This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:JzG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read.

Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards.

User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly.

Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review.

The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


Admin mop.PNG This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Ten Year Society userbox.svg This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years.
Book of Knowledge3.jpg This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Free Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
Rouge-Admin JollyRoger.svg This user is a
Rouge admin
.
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 12 years, 3 months, and 14 days.
Wikipedia Administrator.svg This user has been an admin for
10 years, 10 months, and 17 days.
NoQuacks.png This user resists the POV pushing of
lunatic charlatans.
Police man ganson.svg This user is one of the 532 left-wing thought police who aggressively force their biased perspective on the rest of the world.
Hangman-5.png This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.

Obligatory disclaimer
I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

About me

JzG reacting to yet another drama

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Predatory open access publishing

These publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.

Vanity press

An on-demand print house, masquerading as an academic publisher:

Citation spamming

Multiple additions of citations to the same author from predatory and other journals, by multiple editors with no history other than adding that material (i.e. probable citation spamming):

Unofficially official

Woo


I have a large and disruptive building project starting, and I'll be doing a significant part of the work myself. Email me if there's anything urgent. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Linda and Terry Jamison

Wow; and I thought I was harsh! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Heh! No, you were way too kind. There might have been a salvageable version, I will check back, but every version I saw was dross. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Ecosexuality was deleted without consensus

I see from the deletion log that you deleted Ecosexuality as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion".

I had written on the talk page that I opposed deletion. Since the notice for deletion must have gone up over the weekend, & since there was barely a chance for me to leave a comment before the deletion (& to my knowledge, the only comment), I doubt there was sufficient time to discuss the AFD. I know that we all want to continually improve Wikipedia, but I believe that it would have been much better to wait for consensus & improvement.

Yes there was a lot of promotional fluff, & ecosexuality can be a murky concept. But there was a number & a variety of sources. The article can be improved to encyclopedic standards. Plus, this article had been around for awhile. There should be a chance to improve it.

If you are unwilling to restore the article & wait for consensus (which, IMHO, would be best), then I ask a at a minimum that you restore the page to my User:Peaceray/sandbox space. I think that can deduce my track record from my contributions. I would not let it back into the wild until I felt that it could reasonably pass muster.

Peaceray (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition of G11 is that there is no consensus building process, that's what speedy deletion means. However, it was tagged by user:DGG and reviewed and deleted by me, between us we have twenty years' experience of editing and admin work, so this is not a capricious act. There was no section of the article, and none in the history I could see, that was free of the taint of promotion. WP:TNT applies. If you want an article, create a new one with sources and proper neutrality, avoiding the copious fawning mentions of the tiny handful of people who dominated the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
fwiw,Guy and I do not always agree. If we both do, it is very likely everyone else would also. DGG ( talk ) 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Would you please kindly restore the article under my sandbox as User:Peaceray/sandbox/Ecosexuality. I want to be able at least to harvest whatever references that would apply as WP:RELIABLE, optimally refer to & adapt whatever portions that were least tainted by promotional fluff, & then add appropriate encyclopedic content. Again, look at my track record: Peaceray (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). This will not be going back into the article space quickly. If so desired, I could even move it first into the Draft namespace for review after I have gotten it to an encyclopedic shape. I do know about the WP:TNT essay; I have been involved in article rescue & major rewrites before, & it will simply more expedient for me in this case to start with this former article's existing Wikimarkup. Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
? Peaceray (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

My edit may have been a bit over the top (and is being discussed here:Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default - but I am redoing the   ones - this is used multiple times though out the page - but only once with a template; and the page requests to avoid templates. If you really object - then the whole page should be standardized on one or the other. — xaosflux Talk 01:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Disregard - so many edits at once - looks like you left the nbsp alone. — xaosflux Talk 01:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Academic journal AfDs

Hey, what I don't get is why you nominate articles on journals that meet NJournals, when by now it should be clear that you're wasting your time as they will at best get a "no consensus", but you ignore AfDs like this one, where the only source is a few lines in a local encyclopedia, so that this misses not only NJournals, but also GNG. I didn't point this out earlier, to avoid being accused of canvassing. Instead of continuing to nominate journals that meet NJournals, you're time is probably better spent by trying to modify NJournals directly. Although, if you look through the talk page history, you see that it failed as a guideline because a group of people (you'd probably belong to that) thought that it was too lenient, whereas another large group of people thought that any journal that is peer-reviewed or can be used as an RS should be included. By now, I doubt that anybody could get consensus for any change in that essay (I for one would do away with the "historical purpose" criterion, but I'm afraid that's not gonna fly either...). Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

