User talk:JzG

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Discretionary sanctions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Smelling pistakes

In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have C7 radiculopathy, so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa.

Edward Tilley

I'm still learning wiki's editor so excuse me if this isn't the correct page. I am Appealing the Blacklisting of three websites (which I can't list here obviously). I noticed that the edits forwarded to you? Guy I wanted to ask why that system indicated an auto-forward? Edward Edtilley4 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edtilley4, the discussion page is here. I don't hold out much hope. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabification of /s/ + consonant

This is not the venue for discussing LTA with probably block-evading IPs. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello JzG, I've noticed that yesterday you closed the requests for comments in the Help:IPA/Italian talk page. I'd like to point out a pair of things, because what you've written isn't fully exact. There were three users whose preference was for "Tautosyllabic" (even if Nardog changed his preference to "Neutral" and mine was hidden inside a collapsed paragraph) and three users whose preference was for "Heterosyllabic" (even if Carnby's comment arrived just after Barefoot through the chollas's invitation to join, which is a near-canvassing case because he already knew his opinion about this matter before inviting him). So, to be fully exact, the result should be something like this: "The discussion ended in a stalemate, there isn't a clear consensus for either of the options, thus it's not recommended to make large scale changes". The closed discussion mustn't be modified, as I read, that's why I'm asking you, who wrote the text in the result field, to correct it kind of like the way I suggested, I'm hoping that there're no problems with this. I'm afraid that the user who pushed most for this change, Barefoot, may act "unwisely" as you feared if he, reading between the lines, feels authorized to start such a massive operation, I've decided to write you this message mainly for this reason.--151.64.146.189 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request review at WP:AN. I read the discussion and formed the view I did, but I am not omniscient and I freely admit that I don't understand the nuances of IPA. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's necessary to make such a request there? Can't you, being a sysop and the one who wrote that text, modify it just to correct your words regarding the final result? There's no need to understand IPA nuances, I'm not talking about that but about the result of the discussion: 2 "Tautosyllabics", 1 "Tautosyllabic" turned to "Neutral", 2 "Heterosyllabics", 1 not fully acceptable "Heterosyllabic" because of a sort of canvassing. To me it's clear that there isn't a consensus, neither for an option nor for the other, not even "leaning". Anyway, in case you don't feel like refining the text of the result, what will happen if mister B. interprets it as a "green light" to start a massive operation of changing the IPA transcription (maybe subtily not to be noticed)?--151.64.146.189 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

any wholesale change goes beyond the close anyway. I'll read it again though. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if anything the re-reading is stronger in favour of the original assessment: Junghiano gets less weight having checked their contributions. No change to my original assessment thoguh as in the end there is very little participation. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that Barefoot through the chollas doesn't decide on his own to change the IPA transcriptions as he likes, because there isn't consensus to do that. It seems strange to me that you've reiterated your assessment after reading it again, because I, Junghiano and Nardog (who later turned his opinion to neutral) agreed on tautosyllabism, while Barefoot through the chollas, LiliCharlie and Carnby (who joined after being invited and his invitation was aimed to alter the result of the survey) agreed on heterosyllabism, but I won't try changing your mind, as I said my only concern is that an operation of massive changing isn't started by him now that the survey has been closed.--151.64.146.236 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of long-term abuse here, so any further discussion should be at the admin boards. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone starts making large scale changes I'll report at the admin boards, then. Is Barefoot through the chollas you're referring to when you talk about long-term abuse?--151.64.146.214 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in further discussion here. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.--151.64.146.214 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WTF was this about

Here?--MONGO (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, silliness on my part. The idea that it "will go sideways soon" was a delightful bit of optimism, since to my eye it already had. Nothing meant by it. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about this article then

Since you were the admin that closed the DRV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_September_25 I would like to show you another article of the same criteria.What about West Block Blues.It is also a fan club that doesnt even satisfy the notabilty criteria. Yet it overcame 2 deletion discussions.Please take action against this also. Shahoodu (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahoodu, you are free to nominate it for deletion if you like. Just be aware that if your nomination appears to be disruption to prove a point, it may reflect badly on you. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all disruptive. Did you go through the article? I am not just saying. That article already overcame 2 deletion discussion. Iam comparing it using WP:Other stuff exists.Shahoodu (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahoodu, try reading again for comprehension. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For entertainment only

In 2016, I came across this redirect while DABfixing. The DAB page I made has been expanded since then; and I still can't help but wonder who might have clicked on that redirect before I spotted it, and had seen nothing unusual. Narky Blert (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, it would be a giant kick up the arse. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up after Amitakhya

Thank you for cleaning up after Amitakhya Phukan Chaipau. I greatly admire the swiftness with which you took care of it. Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

best laugh I've had all week

Thanks for this drollery. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Peerage cites

