User talk:JzG/Archive 122

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UTRS appeal #14446

Hi, I'm responding to UTRS appeal #14446 by Againstdisinformation, and at the very least the appeal is not disruptive, and it even looks like it might be acceptable and appropriately apologetic. I propose to reinstante TPA and let him post his appeal on-wiki. Are you fine with that? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Allow talk page access by all means, and feel free to do whatever you think best in respect of the block. I tend to stand back where block appeals are concerned, I feel it is best not to risk one's personal pride standing in the way of respectful handling of a request. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

flying monkeys

I long ago came to the conclusion that flying monkeys armed with shit circle 90% of WP. AlbinoFerret 02:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right! Guy (Help!) 06:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Shit circle? Are you privy to special counsel on this? . . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think this puts The Daily Telegraph "stripped and snubbed" reports, as well as any claims of "teetotaller", into useful perspective. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Guy, Its impossible to stop the constant rain of the missiles. The way to avoid them is to just do the right thing. Follow the PAG, and then those shit missiles veer off course when they toss them. Some may look like they hit, but its really old dry poo that just bounces off the ground near your feet. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
bat bricks or brickbats?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Miljenko Horvat

Hello, could you have a look at Miljenko Horvat. It has been recreated 3 days after you deleted it. Thank you, Curiocurio 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Marathon

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=marathon&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2F3RRArchive&fulltext=Search+3RR+archives&fulltext=Search

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Mark_Marathon

Turns out AN/I can't even come close to handling this. Any link provided results in a look at wall-o-text edit warring. And there are lists of edit wars. I could have copied any of it to AN/I (I have a computer, you see) but then somebody would have said MEGO, tl;dr. This was pretty pathetic. And your suggestion and prediction on ArbCom was a fail. SBHarris 04:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Overstrike please

Guy, I'm asking for the 2nd time for you to overstrike the comment where you erroneously accuse me of gaming the system. The same way you overstruck the deadnaming warning on my Talk page. Thank you. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect Roman Catholic

Hi JzG,


Way back in 2006, you protected Roman Catholic, a redirect, after a POV fork. No great problem with that but I should like to categorise it as {{R from adjective}}. Could you do that for me, perhaps (it seems pointess to unprotect it just for me to do it.) I guess this should go in at RfA or something but it seems easier all round just to ask you as the editor who protected it. I doubt such a modification would be controversial.

Thanks, Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi JzG. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that on this PD's talk page I do discuss the PD involving you. Certainly nothing personal. Just offering that if your conduct that they mention in the PD is objectionable that they should address it. While I agree that you aren't a party to the original conflict you are a party involved in the case. How do I quantify that to be more clear? There is ample warning on the talk page and in other places that warns "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." As a long time editor and an Admin I feel your already aware that you can be judge on the basis of your actions when you join a conversation. I take real stance there on whether you had actually done anything wrong. To take a position though I don't really see a problem. Again it's no offense or anything. anyway take it easy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Zeke1999 unblock request

You've previously told me you didn't mind too much being uninvolved in appeals of your blocks, but I'd still like to bounce my thoughts off of you about Zeke1999's. A brief review of the SPI and of the Interaction Analyzer doesn't do anything to convince me the accusations of sockpuppetry (more specifically, of logging out to edit while pretending to be a second person) are unfounded or implausible. That being said, even if there *was* logged-out editing, that still does not justify an indef-block IMO. Do you mind me giving the user some good-faith WP:ROPE, perhaps with a promise to stay away from Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy and with a strongly worded warning about logged-out editing? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing, after seeing that sitting in the unblock requests for so long. I'm of a mind to unblock, and Guy's not been active recently. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Since there is consensus for an unblock, both in the comments above and in another editor's comment on the user talk page, and since you are not around, Guy, and the editor has already waited quite a while for the unblock request to be settled, I have gone ahead and unblocked. Please let me know if you think that was a mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Richard-stilgoe.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! 14:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The image was provided to me by Richard's PA and I talked her through the licensing beforehand. It is cromulent. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
They require a release from the photog not just a single release from the subject or the subject's PA. If the subject owns all copyrights (work for hire or selfie) then the email must state same. Isn't Commons fun? Oh, and I'm amazed that you used "cromulent". You must watch the The Simpsons. ^_^ Atsme📞📧 03:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I know what they need. I already have it. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Huge...

