User talk:JzG/Archive 109
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
May I ask you a biking question?
As a mountain biker who absolutely loved spending time in the Ouachita Mountains riding the Womble Trail, (have a Gary Fisher Sugar 2), I was wondering if you had a mountain bike or preferred road bikes? Hans_Rey was my hero back in 2001-2002. I attended several mountain bike camps, and seriously considered attending one of No Way Rey's clinics when he held it in France. I read some of your blogs back when you had it linked to your UP, which is when I noticed that you enjoyed biking. I truly enjoyed reading the entertaining articles you wrote, especially about your Dad which may be why I relate to you more as a human element than a cyberborg. 
Regarding mountain biking, I'm not quite as daring today as I was 5 years ago, but I still enjoy mountain biking. I just make it a point to not jump cliffs anymore. 
Atsme☯Consult 00:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have two mountain bikes, a road bike, a Brompton, an audax bike, a recumbent (two wheel lowracer), a unicycle and a tandem. I have formerly owned a double childback triplet (photo of me riding it). I also have a 2015 model Volvo XC70 and two Honda Jazz. I am not daring at all, especially since the crash a bit over three years ago that came within an inch of killing me, leaving me with post traumatic stress disorder which took a long time to fix. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- Crash? Bike or scooter or car? Road rash is never fun, especially at 50 to 70 mph. Sorry to hear you had a crash but it appears your PTS was fixed? I hope so. Please be safe. I actually slowed down riding my motorcycle after seeing and hearing about the wrecks. [1] The mountain biking I try to restrict to riding pine needle cushioned, softly rolling trails like what's on the Womble. Atsme☯Consult 16:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bike. I was cycling down a hill at something over 20mph when a BMW turned across me and I went into the side of him. I was unconscious for several minutes, broke a rib, wrecked my right knee and left shoulder and the bike was a write-off. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Was your Captain America outfit damaged at all? -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 22:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bike. I was cycling down a hill at something over 20mph when a BMW turned across me and I went into the side of him. I was unconscious for several minutes, broke a rib, wrecked my right knee and left shoulder and the bike was a write-off. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Crash? Bike or scooter or car? Road rash is never fun, especially at 50 to 70 mph. Sorry to hear you had a crash but it appears your PTS was fixed? I hope so. Please be safe. I actually slowed down riding my motorcycle after seeing and hearing about the wrecks. [1] The mountain biking I try to restrict to riding pine needle cushioned, softly rolling trails like what's on the Womble. Atsme☯Consult 16:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Inspiration
Per this diff, you have inspired a userbox. Maybe I'll add pretty colors later. Oh, and a border. A border would be a good idea. - CorbieV☊ 00:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
|
This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. |
- Yes please. A border and colours would be nice. I'd use it. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 22:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, would you consider reopening this discussion? I have some comments to make there. I don't feel the nomination was made in bad faith, and in fact I suggested CFD as the correct venue when the OP was pontificating on Template talk:Grading scheme so I feel partially responsible for his being blocked. Obviously deletion is not appropriate, but renaming may resolve some of the concerns and be acceptable to other editors. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- +1; I said the same at WP:AN. Frankly, I don't understand quite why this was the thing that made everybody wanna impose a site ban on him. Alakzi (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- The history makes it plain. An Xfd for those? Maybe not. Try an RfC at WP:CENTRAL first. The scope is very broad. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Your input is requested
Since this topic interests you, I would appreciate your input over at User_talk:SlimVirgin#Lack_of_enforcement_of_MEDRS_in_food-related_articles. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
RF Close at safety of e-cigs
I think you may have misplaced the bottom of the RFC close at Safety of e-cigs. Didn't want to move it if there was a reason you left some of the discussion open. SPACKlick (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem was an indented {{quote box}} higher up. It took a bit of tracking down! Guy (Help!) 09:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict):On further inspection it no longer looks that way. I may have an error with one of my widgets. SPACKlick (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Andreas Lubitz
I think your merge close may have been in error. The policy based argument was WP:BIO1E for keep which states: if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified, regardless the article was in the middle of an AfD. I was hoping you could update the close to reflect such. "No consensus to merge, pending 3rd AfD outcome" Valoem talk contrib 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think it was not in error, I read the arguments in some detail and am of course familiar with the event. You are welcome to request review at WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
G. Edward Griffin
It was already under very strict restrictions and now it has full protection. Admin Callanecc is inactive for more than a week. Where do you think that we should report this kind of management? SamuelDay1 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- What kind of management? What's to report? Guy (Help!) 07:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- These strict restrictions were not needed because majority of editors are having same opinion with sources. What we should do about it? So much time has been wasted on this article already. SamuelDay1 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: WP:BROTHER
Hey! I liked this close, but is it really cool to cite a humourous essay in EDR entry? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, because it is about a real thing, just written humorously. It was openly admitted and I don't want to make it seem like a Huge Big Deal, but the user is definitely on one account. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Satyendra Nath's Bose's identifier
