User talk:JzG

R       E       T       I       R       E        D

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

---

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• Replies are packed by intellectual weight and contents may settle in transit.

---

Cypri

We may have another problem related to that issue, and articles that link there. Next time we're both on IRC, remind me, and I'll explain. DS 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sonnon

Thank you for the course correction on reliable sourcing for the Sonnon page. Per your suggestions, I've replaced only non-POV cited info. If there is anything else that you need leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you again. B-ham 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Watchlist: Scott Sonnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

For administrative bravery

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For showing considerable courage in the defense of Wikipedia against disruptive editors, I award you this barnstar. ScienceApologist 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Moo

The MONGO cowstar award is hereby awarded to you in recognition for putting up with a lot of "stuff".--MONGO 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

---

• http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/frustrations/595d/zoom/ - love it! Guy (Help!) 22:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you...

Even if it's only on a limited basis. I like the new essay. Be well. Cheers, Pigman^what?/trail 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Galisteo

I saw your edits and thanks for looking at it. Just wanted to doublecheck that you can speak Spanish, so could read the source material. Jeffpw 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, not a word. This is the English Wikipedia, mind, so that should not be required. The problem was that the section was of questionable importance, and read like a personal opinion. Do we really need to be told that a good-looking male singer appeals to both gay and female audiences? I'd have thought that qualified as blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but you deleted the entire paragraph, so that there is no mention of his sexual;ity, or that he was outed in the press. Or did I misread the edit? Jeffpw 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think that's significant, you know where the edit button is. Personally I think that being or not being gay is of no actual importance, and the insistence on including the sexuality of individuals in their articles is a bit tacky, but that's not a point of principle or anything, just an opinion. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already stated that I will not edit further on this article, though I disagree with you about this subject. Just so that you are aware, he also wants one of the references deleted, simply because the magazine article has the word gay in it. One last request: Could you post on ANI how you edited it, and your reasoning behind the edit? Thanks, Jeffpw 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? It's just an editorial action, like any other. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting all Michelle Merkin pictures

Hi Guy. What is meant by this edit summary: [1]. Why does it matter how the image was created (e.g., whether by painting, drawing, film or digital camera, software, etc.), as long as it illustrates the subject matter? Please don't misunderstand. I'm not lobbying for the inclusion of that particular picture in any particular article; I'm just trying to wrap my flabby mind around the principle that Photoshop composite = bad.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a very good image, and the rationale in most cases was POV. Who says it's an archetype for female beauty? We have a source for that? I don't think so. Since it;s a promotional image I'd want a rather better rationale - plus it's clearly retouched and an obvious composite. It's simply not a good picture. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the POV-ness in physical attractiveness. I left a snarky comment about ugly people on that article's talk page. But I disagree that it's not an aesthetically pleasing/composed image; that's a very poor reason to remove the picture, especially if editorial consensus does not share that view. And who cares if it's retouched by the way? All pictures are manipulated to some degree. Photography's very nature has always been about manipulating light/perception/reality, long before computers were invented.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

By "editorial consensus" I presume you mean you like the image? There are great reasons to remove the picture, first among which is that its inclusion was backed by an image summary that was uncited POV. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Which article(s) are we talking about? I already said I don't support its inclusion in physical attractiveness. I was not referring to TFMWNCB when I referred to consensus; I was referring to the person(s) who elected to include her picture in various articles in the first place; moreover, I presume a certain number of editors find it of high quality, or it would never have reached featured status.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate about that right now. It should not have featured status, it is a badly-made composite. And do not mistake silence for assent still less consensus, many people don't care overmuch about what gets included. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't hear any "silence" at all; the original discussion involved many people. The fact that there's still a debate about this means there are people on both sides of the issue. Please avoid presenting the view that this is an inherently poor quality image as fact, when many see it as quite the opposite.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed that it's a photoshopped composite. I think everyone was carried away with the fact that a release was obtained from a glamour model, and forgot to actually look closely at the image. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Combining two images doesn't automatically equal aesthetic disaster, nor should that alone disqualify an image from featured status. Some of the best works of art are conglomerations of more than one work: See collage and sampling (music) for a couple of examples.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts doesn't overcome the objection that an image included as an archetype in an article not on the image subject, should have a supporting reference to show that it is indeed an archetype. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

NIV

I've been trying to fix the info boxes, and never read the full article on this one. Thanks for deleting the, uh... obnoxious paragraph :-) Tim 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Amazing how easily crap like than can slip by, when it appears to be sourced. It always pays to check the sources :-) Guy (Help!) 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Agustin Dovalina, III

