User talk:JzG

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile

---

Harbinder Singh Rana

The articles do not exist because he was found guilty, what context can there to the crimes? There are not other articles stating anything different, as what is reported is exactly what happended. He is a notable person, talking for the Sikhs in the UK, as this page testifies: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Harbinder_Singh_Rana

Mediation Case

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Simply Hired

Recently, I noticed that the page for Simply Hired was deleted:

21:46, 31 March 2010 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted "Simply Hired" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: User:Bburgart is almost certainly Bonnie Burgart, marketing associate at Simply Hired. Most edits are COI or spam. Article lacks credible sourcing.)

Is it possible that this page can be temporarily reinstated in order to provide credible sourcing? Or, should the page be rewritten with credible sourcing by someone without COI, like myself? When I noticed the page was gone I found it suspicious that it was removed around the same time that a few other similar competitor websites were also requested for removal by yourself, including Indeed.com and Buddingup. See below:

  1. 21:52, 31 March 2010 (diff | hist) Employment website ‎ (rm. laundry list)
  2. 21:49, 31 March 2010 (diff | hist) Buddingup ‎ (rm. deleted and questionable) (top)
  3. 21:47, 31 March 2010 (diff | hist) Indeed.com ‎ (→See also: rm. deleted)

I'm not sure how the request for deletion works exactly, but I'll avoid suspicion that this was requested maliciously by a competitor to these companies. Your reasoning for deletion is valid, but I do feel that the page should exist as it is a notable and legitimate business according to the definitions outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP

So what's the best way to go about this? Should I make a request for deletion review and edit with credible sourcing? Or would it be better to just recreate the page from scratch?

Thank you for your time, Superhilac (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Superhilac

You could wait for someone uninvolved to independently decide to create the article. This mitigates the problem of your company's article getting out of date, as encyclopaedia pages are not very good for keeping up to date with news, and you will not be allowed to maintain the article yourself. Someone searching for your company in Google, say, would instead come to your up-to-date website, which you have complete control over. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You say "your company's", but I do not work for Simply Hired in any way shape or form. Are you saying that I would not be an appropriate author? Superhilac (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Superhilac

Looking into it more thoroughly, I see that you weren't the problem editor on this article. If you go ahead, you have to take great care to use reliable secondary sources, rather than company press releases, to source your information. The company itself was clearly not happy with what the third party WIkipedia editors produced, so may intervene again, leading to rapid deletion and loss of your work. And even if you cross all the content obstacles, you'll almost certainly end up at a sceptical AfD given the recent company involvement, so you'll need to have all your ducks in a row. A gap of a few months is normally helpful when an article has been deleted, as a replacement for a newly deleted article is normally removed as a matter of course. JzG can give more advice, as he is more of an expert than me. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen. When I find the time, I'll work on it and reconstruct the page according to your suggestions. I think that their page is still warranted, and I agree with everything you say in regards to Wikipedia not being appropriate for marketing. I believe that their company website pops-up first on a Google search already, so it's not as if Wikipedia is the primary source for company news. In any case, thanks again and if you prefer, I'll update this thread when I've re-constructed the page. Superhilac (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Superhilac

Deleted lede trivium

Too funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Internet Brands corporate PR campaign on Wikipedia

Hi, I noticed you deleted some of the articles tagged, but the accounts under their control actually went around removing tags aggressively to disrupt deletion, oyu might want to check out Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Advertisement_page.2F_corporate_PR_editing if you didn't before (I guess probably), I've put up a list now of the ones that the company "rescued" from you "evil neutral wikipedia admins" --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

== AfD nomination of CarsDirect ==

An article that you have been involved in editing, CarsDirect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarsDirect. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

On the (deleted) article Alan Wilson (historian)

I wish to have a copy of the following deleted article, as it was last revised

Alan Wilson (historian)

In addition to agreeing with your decision to do this, I also am fairly certain that the person that the article addressed was actually partly or totally responsible for writing it.

If you are no longer an administrator, please provide an alternate source where I can get this article. If I was not supposed to write on the talk page, I apologize--I do not edit that often on this site, and I am quite unfamiliar with many rules. Mathmagic (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. The deleted article had significant issues. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:JzG –xeno^talk 17:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits on German WP

Hi JzG, thanks for your edit on the German Wikipedia. However, we on the German WP don't have a policy stating that the subject of the article can dictate the content of it. You can read the German WP's policy on biographical articles about living persons here. Since a birth date can never be defamatory, libelous or in any way to the disadvantage of a person, the main question to ask is whether it is correct, i. e. whether it is properly sourced. And it is. — ^PDD 22:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• You do, however, have a complaint from an article subject about aggressive handling of this complaint, and the BLP policy applies to all projects. Why antagonise the guy for no reason? Guy (Help!) 22:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I neither have a complaint nor “a complaint about aggressive handling of this complaint”. Sorry. I have a biography, which (at least in the German WP) requires a birth date, and I have a valid source for that birth date. Hence the date stays. If you have a complaint from the article subject then please explain this to him. Thanks. — ^PDD 07:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be extremely surprised if JzG wasn't responding to something on the WP:OTRS system. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This might well be, and I'm sure he means well, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not how it's done in the German WP :-) — ^PDD 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC) PS: We have our own OTRS team, as I'm sure you are aware of.

