User talk:JzG/Archive 102

Archive 95

←

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Request attention to Page Xenoglossy

JzG (Guy), a while ago you had the page Xenoglossy semi-protected. I believe you protected it in a wrong version. Now it is open and I want to return it to it's original shape before Oct 28, 2014 with all details of the cases and correct referencing. I don't like the fact that you side with disruptive editors who has eliminated most of the references on this page. I don't know how to solve my problem with you. Should I leave a message on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? 74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

you were the problem then, and it sounds very much as if you still are. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How can I be the problem where I cite correctly to the valid references while other users erase major parts of the document and you side with them. You have to really spend more time in investigating who is right. You should not apply your personal taste to the matter. Just comply with Wikipedia policy. I referred to the valid references. Actually the same reference that was on the page. I did not add any new reference. Who is your supervisor? I have to talk to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.244.87 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In your opinion. And nobody else appears to agree. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Overriding a community decision?

That should not've been restored. Please see the closing of the deletion discussion, which was done by a panel of three administrators. Please explain why you have overridden consensus to delete the text of that article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We routinely restore history for DRV, and that is what I am proposing. If the case cannot be made at DRV, then the Draft gets nuked, and nobody dies. Right now we have a situation which I find baffling, and so does Jimbo, and the result for the encyclopaedia is currently no change, since the redirect is still in place and protected. The history is visible for checking the completeness of merging or potentially requesting review. I do not recall taking any prior part in any of this debate, I am viewing things on their face and assuming good faith of all concerned. I am also a deletionist and have zero tolerance for fringe views, so I don't think I am ideologically biased here. Guy (Help!) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Your personal opinion and bafflement is irrelevant. A panel of three administrators decided to delete the article, and it should remain deleted unless a deletion review finds otherwise. No one has filed such a review. Please restore the deletion, as per community consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 00:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And the article is deleted, it's a redirect. The history is there if people want to see it. Remember WP:NBD and also note that nothing has changed as far as the content and the reader is concerned. I'm happy to let anyone else override it, I won't war, but the present situation seems to me to be defensible, not dismissive of existing consensus, and to allow thoughtful debate to continue while removing the complaint that the deleted history was visible only to a subgroup of editors. Do feel free to take it to the boards, I am happy to let others review it and will take it on the chin if people think it was a terrible idea. I was just being respectful to a view that seemed to me to be reasonable. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was to "delete and redirect". The present article is not deleted. It remains, visible in the history. Consensus was to delete the text. You have not challenged that consensus in a review, and hence the consensus should be sustained. This was out-of-line, and I shall request an immediate overturning of this action. RGloucester — ☎ 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no wish to pick a fight with you. Maybe discuss this on user talk:Jimbo Wales? Guy (Help!) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. If you have a problem with the process that deleted the article, the appropriate thing to do is to challenge it in a deletion review. I've put in a new thread at WP:AN, which you can peruse. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, you do NOT get to unilaterally override the community. The result was "delete", not "delete until admin JzG sees a thread on Jimbos Talk page. Dave Dial (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

My 2 cents. If you had used the edit summary "For pending DRV, restoring under redirect" instead of "Per Jimbo's talk, restoring under redirect" there probably would have been no negative response. I myself was very confused as to your reasoning until I came to this talk page. Chillum 18:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I am looking through the talk page of Jimbo's and I am unclear on who is planning to take this to DRV? There is a lot of text there so I may be missing it. Chillum 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is a molehill mountaineering expedition. I read a discussion on Jimbo's talk page in which puzzlement was expressed at the absence of a particular meme. I have no opinion on it, because it's of little or no interest (past debates seem to involve many partisans). There is a protected redirect, so the community decision is enforced. Under those circumstances there is little to be lost and potentially much to be gained by allowing everyone - not just us übermensch em - to see the deleted content and assess the completeness and accuracy of the resultant merge, ensure no relevant sources are omitted, and potentially redraft based on the meme rather that the previous article, in which I gather the meme was asserted to be neutral fact, at least by some. It's a small and simple courtesy which changes exactly nothing for the reader. As I say, if anyone wants to undo it, I'm fine with that, but the issue of deletion and the invisibility of deleted content has always been a point of contention, so given that we have a protected redirect I see no reason not to defuse that particular source of argumentation. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

For the last word, I defer to Jimbo:

Indeed. The best approach, strictly in terms of implementing Alan's excellent suggestion, would be to undelete the article (so editors can review the history) and get rid of the redirect. But there was just a discussion and a close, so that would be controversial. However, I don't see why undeleting (to restore the history for editors to see what can be salvaged) and keeping the redirect (to preserve status quo for the moment) would generate any controversy, and it would be a valuable first step.

