User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:17, 25 March 2008

~~R E~~ T I R E D

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch

Reading

May 2024

15

Wednesday

9:00 am UTC

I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Wikipedia is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
My take on the Durova incident.

Jung SuWon

I'd appreciate if you reinstated the page you deleted. Jung SuWon was an important page, helping document the COL program a religious cult. Unfortunately it is contantly turned into a commercial site advertising her, by her followers. Please consider reinstatement. it was unfair, and ill-considered, ifif you look at site history. Jmhunter (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was also a badly sourced mess full of innuendo, and caused a complaint to the foundation. Feel free to have another go, though, using better sources. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it is intersting, and not shocking to hear the group complained. They are systematically undermining any facts we post to the point that the articles become useless to wikipedia... Thanks for the info. J Jmhunter (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also assert that you are a former member and off-wiki debunker. Tread carefully, eh? Guy (Help!) 21:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they would be correct. if telling the truth of my experiences = debunker. y'know?

Jmhunter (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I wish that wasn't the case. See WP:COI and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

South African Patriot

You have deleted the above sem-protected article without debate or discussion. Please state why. Mark Hasker (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the above editor asked for my help in the past regarding this article, and i did so. They informed me that it was deleted by you, without any notice, and the deletion summary was probably borderline-uncivil. As you`re an admin, you have the tools to delete pages, but i feel an XFD may have been more appropriate in this case. Could you let me know your reasoning here? Regards, <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">[[User:Steve Crossin|Steve]]</font> (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are precisely five Google hits, of which two were on Wikipedia. The article was atrociously badly sourced, and contained much negative content about living individuals. Feel free to start a neutral, balanced and well-sourced replacement, but be warned that every single statement in respect of any living individual must be backed by references in reliable independent sources, and that does not include polemical websites and the like. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is some unsourced negative content about living individuals which ought ot be deleted. That material was supplied by the originator of the article, Alan Harvey (AliCatHun) who has since repeatedly vandalized his own article and asked for its deletion. All "negative" allegations concerning Harvey and SAP were fully sourced by me.

Please state whether Mr Harvey drew this article to your attention and requested deletion. If not, how did the article come to your attention? Mark Hasker (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state "There are precisely five Google hits, of which two were on Wikipedia".

That is a simple falsehood. The phrase "South African Patriot" brings up about 843 hits, many of which are of course irrelevant. However, when the search is refined by typing in the name of the magazine's editor "Alan Harvey" 30 relevant hits are brought up, including the highly notable statement that between 1980 and 1987 the extreme-right white supremacist Herstigte Nasionale Party bankrolled the English-speaking far-right journal South African Patriot, edited by Alan Harvey.

Please explain how you managed to obtain "precisely five Google hits".Mark Hasker (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspamming campaign to an unreliable source

Guy, I've stumbled across an interesting case while dealing with the Ashley Alexandra Dupré page. There are hundreds of links to a site called "PostChronicle.com," which has a name that sounds like a reputable newspaper - but it instead appears to be a mashup of AP wire stuff and scurrilous gossip. The site itself has a disclaimer, The Post Chronicle accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. That, to me, suggests that we should consider it completely inappropriate for BLP sourcing. A user, Smokefan2007, and his IP, User:69.125.122.202, have apparently inserted links to that site in many different pages, and created an article on Marc Centanni, the site's CEO. I've begun to trim some of the links, and am of course running into the usual nonsense from the person who inserted them. I understand you're dealing with a ton lately, but as you've dealt with a lot of these type of issues, any guidance on this would be appreciated. Thanks! :) FCYTravis (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A site full of ads with no original content. Yup, that would score high on my spamdar alright. It is clearly not n acceptable BLP source per tat disclaimer, and that user and IP need to be reined in or banninated. I'll see what I can do later today. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, I should finish reading before I write.