NJournals is a guide to the kinds of journals likely to be notable, not a policy that mandates that journals which meet it are notable. People are misinterpreting necessary conditions as being sufficient conditions.
Notability is conferred by coverage in reliable independent sources, and that in turn goes back to WP:V and WP:NPOV. How can we verify that the self-description of a journal is neutral? Being indexed does not confer notability and does not allow us to have a verifiably neutral article, because the journal descriptions are provided by the publisher. Being indexed tells us nothing more than that the journal exists. It would be a valid inclusion criterion for a directory, but Wikipedia explicitly is not a directory.
Likewise, simply having an impact factor does not confer notability. Do you honestly think that a journal with an impact factor of 0.3 is a notable journal? Think what that IF means: the vast majority of articles published in this journal are never cited at all. We'd reject it as a source here, the journal contains little if any contribution to the scholarly enterprise. These are basically mills for publishing papers to help academics rtetain tenure in a system where the mechanism for assessing academics is utterly broken.
Most of these journal articles - including the ones WP:POINTily created on journals published by the deleted IGI Global, effectively a vanity press - have absolutely no independent coverage whatsoever. There are no sources for any fact, including even the existence of the journal, which do not track back to the publisher.
It's like listed buildings. Over 90% of listed buildings are Grade II, and a substantial proportion (I think most, actually) of these are singgle family dwellings, of moderate architectural merit, usually in the context of a conservation area. In order to be notable, a historic building would almost certainly need to be listed, but being listed does not in any way make a house notable.
Go ahead and proive me wrong. Find me articles providing analytical or review coverage of any of those journals. I looked, I found fuck all, but my Google-fu is weak. Nothing would please me more than for these nto to be directory entries, but nothing I have seen to date persuades me that they are anything else. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"Being indexed tells us nothing more than that the journal exists." That's incorrect. Having a website tells us that a journal exists. Being included in a selective index tells us that a commission of experts judges the journal to be among the most significant in its area. Scopus, the most inclusive of the selective indexes includes about 20,000 journals out of an estimated 100,000. In other words, for every journal included in Scopus, there are 4 that are not included. Sounds pretty impressive to me. And an IF of 0.3 cannot be judged in isolation. For a journal in the life sciences or medicine that is indeed rather low (although most national medical journals have low IFs but have a rather large impact on medical practice in their respective countries). For a mathematics journal 0.3 is actually quite respectable, because there citations usually accrue over a much larger time span than the 2 years used for the IF. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss these issues, that is the talk page of NJournals (or of the academic journals Wikiproject). And I'm still curious why you concentrate your efforts on journals that most editors here think are notable and not on obscure stuff like this one... --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"Being indexed tells us nothing more than that the journal exists." That's incorrect. Having a website tells us that a journal exists. Being included in a selective index tells us that a commission of experts judges the journal to be among the most significant in its area. Well...no, it doesn't really tell us that, either. Being indexed, even in a "selective" index like Scopus, often means little more than "the journal exists and the publisher bothered to apply for inclusion in the index". Meeting the nominal inclusion criteria is a very low bar, practically speaking. Indexing 20,000 out of 100,000 isn't a meaningful statistic except inasmuch as it illustrates a) how much utter crap there is out there, b) how willing Scopus is to inflate their count of total journals to give the illusion of selectivity, and c) how only twenty thousand or so publishers were willing to apply for inclusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that, too, is incorrect. Sure, many publishers/journals will not apply for indexing in Scopus (or one of the other citation indexes), but only because they know that they'll be rejected. I know for a fact that Scopus (even Scopus...) rejects quite a lot of applications. The vetting by their "Content Selection & Advisory Board" certainly is not a pro forma exercise. See their content coverage guide (which actually talks about "between 80,000 and 300,000 scientific serial publications in existence worldwide"...), their inclusion and post-inclusion re-evaluation criteria, and the introduction to the functioning of their reviewing board. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not ignorant of the posted criteria, but I'm also not prepared to ignore how much wiggle room those criteria offer. (Scopus indicates that titles will be "evaluated on" those criteria, but offers no concrete expression of how a pass/fail decision is actually made.) I do wonder, though, the basis for your assertion that "quite a lot" of applications are rejected. If a thousand applications have been rejected – something I suspect would represent a high guess – that's still a 95% pass rate. Do you have some solid, quantitative data on acceptance and rejection numbers, and number of journals dropped on re-review? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
No, sorry, no hard data. But I suspect that the rejection rate is far more than 5%. I know of several journals that applied and got turned down. But that is my personal knowledge, I have (unfortunately) no sources to back that up. Of course, the Thomson Reuters databases (and MEDLINE, for example) are far more selective (yes, I know they were sold, but I keep forgetting the name of the new owner... :-). --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is missing the point. Scopus is not a reliable independent source because what it says about a journal is supplied by the publisher. I also disagree that it has any degree of discernment. It's sort of like Who's Who: some of the entries are unequivocally notable, but some are pure vanity. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but I disagree. Yes, the publisher will provide basic (and absolutely uncontroversial) info like ISSN, frequency, and such. And the publisher will provide Scopus with the articles that it publishes, the abstracts, the citation info, etc. But that is not what makes Scopus important for notability. What counts is that Scopus has a committee of specialists who evaluate each journal for possible inclusion and who only select the most notable ones. Just as WP:PROF assumes notability for a holder of a named chair because we're not going to second-guess the recrutement of a major university for a major position, I don't see why we should second-guess a committee of experts in the case of Scopus. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)