, there has been not-good edit warring at the Dinesh D'Souza and Unidas Podemos pages, Hadash, Kotlebists – People's Party Our Slovakia, and now the Citizens (Spanish political party) article, where he is not only trying to insert his preferred language but has repeatedly done so while removing other language and the strong source that supports it. There's also been a bunch of "small" edits around typical right-wing issues or subjects to change the wording in unacceptable ways, which are almost always reverted: [3][4][5][6] and the flat-out dishonest edit summary for [7], given the first sentence of the relevant lede. The engagement in talkpages starts out good, but at places like the Dinesh page, the Hadash page, and now the Citizens page, there's a lot of IDHT and some of what looks like classic sealion questioning to me. At the Citizens page, I've referenced what he was told at the Dinesh page multiple times, and there is zero acknowledgment that he's trying the exact same arguments that were soundly refuted already. I don't think this is disruptive enough yet to take to ANI (and he has thus far backed off on edit warring when pushed), but some admin scrutiny might be in order; some of this could get chalked up to the enthusiasm of a new editor, but I also get a whiff of NOTHERE, despite some of the constructive interaction. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Help on discussion?

Hi JzG. I saw your arbitration request for a user I have been involved with, and I think I may be able to contribute a few examples of sustained content and conduct policy problems. For this reason, I am considering adding a statement. However, I have never interacted at arbitration before, and I'd appreciate either 1) a pointer to pages that can help me format a good response or 2) a review of a draft I've typed up at my sandbox. I would love some feedback.

I hope to provide a constructive addition, and I'd greatly appreciate your guidance, given your greater experience. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Jlevi, there's no fixed format, what you have there is fine! Just add a section "statement by Jlevi" and sign it as normal, that is really all you need to do. And thanks. Guy (help!) 08:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Notable Awards

Hi I'm the lead editor of List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears! so like what you said on the Beyonce talk page is that non-notable awards should not be listed on the awards page but how if add a note to the award title, it is possible counted as an already notable award or still not, I wondering too because I saw on the BTS's page which is a Featured List also do the same thing but someone user:Cornerstonepicker always reverted and it's really offensive me. Please consider this, I'm really tired of him/her messed up with my work I knew that's nothing wrong to help but at least in a good way, also this page current featured list candidate. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

For an example this is how it looks;

Award or organizations	Year	Category	Work	Result	Ref.
Hollywood Beauty Awards	2018	Fragrance of the year	Fantasy	Won

Notes

References

• A perfect example of the kind of PR bullshit we should be excluding ruthlessly. Guy (help!) 07:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

So now can I still add the awards that doesn't have a wikipedia page but has a reliable source and secondary sources and note into the award page. Please consider this because the sources I put literally is reliable 😭. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Johhnyfrankie13, See the article on Hollywood Beauty Awards? There's your answer. Guy (help!) 08:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I mean I would like to include an award that has no article on Wikipedia to the List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears, but yeah I'll also add a note and reliable reference also with the secondary source. Please consider this because user:Cornerstonepicker always reverted and I felt like all of my hard work just useless because he/her deleted it. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Johhnyfrankie13, and I'd like you to include only notable awards, one prerequisite of which is that they have an article. Guy (help!) 14:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

But there is no such evidence that says we only can include the award that has article in Wikipedia. As long as the award meet WP:GNG. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Baby and bathwater

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made several revisions to WP:SPIDER in my edit. Please consider partial reversions in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, you added a completely unnecessary {{humor}} tag (which has been removed several times previously), and made the nutshell boring. ([8]). I'm pretty sure I know the original intent of that policy (check the page history). I don't blame you, btw - for some unaccountable reason somebody thought it was an April fool and nominated it for deletion without notifying me as required, I only found out just now. Guy (help!) 09:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so revert just the nutshell and humor tag, then. My point about bathwater still stands. If we're talking about the changes, though, the nutshell was previously completely redundant to the title, so changing it isn't any loss. I think it's a good place to make the essay accessible — not everyone is always going to be in the mood for wading through a bunch of silliness, and a descriptive nutshell that gets across the point allows them to get the message and then go back to more serious editing if that's what they prefer. And regarding the humor tag, project consensus is quite clear that humor pages need to disclose that fact, and a local consensus of reverting patterns at the page doesn't override that. I thought my changes were a good balance between adding some humor and disclosing without killing the joke. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Try as I might, I cannot see any other changes in your edit. Guy (help!) 10:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, OK, now I see. You removed several long-standing shortcuts, changed the colour of the tick, and added some random stuff, but didn't discuyss disputed edits ont he talk page as the text you removed requires. Srsly, dude? Take of the Spider-Man suit. Guy (help!) 10:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If your reverting was, to be blunt, so sloppy you didn't notice which changes you were reverting, then I'm not sure why you're criticising me for inferring that that was what happened and restoring only the part you missed; it was a correct inference. But since you seem to feel even that part isn't an improvement, I went ahead and posted on the talk page. And re the page history, please see WP:OWN. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, bye. Guy (help!) 22:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability for climate denier statements, especially in BLPs

Hi, I followed the link to Patrick Michaels page from Judith Curry, and found an unsourced statement that he was a climate change denier. The statement seems to have been added by you on the 3rd March. Even if it's true, you know you can't say that without a source, right? Especially on a BLP. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Or, if you prefer the old version, WP:Verifiability not truth. Merlinme (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Merlinme, I suspect someone has removed a source - that's a pretty standard tactic from the pro-denialist lobby here. But I will check sourcing, thanks. Guy (help!) 23:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted comment

I left a question for you at Talk:Stop_the_Church#What_was_this? but perhaps you didn't see it. Could you please tell me what was said in the comment you made at at 07:07 on May 3, 2020 but then deleted citing WP:RD3? Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop the Church

You input on Stop the Church has been amazing. So much more eloquent than I could possibly have been. Absolutely brilliant - a breath of fresh air. Thank you so so much. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)