User talk:JzG/Archive 130

Hello JzG, following a decision by the drafting arbitrators you have been added as an involved party in this case due to your involvement in the dispute. We decided to do this a couple days ago, however I haven't had a chance to add you until now. This also means that you're permitted to include up to 1000 words and 100 diffs in your evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd, since I have nothing to do with it. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi JzG, I've reverted your edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others, since only clerks/arbs are supposed to edit that page. You're welcome to put the same material on the case talk page if you so choose. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What L235 should have said was that because the case has already opened, the page has been frozen in the state it was when opened, and that any further comments should go to the talk page. Rather than removing your explanation, it should have been moved where it belonged. Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@L235. As JzG is a named party (as of this edit), shouldn't his statement still go on the main case page, maybe with a note to say it was made after the case was accepted and opened, following his being added as a party? It may be worth consulting with other clerks/Arbs, but I'm not sure the talk page is actually the right place for a (late) statement from a party. I think it's quite important that the responses of named parties are given suitable prominence. WJBscribe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: I'll check. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello JzG/Guy. I know you're on a break, and hope you come back to this in due course. In the course of the arbitration discussion above, TeeVeeed said "Also, in trying to reach understanding and consensus, one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing, and I am trying to AGF, so I am not accusing them of anything since they are obviously doing it in an open-fashion, but it has the effect of a SP-(appears like two different accounts in agreement when it is one), on myself at least" (my italics). He also mentions this in the Discretionary Sanctions section of the Vaxxed talk page, which you may have seen. I think he's talking about you. Leaving aside the whole Vaxxed drama, I've also been confused by your signature. It looks like Guy, but underneath it says JzG. When you sign something on a Talk page therefore, it looks like Guy, but when you edit something it looks like JzG. That does have the appearance of your being two separate people. You may do this intentionally or unintentionally, but it is confusing to this editor. I hope this helps Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Shhhnotsoloud, I asked Teeveed about that. He said he was confusing me with Guy. See here. This happens sometimes even with very experienced users per this ;) Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Jytdog (talk · contribs)! Assumption is the mother of all... Let's just say Guy/JzG's split personality confuses me! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a discussion to name the accused and his side of the story. If I remember correctly, you closed the discussion in favor of including the accused point of view per NPOV, I can't seem to find this discussion anywhere am I mistaken? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The evidence and workshop closing dates and the proposed-decision date have been extended to 6, 13 and 23 May, respectively. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Triplet-empty.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

FFS. No wonder people leave. My photo of my bike uploaded by me, all of which is blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• What a fine bike! Bishonen | talk 07:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC).
• Wonderful pedantry too! -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been eating away at me all day. How long will it be before the child outgrows the bike? -Roxy the dog™ woof 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Image:Velovision21.jpg Mike was about 11 when he became too strong for his Mum to control it. This picture has me steering, Pete (my younger son) on the back and a random girl who wanted a ride in the middle. It was taken during a race at Salt Aire, Mike had blagged a recumbent trike to ride. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi JzG, in the open Gamaliel and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Foundations poured, stepped over the drains, which will be relaid shortly. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

cryonics restored

You reverted the below parenthetical as it being "link spam"

"At the extreme, some people are openly hostile to the idea of cryonics.[1] Because of the existence of such attitudes, scientists and cryonicists will sometimes avoid disclosing their personal or scientific interests in cryonics to the public, for concern that it may tarnish their professional reputations. (But not all, see [2])"

In discussions on the cryonics talk page, this reference was noted to be significant, having been mentioned in a number of reliable sources. It seems to me that the paragraph above, without a reference to the scientists open letter, is violating NPOV.

Full disclosure, I am signed up with Alcor (since 1985), and have participated in 20 suspensions, including two in which I acted as lead surgeon, putting cryonics patients on cardiac bypass.

