User talk:JzG/Archive 127

Archive 120

←

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

Abduct (2016 film)

Something kind of weird just happened. I was doing some copy edits on Abduct (2016 film) because it was mentioned at the Teahouse. I guess that, at the same time I did those copy edits, it got moved to draft space. When I saved my copy edits, the article was re-created in mainspace. It's substantially the same article, but the version that I saved (that's located in mainspace) has better formatting. Could you merge the two articles into draft space? Thanks. I ask you because I think you're the one who moved it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Research Publishing

Hi, I think you need a wider consensus before removing sources like this. Whatever is wrong with the publishing methods of this journal, it doesn't make the papers themselves less reliable. Also, by removing sources, but not the statements they support, you are making articles unreliable/uncited. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to start a discussion about this source at the reliable sources noticeboard[1] or some such before you can mass-remove sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There already is a discussion. Also read the article on Scientific Research Publishing and check your talk page. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

So why don't you link to this discussion in the edit summary? Unless there is a consensus for mass-removal, you shouldn't do it. Also, you need to address what to do with statements you leave without sources. This is very haphazard conduct. Also, you need to demonstrate how the publishing practices of a journal in any way affects the reliability of the science within, which is conducted by researchers, not the journal itself. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not "mass removal", it's removal of a few tens of citations to primary sources from a publisher that our own article shows to be unreliable. This is perfectly normal and routine. You've been here nearly as long as I have, is this genuinely the first time you have seen this happen? We do it routinely before spam blacklisting as well. And yes, the editorial practices of the publisher absolutely do bear on the reliability of the content. In fact, that is the entire problem with predatory open-access publishing. These journals are pay-to-play and regardless of the objective merit of the work, they are unciteable. The journals have zero impact and we don't use our own judgment to decide which parers in a crap journal are valid and which are not. The source is unreliable, therefore we do not cite it, however much we might agree with it. The victim here is legitimate researchers, but that is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, seems I'll have to bring this up at the noticeboard myself. I'd expect at least a link to this supposed former discussion (and supposed consensus), and some explanation of how to deal with the resulting unsourced content, but oh well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you reinserted it again. Why? The default is to exclude disputed content until there is consensus on Talk and the onus is always on the editor seeking to include content, to obtain that consensus. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. I'm baffled as to why you would edit war to include a citation to a predatory journal. Much better to find a source free of the problem. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to demonstrate there is consensus to remove this journal from across Wikipedia in the first place. That is standard practice, and why we have the reliable sources noticeboard. You have not demonstrated a past discussion of this issue, and therefore you do not have consensus. Unless you get this consensus, you don't have much basis to label anyone else a "pov-pusher". Also, though you're an admin, I'm sure you're covered by the 3 revert rule. For some reason you also refuse to explain how we deal with the serious problem of ending up with unsourced statements as a result of your removals. That is the main problem here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That is, of course, wrong. I am talking here about disputed content in an article, a situation where ht onus rests with the person seeking to include, per long practice. Statements sourced only to unreliable sources should simply be removed until a reliable source exists - the idea that a crap source is better than no source is simply wrong, a recipe for inclusion of all kinds of nonsense as well as things which might be true but for which robust evidence has yet to be provided. There's no real dispute that predatory journals don't meet WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion here[2], this is not an issue between the two of us, but a general issue affecting the entire site. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Whats Your Problem?