I strongly suggest you email Jimbo and ask him about his attitude to including data which, while verifiable, is of no real significance and whose inclusion results in complaints from the subject. I am quite serious about that, if you need his direct email address or you want me to initiate the conversation then let me know. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to change the rules on de-WP, shouldn't you be the one sending mails to Jimbo? Or did I miss something here. By the way how can we be sure, the subject under review has given you the go-head to act on his behalf?--Radh (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Jimbo has to do with it; if it's a habit on your project (en.wp) to ask his permission per mail then please do it, but don't try to change the rules on de.wp, a project in which you don't participate. Thanks for your understanding. If you want to discuss this further, do it on the talk page of the German article. — ^PDD 11:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Schmid did not ask us to write about him, we decided to do that. Having decided to do so, we should, as a mark of simple decent respect, not gratuitously include trivia he finds offensive. He is a private individual, not a politician or a rock star. Applying sensitivity in editorial judgement is normal and good. Jimbo is relevant in that the biography policy WP:BLP was mandated by him. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat: It is your error in judgment if you think you can act like this in a project you are not familiar with. Please take the debate where it belongs. The English Wikipedia is not our big brother, and you are in no position to overrule our editorial decisions and policies, but of course you are free to discuss, just like everybody else. — ^PDD 12:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll put your failure to understand my point down to linguistic differences. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

a) How can we/German-WP know what Schmid's wishes are? Even if in this case you know of his wishes and evrything is ok, you can imagine vandals having a field-day with a maybe-maybe not attitude on this.

b) Another question is: can people dictate to WP what should or not should be on WP (given it stays inside the law of course). Schmid's birthday like nearly all WP-information had been published (Schmid's date in a much used work of reference), so can people suddenly opt for privacy - after having given up this right?--Radh (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Good questions. The original request went to the German WP:OTRS queues, so any of the German OTRS volunteers can see and verify the request; it only came back to me when a second email was sent to the main address, which drops into a central queue - I did not see the german request and still can't see it. Nobody gets to dictate what goes in articles but of course an article subject gets to express a preference, and where that preference does not degrade the article then we should normally go with it. Some requests are plainly silly, vexatious or unrealistic, asking us to remove significant and well-sourced material, but minor things like full dates of birth are of no real consequence. I find that in the long term it's easier to work with upset article subjects than against them. Sometimes this makes them very much less hostile, though of course not always. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for you reply, I will check it out. No, I can't, it's for the grownups only. --Radh (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS volunteering is not very exclusive, you mainly have to have a thick skin, but I think you do have to be over 18 and identified to the Foundation. I'm over 18 by nearly 30 years so well in the clear on that one :-) Guy (Help!) 16:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD

I understand the respect you seem to have for my opinion, but speedying against the opinion of another admin shows anger at the author/subject, not judgment. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Which article? Guy (Help!) 04:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons sig and user page

Hi JzG, as you have deleted your userpage here, it's really not much sense in linking to it from your Commons userpage and signature. Maybe you could change those links to point to this user talk instead? Cheers, Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well spotted, I will do that. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking of such things

I tend to stay away from it now but this looks rather PR to me? Commons stuff going anyway. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Spam-tastic, mate! ;-) Thanks, I have done the needful. I'd like to talk to you about the Jimbo thing, maybe privately if you prefer. I have some inside knowledge of what's going on and I'd like to help you at least see his side of this. He is very keen to keep the good people onside (and that very much includes you). Guy (Help!) 13:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Boring rubbish sent via the wonders that are email :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not in the least bit boring. I think a lot of you, Herby, and this is definitely worth both our time. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• posting here even if it's Commons related, feel free to cut&paste there if preferredWell, I'll give you credit Guy for being one of the few trying actually to do some damage limitation with regards to the impression the recent actions by user:Jimbo Wales have left (I'm certainly left with the impression that "respect for the community" is a slogan and not a reality), so here's a challenge to do some more. Trying really hard to stick with a different wikipedia-slogan, "Assuming good faith", I have to assume Jimbo acted with the best intentions & and there have to be reasons for the urgency that haven't (and could not have) been disclosed. The damage/rescue operation is done (depending on the view of it) & now is the time for trying to mend what was broken in the process. That is not primarly about restoring those of the deletedd files that never should have been deleted in the first place, but restoring the trust of the community (primarly Commons I believe) in Jimbo and the Foundation that Jimbos perceived arrogance recently have deleted. I left Commons a year ago, but I still care about that "place" and the people trying to maintain it - those people deserve a better explanation than what Jimbo/WMF has offered so far. If you have any "inside information" that could be shared, please do so. IMO they also really deserve an apology, but that's something Jimbo would have to take care of himself. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that he did act with the best intentions, in fact I know he did, and I know his views on working with "good people" and not against them. The best way to sort this kind of thing out is for people to actually ask what he meant, what he was trying to achieve, and why, and then set about doing what is needed. There is significant collateral damage to the Wikimedia Foundation right now due to the historical use of Commons as a dumping-ground for porn. I can't explain why Jimbo deleted the historical prints or line art. I guess that was a simple mistake, and it has been rectified. It should not distract form the fact that a lot of Commons content simply should not be there. I think that virtually every self-made picture of genitalia should be removed, for example. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on meta:

[1]--Gmaxwell (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Michel Tardieu

Should perhaps have gone to AfD rather than being speedied? Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 30 refers.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)