User talk:JzG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I Voted in ACE 2019
Discretionary sanctions

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.


Michael Bloomberg[edit]

Hello Guy. I happened to revert a BLP smear on the Michael Bloomberg article this afternoon and when the removal was quickly undone I was surprised to see that there is no AP discretionary sanction in place for that article. I think it's worth considering the 1RR consensus required rule, in case you agree. The account whose edit I reverted appears to have a history of adding UNDUE anecdotal tidbits to the article to paint Bloomberg as a workplace sexual harasser of some sort. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, some nasty shit there, but quite infrequent as of last night. I will watch over the next 24 hours and apply sanctions with a pretty low bar. Guy (help!) 08:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've tried to clean it up without removing the significant facts. SPECIFICO talk 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say we're in full edit-war mode on a number of fronts in that article. It can't be edited at this point. It seems to be the only BLP of a major US candidate that is not under the AP2 sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Need an expert eye[edit]

Goodmorning Guy, can you have an eye at the references in David C. Bradley. My feeling is that most of those need to be replaced with properly linked articles. The way of referencing gives it now a strong feel of being a puff piece (if it trips the bots: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/5iveminutesalone.com). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, I moved to draft, because it sucked. Guy (help!) 16:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Your closure at WP:ANI[edit]

Excuse me, but I disagree with your characterization (downplaying, IMO) of Nishidani's comments at WP:ANI. I appreciate that you offered a warning to Nishidani, but Lame and certainly not smart, but not really an admin thing. sounds like you're saying "No harm, no foul." Personal attacks, which certainly calling someone a POV warrior, are certainly an "admin thing," regardless of who's making the attack and who's the subject of it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, you want to pour gasoline on the flames or put them out? One of these is objectively better than the other, on Wikipedia at least. Guy (help!) 16:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Putting gasoline would be responding to personal attacks with personal attacks, ANI is for putting a stop to it. I don't see how dismissing the behavior does anything positive. Indeed, in his response to your warning, Nishidani (now emboldened?) says he "stands by" his remarks about Icewhiz and sees no problem with them (along with a lot of other stuff I don't care to get into). Frankly, I think the admin response here has been rather ineffective, and I'm sure that we'll see similar comments in the future (note that the ban for his calling Icewhiz an "ethnonational extremist" has clearly not deterred him). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Um, Nishidani didn't call him a POV warrior in that comment. He said he was banned from AE for calling him a POV warrior. What he did say, and is true, is that Icewhiz is banned for outing people off-wiki. Now maybe he should not mention Icewhiz in the future, but you seem to be making a fairly obvious mistake in reading. nableezy - 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
That is wrong. The term that got him banned from AE by Sandstein was indeed "ethnonational extremist" who is "intolerant of dissent in the ranks." He didn't acknowledge that in the later comment, but did throw around the "POV warrior" label again. Given that I provided quotes and diffs in my report, I hoped you would have noticed that before summarily closing it. Referencing Icewhiz as a "POV warrior" is obviously personalized and inflammatory and has nothing to do with content, esp. given that Icewhiz is banned and not even a participant at that discussion. I'm willing to believe that you want to try and get more with honey than vinegar. I can understand that, and maybe your warning (which tells me you see the problem), will be effective. I doubt it given Nishidani's response. But please don't sit here and defend his conduct. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, See law of holes. Now please drop it. Guy (help!) 19:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New script[edit]

You might be interested by this new script I made. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

  • Headbomb Wow, that's excellent! Guy (help!) 10:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

New sock[edit]

Hi JzG, in connection with this block, you might want to keep an eye on this new account. One single 'harmless' edit, but odd that the account's very first edit should be on article with a history of intense SPU socking. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rui Gabriel Correia, I suggest you ask at [[WP:SPI]. I am busy today. Guy (help!) 07:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is a certain editnotice.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best, ミラP 03:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Put the "citation needed"[edit]

