User talk:JzG/Archive 166

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 160

←

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

→

Archive 170

74.195.159.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just came off a six-month block you had imposed for disruption at Talk:Ben Swann and immediately began engaging in the same POV-pushing and dishonesty as from before the block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants—you can't block people if their only offense is that they maintain a position in opposition to a position that you may maintain. Bus stop (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake... That is categorically NOT what I said, nor even a remotely plausible interpretation of the IP's behavior. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You are being hostile to to the IP editor at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stefan Molyneux. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I informed the IP that I would not debate a liar. I am now informing you of the same thing, in light of your repeated and blatantly false claims about what I've said and done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry.[1] Please be neutral.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not about neutral, it's about factual accuracy and Wikipedia policy. Spend a couple of minutes looking at my edit history then reflect on the crass idiocy of accusing me of being politically biased against a bill to ban conversion therapy sponsored by Labour and humanists. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL. May's government has expressed support for banning the therapy, so please don't accuse me of making edits favoring "Labour and Humanists."[2] Please be neutral.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The accusations of political bias were yours, not mine. Now go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone seems to have a hard time getting the point as to why we reverted their edits on the YL article. Perhaps you'd care to provide a fuller explanation to to the editor, as your revert summary (which was crystal clear to me) seemed to go over their head.[3] Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I made this tweak to User:JzG/Links, which lets you do things like [4]. Revert if you don't like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Much thanks! Guy (Help!) 11:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Medical Veritas. Since you had some involvement with the Medical Veritas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I restored a paragraph you removed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_File&type=revision&diff=768886103&oldid=768606593

The paragraph is in the article Free File

I think your primary concern was that there were no references, so I added some cites to the USA IRS government agency web sites on the topic.

The paragraph contains really important info, esp for US residents. Do you have any objection to restoring it? Noleander (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me what's going on with zenodo.org, or point me to discussion on why it's on the spamlist? I'm seeing articles being modified for other reasons being forced to remove what appear to be valid citation, and can't find an explanation. The only thing I could find was your emergency blacklisting. What's the right approach for dealing with citations which use the cite? Presumably what's going on right now, simply deleting the citation, isn't the right answer. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nemo bis was WP:POINTedly adding very large numbers of links without any attempt to verify copyright. The site allows copyright material to be uploaded in violation of owners' rights, and many of the papers had no evidence of authorised release. This was in the context of the same editor pushing to downplay the fact that Sci-Hub's operating model is illegal. So it looked like not just a flood of WP:LINKVIO, but a deliberate flood. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah. So I should be looking for other locations of those articles, rather than preserve the URL that got used. Thanks, got it. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes please, with clean copyright, if full text. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Autonova (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI I'm not going to waste my limited time at DRN with someone who has declared themselves "involved" with a conspiracy theory movement and tried conceal it. I can't extend good faith where there's so obvious a conflict of interest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• "... we compromise endlessly between the status quo and what conspiracy theorists want the article to say."
• "I don't suppose the conspiracists will like this any more, though."
• "Your version is clearly designed to leave the door open to bullshit, in a way the sources do nto support."
• "That's as expected given your history, and it's your problem, not Wikipedia's."
• "The fundamental problem is that any accurate statement willcause you cognitive dissonance. Sorry, I can't fix that. "
• "... right after we topic ban the conspiracy kooks so they don't derail the discussion with attempts to mitigate cognitive dissonance."
• "That's good, because we've had to tolerate your advocacy for appeasing conspiracy theorists."
• "I know that as an admitted Truther you don't accept that ... And if you don't, you don't belong on Wikipedia."
• "That's why we're here in the first place. Autonova, a Truther ..."
• "...supported by multiple sources but consistently disputed here by conspiracy theorists..."

