User talk:JzG/Archive 97

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 90

←

Archive 95

William Gifford Palgrave

Please would you move this to Gifford Palgrave? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You already did, I see. Anything else I can help with? Guy (Help!) 16:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

will fix

www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Guy,

I just noticed that you deleted SIX very important links from the Wikipedia article about the anthrax attacks of 2001. Your reason was that they were "citation spam."

They were NOT citation spam. They were the only available links at the time. Back then, newspaper web sites would change the links for newspaper articles after a few days. They'd move the article from the "today" folder to a "past week" folder, and then to a "past month" folder, etc. And each time they did that, the links would stop working. And, because of the URL change, Google wouldn't be able to find them, either.

I created my web site as a place where articles could be preserved without risk that they'd disappear.

I also notice that you deleted the Wikipedia page about "the anthrax attacks timeline" because you feel I'm a conspiracy theorist. In REALITY, I'm the only guy on the internet who is arguing with the conspiracy theorists and shooting down their nonsense. I view the FACTS, and the FACTS say that the conspiracy theorists are wrong.

I don't particularly want to have links from Wikipedia to articles on my web site. They just clutter up my log files and generate bandwidth usage.

So, I'm going to put back all the links you deleted, BUT I'll use links to the newspaper web sites and other web sites where the articles can be found.

I'm not very skilled at updating Wikipedia. I very rarely do it. So, it's going to take me awhile. But, there is one problem: ONE of the links cannot be nicely replaced. The only other available link I can find is to the magazine where you have to PAY to view the article. If I put that link back to connect once again to the article on my site, is that going to be a problem for you?

Ed Lake www.anthraxinvestigation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdLake (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ed, I noticed you are a crank abusing Wikipedia to promote your website and delusional beliefs. Now would be a great time to leave because you have been rumbled. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, which "delusional beliefs" are those? That the government determined that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer? Do you have some theory of your own about who really sent the anthrax letters? Do you believe the government is conspiring to blame Ivins for something he didn't do?

BTW, I notice this morning that another Wikipedia editor just UNDID your unjustified deletes.

Ed

The assertion that the removal is unjustified is begging the question. I have a lot of experience in external link spamming, offsite copyright violations, policy for linking to crank websites and such. You may not have spotted that I am an administrator here. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I notice you changed your reasoning. First you removed the links because they were citation spam. When they were put back by another editor, you then removed them because (in your opinion) they violate copyrights.

I've already pointed out that I'm willing to replace the links with links to the articles on the newspaper's web site, and with links to other web sites. But, you just ignore that and delete the links. And you attack me as a "crank" WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. Am I a "crank" because I fight against conspiracy theorists? Am I a "crank" because I think the government's case against Bruce Ivins is a good case? Or am I a "crank" just because I disagree with your views about the case? Which of my "beliefs" are "delusional?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdLake (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you just made my point for me. Guy (Help!) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

An observation

Hello JzG. I noticed a recent comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case where you appear to have maligned User:Askahrc for not informing you that you were named as a party to the case.[1] I think you should know that it was actually User:Barney the barney barney who added your name and subsequently failed to notify you. [2] Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Lyndsey Turner

Hi, just a heads up that she won Best Director at the Olivier Awards tonight, so it is likely that an article will be heading this way (again) soon - it is currently salted by you. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it was inevitable. Not much we can do about it other than ensure that the stalker does not edit the article. My note above applies, anyway, but if anyone who is not a long-time Wikipedian and provably not a sock of Fairyspit wants the article, then the answer should remain "no". Guy (Help!) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc

Hello Guy, would you mind adding my response to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground Off of Rupert Sheldrake? It can be found here. Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that's wise? It does not make either of you look good, I'm, afraid. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, if I have been uncivil (and I don’t think I was) then it was retaliatory incivility. You might think me crude, but the facts show that I was not the aggressor. I’d rather Askahrc’s accusations against me not go unanswered. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's more that it brings an off-wiki dispute to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy, one of the points that I was trying to explain to Askahrc in my now-infamous discussion on his talk page is that he couldn’t attack Barney off-wiki and then accuse Barney of failing to assume good faith on-wiki. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. Barney could not reasonably be expected to read Askahrc’s insulting rant and then still assume that Askahrc was operating in good faith. The distinction between on and off wiki became irrelevant when Askahrc did what he did. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen Askahrc's rant - where is it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

By “rant” I was referring to his lengthy polemic on Tumbleman’s website where he calls the “skeptical” editors of Wikipedia a bunch of bullies (and a number of other nasty things). I got Dougweller to save a copy here. And you can view it on Tumbleman’s website [[3]] (though it may have been altered since it was first posted). 76.107.171.90 (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Went to do this and see that it's already done. I don't think much will come of it, but we'll wait until it's finally rejected and then see what Askahrc does next. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the statement that was already posted is my initial statement. The text that I’ve asked you to post is a further reply to additional accusations that Askahrc has made since then.