The edits are entirely uncontentious, I don't need 'consensus', which I believe you are using to prevent legitimate, reliably sourced material off the article.I mean, if you had a real problem why did you not leave the edits in place and discuss it in talk? Why did you just revert? Twobells (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Firearms policy

This was previously discussed and consensus went against you. You have not even attempted to gain new consensus. It is your responsibility to gain consensus for this. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, your desperation to keep uncontentious, reliably-sourced material off the article is just so sad.Twobells (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You say. Actually it is clearly contentious, especially as you have phrased it , and the one who has been pushing this for months against all opposition is: you. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ugh

I think I may have bit off more than I can chew here, as I am busy in RL. In the past I had found DUCK situations like this were dealt with somewhat easily without a detailed presentation. However, I suspect I might have to present diffs for not just the seven recent socks but perhaps every one back to creation, as the article creator was evidently the sockmaster. If there's any way you can help, and if it's not a violation of some rule for me to ask, that would be great. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh never mind. Finished the job! Thankfully there were "only" eight socks. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Well done! I was singing. I was going to do this tomorrow, but you are much more focussed than I am. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I figured it was better to finish up this sock report just in case the article is deleted, in which case we may wind up in a CK Morgan situation. (article re-re-re-re-re-re-re-created). Coretheapple (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Jiří Vacek

Hello JzG, I would like to ask You, why You deleted this page. This page is a translation from other wikipedia sites such as from Czech or German one, which are many years old. There have already been so much work on it to fulfill all the wikipedia standards. It is made on the basis of many other English wikipedia articles such as Ramana Maharshi, Sri Chinmoy, Andrew Cohen, Pranavananda, Maharishi Shiv Brat Lal and other spiritual teachers.

There is absolutely no attempt to promote something for money or something like that. Why do You think so - if I understand You correctly? We attempt to promote meditation and yoga. This article is written only in this spirit. It contains many references and there are also some links to this spiritual teacher in other encyclopedia books, which lean on the teaching of Jiří Vacek, such as Josef Sanitrák in his encyclopedia History of Czech Mysticism Part 1-3, see the references of the article.

Our aim is only to promote the teaching of this spiritual teacher, who is well known in Czech Republic and abroad, who have written over 100 own books and will have been acting as a spiritual teacher over 50 years. We would like only to promote yoga and meditation. Thanks for Your understanding and for recreation of the site--BlueKarel (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"That word "promote": that is the canonical opposite of what Wikipedia is for. But I didn't delete it, I moved it to Draft to save it being deleted as obvious promotion, which you now admit. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello JzG, our article is a promotion of yoga in the same way as a promotion of yoga or anything else on other wikipedia pages, in any other books, in scientific articles(!) and everywhere else. We do not promote the person of Jiří Vacek, our aim is clearly impersonal - to introduce the reader another view of yoga, which is based on the teaching of well-known sage Sri Ramana Maharshi from Arunachala.

Write me please specifically, in which feature our page changes from this aim and we will glad to make it better. We use the standard wikipedia style and the statements of facts in all paragraphs, in Biography, Essence of teaching, Work, Public activities and References. Our article satisfies the English, Czech and German wikipedia standards. Otherwise we assume, Your moving to Draft is inappropriate.--BlueKarel (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't give a toss what you're promoting, you're promoting a thing and that is wrong. Also, who is "we"? Guy (Help!) 12:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If You want to introduce something, it is a promotion everytime. But please, I do not want to discuss about words. I am not an English, so may be I will not express me everytime correctly. I believe, I have already given You many reasons, why Jiří Vacek is worthy to be also on the English wikipedia. He is already in three encyclopedia books! Please, show me an exact part, which is not on our page correct so that we can do some progress. Thanks--BlueKarel (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Guy (Help!) 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"We" is me and a group of my friends, who make this and other wikipedia sides of Jiří Vacek and other things together. We would be very glad, if we are allowed to put this page on the English wikipedia too. We prepare also some other translations to the other wikipedias. So please help us. Thanks very much--BlueKarel (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Catalogue?

