User talk:JzG/Archive 174

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. 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.

Archive 170

←

Archive 172

Archive 173

Archive 174

Archive 175

Archive 176

→

Archive 180

Just a FYI the article is under 1RR.[1][2] PackMecEng (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. You did a straight-up revert of WoodElf, twice, within a few minutes of each other. You know better than that. The article is under 1RR restriction. You followed up with a series of edits which also amount to reverting the edits of previous editors. I suggest you self revert. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood. That's tough to do as I am way past that, going through actually fixing the problem, which is the inclusion of a lot of poor quality sourcing. Please chip in on Talk. I'd forgotten about 1RR on that (was too focused on WoodElf, who has had edits suppressed for outing the WB). Guy (help!) 18:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So you intend to let the second, identical revert stand, then? It's true that we can count a "series of edits" as a single edit, but a second identical revert seems to me to be counter to both the letter and the spirit of the DS. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, it had already reached the point where unpicking it is not easy, and in any case it's better to discuss sourcing - especially crappy sources like Fox - on Talk, as I have done. If you want to restore to another version I can't stop you, but I think I am not alone in thinking that article should not be using anything other than the highest quality sources.

I need to stop now for the evening, I have C7 radiculopathy and am in agony. I need drugs. Guy (help!) 19:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• came back, but can't do shit. Soz, seriously, please fix whatever you need, I'm in fucking agony here with half my left hand simultaneously numb and burning. Guy (help!) 23:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Satirical slip cover for Triggered (book).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Why did you fully protect He Bowls To The Left? It didn't need that and there wasn't any request for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Because of multiple sockpuppetry by the editor who re-created it. There is a very high risk of more socks, and this dog returneth to its vomit time after time. Guy (help!) 10:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Technically, it was me who recreated it but I see your point. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for writing a new lead! I figured it took some work. We don't agree on every detail, but we agree that the article is much better off now! Heptor (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

[3] [4] Improvements, no? Heptor (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guy,

I ended up following your userpage, so saw you updated your "Bag 'o Shite" sources. I noticed you don't have ThinkProgress on your "red box sources" (debatable whether it maybe belongs in the egregious f**k no fake news websites), but I really think you should add that there. I noticed, too, that your list of crap sources are skewed to more conservative bad sources, so I'd recommend adding some bad sources from the left (i.e., ThinkProgress, Media Matters and related David Brock entities such as CREW, TrueBlueUSA, etc.).

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

My list comes from [5] and from sources brought up at RSN or those I have actually found in live use. As to left v. right, that's just how it falls out. There's a specific problem with the right wing media right now, see Network Propaganda: there's an asymmetric polarisation where the incentives of right wing media mitigate for ideological consonance and against accuracy that goes against the narrative, which is especially important at a time when the left are promoting facts and the right (including the highest levels of government) are pushing outright conspiracy theories. Guy (help!) 22:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi JzG,

In, I think, Talk:Mark Levin#Survey, where you and I assessed reliable sources, I had argued that The Washington Examiner was somewhat better than, say, InfoWars or Breitbart. It may be better than the former (unclear on the latter). Nevertheless, I had said it was a semi-reliable source, which was incorrect. I had been getting it confused with The Washington Times, a daily newspaper. The Washington Times does tend to have a more conservative slant than, say, The Washington Post, but it is still a reliable source for our purposes, correct?

Basically, a strong no to The Washington Examiner and a yes to The Washington Times and The Washington Post, subject to the usual caveats on sensitive stories (i.e., political ones).

Cheers,
--Doug Mehus T·C 03:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The Times is also an unreliable source, at least for American politics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you break that out from the Snoogans thread? Being there can distract people from the main issue you're trying to raise as well and a separate discussion might attract more editors. I support the idea by the way. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

So, not trying to get too far ahead of things, but have you thought of what structures this noticeboard might have? One thought I had was that I don't want it to be a free-for-all like AN/I or NPOV/N, where anybody can comment anywhere and editors can dominate the discussion. I kind of like the format of WP:AE where people comment in dedicated sections, but that makes replies really clunky with no threading. There's also the RfC format with one section for voting and another section for threaded discussion. I was also thinking about a blend where each editor has a primary section only they can edit and a subsection that anybody can edit for replies. I dunno...just brainstorming. ~Awilley (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Guy,