Guy, I understand that nothing will likely come of it, but I’d like there to be a diff of me refuting Askahrc’s accusations. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Block of Drowninginlimbo

Question. Did you do a checkuser before making this block? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I put them on the stool, dunked them in the pond, and noticed that they floated. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider revising that opinion (witches float too, but they're not ducks). It's hard to see why a sock master would revert and edit war with their own sock [4] [5]. Also, I don't see one account supporting the other on the talk page. Now, this could be just deception intended to misdirect, and I've seen crazier things happen on Wikipedia so of course that's not definitive proof that one account is NOT a sockpuppet of the other. But it does make the WP:DUCK test inapplicable.

There's two possibilities here. Either the user did in fact sock puppet and engaged in additional deceptive behavior to cover that up. In that case I have no intention of wasting my time and effort in defending them. Or they are not the same user and the block was wrong, in which case I do think it worthy to kick up a fuss defending them. So let's do this right. Can you unblock Drowninginlimbo, and then either you, or some other party file a proper SPI? Otherwise this seems like an administrator jumping the gun.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair play, you are right: I misread a diff in the edit war. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverting one of your edits at radical feminism

Hi Guy -

I think it would be a good idea to revert this edit that you made to radical feminism while the page was fully protected. The person you reverted was pretty promptly unblocked as a sockpuppet, which means that WP:RBI doesn't apply. It's a relatively minor thing, especially since it was only a NPOV tag, but since Gorgi was not a sock, it seems like his edit should be left intact until at least the point that full protection lapses. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Twerking?

Now Guy, did your mother not tell you that it's not nice to mock the afflicted? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is my great mission to replace the worthless term "succussion" with another term that everybody understands... Guy (Help!) 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

voice to skull

Protecting an article, then changing a stable, accurate redirect without consensus is not really appropriate. Please justify it. Or better, simply revert to the last stable version per my reasons on the talk page (where the only person who objects is candleabracadbra). GDallimore (Talk) 15:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A user in good faith pointed out a more appropriate redirect. The content was identical in both cases. I don't see the problem. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a more appropriate redirect, it's enforcing delusions that the MAE can actually be used to beam voices into people's heads. GDallimore (Talk) 16:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a section in that article that explicitly debunks the claims. Redirect to electronic harassment arguably also has the same problem of reinforcing delusional belief. It's possible the best ultimate target might be auditory hallucination. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And electronic harrassment doesn't? MAE is only one small part of it, that's the problem. Same with auditory hallucination, since not all hallucinations include a persecutory complex, and not all persecution delusions involve hallucinations. Your argument that you are "tightening" the redirect simply doesn't hold water. Note, also, that I wrote the entirety of electronic harassment and the debunking section in MAE so have done the background reading... GDallimore (Talk) 23:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Added your Lunatic charlatans userbox

Hi, hope you don't mind that I've added your userbox to the gallery. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wish you hadn't, he'll be impossible for weeks now. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So true. But I was impossible anyway, so no harm done. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Trevor James Constable

Hi there,

Would you mind taking a second look at this AfD? It's just that I've overhauled the article and I think (hope) you'd find it satisfactory now.

Thank you in advance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bircham International University

Do you think the protection on Bircham International University could be dropped to semi, and any socks just dealt with through normal SPI and blocking, rather than keeping the page indefinitely fully protected? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

um. William Martin is massively determined to change the article, to the point that I have had to block his phone number on my home phone. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Could editors who cause problems on the article just be blocked (getting a CU involved if necessary)? I don't like the idea of keeping any article fully protected forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have reduced it to semiprotection. This may be a problem because this guy has spent literally years doing everything he can to use Wikipedia to give an appearance of legitimacy which, in truth, he could achieve overnight just by obtaining accreditation (rather than claiming accreditation from various fake or fraudulent bodies). It seems that paying Bell Pottinger is an option, while pursuing the one thing that will actually work, is not! Guy (Help!) 18:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Matthew Hoh

Hi. Could you please restore this article subject and its history? I'd like to work on the article. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Easter. Could respond please? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the request. This was a WP:BLP1E that was deleted due to serious sourcing issues. Is this person now notable for more than one thing? Guy (Help!) 16:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you put it in my userspace I will make sure to remove any BLP violations. He is a columnist, Ridenhour Award winner etc. etc. Once I am done working with it in my userspace and move it to article space I will let you know and you are most welcome to take it to an articles for deletion discussion if you don't think it's suitable. Thank you for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk)

For example here are book sources. Several of them are since the deletion took place. The one at the bottom notes his leadership in Afghan related study groups etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I will read around it a bit, I have to say I am still uneasy about this because form what I've seen so far this is still WP:BLP1E. I am not doubting your good faith at all, I am just very conservative about biographies (as you may have noticed). Please give me a couple of days to sift the sources and ask a couple of people I trust who are knowledgeable about this area. Fair? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please let me know what you've decided with at least a ping after the two days. I am usually juggling quite a few things and I don't want to lose track of this one. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

I presume this was accidental? —Dark 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, yes. Phantom click on the iThing. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

~~Accidents happen, but please fix it.~~ --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that it has already been reverted.[6]

Damn iThings! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping depends on a user page?