...a towering pillar...exemplary. No need for me to say anything else. Atsme📞📧 22:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Assuming that Atsme is referring to you and SageRad, I agree! Thank you very much for that, and please accept my genuine admiration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish terrorism

Kurdish terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), new AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish terrorism (2nd nomination)

Way back in 2006 you commented (Delete) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish terrorism. An article of that name is back, and I suspect it is the same page reposted. 220 of Borg 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, this one is different, vastly larger, and infinitely worse, as you'd expect given that it is a monograph by a blatantly nationalist WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a succession of Swiss-based IPs (most starting with 81.62) that have been on a reference removal and prodding spree and has made other edits with what appears to be an anti-Kurdish and anti-Yazidi bias.
I suspect that Lrednuas Senoroc (talk · contribs) (28 Nov.-) may be the same user.
This is somebody familiar with Wikipedia terminology and notability policy (although quite willing to ignore the blatant or at least probable notability of a topic if he feels like getting it deleted, as with Khana Qubadi or Taufiq Wahby) as well as with templates.[1][2]. Has there been an earlier (banned or retired) user with this kind of bias?
Some of the references and links removed have indeed been dead, as claimed in the edit comments, but some of these appear actually to be online versions of printed sources, such as this one (the journal article can probably still be located even if the link happens to be dead). This removed links to articles in the online edition of the Encyclopaedia Iranica. While the EI appears to have changed the article URLs, they can be found through a search of the website (e.g. [3]). In general, substitutes for these links are less likely to be found once they are hidden away in the article history and their removal is likely to prejudice the admin dealing with the page at the end of the prod period.
All in all, I find it difficult to "AGF" in this case. I have deprodded a few articles. @PanchoS: has deprodded a large number as needing a proper discussion, but I don't think he has noticed the pattern of several IPs. --Hegvald (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest a trip to WP:ANI. I am not available enough at the moment to wade in here and in any case there are admins who have expertise in nationalist and ethnic disputes in the region. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, User:Hegvald. Oh yes, I did notice this quite massive pattern. Just didn't find time to further research and report it. I will take a look at the editor's whole œuvre ASAP, but regarding what I've already seen, it's quite impossible to assume good faith, and hard to expect future adherence to Wikipedia's rules. Looks more like a semi-professional, targeted mission. PanchoS (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to JzG for the suggestion to take it to ANI and thanks to Pancho for looking into this a bit more. It's getting late now but I'll get back to it tomorrow. --Hegvald (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, it has become tomorrow. Is what I wrote above enough? I'm not sure how much the ANI regulars need to be spoon-fed diffs covering every conceivable issue with this user's edits. Or if I write it any longer, will it be ignored for being to "TL;DR"? --Hegvald (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Three or four paragraphs is ideal. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dana Ullman

Any particular reason for bringing him into this? Just curious. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not bringing him in, as such, he's just the worst offender I know when it comes to selective reading of evidence and the absolutely unshakeable belief that only his interpretation can possibly be valid. I think a number of my fellow skeptics will readily understand what I mean - there's even an eponymous law, the Dull-Man Law. Obviously every good skeptic will keep in the back of his or her mind: "what if I am wrong?", but in the case of Dana we have the advantage of an independent assessment by a judge, who dismissed his evidence as "not credible", identifying him as a propagandist, not an honest broker. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dave Brubeck

I hate to break the news to you, but Brubek died in 2012, and the year is now 2015. :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: time changes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hence my self-revert. I was confused: someone posted a news story, and the date was 5 December - I misread the year. I was wondeinrg why I rmemebered seeing somethign like this before and... well, the rest is obvious. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe next year? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I feel like I can rib you a bit, since I've done the same king of thing myself. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
All fair game. Schoolboy error. Guy (Help!) 07:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection of English Democrats

Hi. Please consider taking the level of protection on English Democrats down to semi-protection, on the ground that the only disruptive editor recently on it who passes the autoconfirmed criteria is User:EnglishPassport (who quite honestly should be vigorously moved out of the picture soon, as they went over 3RR, admitted to a COI and made a pretty blatant legal threat). There have been self-admitted English Democrats members POV-editing the article before, but so far, I think an autoconfirmed user has been an exception. LjL (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is better taken to WP:ANI. I suspect that User:EnglishPassport needs a topic ban or outright siteban. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I did take it to ANI, and they were indefinitely blocked for the legal threat, a bit after I messaged you here. LjL (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, fine, then I will drop to sprot. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

DRV

There's a DRV which you may be interested in. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_10#10_December_2015. Thanks. --Jayron32 18:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning

'You are adding contentious material to Gun politics in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Your edits are being reverted by multiple editors. You have failed to achieve consensus for including this material, especially not in the lede, and you have failed to satisfy others that the edits you keep inseting are an accurate reflection of the sources. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)'

With respect, an editor does not need to seek 'consensus' especially when the policy is employed to 'game the system' and the edits concerned are non-contentious with with primary, secondary and tertiary citations by the sources. Also, I recommend you stop issuing warnings when you clearly do not understand the issues involved. Further, up until this point, the non-contentious edits were being constantly reverted editor Nick Cooper, I will now have to seek clarification now another editor intent on promoting the status quo has weighed in, regards. Twobells (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, @Twobells:, they do. You are, int he view of others on Talk, engaging in WP:SYN, but even if you weren't the onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed or challenged material, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Especially in the lede. I'm astonished that nobody has got as far as pointing this out to you before now. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Hassan Rebell

