Page semi-protected

User talk:JzG

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

Deletion review for Atlantis Word Processor

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Atlantis Word Processor. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Gillian2008 (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


JzG, I urge you personally to reconsider here. Anyone who does as much deletion as you and I will occasionally make errors. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank for restoring this. When you made the invalid speedy deletion you deleted the talk page and two redirects as well. If they were not abusive, could you please undelete these as well? Thincat (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

NARTH categories

Hello JzG,

Regarding your restoration of Categories Sexual orientation change efforts and Conversion therapy to NARTH in this edit following my removal of these categories, you say: These people are leading proponents of conversion therapy.

Yes, indeed they are the leading proponents of conversion therapy, but that doesn't qualify them to be in a category that is not a defining characteristic of the organization, as I explained in my edit summary (diff) which linked the relevant guideline. One way to understand this, although not fool-proof, is the IS-A test. Can we say, "NARTH is an Organization established in 1992"? Are there reliable sources which say this? Yes to both. Therefore, "organization established in 1992" is a defining characteristic of NARTH, and the article belongs in Category:Organizations established in 1992; and it is.

Can we say, "NARTH is a Conversion therapy"? No. Are there reliable sources that say, "NARTH is a conversion therapy", or similar? No to both. Therefore, it is not a defining characteristic, and we cannot place NARTH in this category. See also WP:NONDEF. Please revert your revert. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Gay conversion therapy is all they are kniwn for. How is that not a defining characteristic? Guy (Help!) 00:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Correct, that is all they are known for, or the main thing, anyway. I've already explained this in brief above. If you will please read Wikipedia:Categorization and the other links above which explain the proper use of the categorization function in detail, then you will see how it is based on "defining characteristic" and why this category does not belong. A lot of people get tripped up on this when dealing with categories, especially if they assume it's a kind of "related topics" thing, but it isn't. Read the doc. Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Catpol mucking about again. crazy. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
So now we have a fatuous situation where a fringe topic has a category with 15 articles including biographies (is Dean Byrd a conversion therapy? Is The Aversion Project a conversion therapy?) and two subcategories with three and five articles respectively. That really helps the reader. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Great example of other stuff happens; SOFIXIT. (I just fixed one of them, so thanks for the links.) I get involved with categories extremely rarely; the first time was when I was tripped up by this same misunderstanding of defining characteristic. This time, I was at the NARTH article for other reasons and the category seemed to be a clear case of this type of CATDEF error, so I fixed it in passing. I was pretty surprised when the fix was reverted. I took the time above to explain it as I see it. I haven't reverted back and don't plan to (though I suspect someone else will). If you disagree with how categories are organized, go complain to the catpol yourself; I didn't make the rules, I only workvolunteer here. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Aha, I see they've finessed the situation by changing it to Category Conversion therapy organizations, which aligns with catdef, so the problem is resolved. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? It wasn't a problem until you made the change, and now it is, and I have to fix it? We are done here. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

COI assertion(s)

Comparing the last revision edited by the user in question (over 12 years ago!) to the current one, it is quite clear that they have essentially nothing in common – the article might as well have been deleted and recreated since then. As such, it is quite inappropriate for the article to have a COI tag on it now, unless you are implying that some other editor has a conflict of interest as well (hence my point about AGF).

Furthermore, your COI implication in the AfD nomination seems likely to sway (and quite possibly already has swayed, given the sudden influx of such !votes) editors to !vote delete, regardless of notability. And I do not think naming a specific user in an AfD nomination like that is allowed per NPA. Therefore, please remove that as well, or at least strike it out. Modernponderer (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an advert, it always has been an advert. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on the current version of the article, that is simply not true. It is written like a standard software article, not an ad. Modernponderer (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Your faith in the good intentions of WP:SPAs exceeds mine. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Case Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Does_User:JzG/Politics_violate_WP:POLEMIC,_WP:SOAP,_WP:NOTADVOCACY,_or_WP:ATTACK? and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, -Obsidi (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cute grey kitten.jpg

I like your article on politics!

Ogat (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock

I case you find this info useful, that "new user" who we were warning about sourcing[1] turned out to be a sock[2]. Tornado chaser (talk)

Oh, cheers for that. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

The recent request for arbitration involving you has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't break references

Look better, thanks. --Nemo 10:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)