Hi Guy! I'm always somewhat concerned when I find you on the other side of an issue. In this case, I'm confused by this edit at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#catalogue_of_open_source_software_confer_notability. I have a hard time with "a catalogue", but I don't understand "a directory listing" at all. Are you sure you copied the full URL? It goes to a single report in PDF (with several parts). Or are you misled by the "fileadmin/dateien" part of the URL? That's just where the CMS stores media. The official "landing page" for the KOS is here, with the 2015 reports here. And no, it's not in my department (I'm proper computer science, in the faculty of technology, not business). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, misled by my crap German I think. I know lots about trout, linden trees and Erl kings, and can quote large swathes of the Lutheran bible, but am not well up on technical German. That said, the frantic scratching around for one source that will finally establish notability, by a bunch of SPAs, does tend to indicate promotion to me. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No worries. We got to read that shaker of spears, and the lyrics to American Pie (song), which gave me such useful words as "levy/levée" (which our teacher had a hard time explaining). I agree that the report is at best a weak contribution to notability, and I have no problem with us drawing different lines at what is sufficient notability, as long as we get the facts straight. Thanks for the clarification! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. And now I will go back to my Bach and Schubert :-) Guy (Help!) 11:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm more Beethoven and Elgar...but Bach is great as background music for tasks requiring concentration.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nah. For that you want Varèse, or maybe Steve Reich. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Bach requires total concentration as a performer, though. Boris, I am thinking of getting tickets for the Kronos Quartets gig near me this year, they are doing Different Trains among other things. If my lad wants to go, I will take him. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably unintended

But when you save an edit, your Drumpf browser extension is changing the word Trump to Drumpf everywhere it shows up in the edit window. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh! Ha :-) I will disable it, thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Saw this and...

...thought you'd appreciate it if you haven't seen it already. *lol* [3] Atsme^📞📧 23:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it when it was first broadcast. I am, needless to say, a fan of Milligoon :-) Guy (Help!) 23:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Hi JzG—maybe you overlooked my question to you on the Bernie Sanders Talk page. I would be interested in your response, if there is anything you would care to say. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gallery 15233 2536 180213.jpg

Hi JzG... I'm not sure you saw it, so could you please comment at C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gallery 15233 2536 180213.jpg? It concerns a photo you uploaded but someone else found online from prior to your upload at commons. I think you'd be best placed to clear up the confusion, but nobody seems to have pinged you here. Storkk (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing citations to "apparently predatory publishers"

Please weigh in: Talk:Predatory open access publishing#Removing citations to "apparently predatory publishers". fgnievinski (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Fgnievinski I've followed behind you at WT:MEDRS and at that article Talk page and at WP:ORN. That section is not an appropriate use of an article Talk page and I closed it. The issue has been under discussion at RSN since Feb 26 here. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This was already discussed at WP:RSN, as Jytdog says. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Request

Guy, could you take a look at this edit please? It's removing source material, which I'm uncomfortable with, but the edit summary is above my pay grade... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Nasty. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

CaseyMcCreedy

Regarding your note to admins at the top of the page, I wanted to let you know that I unblocked CaseyMcCreedy today. In her unblock request, it's clear that she mentioned the court case as a rationale for her edit and was not making legal threats to Wikipedia or any editors. I said in the future, discussions of this kind should happen first at the article discussion page rather than through edit summaries as there would be less possibility for confusion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Chitin source

Hello JzG: I was curious about your revert on the chitin structure in butterfly wings, possibly published by an unreliable Indian source. This link is for the abstract in what appears to be a reliable scientific journal. Is it mainly a primary source objection or about the reliability of the source that concerns you? I'm asking just to know for future surveillance. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Entirely the source, if you have a better one then please do use it. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging

If you believe a source is unreliable, by all means tag it as such, but don't start deleting text that is very probably fully correct as well, that is entirely unjustifiable. You are going beyond your evidence, whatever it is, and acting irresponsibly. If you are asked by an editor who disagrees with you to take something to an article's talk page, then please do that, do not just charge ahead when you KNOW consensus has not been reached on that article. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you please hold off from deletions while discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and on article talk pages is ongoing. Continued attempts at deletion which are opposed by other editors in both discussions could be seen as disruptive editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes please tag the statements if you disagree with the source used to support this rather than a wholesale deletion. Postcholecystectomy syndrome used such an article which is a good review to support a lot of the primary research but, as this review was in a source you believed to be unreliable, you have removed a lot of other data. Jrfw51 (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

