User talk:JzG/Archive 150

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

Maximiliano Korstanje

Happy holidays, Guy. How about this? The English sounds a lot like Noellesch9. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC).

Quack quack. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The fact that the IP geolocates to the same city as Korstanje's university is purely a coincidence and you'll never convince me otherwise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. And the parallel fact of multiple other IPs from the same location and ISP editing the article is also a total coincidence. What are the odds, eh? Guy (Help!) 22:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Could this be another duck in the flock? [1] --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Source for McCabe article

This is pretty good: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/us/politics/mccabe-fbi-trump-russia.html fwiw --Nuujinn (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 01:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning

Greetings, I see that you have altered MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning so that it is now a specific warning against self-published sources. However, that message is used in other filters as a general warning so it isn't really appropriate for a specific warning. I think you want to create MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-selfpublished and then change Special:AbuseFilter/894 so that it uses the new message. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

D'oh. Thank you, good spot and thank you for fixing it. I did not check the page title, rookie error! Guy (Help!) 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Um, actually I had not done so yet ... now I've done it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

added Muboshgu
readded Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
removed None

Bureaucrat changes

readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts

Do you think Daniel Reid is notable?Winged BladesGodric 15:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, and thanks for the link. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

...Baby One More Time (album)

Hi there, just wanted to let you know your recent edit to ...Baby One More Time (album) created a citation error. I would fix it, but I can't quite tell what your intent was in that paragraph. Would you mind taking a quick look? Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So many places where Amazon sales pages were used as a "source"! Guy (Help!) 00:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, JzG', from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Nat965 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted links

What does it mean for a link to be blacklisted? At Abusive head trauma I saw a banner pop up saying there are blacklisted links, these links are apparently being used as references in several places, does this mean that these are spam or unreliable sources? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A blacklisted link has been abused and cannot be added to Wikipedia without specific whitelisting. In this case, files.wordpress.com has just been globally blacklisted on all Wikimedia projects. The same file should be available elsewhere, I would think, as hosted files on WordPress are unlikely to be RS on their own. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Unlimited Publishing books

Be careful removing references using books published by Unlimited Publishing as you did at List of the 72 names on the Eiffel Tower. They also republish out of print books originally put out by major publishers.[1] These newer versions are more likely to be found online at Google Books and used as references as happened at the Eiffel Tower names article. I have the 1976 British edition and knew it wasn't self-published, but other editors might not catch problems. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Unlimited Publishing LLC".
There were only a couple of dozen references to this publisher. Most self-published crap on Wikipedia is Lulu, XLibris or Trafford. Guy (Help!)

Talkback

Hello, JzG. You have new messages at El662009's talk page.
Message added 15:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Maximiliano Korstanje

There appears to be a lot of meat as well. It has just been Prod. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

SPS?

Rand McNally is not a self-published source. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Oops, sorry. I fixed the regex since then. I did review a number but obviously missed that one. Thanks for fixing. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Allied Academies

You might find this of interest. I created redirects for every journals on their websites. There's a few of them that are cited on Wikipedia (International Journal of Pure and Applied Zoology).

See also the 'What links here' for Biomedical Research, which has a standalone article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

AZOperator

I'm not sure why you decided to step up and block this dude, but it was considerably overdue. Thanks. IMO, he should have been indeffd back in August for his ludicrous attack on Donner60. Again, thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you've got everything when removing stuff

Hi, just a reminder to check carefully and ensure you've got everything when removing stuff. I'm particularly thinking about this edit [2].

I'm not so sure on the reasoning you gave as it is an article on the economist and that particular work or at least those lines seem very widely cited outside wikipedia. Although it can't be ruled out that this could have to do with them being in wikipedia since 2005 [3], I strongly suspect many of the citations are independent. That said, I do agree with the removal itself, as I said in my edit summary here [4], having such long quotations is not the way to illustrate someone's views in wikipedia articles. And if there really is the need for such a quotation it almost definitely should use some sort of quotation template to avoid any confusion. (The part on the ref doesn't apply to what you edited.)

