User talk:JzG/Archive 178

Carter and Khomeini

Did the US "support" Khomeini in the Iranian Revolution? Recently some declassified documents revealed details about Jimmy Carter's engagement with Ruhollah Khomeini in the weeks before Khomeini returned to Iran in 1979. That Wikipedia article, created in 2019, is sourced to a 2016 BBC report and a 2016 article the Guardian about the BBC report. The same two sources are used to cite the statement in Iranian Revolution that Khomeini "was supported by the US". I took that out but was reverted. I'll note that, for example, this 2017 WaPo article and this 2019 Brookings Institution op-ed do not seem to characterize the US as supporting Khomeini (rather, the US supported the Shah, who traditionally is viewed as a puppet of the US). However, the "US supported Khomeini" theory does appear on the conspiracy theorist website GlobalResearch (which I can't link to due to blacklist). The GlobalResearch article is sourced to the same BBC and Guardian articles. What do you think about this? Legitimate minority view? Fringe conspiracy theory? Leave it alone? Start a talk page discussion? FRINGEN? Thanks, Levivich 20:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Take it with an appropriate grain of salt in terms of reliability, but I've had access to primary sources in the past, that I am unfortunately unable to replicate for publication, which show quite clearly that at some stage the Americans did pressure the Shah to cooperate with Khomeini as a safeguard against leftists. The SAVAK, especially, was known to have granted Khomeini supporters transit within and between prisons, greatly aiding Khomeini's consolidation of power. El_C 00:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, that's true as a matter of history; I just don't know that it is accurate to say, in the lead and infobox of Iranian Revolution, that the US supported Khomaini against the Shah. I mean, the US didn't "support" the taking of its own embassy, nor the overthrowing of its own puppet ruler. Levivich 17:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich that's right, not so much against the Shah as with the Shah, against secular leftists which were on the verge of turning the tide country wide. El_C 18:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am the one who added that to the article. The Shah was despised by Carter and his administration. He was also ill. So replacing him with another puppet was the best idea for the US. Read this to understand what happened.[1] Also this is no minority view. At least dozen of people (including the Shah, Jimmy Carter, Khomeini and others) involved in the revolution directly or indirectly confirmed that Khomeini was supported by the US. This is also a list of Western scholars who support this view: Cooper, The Fall of Heaven; Cooper, The Oil Kings; Javier Gil Guerrero, The Carter Administration and the Fall of Iran's Pahlavi Dynasty: US-Iran Relations on the Brink of the 1979 Revolution (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016); Javier Gil Guerrero, "Human Rights and Tear Gas: The Question of Carter Administration Officials Opposed to the Shah," British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 2015, no. 3, pp. 285-301; Gholam Reza Afkhami, The Life and Times of the Shah (Oakland: University of California Press, 2009); Michael Evans, Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos (Phoenix: Time Worth Books, 2009); Houchang Nahavandi, The Last Shah of Iran (Berkshire: Aquilion, 2005 Levivich said the US support for Khomeini is not in the body of article. This is mostly because the article is reflecting the US and Iran's official narratives of the events. Maybe someone should rewrite the article to reflect the facts. Mountain That Rides (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Mountain That Rides, see WP:TRUTH. You need to bring better sources. Guy (help!) 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is verifiable. Mountain That Rides (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

most annoying of all editors-who-are-usually-right.

Wanna chip in to get 'm a barnstar to that effect? cheers, -- Deepfriedokra 18:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, not really, no. I am more like to ask for a ban star. Guy (help!) 18:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

mail ...