"Play the ball not the man", "discuss edits not editors", I'm sure you've heard them all a thousand times, but still that's a lot of ad hominem. And why? Because of a Truther userbox from five years ago?? People should be allowed to believe in silly things and not get attacked for it. If you look through the user's contributions over the past decade, it's mostly video games. They're not going around trying to pull hoaxes, or even being tendencious, or malicious, and yet you attack, attack, attack. It makes the whole damn page toxic because you keep making it personal. There are a lot of editors in that conversation; I only see two who are making comments about a specific editor's motivations and other ad hominem attacks; the other one is Pants. Please chill. Leviv ich 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Compromise with Truthers is an exercise in futility and destructive to NPOV. The attempt to water down the article has been going on for years and I, for one, am bored with it. But you'll notice that I have been the onw dredging up sources and making constructive proposals, whereas our Truther friend just wants to cut out all references to conspiracy theories being false. See also the above. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:Levivich Good on you for trying to counsel the OP on his Talk page regarding how to structure an RfC. But I have no problem with Guy calling a spade a spade. Sure, we allow people to hold silly personal beliefs in UFOs or ghosts or conspiracies — as long as they don't disrupt articles in an effort to make them more sympathetic to those personal beliefs. In this case, we have someone who (currently, not five years ago) declares their affinity and work with the 9-11 Truther movement. That is an automatic conflict of interest when it comes to editing Wikipedia's conspiracy theory article. Given what they are trying to accomplish (removing "without credible evidence" as a defining characteristic of a conspiracy theory) we'd be naive to extend good faith and blindly assume they are only trying to improve Wikipedia. As for Guy's Talk page remarks, yes I agree he could tone down it down a bit. Ten comments about the editor's obvious COI is definitely overdoing it. One or two would have been sufficient. But as you can see, he's feeling frustrated, and with good reason. I invite you to put the conspiracy theory article on your watchlist. After several years, you'll notice the pattern; an WP:SPA or conspiracy believer shows up once or twice a year to try to make the article more amenable to their beliefs. Their methods vary, such as trying to introduce language that hints that some conspiracy theories are actually true, or revising the definition to leave the door open to credibility for certain theories. Their tactics can range from polite but persistent sealioning, to more openly disruptive edit warring. Long term editors do get tired of engaging in what is virtually the same debate over and over again, as I suspect Guy has. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a small comment - holding an alternative belief does not give you a COI. Believing in some conspiracies does not mean that you have a COI in regard to that conspiracy, and it certainly doesn't mean you have a COI in regards to conspiracies in general. Otherwise we'd have to say that people who believe in global warming can't edit the global warming article, or people who believe that Trump is an idiot can't edit the Trump biography. Having an opinion does not, in itself, give a conflict of interest. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not - unless you make your living from it (e.g. quacks and professional antivaxers). It does, however, call into legitimate question your ability to correctly assess sources and evidence, and it undermines any claim to objectivity in any area related to any delusional beliefs you might hold. So, a Truther is not an honest broker in discussions on conspiracy theories, because the commonly accepted definition of the term hurts them in the feels. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If you say so. But they don't have a COI. - Bilby (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free t point out where I said they did. I did, however, point out that they have an emotionally vested interest in the content of the page which is at odds with NPOV due to the fringe nature of the beliefs in question - and the lack of intellectual honesty around the framing of the dispute stems entirely from this. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you in regard to that point, as most of what LuckyLouie was writing was accusing them of a COI. An editor might be disruptive, push a POV, biased and difficult, but I don't think we should be using COI as a bludgeon - especially when it doesn't apply. We have a wealth of other polices which can be much more appropriate. - Bilby (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like we're in violent agreement then. In Wikipedia terms a COI is financial. This is not a financial interest, but a deeply vested emotional belief, more akin to creationism. I always find creationism a useful analogy, as most people on Wikipedia seem to grok the essential problem there. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm so reasonable, I agree as well. Most people think "paid editor" when you mention COI, but I was using the term in the sense of WP:EXTERNALREL. - LuckyLouie (talk)

In this case it still isn't a COI. What you are looking for is WP:COI is not simply bias. - Bilby (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't want to suggest the user has a COI as it's defined in Wikipedia's guideline. In retrospect, I shouldn't have linked to WP:COI in my original comment. Conflict of interest would have been the better link. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have mentioned you on the BLP noticeboard. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

