Jump to content

User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 225: Line 225:


Are the snarky edit messages {{diff|The People's Cube|758876981}} {{diff|The People's Cube|758877248}} really necessary? [[User:Karunamon|<span style="font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; color: #6600FF">K</span><span style="font-size:8pt;">arunamon</span>]][[User talk:Karunamon|<sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 110%; vertical-align: top;"> ✉</sup>]] 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Are the snarky edit messages {{diff|The People's Cube|758876981}} {{diff|The People's Cube|758877248}} really necessary? [[User:Karunamon|<span style="font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; color: #6600FF">K</span><span style="font-size:8pt;">arunamon</span>]][[User talk:Karunamon|<sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 110%; vertical-align: top;"> ✉</sup>]] 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
: You stop the POV editing, and I'll stop the snarky summaries. Deal? <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:04, 8 January 2017

Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read.

Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards.

User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly.

Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review.

The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.

— - Robert A. Heinlein
Obligatory disclaimer
I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

About me

JzG reacting to yet another drama

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory open access publishing

These publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.

Vanity press

An on-demand print house, masquerading as an academic publisher:

Citation spamming

Multiple additions of citations to the same author from predatory and other journals, by multiple editors with no history other than adding that material (i.e. probable citation spamming):

Unofficially official

Woo

I have a large and disruptive building project starting, and I'll be doing a significant part of the work myself. Email me if there's anything urgent. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Fingerprinting, Lawrence Farwell, and Neuroscientist1

I am writing to ask for your help. Before I reply to your comments on the brain fingerprinting talk page and my talk page, I need to clean up my status on Wikipedia.

I have added a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest to my user page. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was unaware of the requirement to do this until you brought it to my attention.

I do not know how to rectify the following: Neuroscientist1 and two other users are listed as suspected sock-puppets of Lawrence Farwell. That accusation is partly correct, but due to my ignorance rather than deception.

I started contributing as Lawrence Farwell. When I realized that people on Wikipedia almost universally use something else other than actual first and last names as user names, I stopped using Lawrence Farwell and created a new account under Neuroscientist1. This is what I have done in other contexts, such as changing email accounts, and I thought it was the right thing to do. I did not know that this was against the rules here. I did not know there was such a thing as a sock puppet until I was accused (correctly, as I now know) of creating one. I would like to straighten this out. I have looked through various help pages, and I have not yet found a way to do this. I understand that the two accounts may be merged and continue under the Neuroscientist1 name, but I have not found anything in the help system that tells me how to do that.

Regarding the users brainfingerprinting and brainf, they are not sock puppets of Lawrence Farwell. I have no idea who they are. If you take a glance at what they have written, I think it will be obvious to you that they are not the same person as Lawrence Farwell and Neuroscientist1. I graduated from Harvard and have a PhD, and their demonstrated educational level is something short of a high school education.

Could you please (1) instruct me how to merge Lawrence Farwell and Neuroscientist1 and keep the latter name, or refer me to a source for that information; and (2) eliminate brainf and brainfingerprinting as suspected sock puppets of Lawrence Farwell? Neuroscientist1 (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please disclose the other accounts that you have actually used? Is User:Roguesimulant one of them? We cannot delete accounts. What you can do to avoid getting indefinitely blocked for SOCKing, is 1) disclose on the User page of each SOCK account that it was a SOCK account made in ignorance of the policy by (main account - the one you intend to keep using) and that you will never use it again. 2) On the (main account) user page list those other accounts, noting that you were SOCKing in ignorance of the policy and will not use them anymore. The key things are disclosure (especially of all the socks on the main account page) and not using them any more. Jytdog (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So it's not so much that you have a dog in this fight, in fact, you are the dog. You won't be editing any articles directly, will you? Guy (Help!) 09:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog and Guy for the info. In answer to your questions, the only two accounts I have ever used are Lawrence Farwell and Neuroscientist1. I stopped using the former and started using the latter in an attempt to in effect change my Wikipedia user name. I never forgot that I had done that, nor did I attempt to hide it or to in any way deceive anyone. I have never used Roguesimulant, brainf, or brainfingerprinting. I have no idea who they are. I will make the necessary disclosures when I return from my current travels. Also, I have read in the help system that there is no way to merge accounts, but it is possible to change account names. (I understand that it is not possible to delete an account.) I plan to change my account name, to substitute something else for the Lawrence Farwell name. Regarding editing articles directly, I am a neuroscientist, and if you take peer-reviewed publications, education, and testimony as an expert witness in court as an indication, I am among the most accomplished in my field. Experts in neuroscience are obviously the most qualified to write and edit articles on neuroscience. I have considerable expertise and publications beyond brain fingerprinting. There has been controversy on brain fingerprinting, but my other peer-reviewed publications have been cited thousands of times in subsequent scientific articles -- much more than my brain fingerprinting publications -- and to my knowledge no one criticized my science in any of those. I am not THE dog (or a major Wikipedia contributor) in other areas of neuroscience outside of brain fingerprinting, but I am arguably one of the top dogs. Again, IMHO, the neuroscientists who are experts in the field are the best qualified to write about neuroscience. I'm not the only one who thinks that. I wrote the invited article on brain fingerprinting for the Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. IMHO, I can make a contribution to many different articles on various realms of neuroscience. I have no plans to do so anytime soon, however. I have other things to do that are of more interest to me. Again, thanks for the information. I'll put it to good use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroscientist1 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just looked at the brain fingerprinting article and I now see why you were asking about Roguesimulant. As I said above, that is not me. I have no idea who it is. I did not encourage anyone to edit the brain fingerprinting page. (Apologies for neglecting to sign the above edit -- it was obviously from me, even without the autosign.) Neuroscientist1 (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the SOCKs, there is only one, Neuroscientist1. I do not want to revert to my original username, Lawrence Farwell, and I couldn't even if I wanted to, because after not using that account since 2008 I do not remember the password and I do not have access to the email that I used then. I have disclosed this situation on Neuroscientist1 and Lawrence Farwell's pages. I submitted a request for a name change, in which I described the entire situation. There must be a way to straighten out the situation, and I'm working on it.Neuroscientist1 (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Undisclosed paid