I dont see any consensus on the talk page for the change from Indian to Bengali. Brittanica identifies him as Indian (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74633/Satyendra-Nath-Bose). Also, being Bengali and Indian are not mutually exclusive, there is a distinct and clearly defined Indian Bengali community with its homeland in West Bengal. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on past changes, only present ones. As per talk, NPOV probably should include both. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Deletion review for Andreas Lubitz
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Andreas Lubitz. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Hi JzG. If you haven't already, would you mind adding this article to your watchlist? I just removed some content that appears to have been removed by you last year and has resulted in the subject of the article posting to the article's talk page. I would appreciate a second set of eyes. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 15:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| It is great to have an admin like you. Your administrative actions and your great contributions to science and medical are much appreciated. I have also checked that you had nominated Sandstein for adminship. Well, thanks a lot for all these contributions! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC) |
I believe that you misread the consensus of the RfC
Consensus supports either removal of the text entirely, or inclusion but only with the context of Meacher's Truther agenda, but this is likely to be considered WP:UNDUE. None of the specific proposals seems to have consensus yet, so the safest course is to avoid mention altogether at this time.[2]
and the issue has in fact been stably settled on the article [3] for about a month, with the following single sentence and citation to a peer-reviewed secondary source.
British MP Michael Meacher made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.
I don't know whether there is a need (and don't want to bother) challenging the close, but in case there are problems later, perhaps you could clarify your reading of the consensus?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Editing through protection
Guy, you CANNOT use your administrator privileges to edit through protection on a page you are WP:INVOLVED with. This isn't open for discussion, you cannot do it period. This is the second time I've had to make a similar point to you regarding this. Please do not do it again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are you referring tot he correction of a trivial error on the Griffin article? Guy (Help!) 07:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't matter what it is, you cannot use administrator privileges to edit through protection on a page and conflict you are involved with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the edit: [4]. If you think that violates WP:INVOLVED then I suggest you are being overly sensitive. It was an utterly banal and uncontroversial edit request with no dissenters, no plausible dissent, and nobody made any complaint when I did it or since. And that's in a context where one editor would dearly love to have the entire reality-based community banned from the article. It introduced no substantive change to the article.
- What would help is getting someone to close the RfCs so we can maybe move on from the endless repetition of rejected demands for edits re laetrile, especially. Did you see Atsme's essay on "COI ducks", essentially claiming that the existence of a body of editors opposing apologia for quackery means that users are entitled to draw the conclusion that they are shills for Big Pharma? Frankly I have had enough of this article, but as you can hardly fail to be aware, long term civil POV-pushing can be a highly effective strategy, because everybody else gets bored with the drama or loses their temper and gets topic banned. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Remember, the most important thing to a bureaucrat is bureacracy and the rules. Sanity is no defence William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have to say to does seem bureaucratic. Still, maybe this is current thinking on WP - it would certainly explain why we have so many backlogs. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's got nothing to do with bureaucracy, you are involved in the dispute, you can, therefore, not use administrator privileges. I said I was going to have a low tolerance approach and that's what makes this 'period' rather than shouldn't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Beaurocracy gone mad is what it is. Changing "a" to "an". Right. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- In response to a {{editprotected}} unopposed then and now. And let's not forget that the only reason the article is protected is due to long-term civil POV-pushing by an editor who appears at this point to have drunk liberally of the kool-aid. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's Madness I Tell You. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJz_FhTl8Fk) -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- In response to a {{editprotected}} unopposed then and now. And let's not forget that the only reason the article is protected is due to long-term civil POV-pushing by an editor who appears at this point to have drunk liberally of the kool-aid. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Beaurocracy gone mad is what it is. Changing "a" to "an". Right. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 10:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's got nothing to do with bureaucracy, you are involved in the dispute, you can, therefore, not use administrator privileges. I said I was going to have a low tolerance approach and that's what makes this 'period' rather than shouldn't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have to say to does seem bureaucratic. Still, maybe this is current thinking on WP - it would certainly explain why we have so many backlogs. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't matter what it is, you cannot use administrator privileges to edit through protection on a page and conflict you are involved with. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: Assuming that the diff indicated above – which changes an "a" to an "an" in response to an uncontested, uncontroversial edit request – it strikes me that your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED is rather too strict in this instance. If you are unsure about how this policy should be applied to this situation, please raise the issue at WP:AN. I hope that won't be necessary, though; it is clear that JzG's interpretation is both correct and reasonable.