What was that about your not being excessively sympathetic to antivaxers? Your denials are exactly as convincing as hers. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I uphold BLP even on articles about objectionable people, please stop misrepresenting that as sympathizing with antivaxers. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Stop sympathising with antivaxers, and I will stop pointing out that you sympathise with antivaxers. And, as noted before, stop posting here except as mandated by policy. Your constant sealioning is very, very boring. Now go away. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I only posted again to rebut a misleading accusation you made here, I am pro-vax despite your misrepresentations, if you stop making misleading accusations here I will stop rebutting them here. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Learn the difference between "rebut" and "repudiate". Also learn the meaning of "go away". Guy (Help!) 22:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25#Wikipedia:Requests for Arrrrrbitration Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

×== Huh? ==

I thought it was clear that "the comments" referred to the comments by Soros on 60 Minutes, not the constant anti-Soros comments from Alex. Æthereal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to clarify this in the edit, but it has already been reverted without explanation. Æthereal (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Æthereal: OK, maybe talk about it on Talk? I think it was ambiguous in context, so maybe that was the issue. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

For that indef, and also for the other ANI timesink before that. Even while I vehemently disagree with you on some things, I do appreciate what you do for the 'pedia. Leviv ich 21:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

De nada. Reasonable people can differ, after all. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not quite ready to be fully released to everyone (bugs), but the current version of it is relatively clean of false positives. If you want to work on getting rid of some of those crappy references, I suggest starting at WP:JCW/Questionable5 and going up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a relatively new Wikipedia user, and I've created my first page about a company called FeedbackFruits a while ago, as during my uni years we used to use them and it seemed weird that there was no wiki page about them, so I searched for sources and wrote it up. Could you please explain why the page was deleted without any discussion or at least attempt to remove whatever elements caused its deletion in the first place? Please, don't interpret my question as a critique or as a negatively loaded one, as I'm genuinely curious what went wrong. The code for deletion quoted was "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (TW)" - I didn't include any praise for the company as far as I remember, no mention of its superiority or anything like that, I simply described its existence and purpose. Thank you in advance - looking forward to your clarification! O..osd..O (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A business trip to Bengaluru has been moved forward and extended at short notice. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear JzG I'm here for help and suggestions. I'm new in Wikipedia contribution. Is it alright if I edit a film production House 's article with trusted sources and news references. Though I'm a journalist of entertainment sector, I'm trying to create and contribute to film related articles. One of them is Dreams In Frame production house. But I can't understand why this article is being considered for deletion. Can you please help me to learn how can I contribute articles, which will be not deleted. Thanks a lot for your support. ♥ — comment added by Ajairapara 08:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ajairapara: See WP:COMPANY and when you have questions, ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse. (talk page watcher) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert there. Your edit summary was much gentler than mine would have been. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I am writing to you about the deletion of the page devoted to the physicist Lorenzo Iorio and the protection imposed on its recreation. I do not know the reasons, but there was a lot of mess around him. It does not seem that the main reasons were his non-notability. I can see that it is at the same level of many other physicists having their pages here on Wikipedia. It seems it was mainly due to sockpuppetry issues and some sort of personal grievances with some editors. Could you, please, deal with such an issue? Thank you for your kind attention. Best regards. Redwheel (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Admins have dealt with the issue. The promotional article has been deleted and the sockpuppets blocked. And yes, the core problem was lack of notability, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio and  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination). You have repeatedly referenced Iorio on Wikipedia, and every article you've edited you appear to pimp either Iorio or non-wonderful journal mill MDPI, so I am not disposed to assume much in the way of good faith. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that, actually, you are not really looking at his scientific notability (those deletions are rather old, and also in those cases they were biased by sockpuppets), but only at issues like my alleged good faith, sockpuppets, etc. You does not seem impartial. Best regards.

Redwheel (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I am looking at his encyclopaedic notability. And now I suggest you drop it because at this point you are indistinguishable from the spammers. I have reviewed your contributions and given the sustained spamming of Iorio here I think a topic ban is in order for all single-purpose accounts, including you. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, the RM instructions actually call for using "?" when the nominator is certain that the current page title is not what it we should be using but isn't certain what it should be; it's an invitation to respondents to provide the answer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

But there was already ongoing discussion, so the entire thing was pure disruption. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy,

Please see Ben Swann and, in particular, User:74.195.159.155, who you previously blocked for 6 months due to disruption on this article; they've returned and returned to the exact same behaviors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Notably, making this vaccine-autism bullshit-pushing edit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
• Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

• A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
  • paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
  • checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

---