The DS notice you placed on their user talk page is incomplete. Please take a look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, huh. odd. Thanks Guy (help!) 23:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Feel like removing the gratuitously disturbing OT image EEng put at WP:ANI#User:5.102.238.1? I (and I'm sure others) would be grateful. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you please back out of your closure of the aforementioned redirect discussion? RfDs run for seven days, and it hasn't been open enough for interested parties to give their opinions, nor do I see enough participation to make a WP:SNOW call. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tavix, It's an obvious case because it's an implausible title. If you look at the history it started out as a blatantly POV redirect, and has been toned down, rendering it no less POV but functionally useless. This is a case of WP:NOTBURO. Guy (help!) 13:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion did not establish that the history of the redirect is blatantly POV, so you are inserting your own opinions and showing that you are not a neutral closer. If you wish to establish that, I recommend you back out of your closure and provide that information. A neutral closer, at the proper time can then assess your evidence along with everyone elses and, likely, the redirect would then be deleted. By closing the discussion after a little more than an hour, you have shorted this process and clouded the proper result. If you do not wish to back out of your close, this matter will be taken to WP:DRV, which I hope we can both agree would be even more bureaucratic. Since you have indicated you wish to avoid bureaucracy, I hope you reconsider your improper close. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tavix, The deleted history establishes it unambiguously. It started as a short article called "Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes", was moved to "Harm done by anti-vaccinationists successes", moved again to "Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes", and converted to a redirect to anti-vaccinationist in 2006. I'm unable to find any evidence it was ever used, and it's unlikely ever to be used because we now have a completely different hierarchy of articles on this topic area. Basically it's left over from a POV fork that never got beyond a stub. You've already expended more time here than it was worth. At its peak it was less than 4000 characters including templates, and most of it was unsourced opinion or blatant OR. Guy (help!) 15:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to back out of your close or are we going to have to settle this at WP:DRV? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tavix, I can't stop you from that spectacular waste of time. Guy (help!) 16:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You can, actually, by reversing your closure. I take it you're not going to do that? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tavix, no, because that, too, would be a stunning waste of time. Guy (help!) 16:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Your improper action and refusal to correct the action is the cause of what you consider to be waste of time, but I digress. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Tavix, the proper action is to delete the shitty useless thing, which I did. Now goodbye. Guy (help!) 21:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came here to say the same thing as Tavix, and am still not convinced by your reasoning. While Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, that is not a reason to skip procedures in favor of one's personal opinion. This redirect may have had some reason to be kept that never got to be mentioned because of the early closure. Finally, only administrators can view deleted page histories, so there is no way for me to check where the redirect pointed originally (before this "ton[ing] down" that you speak of). Geolodus (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes. 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

JoeScarce should have left this notice for you, but didn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Satirical slip cover for Triggered (book).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

You may want to go ahead and F8 the version of the image here, since the correct attribution/licensing/frilly sparkles are all over at the version on Commons. GMG^talk 19:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, Thanks. I wasn't going to port it, as it only really works here, but happy anyway. Guy (help!) 19:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

These archive redirects Talk:The Renaissance/Archive 2 and Talk:Renaissance/Archive 1 are not needed, i was going to CSD them, but I'm not sure what criteria to post them as. Can you help?. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Housekeeping? Don't know, really. Guy (help!) 21:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That will work, thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You beat me to him but I've implemented your suggestion. And he has other areas of interest. But I did tell him he must use proper edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, thanks, I think that is for the best. Guy (help!) 16:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Given their edits I don't think they can be trusted not to do it again. We'll see if they keep using misleading edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, aye. WP:ROPE though. Guy (help!) 18:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Just so you know your edit at 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron ([[6]]) only removed the url and title parameters from the reference, but not the publisher, url-status and accessdate parameters. This left "|publisher=LiveLeak.com|url-status=live |accessdate=20 December 2016}}" on the article page. Gavbadger (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Gavbadger, Oh, thanks. Must be going cross-eyed. Guy (help!) 22:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=928552381&oldid=928550976 I wanted to let you know that I found your comment here a bit offensive: "I suggest a TBAN, due to wilful imperviousness to Clue". In particular, the implications that I am actively trying to be clueless or, if you were referring to WP:CLUE, I am actively trying to not understand how reasonable discourse works. It would be appreciated if you could try to assume WP:GOODFAITH here, as I really am trying to understand how things work and I honestly believe that my reasoning is sound. Micah Zoltu (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

MicahZoltu, thank you for giving me the benefit of the vast experience you have gained in your 160 edits to date. Your edits and article focus strongly suggest not only lack of clue but an agenda orthogonal to Wikipedia values. Guy (help!) 12:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

My intent was not to create an attack page, and I just tried to be impartial to the facts given by my sources. I'm not asking for the page to be restored, just stating that the intent for why I created the page was because the person is an Internet celebrity who is notable. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 11:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources were very poor, and this has been a target for attacks for years. I strongly advise you to forget this one. Guy (help!) 11:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, feel you, and will do. I'm a little ashamed of myself to be honest though, but at least I understand and will learn later from my mistakes. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 11:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

NowIsntItTime, To err is human. Learning from mistakes is allowed here :-) Guy (help!) 12:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for my sarcastic comment on Atsme's talk page. I was angry and let my emotional state get the best of me. I know very well that you were sincere and truly felt that your comments were not meant as criticism. Best, Gandy. Gandydancer (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, no harm no foul. All understood in context and no offence taken at all. Guy (help!) 14:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it is so nice of you to be understanding. Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