Hello. I see you removed some sources. When the source removed is the only inline citation supporting the passage, could you replace the ref you removed either by another source or by Template:Citation needed? Veverve (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I allow myself to ask again. Veverve (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Veverve, it depends on the case. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. The amount of additional effort anyone should be required to put in when removing spam or unusably bad sources should be limited. Guy (help!) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess you deserve a trout ....[edit]

You blocked my edit with filter 1008 (well, I guess you ‘’also’’ blocked the edits you intended to block). —Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, I fixed it, sorry, fumbled a change, despite testing. Tricky vandal. Guy (help!) 13:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Expect the hordes to yell at you, AN/I threads, ArbCom, WMF ... ;-) Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Beetstra, doubtless. If our Indian mobile IP wanker would just go away this would all be unnecessary. Guy (help!) 13:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the quick blacklist of dailyhunt. I have no clue how it got so far out of hand and we didn’t do it earlier. I’m mobile right now but I’ll come up with a more concrete plan for dealing with it but it has 4700+ additions (crosswiki) the bulk of which are here, so I think we will need a bot run for clean up. As far as intent of editors adding it, yeah, the intent is largely nefarious by farms of black hat SEO firms. Check out my userpage/fakenews and the subpages. Praxidicae (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, good catch, either way. I suspect paid involvement - but I am well known to be a nasty suspicious bastard. Guy (help!) 20:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nature's Path revisions[edit]

Hello. I recently made several updates to the Nature's Path page. Can you help me understand why you reverted the whole page back to its state before my edits? I understand I'm in a conflict of interest editing situation, but all the edits I made were factual with proper secondary sources. Is there something different I should be doing to get these edits to stick? All of the edits were fact & figure based and not written in a way that would be seen as advertising or spam. I would appreciate your advice. I'm here to make Wikipedia a more fact-driven space just like you. Thank you. Nellie04 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nellie04, Sources should be reliable and independent of the company, and we should not be highlighting every product, or every claim they make on their website. Especially when they are anti-GMO, which is a scientifically indefensible position. Guy (help!) 08:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-35 removals[edit]

here you deleted several references with the edit summary "removing unreliable per WP:RSP". Several of the sources you removed are not listed at RSP - you removed {cite web|url=http://flightglobal.rbiblogs.co.uk/the-dewline/2011/08/su-35s-inferior-to-usaf-jets-s/%7Ctitle=Russian AF chief: US fighters superior to Su-35S|date=9 August 2011|publisher=Flightglobal|type=blog|access-date=26 July 2017|quote=The Su-35S avionics and integrated defence system is inferior to "American fighters of the same type", Zelin said.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729173022/http://flightglobal.rbiblogs.co.uk/the-dewline/2011/08/su-35s-inferior-to-usaf-jets-s/%7Carchive-date=29 July 2017}} - sourced to Flight International and this Newdick, Thomas (21 February 2014). "Russia's New Air Force Is a Mystery". War is Boring. Archived from the original on 5 September 2014. Retrieved 29 July 2017. - neither of which is listed on RSP, and the first one is written by journalists and hosted on a highly reliable source. The other sources (i.e. Sputnik, Lenta.ru, Novosti), may be more dubious.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS, as you know, because they are self-published. Medium is also flagged as poor quality. If you think specific blogs are reliable for specific topics (i.e. have editorial review and fact-checking) then do please bring them up at WP:RSN - there are a handful of well known group blogs that meet the standard for certain narrowly defined areas, e.g. Science Based Medicine for discussion of alt-med quackery. The former Soviet bloc and military hardware are two overlapping areas where there is a horrible tendency to add any old random web page as a source. Obviously if material is at Flight International we can cite that (directly) without issues - that would also fix the fact that rbiblogs.co.uk is currently not working. Guy (help!) 12:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

REVDEL[edit]

Hey, have seen you as one of recently active admins. Could you please REVDEL that edit of my talk page per WP:RD2? Thanks! Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Tymon.r, done, and Widr blocked the IP. Guy (help!) 14:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: Thanks for your help! Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)