User talk:JzG/Archive 55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56

re:Tariq babur

Hi - I have left Tariq Babur a message. Its in Hindi, which is very similar (especially if u are writing in English script :) to Urdu, the national language of Pakistan. It basically just explains that we have tried to make him understand that it is not appropriate to make articles on family members. I told him we are sorry to have blocked him, but as he did not respond, there was nothing else we could have done. I told him his block is only for 1 day; but emphasized that it is vital that he responds, in English or Urdu, whatever works, or else he may be blocked again. I recently encountered a similar problem with Shopnomukarji (talk · contribs) - no response whatsoever. I guess it really can't be helped, since obviously they must be understanding English to contribute here. Shiva (Visnu) 00:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Thank you, this at least shows we have made the effort. Unfortunately if he continues I will have to extend the block, so we should be as fair to the guy as possible. I am sure this is a young person who is having trouble understanding our policies and mission, but of course we only have so much time for fixing the issues such folks cause. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi JzG! I have re-created the page "Punjab Prisons (Pakistan)" today on 29.10.2010 wherein I have tried to add more references. The Punjab Prisons in Paksitan is the fourth pillar of Criminal Justice System in the province of Punjab - the other three being Punjab Police, Judiciary and Probation & Parole. My internet connection had been out of order for the last few days. I could not, therefore, respond to your messages. Kindly help improving the aforesaid page instead of deleting an important and informative article. (Tariq babur (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Tariq babur's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi JzG,

I would like to see the content of the article "Antenna Interface Standards Group" which is deleted by you twice.

Personally I think this is an important article to grow. This is related to a standards organization like IEEE. These specifications are already in use in 3G networks. I am thinking may be enough information is not given in the article which lead to a thinking that this article is about an individual/company etc... and lead to deletion.

-RK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkrishna (talkcontribs) 10:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


  • As you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Not sure how closely you watch Meta, just wanted to notify you that a link blacklisted in 2009 based on your request has now been proposed delisted, see Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Yup, entirely expected. The only word Abd seems unable to understand or accept is "no". Guy (Help!) 21:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
    • You may want to log in before commenting at Meta btw... Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
D'oh. Too many computers. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I almost called your IP a trolling sock puppet of a banned editor.  :-) Good thing I held back and didn't block it. Jehochman Talk 22:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, my bad. No problem. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Tyler Clementi

Just to let you know, an AfD on this subject was recently closed as keep here. You may wish to take this to DRV or discuss it with the closing admin instead; the discussion was fairly extensive and starting a new AfD so soon after a strong keep close is unlikely to be productive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Your phrasing of the nomination appears offensive and I have said as much in response in the AfD. You may not have any respect for the subject of the article, but you should avoid being deliberately offensive about contributions from other editors. You are an experienced editor and I would expect you to take a lead on civility. (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy, maybe you are unaware that this article already went through an AfD that started 1 Oct 2010 and ended yesterday. Re-nominating an article for deletion one day after it its last AfD ended seems a bit extreme. Please consider withdrawing this AfD. Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a bit of a fire here that I'm trying to keep a lid on. You probably aren't aware that this has already been through Deletion Review. Concurrently, it split into two articles, and came to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler clementi. That discussion that didn't even run half of its full seven-day length (which has yet to complete even now). I've been putting out the fire, here, somewhat. Starting a fresh AFD discussion will just inflame it, as can be seen by the intemperate comments here and in the new AFD discussion that have been made already. I suggest a calm trip to User talk:Timotheus Canens first off, and then Deletion Review if you have any issues with that early closure that you cannot resolve thereby. Talk to Timotheus Canens about re-opening the early closure so that you can add to the existing discussion, first, though. Uncle G (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G, there are few people whose judgment and sound good sense I would trust more than yours. I am about to leave for choir rehjearsal and unlikely to be back online for some hours, I will try and do this as soon as I have the opportunity thereafter. Anyone who wants to do something sensible in line with "what Uncle G said" in the mean time should please feel free to do so. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well for what it is worth, the above AFD has also been speedy closed by a different user. Syrthiss (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JzG. You have new messages at Tariq babur's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imagineering Academy

Hello, you apparently recently deleted Imagineering Academy as G11, unambiguous advertising. This has me somewhat puzzled, I've been working with Bobby to make a good NPOV article as an #editfri project.

