Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 160

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 158Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162→Archive 165

Atlantis Word Processor - Undeletion request

Dear Sir,

This is regarding the Atlantis Word Processor article deleted a few months ago.

The deleted article could have been improved. But I believe that the subject is important and significant.

The subject is a quite popular word processor developed since 2000. Writers, authors, and publishers are its main audience - please read the testimonials at the bottom of the main page of the subject's home site: https://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com

It has almost 200,000 downloads at download.com alone: https://download.cnet.com/Atlantis-Word-Processor/3000-2079_4-10057477.html

It was probably the first word processor that introduced the eBook export functionality in 2009: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48775 https://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/Atlantis_Word_Processor https://www.atlantiswordprocessor.com/en/help/ebook.htm

It has one of the highest user rankings (89%) at the popular GOTD giveaway platform: https://www.giveawayoftheday.com/atlantis-word-processor-3-1-1/

Cisco Talos believe that Atlantis Word Processor is important: https://blog.talosintelligence.com/2018/10/atlantis-multiple-vuln.html https://latesthackingnews.com/2018/10/05/cisco-discovered-multiple-vulnerabilities-in-atlantis-word-processor/

It was reviewed by PCWorld, softpedia, etc: https://www.pcworld.com/article/234260/atlantis_word_processor.html https://www.pcworld.pl/ftp/atlantis-word-processor.html https://www.softpedia.com/get/Office-tools/Text-editors/Atlantis-Word-Processor.shtml https://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/download-of-the-day-atlantis-word-processor-1285958 https://www.maketecheasier.com/microsoft-word-free-alternatives/ and is listed by plenty of software sites.

It is not less important or significant than Jarte, AbiWord, EZ Word, Ted_(word_processor) or other word processing applications.

Could you please reconsider your decision?

Thank you for your time.

--Gillian2008 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: I am just the user of the software. I am using it for almost 15 years now. I regularly took part in the subject betatesting, made feature suggestions and some non-programming-related contributions. But still I am just the user. There is no link between me and the software besides the fact that I use it and like it (you cannot write an article about a software if you never actually used it). In addition, the article was removed not because of COI (I can repeat that there is no COI) but because the administrator believes that the subject is not significant. I strongly believe that it is credible and significant. All the links I included in my previous message were retrieved with Google. I had to provide proofs of significance. How could I do that without posting links?

--Gillian2008 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

In one of my previous messages, I provided information which I believe is a proof that Atlantis Word Processor is a "credible and important" "Web content".

Do you still think that applying the A7 criteria to perform a speedy deletion of the Atlantis Word Processor article was correct?

Could you please confirm that I understand the situation correctly?

Thank you for replying.

--Gillian2008 (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

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!

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)

That edit shows no evidence of broken references. Nothing red int he Reflist, for example. What is the problem? Guy (Help!) 16:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Same troll?

Me thinks the same troll has hit both of our talk pages:

Their messages have strong similarities. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Would you care to respond

to my question? Humanengr (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's time for that topic ban. Guy (Help!) 23:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That's unfortunate as I believe we are only a step or two away, thanks to your introducing the 'objective' basis construct, from understanding our differences. Humanengr (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
[Adding:] I now realize the issues I raise relate to WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:FRINGE. (I hadn’t focused on these until yesterday when I noticed mentions of the latter.) My concern is when consequence of error on those assessments can be enormous. As I said, your framing in terms of ‘objective’ has also been key. I am hopeful your response to my question here or on the talk page will further facilitate this discussion. Humanengr (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, JzG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Bishonen | talk 12:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC).