Keith Henson (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

   Evidencebasedcryonics is not a reliable source and not a site to which we should link, it is being pushed by corpsicle activists. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

url=http://www.evidencebasedcryonics.org/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/

Guy, re the web site not being reliable, it's been mentioned by a number of sites that are considered reliable. The people who signed it are well known scientists. If your objection is to the possibility of the signatures being faked, don't you think that the people claimed to have signed it would complain?

But that's not my main objection. You mention "I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry" and then call me a "corpsicle activists." "Corpsicle" is a quite derogatory term for a cryonics patient and adding "activist" doesn't help. Keith Henson (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Having given this due consideration, go away and take your promotional agenda with you. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

"Corpsicle." That's a good one. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Old sci-fi term, I think. I encountered it in Golden Era sci-if anyway, describing people in suspended animation for long space journeys. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE: corpsicle. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can re-block a perm banned Wikipedia user. You previously blocked the IP 208.194.97.5 a sock of the banned user Jamenta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he's recently turned up on Wikipedia fringe pushing on articles again such as Watseka Wonder (see talk page). HealthyGirl (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick and belated followup on Talk:Starchild_skull/Archive_3#Autoarchive_timeout - a "confused" good faith editor has just started a thread at Talk:Starchild skull, unaware of past problems with starchildproject.com and the article's history of unreliable sourcing in general. Keeping the past five threads out of the archive would have given enough context to clue them up that the article often had WP:PRIMARY issues, I think. Any thoughts on whether it's worth changing the archive automation to keep a few back? Or do you still think we'd be better off with "FAQ: no, you can't use starchildproject.com as a source" at the top? --McGeddon (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly worth bunging a hatnote or FAQ in there. I am unconvinced that any amount of prior discussion visible on the talk page will stop new True Believers from piling in, IMO a FAQ is a much better solution as it reduces the exposure of differently rational argument. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I think a handful of past threads (hatted as unproductive if they're that bad) are more noticeable than yet another collapsed orange talkbox. This looks like a good faith editor trying to improve the article and being puzzled at two veterans quickly reverting him, because the talk page makes the Starchild Skull look like an innocuous, undiscussed subject.

Not a big deal, anyway, I was just checking the archives and realised we didn't ever actually fix this either way. --McGeddon (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You uploaded, File:Triplet-loaded.jpg, where you either stated that you had permission to upload it or that evidence of such permission would be provided on request. Wikipedia needs the permission to be explicit and proven at the time of upload.

Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, which advises on how to confirm the permission you obtained from a third party.

It is also advisable to ask the third-party what source attribution they desire, as opposed to marking the image as having been "sent personally".

In short you need to say who you got the release from :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

• Given you were not pinged, I figure I will mention that there seems to be a bit of chatter about the admonishment at the AC noticeboard (though I presume you will have gotten to reading it in any case). Hope you are enjoying your short wikibreak, though it may not have taken obvious effect as yet. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you (or perhaps DGG?) look at Adel Sharif and make sure it's not a copyright violation (read: the same text as the previously deleted article)? Thanks. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I dream of horses, since he is probably notable, I rewrote it. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi JzG, I noticed you edit the naturopathy page often. I have written a draft article for Britt Marie Hermes, who is a former naturopath/now whistle blower and I could use your help shaping it up. It was originally rejected due to not meeting GNG and being too promotional. I've added recent sources, but I am not sure how to reduce the promo as it seems to be neutral to me. I think the article now meets WP:BASIC. Thank you. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Welcome_video Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HighInBC 05:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: A user who has been here four years with fewer than 200 edits? I smell a rat. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

They have a small edit history, but they have done work on the project. Probably just someone who only edits occasionally. HighInBC 21:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Implausible, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

obvious socks are obvious. the only question is who. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. New England Cop (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you cast your eye over Talk:Empty nose syndrome#Dubbin when you've got a minute? There has been an edit war over a bunch of sources and I had to full-protect it yesterday, and I would appreciate an experienced eye in WP:MEDRS before the clock on the protection runs out? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you reconsider this deletion from two years ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neville_Goddard

