User talk:JzG/Archive 47

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 40

←

Archive 45

Gibraltar

Welcome to the Gibraltar article. I used to edit it once, until I realised that life is too short to waste your time arguing with someone who thinks living there qualifies him to edit the article and not living there disqualifies you. You think this is bad? Try having a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks that "British Overseas Territory" was superceded by "UK Overseas Territory" [1] or that the Gibraltar Pound is a "mythical" currency [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable discussions are nice, but I too am unhappy about the POV warriors in the Gibraltar article. I have gone through a fairly comprehensive review of the arguments for one specific phrase and am still producing no change to the more entrenched positions. Which include far too much opposition based on perceived/attributed motives, rather than the approach required to write a good encyclopedia. Guy, I realize that you are nurturing hurt feelings, but I feel that we need an administrator to look at the current process and comment/act as required. You have already given up time to this article, but if you can either intervene once more, or suggest another suitable administrator to leap into the lion's den, this may be helpful. This diff may be relevant. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano

It appears that the conversation at incivility blocks is now being derailed. This is largely because Giano isn't happy he was mentioned without him being there to defend himself, and to be honest I don't really blame him. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not that annoyed, I'm just upset that the conversation got derailed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Giano is Giano. You have to work out how to do what you want to do without ending up butting heads with him. Sounds like that did not work too well, I can't say I'm surprised, you're not the first to try and I'm sure you'll not be the last. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

CoM Arb thing

I am very pushed for time but thought your summary at the CoM thing was pretty accurate. I cannot remember what formula to use where, can I add "other users endorsing this summary" on that page or is it not allowed? --BozMo talk 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

perhaps

Perhaps the lesson is that readers of the enWP pay insufficient attention to Italian politics, the typical anglophone insularity. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, the WP community can be unbelievably insular - but I guess that's not unique, we are a Fortune 500 company with a global presence and have "global agreements" with key suppliers that have no SLA outside the USA. I remember the arguments over St Albans School, where I had trouble getting people to accept that the dab page should be at the main title rather than the school in Washington, DC. "But look at the congressional staffers who went to the DC school!" they cried. "I'll see your congressional staffers and raise you a Pope" said I... Oh, and Stephen Hawking. According to the local paper St Albans School (Hertfordshire) should be rather well off, having an outstanding debt on a loan of £1000 to the City dating back to 1772. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

AGF

My stores of good faith are no doubt excessive. Feel free to take any valid actions with regard to the page. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No need, that would be vindictive (I hate spammers). I was just surprised that you'd done this. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Radiopathy

As you commented on the ANI thread, I have narrowed discussion to an support/oppose section, so if you could please post whether it is one way or another there, it would make things easier.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Doret

Help. The Michael Doret article got userfied to User:Sdazet. It's now been moved back to article space, but the User's Talk page was moved along with it as the article's Talk page, when it isn't. Can you fix this? In addition, the User's User page and User Talk page redirect to the article. Woogee (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can use {{db-r2}} on the user page, I guess. I am struggling to assume good faith on this one, the text is so overtly promotional. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- I just did a page move for the Talk page and then put a db-redir on the article Talk page. Woogee (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what's all that mess at the top of this page? Woogee (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Amusing

FWIW, check the dates of their first logged edits. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Julie Estelle

I've deprodded it previously, did you not check? When you state "no independent reliable sources", did you not notice the reference from the The Jakarta Post in the article? Do try to make at least some effort before reaching for the delete button. Fences&Windows 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Jakarta Post is not biographical, neither are the other sources, other than the (unreliable) IMDB. I strongly believe that we should not be teasing biographies out of news coverage. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then you're in a minority, as using substantial news coverage to create stub biographies is standard (whereas using solely passing mentions to weave together an article is dodgy). Are you proposing that only people for whom a formal biography has been published should have Wikipedia articles? That's a very restrictive criterion. You can always take such an article to AfD, but remember that prod is only for non-controversial deletions, and that even the new proposed BLP Prod wouldn't have applied to that article. Fences&Windows 01:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but that's my view. According to our core policies I do not think we should ever be the first place to publish a formal biography of someone. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your view on this even if I feel it errs too far on the side of caution, but how does it stem from our core policies? I've not seen anything in WP:V or WP:BLP to suggest this. What am I missing? Fences&Windows 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Control4

I've restored the above page at the creator's request. Feel free to AfD if you see fit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ciklum

Hello JzG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ciklum, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ged UK 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Qattusu

Can you please look over the last contributions. The bad faith assumptions and arttacks are continuing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please report this at the noticeboards, it's not something I can fix. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the opinion you were admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jodie Foster

Please don't. Can't you at least wait until the RfC is over before removing the banner from articles? The editors of Jodie Foster have had that banner there for years now, so WP:CONSENSUS would indicate it should stay - removing it now is just going to add fuel to the current RfC and won't help the Jodie Foster article, the Johnny Weir article, or the encyclopedia in any way. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of RfCs with the WikiProject votestacking at every turn is a really really bad way of handling this - a pile-on of the LGBT project is not "consensus" and consensus can't trump foundational policy anyway. I made a proposal on AN. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that the WikiProject is votestacking is funny. I think there are about five active editors that are members of the LGBT project at the moment. Yes, all of them have participated in the discussion. Boy, that's going to sway things :)

I'm really hoping the current RfC will come to some consensus. And I value your participation in it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects fall into two basic categories: those which collect people editing common articles (milhist, geographical) and those which collect people with a common POV (LGBT, religions). Some of the religion projects include a few non-adherents who join to ensure the coverage is neutral. Fortunately we have relatively few anti-gay activists, so the LGBT project is basically a group of gay activists. It will have followers as well as members, this group is more likely to include those with a different POV but is still almost certainly dominated by the LGBT POV. Now put yourself in the position of someone who is dogged by, and persistently refuses to be drawn into, speculation about their sexuality. What's it going to feel liek to know your Wikipedia article is now part of the LGBT project? Feel good? No. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? If I refuse to talk about my sexuality, then I feel bad that a group of LGBT editors are interested in my article? That assumes that being labeled as gay is a bad thing. And that begs three questions:

a) How does the subject "feeling bad" about something affect Wikipedia's actions? We have thousands of instances of articles that have stuff the subject of the article doesn't want to discuss - Larry Craig sex scandal, for instance. Wikipedia has policies for such things - WP:WELLKNOWN. If the content has multiple reliable sources discussing the content, Wikipedia should simply document what the sources say.

b) How does an article being "of interest" to a WikiProject WP:HARM the subject in any way? It doesn't label the person as *being* LGBT, it simply says the subject is "of interest".

c) Your comments imply (if not state outright) that WP:LGBT editors cannot be trusted to edit articles with a neutral point of view. That doesn't WP:AGF, and that tars a specific set of editors as undesirable. It's simply unacceptable to say that because a group of editors belong to a certain WikiProject, they're going to be detrimental to Wikipedia. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The fact that he refuses to comment indicates that the speculation is unwelcome. Adding a tag related to the speculation is not going to be welcome either. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. There has not only been speculation from multiple reliable sources, but there have been news articles on how that speculation (and Weir's reluctance to talk about his sexuality) reflect on sports and on culture in general. Are you saying that the subject's wishes override WP:WELLKNOWN? I fully support well-balanced and not WP:UNDUE content within the article, but to claim that the WikiProject banner shouldn't be on the talk page harms the article, the ability and utility of WikiProjects, and Wikipedia itself. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on this. Probably best to stop before I get wound up. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)