Disclaimer: Many of the stories on this site may or may not contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Where ever and whenever possible The Post Chronicle™ sources and or includes the name of the author/owner and gives them full recognition for the excellent and invaluable work they do. The Post Chronicle™ make such information available because of it's newsworthiness in our efforts to advance understanding of: free speech, the free press, environmental issues, political practices, human rights, economics, democracy in general, science, political and social issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. The Post Chronicle™ accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or inaccuracies of any story or opinion. The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of The Post Chronicle™. We run banner advertising in order to cover the operating costs of delivering the material.

My emphasis in the first sentence. That's an unambiguous no-no per WP:C and all links should be removed with prejudice. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... thanks Guy. I had to go to sleep right after I left you this note (was 4 a.m. AKDT) and didn't have the inclination to pursue it any further, the bed was calling me. FCYTravis (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, you spotted a problem, all I did was shout about it :-) Guy (Help!) 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for blocking of User:Smokefan2007

I've been cleaning up some of the Post Chronicle links as per your discussion on WP:AN and WP:BLPN. I'm concerned about the "contributions" of User:Smokefan2007 who, even though he denies it, probably has a conflict of interest in this matter. In particular, please review [1] and [2] and consider whether it might be a good idea to block this individual for uncivil personal attacks (the "Eichmann" comment) and/or legal threats. Thanks in advance. *** Crotalus *** 15:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He referred to it as "my site" and threatened action against those who described it in less than glowing terms, I'd say that the COI is established quite solidly. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Funding Evil

You commented a few days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funding Evil concerning the article Funding Evil. I've completely rewritten and expanded the article now; you may wish to review the revised article and your comments in the deletion discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South African Patriot. Deletion Review

Please restore the above article which will be altered to remove all unsourced material. If you then wish to open a Deletion Debate that will be a fairer outcome than arbitrary unilateral deletion.

Otherwise I will have to put this case to a Deletion Review.

Please state also whether or not South African Patriot editor Mr Harvey drew this article to your attention and requested deletion. If not, how did the article come to your attention? Mark Hasker (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no right to even ask such a question. The mechanisms by which we spot badly sourced articles relating to living individuals are many and varied, and that is all you need to know. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to ask such a question. Whether you answer it is your business, but others have the right to draw their own conclusions from your silence.

Now; will you restore the article pending removal of unsourced material or do we have to go to review? I am happy for you to specify all passages to which you object so these can be altered or removed. I am not happy at the total removal of an article covering a publication which was notable as a major voice of the English-speaking racist far-right in the dying years of Apartheid South Africa.Mark Hasker (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you have no right to speculate on the off-wiki identities of anybody, or the motivations of those who take actions to protect Wikipedia policies. In fact you have only two enforceable rights: the right to fork and the right to leave. That's a matter of simple fact. You can go to review if you like, but with only five Google hits, of which two were Wikipedia, you may not fare as well as you'd hope. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that, as stated above, five Google hits is an obvious falsehood.Mark Hasker (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donorgate

Hi. I see that you have made a change to Donorgate on the basis of "BBC got this wrong, Abrahams states he never gave an interview to the Jewish Chronicle (OTRS ticket 2008030910010087)." I assume you have had representations to this effect, so I won't reverse this, but I should point out that the Jewish Chronicle has not withdrawn the said interview article from their website. The Jewish Chronicle article says things like "David Abrahams has made clear to the JC", "Mr Abrahams told the JC", "The JC has seen the letter to Mr Abrahams".[3] The Jewish Chronicle article certainly reads like it is in large part a result of an interview, or questions and answers in some form, with Abrahams; the article has not been withdrawn. Are you sure the representations you have had are from an authorised representative of Mr Abrahams? Thanks. Rwendland (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably amounts to how you define an interview; I expect this was a phone interview and not face-to-face. But I have asked the subject to provide references. It doesn't much matter in this case, as we can safely attribute it to the BBC at this point, but I agree that the JC seem to be under the impression that they interviewed him, regardless of what he thinks :-) Yes, I am pretty confident it is Mr. Abrahams himself, from the nature and format of the various representations. An interesting chap, by all accounts. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, interesting chap, and I can sympathise with his desire to get a lower-profile; in fact I see he has been telephoning newspapers asking them to "Leave me alone".[4] But I'm not sure it is objectively the case that he is a "notable only for one event" person. Consider:

He has been a councillor on Tyne and Wear metropolitan county, which is a match for WP:BIO "Politicians ... members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city".
The Times has published an article "Profile: David Abrahams, ..."[5], which is a match for WP:NOTE "presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
The Richmond deselection saga 1990-2, ending when Labour's National Executive Committee upheld Mr Abrahams' deselection.[6]
The 2007 Donorgate saga.