This article was deleted due to lack of independent sources. But there are secondary sources attesting to Goddard's notability that weren't mentioned in that discussion. The most notable I know of is about seven pages in the 2014 book One Simple Idea. You can read part of it on a Google Books preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=GRoUAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT172&dq=one%20simple%20idea%20neville&pg=PT172#v=onepage&q&f=false

Thank you! Johnnyj55 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Mystery of 'Legal Name Fraud'... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I've not seen that from my kennel, but it strikes me to be from those "Free Men On The Land" nutters. I'm probably wrong though. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 19:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's based on FOTL. There is a fabulous Canadian judgment on Denis Larry meads that describes the "organised pseudolegal commercial argument" (OPCA) and notes that there is no recorded instance where it has ever worked in court. You have to wonder what goes on in some people's heads. This is the legal equivalent of alternative medicine, of course. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we had a conversation about it before. Its just surprising that someone is actually spending a not-small amount of money pasting this rubbish on billboards up and down the country. Something in the wind... Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember now. Sorry, I had a gig yesterday and was tired and a bit distracted :-) I'm amazed there is actually one in my town. Under a bridge, seems appropriate given the reputation of subpontine commentary. Guy (Help!) 08:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hope your project went well, and that whatever you were building is still standing. Oh, and if you're inclined to start polishing your buttons as you gaze upon your incredible building accomplishments, remember these famous words: "You didn't build that".   Ok, the reason I'm here is to garner some pearls of wisdom from you regarding the article Christian communism, and the related article Religious communism. It's clearly original research and both have been tagged for quite some time, the bulk of the prose is unsourced opinion and the only reliable citations used in the articles reference known topics such as Marxism, Christianity, etc. The articles appear to be in violation of WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX and/or WP:ADVOCACY. It actually looks more like a student's thesis. I would think they're candidates for deletion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. The central message of the Bible is socialism, so I always find the "Christian" Right very amusing, but this is blatant WP:SYN (and the sources are not that good either - biblegateway, for example, is absolutely not a reliable source to establish the core premise of an article, as it's used in Christian Communism). Guy (Help!) 18:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that I was the editor chosen to get notice of the AfD for Christian communism. I was the first editor under the title, but the page I made was a redirect to Christian left. I'm not the creator of the content now there. If the article is deleted, reinstating the redirect may be a good idea. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that would make sense. I guess Twinkle has the disadvantages of any other automated tool when it comes to things like this. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Handcycle.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can predict the future! -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• lol* ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• I took the picture, I released and uploaded it, and I refuse to do anything to stop it being deleted. I have had enough of this bullshit. I will never upload any files ever again, it's simply not worth it. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• ^{But you stated that it was "Scanned from an original in my possession, photographer is Howard Yeomans, subject is Geoff Marshall. Howard places no restrictions on use. Guy (Help!) 9:49 am, 31 December 2006, Sunday (9 years, 5 months, 20 days ago) (UTC−6) And that's why you have to get a release from the photog and the person who was photographed. It's copyright law and not something WMF can ignore. All you have to do is have them send an email releasing it all to you. Atsme📞📧 19:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)}

• Guy, I'm happy to help you at Commons and will even do the "leg-work" for you. It's a pain in the arse but worth the effort, especially considering the images you're sharing. The photo you uploaded simply needs a release from the copyright owner - a quick email from the photog to permissions will end the drama. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

A longtime administrator, showing contempt for the Foundation's copyright policy? Interesting. Kelly ^hi! 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I had forgotten it was originally Howard's not mine, but the fact is that I have a full release, but verbally and in person. I understand the reasons for the rules, I simply cannot be bothered to jump through the hoops to retain content that would require hours of work only to have another arbitrary demand for shrubberies further down the line. Let someone else provide pictures. I have recently had to go through a whole load of bullshit over a picture I took of my bike that has been here for years. I've had the same with pictures sent to OTRS with release given in the email. Life is simply too short, I refuse to engage in an activity that only ever causes me frustration. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)