My concern is you only removed part of the quotation, along with the ref. You left behind a whole paragraph of the quotation including with an opening quotation mark, and now without a ref. The risk here, and I've seen something similar happen before is rather than this text being removed it's going to be preserved eventually with all signs it's effectively WP:Copyvio missing. If I hadn't noticed it and recognised (and checked) that it was a quotation and removed it, maybe someone would come along and see the opening quotation mark (without a closing) and think it's just a stray quotation mark and removed that. Then someone else will come along and think "this isn't worded appropriately for a wikipedia article" but rather than thinking it's because it was a quotation which was copied and needs to be removed, they'll reword it slightly.

Eventually we'll end up with a situation where something is basically copyvio but it's far from obvious. While there's a lot less risk of this in an article on a person, it's still IMO not zero so we need to avoid risking it happening by only part removing or editing something which should be removed completely.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I split the quote. A simple misreading. Thanks for spotting it. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

The Fox Hunt (1893) by Winslow Homer, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

DalQ95

I think DalQ95 (talk · contribs) may be another of the sockfarm recently afflicting Chutiya articles. They're renaming stuff against consensus, changing spellings in articles etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, maybe not a sock. They could be just somewhat clueless, as suggested by their comments on my talk page, and their reappearance at the article so soon after the blockings may be coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, the socks have preferred Chutiya or Chutia to Sutiya, pretty consistently. This looks like a clueless n00b rather than a sock, as you say. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'm out for now anyway. Left replies at my talk page and also a note about something at Talk:Chutiya people after belatedly realising I'd reverted them regarding a section on surnames. Not much more I can do because I am at the revert limit. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17th

Hello, you reverted my edit recently saying the sources were not reliable, but the guidelines on the talk page say that the Discovery Institute is a reliable source for primary source information. I would argue that the two sources I cited would thus be reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Subuey: Primary self-published sources are not reliable for statements of fact, which is how you used them, only for uncontroversial statements pertaining to the publishers themselves (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS). In this case the publishers ("Evolution News" and the creationist William Dembski) are asserting things which courts have assessed to be objectively false. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, my edit presented it as a statement by the proponents. The courts ruling is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a informational dictatorship.Subuey (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually you have remarkably little experience of Wikipedia to be lecturing me on policy ([5] v [6]). Your edit made statements purporting to be fact, from sources that are partisan and have been shown in court to be objectively wrong. Feel free to propose your changes on the Talk page, though. This is not the place. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You're a shit-ass job of an admin. Do not misrepresent what my edit said. A sentence beginning "Proponents assert" is not a statement of fact on the subject matter. Subuey (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A sentence beginning "Proponents assert" isn't what you added. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads "It is asserted" after JzG Guy did his flury of edits. That is the sentence I was adding on to. That would have been clear if you had read the edit within its context. Subuey (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't understand WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. That's your problem, not mine. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you remove protection from Mount Athos?

The edit-warring has stopped, and the disruptive edit-warrior who was repeatedly removing cited text has been blocked. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Done. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Predatory journals and section links

Hi and thank you for your work in tagging predatory journals. I came across this edit and I thought that if you're still using the same automated process, you might want to factor in the possibility that urls would occasionally contain a section link separated from the rest by the # sign. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will tweak the regex next time I fire it up. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The Siren/Epicstep

Hi there. I noticed that a few years back, you speedy deleted the article The Siren (musician), and then dealt with the subject's manager. I wanted to let you know that he has resurfaced and recreated the article at The Siren (artist), and created a new article, Epicstep, seemingly taking the promotion a step further. I was wondering if you preferred to intervene since you've dealt with him in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It's seems you have no preference on intervention, so I'll assume it's just fine to handle it as I see fit. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Xyr?