Just wondering, but I looked over the article, and I didn't really think WP:CSD#G10 was applicable. It's a legitimate article, and it just details the person's criminal activities and background. What's wrong with that? Nishkid64 (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Essentially because it details nothing else, and is drawn exclusively from tabloid sources, but if you think you can write a real article drawing on thoughtful coverage in non-sensationalist sources then go right ahead. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the article contains sources from a local newspaper, not the tabloids (but yes, I understand they're only writing because it's something that might peek the interest of readers). I don't think the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, but I disagree with your deletion rationale. CSD A7 would be my inclination, but since an assertion of notability has been made, I suggest taking this to AfD. Would you consent to that? Nishkid64 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think that would be a bad idea. If we both think it should be gone, at least in that form, then why make it anything other than gone? And if we think the subject has potential, then it can hopefully be rewritten better ab initio. It was a WP:BLP problem, and bringing it back just so we can gaze at or navels for a while is probably not a great idea. If you want to start a new article with some attempt at decent sources, please do feel free, but I'm of the opinion that that is unlikely to be possible. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. I have no intention of rewriting it, but I'll contact the Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), the article's creator. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• That might not be smart. He has more deleted articles in his history than any editor I can recall ever coming across. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• He does seem to have a lot, but I think he has a right to explain why the article should be kept. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• It has been pointed out that he's already quit the project once in response to kickback over his articles stemming form his own work, I think we need to look long and hard at this editor before we start inviting him to re-create questionably sourced negative articles on living individuals. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not saying we should restore the article. I just left that note so he could explain himself. Is there really any harm in doing so? Nishkid64 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• In this case, probably not smart. I've just spent half an hour looking over his history, and there are a lot of deleted articles there, mostly unanimous AfDs. Some editors I'd trust to understand the problem and try again, but not this one. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your post on Billy Hathorn's page

In fairness, the BLP policy isn't likely to be of much use to him, since his usual MO is to cut & paste every obituary that appears in his local paper. Ever since this piece of idiocy I've given up even trying to keep his mix of copyvios & ludicrously non-notable biographies (if you look through some of his articles, you'll see "phone call to subject" as a reference in at least 25% of them) in check, and I think the other editors who were watching him have given up as well - this might have given him the idea that policy's changed as more of his articles are slipping through the net than before. When DGG is nominating your articles for deletion, you know something is seriously wrong somewhere. — iridescent 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I think you are right. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question re: whitelist

I'm not an admin right now, but was trying to tidy up the whitelist page a little further (provide notes so an admin could go through it more speedily), and I'm wondering if you can tell me how things have been interpreted in the past (since you seem to have thrown your hat in over there). Situation: a user would like to link to his homepage, which he has hosted on a free service (in this case, batcave.net, but it could be any of the blacklisted ones, freeport, myspace, etc.; this has come up on the whitelist a couple times). He wants to link from his userpage only.

Things that I have thought:

1. Linking to it does nothing to the site goals; which is to say, there is no encyclopedic benefit to whitelisting something so someone can say, 'go to my homepage!'
2. However, allowing this doesn't actually *harm* the site; users who own their own domain, even when it is hosted on a free host, are free to provide links, etc.

Neither of these really sways me one way or another, but I'm wondering if there's been a discussion of this in the past. It appears that some myspace pages have been whitelisted previously for just this purpose. Your opinions? --Thespian 13:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• A good-faith request to whitelist a single blog or site for a user to put it on their user space is usually honoured, but requests to delist blogs to be used as sources tend to be denied, I think. Eagle is the best one to ask, though. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That'd helpful, and I will do so. --Thespian 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pavel Tsatsouline

Guy, can you help me understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Tsatsouline ? After your explanation of proper citing being required in order to make claims, I don't understand how so many potential biased and even presumed fraudulent claims can be made on this wiki page without any apporpriate sources being cited other than his own commercial website. Can you help, please? B-ham 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dsreyn has undone your modifications to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Tsatsouline but I'm not sure I understand his comment that your changes were inappropriate because the subject is "notable" enough to not require citations. Can you help me understand how to know when a subject is notable enough to not require any sources cited for claims? That would help me avoid making the mistakes that you corrected me on. Thanks in advance. B-ham 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that he is notable enough not to require citations, nor did I say that anyone's changes were "inappropriate". Again, my edit comment was: "edit warring is a poor reason to delete - subject is well-known and well-published, certainly notable by WP standards" (and you may not have noticed, but I also added a couple of references). My point being - if the subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, isn't there a better way to resolve the problem than simply deleting the article? If there's a problem with two "warring" camps, perhaps an attempt should be made to work out disagreements on the discussion page. I'm also curious what User:B-ham's motives are here. I see that he was the one who originally added the fraud claims (Feb. 14, 2007) - which, incidentally, were not properly sourced (message boards aren't appropriate sources, particularly for defamatory material) - and also has pressed repeatedly for citing of every little fact in this article. This, in combination with the constant championing / promoting of Scott Sonnon, makes me wonder if there's some fitness/martial arts political battle being fought here. Dsreyn 13:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bircham International University