I'm not sure if it was intentional, but your most recent edit reverted my edit to the template, which was made in order to prevent the double prefixed category Category:Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content from December 2016 from being populated. — ξxplicit 07:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username question

I noticed a recently new username, NPOVarticleNow, pop up at some articles with messages like these.[1][2]. Do you think a username like this violates WP:U policy (trolling may be closest, but I seem to vaguely recall that policies have been frowned upon as usernames) where it should be sent over to WP:UAA, or is it more of a case for just getting more eyes over at WP:FTN? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like WP:CGTW#15 applies here. Manul ~ talk 03:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Linking NVIC as an "NPOV source" on Mercola? Riiiiight. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

are you about?

Are you available for some rev deletes? SW3 5DL (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:10 here and heading for bed, sorry. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks anyway. Night. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI about acupuncture trials

I was honestly surprised your number was correct. PubMed lists 4335 published clinical trials on acupuncture going back to 1970 in all languages. I will still never understand what motivates someone to look at that publication history and think, "Hmm. The last 4334 clinical trials have not answered whether acupuncture works. Let's do another crappy study that won't teach us anything." Someguy1221 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's a case of keep asking until you get the answer you want. Except that the trajectory is the wrong way for the trypanophiles. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earflaps

There are still plenty of articles that need deleting. Do you think it's clear cut enough that I can take care of them myself? There's another case on it's way so it seems stupid to waste time tagging them and having other admins needlessly review them, but I just wanted a second opinion before I start anything. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of minimising drama, these are the criteria I'd apply:
  1. Created by a sock (e.g. Earflaps) rather than the master;
  2. Created after the block of the master;
  3. More than 80% of content is original.
You can, legitimately, nuke anything created by the sock after the master was blocked, and you can G11 anything obviously promotional by the master, but these are more likely to cause drama if there have been edits by others.
There are people who will try to keep articles created by paid editors as a WP:POINT. Some of the worst are now banned, but there are enough that you risk a storm if you engage in wholesale nuking.
Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cheers. It's mainly music articles that are left which while they appear okish but digging down reveals crap sources and a generally promotional tone. I'll go slowly and only delete the worst. SmartSE (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, JzG. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, it's come round again! Guy (Help!) 14:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALEC

Hey Guy. I'll initiate talk page discussions on the issues that have come up today. I do wish you had followed the BRD convention and initiated discussion yourself instead of re-reverting me. Just sayin'. No hard feelings. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider doing some homework before making inaccurate, inflammatory comments like, "I get it: you odn't like liberal sources." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will you let me know when you're done responding to all of the threads? That way I can take them all to RSN in one fell swoop. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I got an EC trying to reply here in addition to all the ECs on the Talk page. I'm working now. Laters. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no hurry. Let me know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moorpark College

Please let me finish adding details about the presidency. The president doesn't have to be notable; the college is. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable individuals cited to blogs? Maybe not. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The TCS isn't exactly a blog. I realize Google says so, but it's a small newspaper with print and digital editions. But no matter; I'll use another small newspaper, the Acorn, along with the college's own website, which is reliable for who the college appoints. YoPienso (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. I've over-cited the interim presidency of Luskin, cutting out unnecessary fluff, and the current presidency of Luis P. Sanchez. I'm sure you'll want to remove some of the lower-quality sources, all of which I've separated into their own ref numbers. I'm partial to the Santa Maria Times, which is a largish paper and mentions Luskin in the announcement about Sanchez. The Ventura County Star is also fine, imho, and the student newspaper should be reliable enough for its own president and is the only one that gives the Feb. 23 date. Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never added the Acorn ref, though it's the most detailed on Luskin, because the article's about the college, not an interim president. YoPienso (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why we even need to mention him. He did a job of some minor local importance, for a short time. It's not important to the history of the place. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Continuity and recentness.
Maybe we should move the comments on each of our talk pages to the article talk page so if anybody's watching the page they can help. YoPienso (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People's cube editing

Are the snarky edit messages [3] [4] really necessary? Karunamon ✉ 02:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stop the POV editing, and I'll stop the snarky summaries. Deal? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=759028683"