I wish you would stop calling floop "xyr", since flipitty-floop doesn't understand. Kleuske (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It has been driving me nuts only because I read a book recently (which was written entirely in the third person) which made extensive and almost universal use of Xhe. Now whenever I see it, I think back to how terrible that book was. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
See wikt:xyr. I don't know the editor's gender. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "they" is also a perfectly usable third-person singular pronoun. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Is 'their' a gendered word now? Did I miss the memo? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No, but I think people feel that "they" and "their" are only to be used in the plural. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Those people would be wrong according to a university English professor. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You kant ex-cape die gramma natsees! Even ven you follow all ze rulez, zey vill make up new rulez! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
We are rouge admins. Fear us. Especially if you intend climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Guy (Help!) 01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd be more likely to do it dressed like The Hebrew Hammer. The alt-right doesn't have a lock on trolling. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism in the article, Goguryeo Need help

Hello

Im here to ask you for some help. In fact, I'm asking the same thing to several other administrators about the same matter at hand. About four months ago, the article Goguryeo has been protected due to vandalism, disruptive editing, and edit warring. After a couple of weeks after the protection was broken, two new editors started to vandalize the same article. To introduce you to the situation: they edited out the statements to misrepresent the cited sources, multiple credited sources were entirely removed, and original research has been included to substitute the removal. The two editor(s) in question are: User:Zanhe and User:Koraskadi I have been reverting the article back to the last editorial completed by User:Failosopher since the breakout of the situation.

The content that has been subject to this event are these two qualities:

1- "Goguryeo (고구려; 高句麗; [ko.ɡu.ɾjʌ], 37 BCE–668 CE), also called Goryeo (고려; 高麗; [ko.ɾjʌ]), was a Korean kingdom[4][5][6]"

The two editors mentioned above are constantly removing the bolded word; which goes against these three supporting articles cited. 

"Koguryo". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 15, 2013.

States that Goguryeo as one of the three Kingdoms of Korea 

Byeon, Tae-seop (1999) 韓國史通論 (Outline of Korean history), 4th ed, Unknown Publisher, ISBN 89-445-9101-6.

Emphasizes Goguryeo as one of the most powerful Korean State that arose throughout history 

"Complex of Koguryo Tombs". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2013-10-24.

The current article simply talks about its geographical location. However, the article stated that Goguryeo was Korean when it was retrieved.

2- "Goguryeo has been described as an empire by many scholars", "Goguryeo was a powerful empire and one of the great powers in East Asia"

Phrases in relation to the bolded word are getting removed alongside their supporting citations. This is a completely clear example of vandalism. 

신형식 (2003). 高句麗史. Ewha Womans University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9788973005284. Retrieved 12 September 2017.

이덕일; 박찬규 (2007). 고구려 는 천자 의 제국 이었다. 역사의아침. ISBN 9788995884973. Retrieved 12 September 2017.

Roberts, John Morris; Westad, Odd Arne. The History of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 443. ISBN 9780199936762. Retrieved 15 July 2016.

Gardner, Hall. Averting Global War: Regional Challenges, Overextension, and Options for American Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 158–159. ISBN 9780230608733. Retrieved 15 July 2016.

Laet, Sigfried J. de. History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. UNESCO. p. 1133. ISBN 9789231028137. Retrieved 10 October 2016.

Walker, Hugh Dyson. East Asia: A New History. AuthorHouse. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781477265178. Retrieved 20 November 2016

All these sources explicitly describe Goguryeo as an empire or have been described to have developed into an empire. In fact, the main thesis of the first two articles is about Goguryeo being an Empire. The same sources also state that Goguryeo is Korean, but they were not cited for the quality mentioned above for the current editorial.

The editorial that I have been reverting back into was the protected version; which was constructed by a series of discussions and debates with various editors and administrators including us. Something has to be done about the vandalists or the article in question. For the greater good, I ask you for your help once again, but I will decrease the burden by asking many others. Thank you. Wandrative (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Express

I've seen the current RSN thread about the Express. I can't recall where I saw the comment but it was over the Christmas period either on the television or in a newspaper, where someone said that the Express is the paramilitary wing of the Telegraph! I sort of understood what they meant. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Oz apocrypha

Not a lot of difference between self-publication and companies like Buckethead. Suter's books are held in numerous libraries--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just show evidence from reliable independent sources and it's fine. But Lulu, XLibris, iUniverse and other vanity press crap almost certainly won't be in any libraries at all. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Paul Mirecki for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Mirecki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Mirecki until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_150&oldid=1088033064"