So I have one lot of people telling me to tag the statements, and another telling me they must be removed as unsourced. There is clear consensus that the journals fail WP:RS due to the problems of predatory publishing, and alongside this I find a small number of cases where the names of individual academics have been plastered all over Wikipedia, frequently cited to these journals, in a rather blatant attempt to boost their reputation. It is not as clear cut as you seem to think. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Jrfw51 your response at the actual article here was perfect, and that dif is how I wish the community were responding to this. Where crappy sources were used, WP:FIXIT with good sourcing. JzG is doing a huge service to the community here - I don't care if he removes stuff or tags it - the main thing is that local editors know they have a serious issue with the integrity of the article. That is what needs to be addressed, not the minutia of how Guy is making folks aware of it. The integrity of our content is what matters. (am posting this at RSN too) Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

OR in Featured Articles

Smilodon the jabber! Wikipedia FAs ought to be a lot more careful about including theories found in only one source and with a single citation. We had been snickering about this in the lab for a while. Back to work. (Seriously, thanks.) 2601:285:101:7076:28D4:5471:9D6E:5720 (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy

Martin admits he "is hardly a neutral observer", - supervisor of thesis. Does anybody else think Martin's opinion of the thesis should not be quoted even when modified? Is he too much of a primary source to be using in such a way on Judith_Wilyman_PhD_controversy page? Can't seem to hold back a determined editors addition of what I think is primary opinion in favour of secondary opinion, got better things to do!

References

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gongwool (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 March 2016‎ l (UTC)

Perhaps you should raise your concerns on the talk page? You haven't raised it there, and I'm happy to discuss. I disagree with you, as I feel that the opinion of the thesis supervisor is significant in an article about the thesis, but I'm certainly willing to discuss the issue. - Bilby (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Guy/JzG. I know your distancing yourself from it (and me) now (understandable). But what's the story when there is an outright desperation for one to try to have a 50/50 NPOV on WP article when the sources all are strong neg-POV? On the talk page I've called it 'trying to polish a t*rd'. This creates distortion doesn't it, which to my understanding is sort of saying 'Hitler had many Jewish friends' in 50% of an article on Mein Fuhrer, and not what WP's about??? Cheers and keep on keepin on. Gongwool (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not especially, actually, but Bilby is a long-time Wikipedia and it is a really bad idea to get too vested in being right, so I am trying to watch from a distance. We have to be fair and accurate, and assume good faith. That said, Wilyman's PhD is a steaming turd and while she undoubtedly hoodwinked Martin, if he had not been predisposed to reverse the burden of proof for any anti-establishment view it would not have happened. In a just world he would be disciplined and the PhD rescinded. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reply JzG, helpful. But you are sooo diplomatic toward Brian. He claims 'no position' on anti-vax, but has spent decades reprinting or defending Hooper, AVN and Wakefield etc. An immunologist might think he got 'closet anti-vax virus' cause he wasn't socially-science immunized to obvious BS! But then he seems to be silent in comparison on what may be considered real issues that need cracking - such as our political deniers of climate change here or the csg fracking debate etc. The science on these is much more compelling with still industry/government still obfuscating. But that's my opinion. Also check out a mathematical model on conspiracy theories, you may have already seen it [4] [5] Cheers. Gongwool (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL

You big sweetie. --Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 01:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Bastique: Sincerely meant, Cary. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration case request

A request for arbitration in which you are involved has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 13:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Banninated

is a great word. Thanks for the chuckle. David in DC (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_%28social_scientist%29

User SmithBlue has lost his sh*t regards the Brian Martin article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Martin_%28social_scientist%29 . I have no power over the chaos him and the IP are trying to create. maybe you can keep watch. Gongwool (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 March 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 07:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#European_Graduate_School_Article_Content

... is mostly about you. Probably won't go far, but you should still know why your ears are burning. --GRuban (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)