- It might be fair to state that JzG is involved – or "WP:INVOLVED" – with respect to the content dispute over how Griffin ought to be portrayed (I'm not sure about this history here; I don't follow the article). But there is no indication that JzG is involved – or ever has been involved, or likely ever will be involved – in a dispute about the proper use of the singular indefinite article. An admin can be involved, for Wikipedia purposes, with some aspects of an article or topic but not others, and that involvement can both extend beyond an article and simultaneously not cover an article in its entirety. In other words, the concept of involvement is tied to a particular locus of dispute, topic, or "case" (in the words of the policy), not to a specific page.
- Of course, even leaving aside the fact that JzG's involvement is limited to the content dispute and does not in any way involve a (nonexistent) grammar dispute, WP:INVOLVED still explicitly permits admins to take actions which are likely to be completely obvious and uncontroversial. Fixing a typo in response to clear and uncontested edit request fits that bill, too. If an admin judges poorly with respect to what might be "straigthforward" then on their own head be it, but that clearly doesn't apply in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I should state: I very much welcome Callenecc's commitment to helping out with this article, it has been subject to months of argumentation. Have a quick look at the RfC I have just added tot he Talk page. I am trying very hard to remain calm and push towards resolution, but unfortunately the previous RfCs are still open and the person who is, in my view, the root cause of the problem, refuses to take "no" for an answer.
- Atsme is sincere, pleasant and generally an asset to the project, but I think this response to this discussion basically tells you all you need to know. Atsme has, in my view, settled on an authorial angle, and unfortunately the angle is orthogonal to Wikipedia policy since the ideas for which Griffin is known are undoubtedly very solidly in the realms of WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking to ask this on AN, but I hope it is not required anymore. SamuelDay1 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the protection policy states: Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (emphasis mine). Uncontroversial edits to protected pages (like changing "a" to "an") are clearly permitted by both the spirit and the letter of site policy. MastCell Talk 15:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was thinking to ask this on AN, but I hope it is not required anymore. SamuelDay1 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
New COI ducks essay
I was wondering if you would mind reading the latest version of the COI duck essay with an eye towards determining whether it's still got aspects of the pharma shill gambit, whether it's still encouraging bad faith assumptions, and whether it accurately described advocacy editing? I think the essay is still problematic but I could be wrong and I would appreciate some clarity from you. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I believe the essay was restored because I had been in discussion with Atsme and we agreed to think about at least integrating some of the material into the existing essay at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, which has had several people working on it and, according to some of the comments I have received, been welcomed as an attempt to deal with problematic editors who may qualify as "ideological" COI editors. I actually haven't seen much discussion on the possible integration yet, but I would welcome Atsme integrating any material from her essay into mine, particularly material which I and the others involved in the making of that essay may have missed to date, or, for that matter, you, Guy, if you so see fit. Actually, the only people I would hope wouldn't edit the page right now are the SAP editors themselves, but, unfortunately, I think in many if not most cases those individuals might be the least able to perceive what is to others often an overwhelmingly obvious bias in their editing. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, John. Integrating the essay into yours sounds like a great idea. I don't think that's the direction the essay is going, however; I think that it's going to be reposted into main space (I have no proof of this so I want to emphasize that it's only speculation on my part). That's why I'm wondering whether the essay is still assuming bad faith and whatnot or whether I'm wrong about that, and is why I'm looking for clarity. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, it is still problematic, in that it encourages people to read between the lines and assume bad faith. If you are the kind of person who believes in the Big Pharma conspiracy theory, this is exactly the essay you're looking for to reinforce your prejudices. It gives you the full list of alphabet soup to use in accusing the Wikipedia consensus of being a flock of "advocacy ducks" suppressing The Truth™. If you're not that kind of person, then the essay is useless to you. In other words, it is valuable only in reinforcing the prejudices of precisely the kind of person whose prejudices need reducing, not reinforcing. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughts. FYI, I have no intention of using your words in any way. I had thought the essay was still problematic but when I went through it and tried to show the problems, I was told that my criticisms were spurious, unwarranted, misleading, and POV-based. After seeing that a few times it's hard not to start to believe it, so I was hoping that I wasn't out to lunch on this. Thanks for the reassurance. Ca2james (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and a thing to possibly complete