Hi Guy - I responded in part to your post about the OTRS complaint from this institution. An IP address has posted a long statement[2] on Talk:Bircham International University, which is capped by a legal threat against a third party. Since this is from an OTRS case involving legal threats, and since I know next to nothing about this specific institution, I am disengaging from further participation on this issue. Still, I felt it prudent to bring this to your attention. Articles involving diploma m unaccredited institutions seem to be very contentious. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

On a tangentially related matter, I invite you to peruse the contributions of this editor. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Watermark Images

Hello Guy,
I observed your comment in WP:AN about watermarked images. I thought they were eligible to CSD, however another admin User:Kusma suggested me to take it to IFD, instead. I have listed an image for ISD. Your inputs would be appreciated. Thanks, KNM ^Talk 22:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to reconsider your vote in light of the fact that the image is no longer watermarked? -- Arvind 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Chu Mei-Feng

• Chu Mei-Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

She is famous. Someone just give the news sources! What is in the article is in the news! Why do you delete some users' hard work?Chengm153 14:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• In which ways the article violate the WP:BLP?Chengm153 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Poorly-sourced negative content, and the assertion that she is notable mainly for being the subject of an Internet meme maliciously started by a detractor. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do the sources some other users just added good source?Chengm153 17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I hope this helps you understand the problem. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Those other users took much time to write or search. The 1992 events are famous and called "潘美辰事件", the report was in the TTV programme "台視新聞與世界報導", there were lawsuits, too. If they were false they were reverted long ago. The influence was not just someone find guilty, she received this after many things she's done, a significant growth in the sales of white thong panties, or a film modified the event, but an article was modified, too. Yes, we should not harm anyoneWikipedia:Avoiding_harm, do you think we should not about something she's done, the sex tape or the confession book she wrote?Chengm153 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• She was compensated in lawsuits about the sex tapes.Chengm153 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• If u think bad, just delete it. Many things such as the 1992, 1996 events that some people are harmed are not written. It is very night. We do not want to harm anyone.Chengm153 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• The 1992 and 1996 events are written. They were hot news and notable, especially the Taiwan lesbians and Hsieh's supporters.Chengm153 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:JzG/LA

User:JzG/LA is from a long time ago and shouldn't be hanging around in your userspace. I'm assuming you merely forgot about it - care to get rid of it? Thanks. User:Veesicle 17:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well spotted. Socafan was banninated long ago, that is indeed old and stale so I nuked it. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR report by Perspicacite

I notice you removed Perspicacite's report from the three revert rule noticeboard when blocking Perspicacite for disruptive trolling. Would you mind if I restored it with a note that the reporter was blocked? 3RR reports are sometimes courtesy blanked but generally the admins who take up 3RR reports like to keep a record of all reports and what was done about them. Sam Blacketer 12:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• The complaint was baseless. As long as we note that I have no particular opinion on whether it should be deleted, marked closed as meritless or anything else. Whatever helps you to keep the wheels turning, really. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

• A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium

You're right, I was under the wrong impression when I forked the aticles. About licensing, altough I dint talk to Larry directly, I read somewhere on their site (the forums maybe?) that the dealine was november 15 which is only a week away, so we can just wait and see. I do hope they go with a GDFL compatible license though so we can fork some articles, their telephone newspaper one was particularly good. Fingers crossed :D RIP-Acer 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, their editorial process is OK and they attribute content, so copying from there should be good if they fix the license. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn and personalising things

I've just ticked off Alansohn for making a personal attack on you in the deletion review he initiated. However, I feel your comment here is not appropriate either. Alansohn has edited your user talk page only twice since September, and both of them were for quite legitimate reasons. It would be better if neither of you personalised the dispute. Sam Blacketer 00:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to talk to him ever again. As long as that happens, I will be perfectly happy. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Gary Rose

Would you mind deleting this for me? Tiptoety 01:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

La-Mulana spoiler tag

Hi, Noting that you're tired of the silly drama on Wikipedia, I don't mean to cause more, but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind expanding on your reason for removing the spoiler tag at the head of the Characters section in La-Mulana. I agree that it's been out for two years already, but it's a relatively obscure game and therefore people introduced to the game will likely use the Wikipedia article as a first reference to find out more about it, and many might like to know not to read details that are revealed at a critical point in the game that puts the plot into a significantly different perspective. (I'm going to leave your edit alone for now, awaiting your reply.) 18.242.7.90 03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC) GMH talk to me 03:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [Whoops, I didn't know I wasn't signed in at the time.]

• Spoiler tags are very rarely actually needed. I think there are fewer than half a dozen in mainspace right now. If it's that obscure, are you sure we should even have an article? Guy (Help!) 08:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)