Not sure why, but {{ping|JzG}} is a red link. Not sure if that affects notification but is odd unless I made stupid error. I pinged you for attention on ANI and Bundy page protection. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Overwrote mugshot with a quite different one

Re your overwite here You're not supposed to do that, IIRC. Definintely wrong on commons, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Overwriting_existing_files; is policy that different here at en.?--Elvey (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It was an OTRS request. No harm, no foul, I reckon. It's a clearer picture. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Good example of IAR, perhaps.--Elvey (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you reverting this IP user?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:MyWikiBiz&action=history

Just thought I'd ask. I'm sure there's a reason for it. Tutelary (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Because it is a banned user evading their ban (see Jimbo's talk page where this is pretty much openly admitted). Guy (Help!) 09:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin

Check the latest comments on the Dean Radin article/talk-page. I am pretty sure the IP 67.163.161.226 is 159.118.158.122 (Jamenta). He's got the same writing style, forgets to sign some of his comments, and he's talking yet again about "skeptic POV". He's also edited the Carl Jung talk-page on his old IP [7], compare that to the recent edits on this recent IP [8] which are in the same section. Goblin Face (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

67.163.161.226 is a confirmed proxy IP. Is there anyway we can report this user for that? Goblin Face (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where's confirmation it's a proxy? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

[9] or [10] Goblin Face (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Likely that Jamenta is now using the IP 208.194.97.5 (talk · contribs) where he has commented on the Dean Radin talk-page, same writing style and he forgets to sign his comments. Goblin Face (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Mira Road and Parking Lot pic issue

Hi sir, i have a query do adding a free image is subject for revert? My images are not violating any copyrights. And by representing the photos are really infringing the rights? I just added a photo to Mira Road & Parking lot. You're admin of Wikipedia so i have a query do adding information is wrong? TekkenLeiWulong (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is normal editorial judgment. You think your photo is a good addition to those articles, others disagree. The default is to remove, then you can propose it on Talk with your rationale for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Traditional Chinese medicine". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your semi of Telepathy

Hi, Guy, do you mind if I unprotect Telepathy? The IP has been blocked for a month and the disruptive registered account for two weeks. I asked for a checkuser yesterday, and they (of course) turned out to be the same person. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

Yup, fine. The IP was the problem. I removced sprot. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
Message added 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Proxy

188.27.144.144 who has been leaving comments on cold fusion talk-pages and pushing various fringe beliefs is a proxy IP. [11]. An internet search also reveals a lot of forum spam and dodgy stuff associated with it [12]. It is definitely a proxy. Other users should be informed about this because they are wasting a heck of lot of time talking to this guy. Goblin Face (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Please tell Bishzilla Guy (Help!) 20:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm… Bishzilla kind of new at this. Attempted connect through that IP at port 80 and 81, but hands may be too big. Goblin Face, IP is proxy, but to make sure is open proxy, please ask Materialscientist or Kww. Little 'shonen be happy to block for a year if answer positive, but she scared lay about her with tools without certainty. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC).

[Liek] Guy (Help!) 21:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown.

Dear JzG,

The block you put on my IP address has now expired, meaning I am able to edit pages other than my own talk page once again. I have read through the posts made subsequent to the block and I have numerous concerns. Would you be happy to discuss these?

131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Obsessing over the names of biographies is a sign of the kind of person we absolutely do not need at Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "water fluoridation". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

[13] You wasted a bit of time responding there, sorry about that. Bishonen | talk 13:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC).

D'oh, should have spotted. I used to be good at this crap. Never mind. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Gillian McKeith‎

"MNcKeith and her followers have been at this article before, trying to recast it in a more favourable light". Please don't think of me as a supporter of McKeith! I agree that we should be calling out pseudoscientists on their nonsense, I just think that we're going to have to source the opposition well! J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Hell no! I completely agree: see my comment at talk:Dean Radin a few minutes ago. every word we write on any biography, be they saint or charlatan, should be written as if we have the eyes of history looking over one shoulder and the subject's lawyer looking over the other. There are editorial judgments on which reasonable people may disagree, but it is really really important to be accurate and fair. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "copromancy" sounds like something that'd be in a terrible Dungeons & Dragons 3.0 splatbook. In fact, maybe they would just call it The Splat Book. (For what it's worth, I've got a personal distaste for McKeith as she's sometimes touted as a vegan [which she isn't], in order to give a bad name to the rest of us more reasonable vegans.) J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

McTimoney College

I understand what you mean, but the infobox in your last edit removed several things relevant for all schools, while it makes it sound as if you're disputing the idea that it provides Chiropractic education following the "McTimoney method", invented by the college's founder John McTimoney. Meanwhile, "year proposed" sounds much more applicable to an idea. How do we know that this college wasn't proposed before 1982, and why is the proposal even relevant for an institution? Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No matter what we think of its teaching, it's still a school; we need to be neutral rather than casting aspersions on the subject matter. Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Dotheboys Hall in Nicholas Nickleby? Never read it (or heard of it, for that matter), so if that's what you're talking about, I'm completely ignorant aside from the descriptions given in the article itself. Were there a real school passing WP:N that was similar to the one described in this article, the school infobox would definitely be appropriate there. Nyttend (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)