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

CrypTool article

In your editing "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CrypTool&type=revision&diff=939423899&oldid=939423812" called "(rm web links)" you removed the main contributing universities and left over only the name of the founder of the CrypTool project as "Developer(s)". This doesn't make sense to me: Since the beginning more than 300 people contributed to this open-source project and it doesn't make sense to have only one name left here. Could you please revert this? --BeEs1 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of anti-vaccination tropes

Hello, JzG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of anti-vaccination tropes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. kingboyk (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

IP spam

Hi JzG,

I thought I should let you know that there's something going down at Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal. It looks like an IP editor is trying to circumvent an edit filter whilst trying to give the appearance of supporting it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Use discussion page

Please use discussion page before massive deleting of long time editions - ones in you have already parcipated without questioning the main part. Your recent judge of Description as Promotion seems very subjective. Note: self-sources are not avoided for description but for identify relevance - that is not in question. Promotion is about mostly of redaction or spam - it's not the case. --Krapulat (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Krapulat, it's at talk:Mises Institute already. We recently had to topic ban someone who insisted on including exactly this kind of material at another article. Guy (help!) 13:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can suggest a summary on some topics, with civility. But now you are making an agressive and non sense cutting. Note; you don't need to menace wit bans, there also exist destitution of administrators because of systematic bias. So please, we can manage this with civility. --Krapulat (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Krapulat, I see you're not a native English speaker. Edit summaries are necessarily brief, but the explanation on Talk is thorough. This is not the first time I have been round this loop with various people. Extensive use of self-sourcing is not permitted on Wikipedia. We apply this everywhere: service organisations, software products, schools, whatever. See WP:RS and WP:ABOUTSELF. Guy (help!) 13:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand the use of self-source, it's not avoided per se but is limited (and for very good reasons), I'm not new redacting articles. But you are making an agressive cutting. In my opinion, the part of "views exposed" needs a summary, I have preserved it in past editions because it doesn't seem promotional for me, even seems that the original intention was to make a kind of critic. I'm not against edit the article, even I'm for reducing it. So please, maybe you don't have time for write a suggestion of redaction and that why you just cust without construct, so I can re-write the parts that you think that should be summarized. My style of make massive editions is that if I cut I also construct. Let's be constructive. --Krapulat (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Krapulat, that is the correct response when more than half of an article's content is drawn from the subject's own websites - and that would apply even in a mainstream, subject, but this is also a fringe advocacy group. Guy (help!) 14:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Block autopromote

Hi. It looks like you clicked the "Revoke the user's autoconfirmed status" box by accident on 1028 (hist · log). I tried to disable it, but apparently non-admins can't do that. The filter has already revoked the AC status of COIBot (oddly, I was allowed to fix that). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Need an expert eye

Goodmorning Guy, can you have an eye at the references in David C. Bradley. My feeling is that most of those need to be replaced with properly linked articles. The way of referencing gives it now a strong feel of being a puff piece (if it trips the bots: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/5iveminutesalone.com). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, I moved to draft, because it sucked. Guy (help!) 16:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your closure at WP:ANI

Excuse me, but I disagree with your characterization (downplaying, IMO) of Nishidani's comments at WP:ANI. I appreciate that you offered a warning to Nishidani, but Lame and certainly not smart, but not really an admin thing. sounds like you're saying "No harm, no foul." Personal attacks, which certainly calling someone a POV warrior, are certainly an "admin thing," regardless of who's making the attack and who's the subject of it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you want to pour gasoline on the flames or put them out? One of these is objectively better than the other, on Wikipedia at least. Guy (help!) 16:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting gasoline would be responding to personal attacks with personal attacks, ANI is for putting a stop to it. I don't see how dismissing the behavior does anything positive. Indeed, in his response to your warning, Nishidani (now emboldened?) says he "stands by" his remarks about Icewhiz and sees no problem with them (along with a lot of other stuff I don't care to get into). Frankly, I think the admin response here has been rather ineffective, and I'm sure that we'll see similar comments in the future (note that the ban for his calling Icewhiz an "ethnonational extremist" has clearly not deterred him). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Um, Nishidani didn't call him a POV warrior in that comment. He said he was banned from AE for calling him a POV warrior. What he did say, and is true, is that Icewhiz is banned for outing people off-wiki. Now maybe he should not mention Icewhiz in the future, but you seem to be making a fairly obvious mistake in reading. nableezy - 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That is wrong. The term that got him banned from AE by Sandstein was indeed "ethnonational extremist" who is "intolerant of dissent in the ranks." He didn't acknowledge that in the later comment, but did throw around the "POV warrior" label again. Given that I provided quotes and diffs in my report, I hoped you would have noticed that before summarily closing it. Referencing Icewhiz as a "POV warrior" is obviously personalized and inflammatory and has nothing to do with content, esp. given that Icewhiz is banned and not even a participant at that discussion. I'm willing to believe that you want to try and get more with honey than vinegar. I can understand that, and maybe your warning (which tells me you see the problem), will be effective. I doubt it given Nishidani's response. But please don't sit here and defend his conduct. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, See law of holes. Now please drop it. Guy (help!) 19:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New script