I shan't push it, but I'm not at all sure there really is an overall objective case for removing his personal article. Do you any doubts? Rwendland (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local councillor? Not really within the definition there. It's the UK, not the US, and these are really nothing like as politically significant as US city councillors. I think you'd need to be up to the Livingston level to achieve that kind of profile. What I see here is someone who feels besieged, and largely as a result of the media focus on an event. The event is important enough (in a flash-in-a-pan way, it was the Daily Mail, after all, and not an actual newspaper or anything) and I think Wikipedia was contributing to the hurt. Let's sit back for a while and see how it goes. My biggest concern here is the paucity of objective secondary sources; newspapers are all very well and uncontroversial when used as obituaries, but as the primary sources for BLPs they are nothing like as good as biographies, academic articles and the like. Why not let it lie for a while, and see if we get a better historical perspective down the line. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy to sit back. If there are no legal cases arising related to this, his part probably isn't notable from a historical perspective. Rwendland (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanispamcruft

Since I know you like dealing with this so much, a twopenneth here wouldn't go amiss please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Mechanical Nonsense

Neither Woonpton nor The Rationalist are claiming that the mind effects reality at all, much less via "quantum mechanical means". They're just saying that the movie suggests that such a linkage exists. I really don't see the fuss on that one ... the movie clearly tries to make that linkage. Just because the linkage is false doesn't mean the movie didn't try to make it.Kww (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy nuff, but the claim is self-evidently twaddle nonetheless. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHRUBBERY?

Wasn't there a WP essay somewhere comparing arbitrary demands for discussion to the Knights who say Ni's arbitrary demand for a shrubbery? I found an instance of you making the comparison when I did a google search, but I'm at a loss as to why I can't find the essay. Unless I'm on crack and it never existed. Do you know where it is? Mango juice^talk 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I thought we had that, too. Maybe it was nuked before the namespace change. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahahaha! I remember now, yes, it wasn't in WP space was it? Excellent. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Yes, thanks, that was really bugging me. Mango juice^talk 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{shrubbery}} it is :o) Guy (Help!) 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie

Can you explain what the problem was with the source you removed? I had reverted you, but then I revised the citation template to match the WENN article as I found on NewsBank just now. Let me know if this is still an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyright violating spam. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for showing me. Was my replacement sufficient? I verified that it came from WENN on NewsBank. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even look, I noticed you'd gone direct to WENN, assumed you'd checked the source and ensured it was reliable, and trusted you :-) Guy (Help!) 20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zlango

Why are you editing the archived AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango? --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the edit summary, I am unlinking an unreliable source. This is mainly so I can establish where it's being linked in mainspace and other places where it matters. No change to the content, just unlinking one site. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
-== My ban ==
-[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#A_day_and_a_half_later|Per this suggestion]] I'm coming to you to seek an overturn of my ban. First I notice the recent death and you have my condolences and I will attempt to limit any stress dealing with me may cause. Secondly, this whole ban has taken my by surprise so I'm not even sure how to respond or what information would best demonstrate that I have been actively working to build dialog and make improvements to the article and keep the talk drama to a minimum. Please let me know what information would help reverse my ban. Thank you in advance. [[User:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Benji</u>]][[User_talk:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:98% cursive;color:#8000FF">boi</u>]] 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 ==Zlango==
 Why are you editing the archived AfD [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlango]]? --[[User:Gavin.collins|Gavin Collins]] ([[User talk:Gavin.collins|talk]]) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)