Hi. Just so I understand, has he been blocked because he's connected Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#IP-jumping_editor_with_an_anti-Kurdish_bias? It's subsequently come up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#new_user_Hassan_Rebell_mass_nominating_articles_for_deletion_on_Kurds and I'm trying to understand if that's two discusions about the same person. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether he's the same person, but it is abundantly clear that this is not a new user - nobody really makes an AfD with their very first edit ever. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh for sure. Thing is, he admits on his talk page that he'd been an IP editor before, and adopted the username as a way to start taking things to Afd when mass-prodding the articles wasn't getting the results he wanted. So he's never concealed that, far as I know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit broke the page Gilles-Éric Séralini

Are you going to fix your reference issue, you introduced by removing content from the article at Gilles-Éric Séralini? Also i notice that it seems that you begun following my edits, and removing them without bothering to follow basic Wikipedia guidance. Hence, you could just help to improve the article instead of deleting everything waht appears not to fit your personal views. prokaryotes (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The bot didn't do it? OK, I will go and have a look. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

GMO related articles

Hello, Guy. I noticed your participation on the Glyphosate talk page today, particularly here: [4] and here: [5]. I am earnestly requesting that you tone down the snarky rhetoric and battleground-y comments in this topic area. I really think that most of us who are discussing the issues on the talk page are legitimately interested in finding a way to collaborate and improve the article. But comments like yours that I linked above are polarizing and divisive and undermine our efforts at collaboration. Please take this on board. Thanks. Minor4th 03:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, question for you...

...but first I want it known that I have no desire to start editing in this topic area. My question to you now is a legitimate one. I have AGF by coming here believing that you will tell me the truth. You said you have no problem using Round-Up in your garden. I agree with you in that regard. I use it in the garden around my house, too. Now imagine spraying 200 acres of pasture land (for growing horse hay) with Round-Up to kill milk thistle and various other weeds. A family member lives just downwind of the spraying, and there's a beautiful wooded creek that runs through the property, feeding into a city reservoir about 12 mi. away. Family pets play in the grass that was sprayed. When the first rains come, usually not long after the first spraying, the residue is soaked into the ground. We drink well-water on the ranch, not piped-in city water. During its journey downstream to the reservoir, the creek gathers run-off from at least 30 other fields that have been sprayed with Round-Up. Now I'm talking about just one community in one small part of suburban Texas, not counting rural communities, so increase that number to more closely represent the total number of fields potentially being sprayed with Round-Up in a 100 mile radius. Do you still believe there is nothing to worry about regarding residual accumulations and potential production of carcinogens on exposed land, in the vegetation and in the water supply times potentially thousands? And JzG - I'm talking about RL scenarios, not hypothetical. Come Spring, I will be spraying the hay fields again and so will at least 10 other ranchers in my county. We're all asking the same questions. If your water came from one of those reservoirs, or if your child lived downwind of the spraying, are you saying in clear conscience there's nothing for me to be concerned about? Atsme📞📧 21:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's an entirely realistic scenario. Roundup is a broad spectrum herbicide, it would kill the grass too - local farmers use herbicide round the margins of fields, and it binds to soil so I don't know how much run-off there is likely to be. Breakdown time can be quick in the summer (days) but much longer in winter, I understand. But yes, I dislike the idea of massive inputs in farming, and I certainly don't think there is nothing to worry about, I just think that the concerns whipped up by organic lobby funded groups like RTK are vastly overblown. Inputs are a fact of life with farming. Nitrogen, especially. Organic farms use "natural" pesticides and herbicides, which are also manufactured chemicals (and less effective so may need more sprayed). That's one reason I am hopeful for GM technologies that remove the need for pesticides, especially, and which reduce spoilage and waste. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Lorty, I wish you were right, but in this case I'll just ask you to read the following sample of real world talk in the real world of agriculture, in which I happen to reside. [6] There are many more discussions just like it. Atsme📞📧 22:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as my information goes, application to live crops is not the norm, because glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide and any distinction in favour of crops over weeds is largely accidental. Unfortunately though the dialogue around agricultural chemical use and processes is dominated by irrationality. You get people who will drink raw milk and demand that irradiated produce be banned, which shows a complete inability to properly assess risk. I hold to my view that GMOs are a good route to reducing inputs, and that less use of chemicals is always going to be good. I do not support the idea of crops engineered to resist herbicide, I think that is doing it fundamentally wrong, but I acknowledge that there is little or no foundation in science for that view, which is primarily philosophical and rational only in as much as I think that "less is more". Guy (Help!) 11:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Arb enforcement

I notified Arbcom about your recent edits, in regards to violating the 1RR rule and related edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_JzG prokaryotes (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_122&oldid=1146572992"