You might be interested by this new script I made. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

• Headbomb Wow, that's excellent! Guy (help!) 10:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

Hello Guy. I happened to revert a BLP smear on the Michael Bloomberg article this afternoon and when the removal was quickly undone I was surprised to see that there is no AP discretionary sanction in place for that article. I think it's worth considering the 1RR consensus required rule, in case you agree. The account whose edit I reverted appears to have a history of adding UNDUE anecdotal tidbits to the article to paint Bloomberg as a workplace sexual harasser of some sort. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, some nasty shit there, but quite infrequent as of last night. I will watch over the next 24 hours and apply sanctions with a pretty low bar. Guy (help!) 08:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to clean it up without removing the significant facts. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say we're in full edit-war mode on a number of fronts in that article. It can't be edited at this point. It seems to be the only BLP of a major US candidate that is not under the AP2 sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

New sock

Hi JzG, in connection with this block, you might want to keep an eye on this new account. One single 'harmless' edit, but odd that the account's very first edit should be on article with a history of intense SPU socking. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel Correia, I suggest you ask at [[WP:SPI]. I am busy today. Guy (help!) 07:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is a certain editnotice.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best, ミラP 03:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess you deserve a trout ....

You blocked my edit with filter 1008 (well, I guess you ‘’also’’ blocked the edits you intended to block). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, I fixed it, sorry, fumbled a change, despite testing. Tricky vandal. Guy (help!) 13:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Expect the hordes to yell at you, AN/I threads, ArbCom, WMF ... ;-) Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, doubtless. If our Indian mobile IP wanker would just go away this would all be unnecessary. Guy (help!) 13:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the quick blacklist of dailyhunt. I have no clue how it got so far out of hand and we didn’t do it earlier. I’m mobile right now but I’ll come up with a more concrete plan for dealing with it but it has 4700+ additions (crosswiki) the bulk of which are here, so I think we will need a bot run for clean up. As far as intent of editors adding it, yeah, the intent is largely nefarious by farms of black hat SEO firms. Check out my userpage/fakenews and the subpages. Praxidicae (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, good catch, either way. I suspect paid involvement - but I am well known to be a nasty suspicious bastard. Guy (help!) 20:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Put the "citation needed"

Hello. I see you removed some sources. When the source removed is the only inline citation supporting the passage, could you replace the ref you removed either by another source or by Template:Citation needed? Veverve (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I allow myself to ask again. Veverve (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Veverve, it depends on the case. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. The amount of additional effort anyone should be required to put in when removing spam or unusably bad sources should be limited. Guy (help!) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nature's Path revisions

Hello. I recently made several updates to the Nature's Path page. Can you help me understand why you reverted the whole page back to its state before my edits? I understand I'm in a conflict of interest editing situation, but all the edits I made were factual with proper secondary sources. Is there something different I should be doing to get these edits to stick? All of the edits were fact & figure based and not written in a way that would be seen as advertising or spam. I would appreciate your advice. I'm here to make Wikipedia a more fact-driven space just like you. Thank you. Nellie04 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nellie04, Sources should be reliable and independent of the company, and we should not be highlighting every product, or every claim they make on their website. Especially when they are anti-GMO, which is a scientifically indefensible position. Guy (help!) 08:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-35 removals