I disagree, though, with Alan's views on what is necessary in order to establish that "Cultural Marxism" is a contemporary political meme or phrase which differs from the perfectly valid historical topic of "Frankfurt School" requires "a serious RS memetic study". That's not something we normally require. All that is needed is to show that the term is in play in reliable sources - we don't need some kind of separate "memetic study" (whatever the hell that is).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I did. Jimbo and I were both wrong, the action does seem to eb controversial. The quesiton is, why? The answer appears to lie in the visceral hatred progressives appear to have for the term. I am not a wingnut, anything but. Neither is Jimbo. We're both, as far as I can tell, left-leaning if anything. So a moderate action supported by two people with a lot of experience of Wikipedia, witih no relevant alignment bias, seems now to be out of line with Wikipedia's increasingly bureaucratic approach. This worries me. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Quoting Jimbo shows nothing but the fact you seem to want to impress him, and that was the reason for the action you took. I admit that the action you took was different than I first believed, but still not uncontroversial and still acting in an unilateral manner. As for your last snide remarks, the problem is that there is no such school of thought called 'cultural marxism', as the article tried to claim. Although there is a conspiracy theory related to the term, and it's current use seems to draw from that definition. But again, this is arguing the AfD all over again. If people have a problem with that, they should take it to DRV, and as far as I can see the decision was sound and followed all AfD procedures. Of course you can continue to quote Jimbo in efforts to gain his Majesty's favor, but that just reflects a certain inability to delve through the sources and understand the problems. Why not ask why members of /pol/ on 4chan/8chan, along with Stormfront and other White supremacist groups were off-site coordinating to ensure this 'article' continued to make the absurd claims it had been? Instead of casting aspersions on long-time wiki editors and admins who took the time to take the issue serious enough to actually read all of the sources and arguments made? Or does that not fit into your, "well Jimbo says" current reasoning? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment reflects badly on you. I have no need to impress Jimbo, I simply agreed with his view that the redirect leaves potential confusion for the reader and that the current situation is therefore unlikely to be the final one. I did not change the redirect, I only restored the history to visibility by all (rather than just admins) underneath the protected redirect which stops the community decision being overridden. You can't do a DRV without access to the deleted material, and it's hard to do a DRV without a sourced replacement draft. If you are suggesting that my sympathies lie with the political right, then you are spectacularly and hilariously wrong.

I've been an admin since long before you made your first edit. Wikipedia is changing, and if restoring deleted content to visibility by all without changing the encyclopaedia is now controversial, then I happen to think that is disturbing. As it happens, I was discussing this with a couple of thoughtful friends on Facebook earlier today, and they agree that people are missing something really quite important. I think these are good, sincere people whose motives are pure. I agree with their abhorrence of the extreme political right. However, Wikipedia is one of the few places where wingnut memes can be described accurately and neutrally, because Wikipedia is politically non-partisan. I agree with Jimbo that articles describing controversial topics in neutral terms are often important. Even if I hate a meme and all who promulgate it, I can see how we could make the world a better place by describing it. Our articles on truthers, birthers and other crackpot memes are very good indeed. We have to police them to keep them that way, but that's part of the price you pay for taking on crackpots. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

LCcritic

Hi, juist a little note about [1]. Hopefully nothing to worry about. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Banhammer applied. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

JzG , any prospect of getting this article locked as the frivolous disruption is constant. The deletion attempt because a couple of followers didn't like some sentences is the latest stunt. There will be more disruption. RevTim0 (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You can ask at WP:RFPP, but be warned it is likely to be protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A quick drop by....

I read your post on my TP, and just wanted to stop by and commend you for the years you've invested in the project, and thank you for all the work you've done to make WP a better encyclopedia. What you've accomplished is truly amazing, and I'm in awe that you've managed to maintain your sanity for this long. Please don't be concerned with my attempts to improve/expand Griffin. I am actually a good collaborator when I have a team of GF editors working with me. I have no agenda, and haven't portrayed myself as anything but who I am. To sum up 30+ years in 3 words...I'm a writer.