Guy, thanks for your close here and the notification. I took the step of combining the notice you placed at AN with the request I made, see diff, just to keep the two together for "posterity." Of course feel free to undo that if you didn't intend them to be connected. Would you also consider amending the entry at WP:RESTRICT to match the wording you provided, if you think it'd be necessary. Thanks... Zad68 23:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- The "amending the entry at WP:RESTRICT" is a good illustration of Zad's attempting to alter the terms of what was voted upon ( post-vote) by a narrow margin. I prefer that the original decision wording be left unaltered until appeal process complete. Zad's failure to notify me of his, for now, apparently successful separate attempt to alter the terms of the proposal and decision at ANI is also indicative. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you have taken that impression you have not comprehended what I wrote I'm afraid. I will abide by the original restriction agreed upon.Watch the article concerned. It has been, and will continue to be, a shining example of all that is wrong with WP --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Pinging JamesBWatson to this conversation to review the edits and determine whether the edit making reference to "the article concerned" is problematic per the topic ban. Zad68 03:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. This edit is the one you are referring to. It is clearly at best pushing the boundary of the ban. It is also clear that both that edit and this one are intended to announce that Tumadoireacht intends to defy the topic ban: the statements "I will abide by the original restriction agreed upon" and "I abide by the original article ban for the present" are both clearly designed to indicate "but I will defy the new ban". I would not quarrel with anyone who took action on the basis of the edit in question, but for myself, I would wait and see whether he or she does any more unambiguous violating of the ban. One of the problems with taking action on the basis of a borderline edit is that it gives a disruptive editor the opportunity to scream on the admin noticeboards about admin abuse and unjustified blocks, with the confidence that there will be some people who will come along and agree with that. (Some disruptive editors are even devious enough to deliberately keep pushing the boundary in the hope of eventually provoking someone into action which will enable them to do that, but I don't see any reason to think that Tumadoireacht is likely to do so.) Another reason is that there is simply very little point in taking action merely to stop something as trivial as vague remarks on a talk page which could possibly be regarded as near the boundary of a topic ban, but doesn't quite mention the topic. As I said above, Tumadoireacht has clearly declared the intention of defying the topic ban (or, as he or she might prefer to say, the intention not to recognise it). If he/she carries out that threat, then clearly a block will be in order, but as long as it's at the level of sort of hinting that he/she will defy the ban, I would leave it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks JamesBWatson I think your comments are dead on. It is interesting that the editor chose to talk around mentioning the topic directly; if the editor truly doesn't recognize the scope of the topic ban, why would there be any reason to avoid mentioning it by name on a User Talk page? Appreciate you checking in here.
Zad6813:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC- The zealousness around this two tier silencing process is both fascinating and illuminating at present, and, will no doubt be of passing interest to those historians who study how these articles have evolved or have been stagnated over time. You wouldn't be attempting to provoke a mention of the article that cannot speak its name now Zad ? -surely not -unworthy thought. The sub text of article content selection and dismissal is also an absorbing study.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, we're all about suppressing The Truth™. Just ask any homeopath. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Illogical extension of an argument is as weak as, well, homeopathy. Which is amusing. Yup indeed --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, we're all about suppressing The Truth™. Just ask any homeopath. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- The zealousness around this two tier silencing process is both fascinating and illuminating at present, and, will no doubt be of passing interest to those historians who study how these articles have evolved or have been stagnated over time. You wouldn't be attempting to provoke a mention of the article that cannot speak its name now Zad ? -surely not -unworthy thought. The sub text of article content selection and dismissal is also an absorbing study.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks JamesBWatson I think your comments are dead on. It is interesting that the editor chose to talk around mentioning the topic directly; if the editor truly doesn't recognize the scope of the topic ban, why would there be any reason to avoid mentioning it by name on a User Talk page? Appreciate you checking in here.
blacklist
[5] I think you accidentally posted in the wrong thread. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)