here you deleted several references with the edit summary "removing unreliable per WP:RSP". Several of the sources you removed are not listed at RSP - you removed {cite web|url=http://flightglobal.rbiblogs.co.uk/the-dewline/2011/08/su-35s-inferior-to-usaf-jets-s/%7Ctitle=Russian AF chief: US fighters superior to Su-35S|date=9 August 2011|publisher=Flightglobal|type=blog|access-date=26 July 2017|quote=The Su-35S avionics and integrated defence system is inferior to "American fighters of the same type", Zelin said.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729173022/http://flightglobal.rbiblogs.co.uk/the-dewline/2011/08/su-35s-inferior-to-usaf-jets-s/%7Carchive-date=29 July 2017}} - sourced to Flight International and this Newdick, Thomas (21 February 2014). "Russia's New Air Force Is a Mystery". War is Boring. Archived from the original on 5 September 2014. Retrieved 29 July 2017. - neither of which is listed on RSP, and the first one is written by journalists and hosted on a highly reliable source. The other sources (i.e. Sputnik, Lenta.ru, Novosti), may be more dubious.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS, as you know, because they are self-published. Medium is also flagged as poor quality. If you think specific blogs are reliable for specific topics (i.e. have editorial review and fact-checking) then do please bring them up at WP:RSN - there are a handful of well known group blogs that meet the standard for certain narrowly defined areas, e.g. Science Based Medicine for discussion of alt-med quackery. The former Soviet bloc and military hardware are two overlapping areas where there is a horrible tendency to add any old random web page as a source. Obviously if material is at Flight International we can cite that (directly) without issues - that would also fix the fact that rbiblogs.co.uk is currently not working. Guy (help!) 12:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL

Hey, have seen you as one of recently active admins. Could you please REVDEL that edit of my talk page per WP:RD2? Thanks! Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Tymon.r, done, and Widr blocked the IP. Guy (help!) 14:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Thanks for your help! Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Geogre is still gone

So the section on your user page reading "Sad Happy now! Special:Contributions/Geogre." probably doesn't mean what you wanted it to mean. I miss him too. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, wait, I thought he came back? Bugger. Guy (help!) 16:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Lenta.ru

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater with your recent edits. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources says "Lenta.ru was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site frequently publishes conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, owing to a mass dismissal of staff in March 2014." Therefore, deleting articles from 2010 being used to cite a singer's hits is ... not improving the encyclopedia. --GRuban (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

GRuban, I will bring this up at RSN then. Guy (help!) 17:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

TED

Hi. Regarding your multi-reversal of my recent edits:

How was this point of fact poorly sourced? You have restored ownership to Sapling, which was no longer true as of July 1st.

On July 1, 2019, the TED Conferences LLC was transferred from Sapling Foundation to TED Foundation to "align with our brand and make it easier for our donors to connect TED donations to TED Conferences, LLC."

How is this point of fact added to criticisms poorly sourced?

In September 2018, following a protracted campaign to have a flag removed from her Christchurch, New Zealand TEDx presentation, "The Surprisingly Dramatic Role of Nutrition in Mental Health"; Toronto native and professor of clinical psychology at the University of Canterbury Dr. Julia Rucklidge, challenged whether TED's science guidelines allow for innovative new ideas. Her article, "Why Scientists Should Reconsider Presenting with TED", followed a June article published by Robert Whitaker's Mad in America webzine, "TED Betrays Its Own Brand By Flagging Nutrition Talk". 136.37.202.202 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

As far as I can tell, Mad In America is not an RS. These are striking claims and need a solid source. Guy (help!) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: That's a pretty big delete of the work for "as far as I can tell", and that does not even speak to the first sourced section, which makes no "striking claim", but that you so gallantly removed, en masse. Secondly, the Mad In America website is a respected source, being the website of Mad in America author Robert Whitaker, and not some random blog. I had provided enough links to show its context in academia. Your deletions, especially of the first part, leave misinformation in place of the edits made. In the second part, the "striking claims" are made and published by a professor and a widely respected medical journalist: both are reliable sources. There was a criticism section not updated since 2013, which is needed for balance and a WP:NPOV, hence that addition. Please restore what you have removed.136.37.202.202 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it's WP:BRD. You made a bold change, I reverted, now you go to the talk page and discuss and see if there's consensus for it. That's how we roll. Guy (help!) 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)