I regret that you and I got off on the wrong foot, but that certainly can happen when people are not able to discuss things face-to-face. I can relate to some of what you've been through, and what you go through on a daily basis. I now spend part of the year on a beautiful arid island in the Dutch Caribbean enjoying semi-retirement. I'm still active with my career, but nowhere near the same level. WP makes me feel like I'm giving a little something back, and quite frankly, I enjoy writing - it was a big part of my life for a very long time. Now I can write without racing to meet a deadline. I am a veteran of copyvio and defamation lawsuits, and cancelled my E&O policy when I retired last year. I've battled the big boys from time to time over the years - example, NBC, CBS and a major newspaper all at the same time in one lawsuit a few short years ago. I am proud to say I never had to use my E&O policy as a defendant throughout my entire career, and I intend to keep it that way. Anyway, I know we have different perspectives with regards to Griffin, and I just wanted you to know where I'm coming from, and why I take the wording of contentious material in a BLP far more seriously than a lot of editors. Kindest regards. Atsme☯^Consult 03:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is very big of you, and I thank you for it. I am sure that you and Jytdog between you can come to a satisfactory conclusion. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One sentence in your response at RSN really hit home for me...Remember, though: a writer normally starts by deciding on an angle. Science doesn't. It gave me pause. I will take a short break to process the information. If I were facing you in person, I would give you a big hug. --Atsme☯^Consult 01:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Humor me

Humor me this one time, and I'll buy you a pint next time I'm in the area. Many thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 02:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI Recreation of a deleted article

Hi. I just wanted to drop a line and let you know that an article you previously sent to AfD has been recreated. The last time around the sources looked impressive at first glance but did not hold up well under closer examination. I am getting similar vibes off this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Now this is weird. Unless I have completely lost my mind (never beyond the realm of possibility) I posted the above TODAY, the 25th of January 2015. Yet the date says two days ago... hmmmm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I have lost my mind. I reeeaaaly need to go lie down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Piling on wit da wikiloves

I've been meaning to apologize, again and more fully, for dragging you into that mess at WP:AE. (Funny, I haven't been watching your talk page, and just I noticed that this will be the latest in a series of Wikilove-type posts. There must be some sort of supernatural explanation for this confluence... probably something involving quantum consciousness, or the Hundredth Monkey, or qi.) Seriously, it was an unusually brain-dead move. It was a difficult time off-wiki; I was under unusual medical stress, and had an adverse reaction to a change in meds, which made it easy to succumb to poor judgement (both on- and off-wiki). I'm sorry that my own problems caused me to create some for you. AE was obviously a poor choice of venue, but the thing I regret most is that it led, against my wishes, to editors piling-on about your supposed incivility. This was ridiculous; I'm not a newbie and didn't feel at all bitten by your (in context) quite understandable annoyance: yet my actions effectively "bit" you, for which I'm truly sorry. You're a great editor and admin and certainly don't deserve that kind of treatment. One thing you do deserve is this:

		The Admin's Barnstar
		To Guy, for your many years of helping Wikipedia, in a great many ways, in spite of how ridiculous it gets sometimes. Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 07:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy editing! --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 07:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Important Q

Which leaf did fall from your field Maple next? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I left Eric Olthwaite in charge of that, I must find out. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I live within 20 miles of Beamish, Tow Law and High Force, where much of that episode was filmed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fabulous! Take a photo of the rain gauge some time for me please :-) Guy (Help!) 20:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services

Your being the last administrator to edit WOT Services leads me to kindly asking you to to waste some of your precious time and take a look at latest developments there. Thank you for your attention, regards, WeatherFug (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! WeatherFug (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Q.leroy - a paid WP editor