He truly can be. I never doubted his sincerity, misguided that it may or may not be at the time. I have long since learned that he truly believes what he says, and it would be an exercise in futility to try to convince him otherwise. No one is perfect, which is something we must never lose sight of when judging or speaking to one another. Text can be very unforgiving without facial expressions and body language, and depending on one's level of anger, we are probably better served using text from time to time as long as we keep it civil. Emotions tend to overrule what we would normally say under less stressful conditions. We have reason to believe that humans are the apex of intelligent life on earth - that we are immeasurably smarter than our mammalian counterparts - but ironically, we are very much dependent on similar body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice when communicating with each other. My tail was wagging when I was barking at you. 😉 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I am a WYSIWYG person. I think you are too. And I like pretty much everybody. I do worry that you appear to get your information from within the conservative media bubble, where ideological Truth™, not empirical fact, is the core value, and I am concerned that your tendency to dig in can lead to you stubbornly arguing a point long after everyone else realises you have lost. Guy (help!) 14:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yikes, another misconception, Guy. I'm subscribed to WaPo and read the NYTimes, both of which I cite far more frequently than any other news source. I am cautious about RECENTISM, and this is yet another example for why we all should exercise some level of caution. The fact that I used that Newsweek diff does not indicate an ideological POV; rather, it should serve as confirmation of my journalistic ethics and desire for accuracy. I spend quite a bit of time on various WP topics, and barely spend any time in AP2. As for tv news & pundits, I watch a variety of programs and refute your allegations that I get my ".... Your allegations are based entirely on your preconceived notions. As for my arguing a point "long after...", pah-lease...a majority of productive editors in AP2 are guilty of doing it. I was singled out because some of my suggestions came from writing for the opposition. You are also not considering the 1RR, consensus required restrictions in that topic area, or that my arguments have resulted in RfCs that supported my suggestions, more often than not. You have focused only on the "than not" which is also what you're doing overall in AP2 - focusing on the negatives. You ignore the fact that I was a field producer for CNN Headline News as it relates to my credibility, not to mention the work I've done with various other networks over the years, so when you speak of media, it is my area of expertise. Whoop-te-do. I am not, by any means, saying it's an ace in the hole, or that it gives me any extra advantage over any other editor...quite the contrare...I expect and welcome healthy debate. It was an integral part of how we reached consensus in the news room and edit suite before going on air. I've been retired for a while now, but it may help explain why I am offended when an editor or admin cites the WP:CIR policy against me, especially when there's a disagreement about content published in MSM, or as it relates to my justified belief in exercising caution before diving head first into the shallow end of a breaking story. Working with PBS back in the 90s was excellent training, and where I learned to leave my POV at the door - it became 2nd nature for me. I am and always have been amenable to some extent but Guy, your preconceived notions prevent you from seeing me in any other light but the dark one you keep shining on me. There are times when you push a POV so heavily that it comes across as, So let it be written, so let it be done. I can even hear your resounding voice saying those words.^[FBDB] Perceptions are based on life experiences, and mine has developed from life in the US - born on the east coast with early childhood in NE, but grew up in Texas. I was a fan of and inspired by the late Ann Richards, a bright & witty woman whose humor and wise words made a lasting impression: After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels. And her famous dig at Bush, "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." I am also a permanent resident of Bonaire, where the politics are much different from the US, so your attempts to pigeonhole me politically are for naught. My views are wide ranging and contingent upon the situation at hand. When writing, I enter a different zone with an intense focus on accuracy, and I am not pushing an agenda except to get the article right - not make it lean right, for Pete's sake. I believe in healthy debate and the free exchange of information and ideas but when editors start putting time limits on civil discussion as if we're in a debate competition, or attempt to squelch the views of others during the consensus building process, well...experience has taught me there may be an underlying POV issue involved, or maybe it's simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is something else that I was reminded of just today: Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you. I have taken it to heart, and it fits right alongside WP:IDGAF. 😎 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, maybe you should have cleared up your point about the Russia hoax then. Or perhaps you have and I didn't see it. No, I am not working on preconceived notions. I don't spend much time at AP2, and when I do, I am looking for well-sourced content from mainstream sources. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ is my ready reckoner. The closer to the top centre, the better. MSM is an acronym I hear very rarely other than from those who consider "mainstream" to be the opposite of "conservative", and the two to be equal. That is a dangerous fallacy. I am not saying you subscribe to it, but it is what it is. Guy (help!) 18:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What Russia hoax - diff? BTW, does WP:DROPTHESTICK ring a bell? 🔔🤨 I've had a rough week so go easy on me. 🤒 No disrespect intended - but with reference to "a dangerous fallacy" and your media bias chart - you might want to read the section, "The armchair academics". There are times when experience resulting from a longtime, successful career has its advantages, hint-hint (age and experience = +++). See WP:EX Role of experts on Wikipedia - yeppers - leave your POV at login and read Subject-matter experts are well-equipped to help articles achieve a truly neutral point of view by identifying gaps in articles where important ideas are not discussed, or places where ideas are over- or underemphasized. And that's the truth. 😝 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, I think you know what I am talking about. This conversation is over. Guy (help!) 22:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)