File:Electronquartet.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

Please also consider updating other files you created or uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User talk:FrogCast

They're back and using their talk page to hurl insults again. There's a chance this is just a parting shot, but if you haven't watched their talk, you might want to, to see if they need TP access turned off. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like he's trying to get himself unblocked, so you may wish to weigh in there. --Calton | Talk 23:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Toastmasters International

They really do not teach debating. Go to any club (and most are open) and you wont find a debate in any form. And their learning program does encompass leadership development. None of that makes me an RS but it does make you wrong about the debating. Fob.schools (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually care. The point is that the bullshit claim about teaching "leadership skills" is a bullshit claim made by every organisation with an inflated idea of its own importance. Few, if any, can back it up. The Scout Association can. So can the institution where my eldest is studying. Most can't. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
If you don’t care why say it so permanently in the article history? Fob.schools (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Polarizing remarks with offtopic references

Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Sci-Hub#Illegally_sharing_or_illegally_accessing? for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.

Do you think this is constructive? You could have conveyed the same meaning by saying e.g. "terminological sophistry" rather than "Clinton-level bullshit". --Nemo 11:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Do you think this is constructive? Disrespecting valuable editors and picking fights over days-old comments with no clear end goal? Seriously? Knock it off, get over it, and stop throwing your toys out of the pram just because you read something you didn't like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Having given this all due consideration, go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. My patience for people who argue that copyright piracy is not illegal as such, is limited. If you edited Wikipedia on the same principles you display in that talk page discussion then you would have been banned ages ago. You may well believe that Sci-Hub are some kind of latter-day Robin Hood, and I might even agree with you, but what they are doing is, according to the sources, not lawful, and arguing about which exact word to use to describe their illegal behaviour on the basis that you don't like the fact that it's illegal is pure disruption. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of copyright, I request a limited license for personal non-profit use of "go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
https://www.thinkgeek.com/product/374d/ Guy (Help!) 16:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
"You may well believe [...]" is an ad hominem and may be considered a personal attack. Please desist from trying to read into other people's mind and intentions. Such habits lead to trouble on Wikipedia. --Nemo 10:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
What is a shell script? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 10:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Go away, I am not interested. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sci-Hub, you may be blocked from editing. See talk page consensus at Talk:Sci-Hub#Website_and_IP_in_infobox_for_Sci-Hub! Distrait cognizance (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That has to be the most absurd abuse of a warning template against an administrator that I have ever seen. Congratulations. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone (not clear who) has been a bad boy ... Softlavender (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Must be me. How dare I revert a link to Sci-Hub's TOR feed as a source for the fact that it has a TOR feed to evade multiple legal shutdowns. Wikipedia is all about free content, right, regardless of legality? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Information wants to be free. Softlavender (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There is consensus following an RfC here Talk:Sci-Hub#Website_and_IP_in_infobox_for_Sci-Hub. Feel free to raise the issue again, but don't flaunt consensus. That is WP:CENSORSHIP, especially when your motivation is so clearly about what you think. The material is well-sourced, and there is no provision anywhere against providing onion strings. There are even articles on the topic, such as facebookcorewwwi.onion. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There is zero mention of TOR in that RfC. You need to (1) stop templating admins; (2) pursue this discussion on the article talkpage instead of on usertalk, since it is a content issue; (3) get consensus there, since there is obviously some objection to the link. Softlavender (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Also per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Official websites that violate copyright, "First, the actual legal doctrine is nigh-impossible to do anything with. Links like this vary by country, and the current doctrine in Europe asks questions about the specific knowledge of the person doing the linking and whether the link is for commercial purposes, among other things. I would suggest that the Foundation is not going to overrule the community if people think that specific links are appropriate and important for an encyclopedia article on a notable topic, but there is a chance we could receive legal demands in specific cases that cause us to have to change something, which we would evaluate on a case by case basis if it came up. Also, just as a matter of community good will, if you know that a particular Wikipedia page is being used as a hub to facilitate copyright infringement for some reason, it's probably good to make changes to prevent that, regardless of the specifics of what the law says." That argues for local consensus to prevail for a link to the site's About page, because the community thinks Wikipedia will end if we don't have a decorative link to every website, but it absolutely does not speak to a link to a TOR source as a primary source for the existence of that TOR source, which fails every single conceivable interpretation of WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_160&oldid=1088033074"