Re your request of me to comment. You were paid by Lendico to create their advertorial WP article. You are being paid by Universal Medicine to have their WP article removed or turned into a fictional puff-piece. You are requested to no longer involve yourself with either of these articles as you have a unhealthy financial interest and paid POV on these topics. Thank you for your cooperation and disengagement in such WP breaches and activities. Please also stop attacking other WP editors. 2013Ca55 (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are unfounded and in contradiction with the most basic WP rules. I will report your action to WP admins and I trust them for taking the appropriate action. Q.leroy (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a Wikipedia admin. I concur: you have done precisely two things in your time on Wikipedia: write a spam article on your own company, and argue for deletion of an article I started with absolutely no conflict of interest whatsoever. When you're don making a fool of yourself, perhaps you can leave. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, your accusation are unfounded and I find unbelievable that you are using your status of admin to push your own POV. Your attempt to erase part of an article I wrote during my study is only demonstrating your personal involvement in this issue. If you would do a research on the company, you would realize that their are not implemented in any English speaking country; and that is the main reason why I wrote this article in English. As you maybe know, English is not my mother tong and I participated in many other articles in French, Spanish and German. Now, contrary to what your are accusing me, I am not paid by Universal Medicine or any other entity to do what I do, I am doing it because I believe WP must stay POV free and a place of knowledge sharing. Your behavior is revolting and I trust the WP community to recognize it when the time comes. Q.leroy (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My being an admin is relevant only because you threatened to report someone to the admins - and you also stated that the article was COI< but it is not, I wrote it, and I have absolutely no conflict of interest, which ten seconds of Googling shows cannot be said of you re the Lendico article. You are, on the face of it, either a sockpuppet or a spammer. I have nothing further to say to you on this. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So in top of practicing cyber bullying, you also practicing cyber stocking and assuming my identities through pseudo Google search. This is astonishing... The fact that you are consistently trying to discredit my person instead of my arguments only demonstrate your lack of arguments concerning the deletion discussion of the Universal Medicine article. Q.leroy (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You have no fucking clue, do you? I have been subject to actual harassment and cyberstalking. Googling your username and the name of the company whose article is pretty much your sole contribution to the project (other than pointless drama, of course) is not cyber-stalking, it's common sense. It's not my fault you used your own name when writing about your employer. We do not have a policy mandating naivety. Now go away. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection of long-dormant accounts

I probably missed you for the evening, but where is the best place to report (per your statement at AN)? Too old for SPI, so it would have to be behaviour. There's probably already enough currently to take action under Discretionary Sanctions, even without uncovering the full story. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Anything sockpuppetry related goes to SPI, whether CheckUser can be used or it needs to be based only on behaviour. If there's enough to take action under DS, then make a report at the arbitration enforcement notiveboard. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Callanecc. I submitted the first one at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Theobald_Tiger. If you're able to tell me if that is a well-formed report, I would appreciate it. I'll go ahead and file the others, but I'd hate to take all that time putting them together and then find out I was doing it wrong :). Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is, however before you make the others I'd suggest waiting until discussion starts on this one (as we're going to need to decide if the extent to which they've been made "aware" meets the requirements). Once it has you can file the others, or wait to see which way this one goes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. While there is a prominent notice on the talk page, I know that the different editors were also made aware in different ways (some by taking part in the amendment discussion, others with the template, etc.) I believe that (unfortunately) one of the participants (Cathar66) had not been notified at all other than by the talk page notice. I have notified that editor now.[2] Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy to see this moving along, while I was dealing with a monster pluming emergency caused by a piffling small under-floor wiring job... Guy (Help!) 00:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. That does not sound even remotely entertaining. Here's hoping everything is dry in the end. Yes, the submission at WP:ARE is still there waiting for action. I guess I am hopeful that we can all get back to actual editing someday soon. :) Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiring can be fun (I studied to be an electrician before some lunatic suggested I take the SAT). Tinkering with mechanical stuff can be rewarding. But plumbing was invented by Satan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

My dad was an electrical engineering lecturer at a tertiary college, I was doing wiring and plumbing long before I could drive a car. Classic problem: pipe run notched into joists. Dad so rarely did that in his house that I simply didn't check when fixing a loose board - I seriously think this is likely to be the only example in the entire house. Luckily it was a short run of hot water (so low pressure) with compression joints both ends, so I drained the water down and replaced the run of pipe. All done and dusted and nothing to show for it except a damp carpet, which is drying fast. I'm very glad I bought a shop vacuum which does wet as well as dry, sucking a couple of gallons of water out of the carpet made a huge difference. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

—As it says, purely informational. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I'm already aware. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)