Hi, your edits on William I of Württemberg and Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr removed the bibliography cite but left the short {{sfn}} footnote [which now leads nowhere and generates Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors] and did not address the statements supported by those cites. Not sure what's the best way to address it, but simply removing the bibliography cite is not helpful. Renata (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course the best solution would have been for people to stop adding and start removing these cites somewhere in the dozen ort more years that they have been flagged as unreliable... Guy (help! - typo?) 09:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources

Hello! You removed hundreds of sources from the Biden 2020 endorsement page. This includes people who have signed letters saying they support, will vote for, or endorse former VP Biden. Most of these, especially the NatSec492 was widely covered by tons of independent reliable sources and the actual website where these people endorsed was the one that was cited. I think you’re deletions should be reverted immediately as there are now hundreds of names which are unsourced but previously had references in which the majority were covered by a political website that keeps track of endorsements. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You even removed the most recent one which was covered by medium that states Mormons for Biden. I think this must be reverted immediately Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, see WP:POLEND.

Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements"

blog.4president.org is not a reliable independent source, it's a blog. Natsecprofessionals4biden or whatever is not a reliable independent source, it's a primary affiliated source. Medium is on WP:RSP. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on the reliability of Blog 4 president but it is based off of an organization called 4 president, it’s not a blog like you are thinking of. It’s just what they call their endorsements section. If you want to discuss the reliability of this source I would recommend an rfc. The natsec organization has been covered by many reliable sources such as CNN which have stated that there is a list of endorsements and links to this page. On the area where it talks about “covered by reliable independent sources” it uses Twitter and Instagram as examples, mainly talking about social media, not websites that have been widely reported as containing these endorsements. The same goes for the faith leaders. As for Medium, here is what it says about additions “ s a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.” What is included is a list of people who have signed a statement of endorsement in medium. It is information on the people who created the list, not just reported information. Due to the amount of entries which are unsourced due to a controversial removal which you made, I recommend that you revert your deletions and we can discuss specifics on the talk page and remove anything if necessary. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, And the About page for 4president.com says... oh, there isn't one.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that this is a reliable source, and its primary use is these endorsements. A large part of the point of the RfC was to tighten things up so that claims about living people (A endorsed B) are properly sourced in line with WP:BLP and WP:RS.

Feel free to chip ion at WP:RSN if you think the blog attached to this website is in fact a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to have to agree with you on the blog, even though it’s used on other pages for endorsements. However, the national security officials, the Mormons, as well as other sources you deleted have been very widely covered. The CNN source didn’t list all 498 or however many officials there were, but they reported that they did endorse and pointed to the website. Same for the others. When someone signs a list saying they will endorse, and the list has been covered by reliable sources, then the members of the list should definitely be added. The other sources have proven the reliability of the list. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, so cite it from the independent coverage, not the primary source. That's how we know #2 is satisfied. This is pretty clear. We need a reliable independent secondary source to establish the accuracy and significance of a claim of endorsement. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I cite that has been reported by many reliable sources as having endorsements that actually lists the endorsements than a CNN article saying “there are 498 officials”, don’t you agree? I think you’re taking criteria 2 a little too far. It is mainly used to show a social media post or a comment made on a poker website is not enough to be an endorsement, not a comprehensive list or former government employees who signed a letter endorsing Biden (or anyone) Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, WP:RSN is the place for this. If you're claiming that a primary self-published source can be used against the explicit outcome of an RfC, it needs more than just two of us talking about it. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citations

I noticed you removed citations to Worldstatesmen.org, which is sometimes inaccurate, from a couple of articles. You should replace the citation by a {{fact}} tag. If you do not, it looks as if the next citation supports the assertion. That is:

Dubious statement.<badref> Valid statement.<goodref>

becomes

Dubious statement. Valid statement.<goodref>

instead of

Dubious statement.^{[citation needed]} Valid statement.<goodref>

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, that's normally what I do, unless it's obviously uncontroversial. Which specific article please? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jérôme du Sarrat, sieur de La Pierrière and another one I unwatched so cannot remember. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, ah, I see the problem: I was not doing the same check for {{sfn}} as for <ref>. Thanks for catching it, I am fixing my regex now. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is an uphill battle to keep the text and cited sources in sync. I see other editors changing text to something the cited source does not say, or moving text around so it seems to be supported by a source that does not mention it. I tend to give up and unwatch after a while. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2, not surprised. Sourcing on nobility articles is generally shockingly bad. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Weld

Could you sanity check the citation I added here? NECN is a local news channel, so presumably passes WP:POLEND. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl N., no obvious concerns for me there. Thanks :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling by Emir

Since Masem specifically demanded "how do we write this to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP" as a test for the Proud Boys article, Emir's edits hiding my work responding to that question of similar articles with an insulting template was obviously designed as a trolling move to provoke. [1] I just feel I have to let an admin know, I'm fully aware that it was their intention to insult and provoke me. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my intention. Please remember to assume good faith. (please

mention me on reply; thanks!) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you made your intention very clear. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]