What made you think it was advertising (especially sufficient for G11)? <scratches head>. I'd checked with other editors and I *thought* this particular point had been addressed. <scratches head some more>. Perhaps there were additional edits since the last edits by bobby or myself, or, what was the issue? --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Let me look again, maybe I misjudged it. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember now. It was the text plus the fact that it was almost exclusively written by Bopbby Verlaan, "Internship Online Communications at Imagineering Academy" - I am not a huge fan of COI articles from SPA editors. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to skip the ABF because I actually have been sitting next to Bobby (sometimes literally, sometimes over skype) and explaining how NPOV works, and he wanted to try writing his first article about the place he graduated from.
So you can assume I had a bit more of a hand in writing than the page history might suggest. I feel like you're accusing me of having a COI and being an SPA... I'm pretty sure that can't be right. ;)
So having covered that, what parts of the latest revision of the text were (still) blatant advertising, warranting a G11? People pointed out I'd missed some marketingspeak on the first pass, so I *thought* I'd gone over it with a fine tooth comb in the 2nd pass. Am I losing my touch?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC) (hence the reason I'm practicing my wiki-editing again... for some definition of  :-/ It's hard to keep an article alive long enough to actually get it into shape these days!)
It's not assuming bad faith, it's blatant COI. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
As AFAIK Bobby Verlaan has already graduated from the school in question, I don't think there is a current COI (he's running his own company, so it's a pretty safe assumption, unless he's still finishing something?). Even if he was still at the school, he would still be editing within the allowable bounds of WP:COI, as far as I can read from the page. Even if Bobby Verlaan could still be said to have a COI: I rewrote stretches of the article until I thought it was sufficiently encyclopedic. As I have never attended said school, nor am I employed there, I do not have any COI.
That said, the reason for deletion was CSD G11, which does not mention COI.
Would you be willing to amend or clarify your reason for deletion?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC) amend, clarify, or reverse even?
His LinkedIn profile lists it as current COI, but you do whatever you think best, I'm out of time on this one due to RL stuff. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Internship Online Communications at Imagineering Academy at NHTV
" (bold emphasis by me; past != current).
Hmm, unless that entry was changed between 09:39 and now, I guess you were reading a bit too quickly. It's cool that you went out and researched it though!
In the end, fair enough on going on to other things. To prevent wheel-warrish-ish things, would you care to reverse your deletion yourself please (and thank you :-) )? And I'll leave you to your RL stuff :-) I'll make sure to keep Bobby on the straight and narrow (and else PROD the article myself , if need be, though I don't forsee that happening). --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any I'm notifying you because you seem to have participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Could you explain to User:Riverstones why that article is best redirected to where autogynephilia is explained? With one exception (a case report), the articles in google scholar say the condition hasn't been identified in anyone. Looking at the talk page of autogynephilia, you seem to have a more resolute way of expressing yourself than I do. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening here. Often these topics are edited by too few editors, so consensus is hard to form. Now, there's another research topic of Blanchard (besides autogynephilia) that has turned controversial: hebephilia. The real-life controversy has spilled on Wikipedia with the researches involved editing here. There's a discussion on WP:COI/N. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Going back to User talk:JzG/Archives/July 2010#Heads up, we now have yet another attempt to promote Larry Pretlow by Dc archivist (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington, D.C. district 8C03 election, 2010 doesn't qualify for speedy deletion sadly, luckily this mini-bio has been removed from the article already. Do you think it's time for some restrictions on the creation of Larry Pretlow related articles by SPAs? 2 lines of K303 12:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I have blockinated Dc archivist because of his constant nonsense - the attack article on top of all the past warnings is the clincher. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, he doesn't seem too happy based on his reply. I never realised he'd tried to create an article on Mary J. Cuthbert until I saw your logs, I can imagine it wasn't a pretty sight? 2 lines of K303 13:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Just one in a long line of hopeless articles from him, but no, it was not acceptable per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Nolan

Take a look at the current version of the article; I tried to integrate the material in with his primary election loss, and added a bit more about other things (areas of his expertise), though frankly, I haven't had much luck digging up much else on him other than the "controversies" that played out in the news earlier this year. I'm fine with further reductions of the content per WP:BLP; my earlier involvement with the article was foiling obvious whitewashing attempts. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I appreciate it. I have told the complainant that one of our most experienced people is working on it and will ensure that everything is rigorously sourced, I am confident I can safely leave it to you. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


On the subject of OTRS complaints, you might be interested in where the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unsourced biographies of living persons is at the moment. Uncle G (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Coming from the opposite side, I was the editor that tried to comply with the BLP policy in the Jason Ross article, and nominated it at AfD. A user claiming to be Ross made legal threats against me and now you've deleted the article and sited an OTRS ticket. Can I be assured that no information at all other than what is publicly available on the site was passed back to Mr Ross and that his legal threats were basically ignored? I don't know what can be disclosed in relation to the OTRS complaint, but as the accused party, I would like to know what was claimed and what response (if any) the WMF made. Reply by email is enabled if there is something that can't/shouldn't be published publicly. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I gave him no information at all, I told him only that I had closed the debate and blanked it as a courtesy. We do not give away personal data even if we could. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I thought so - he'll probably go after you now for deleting "his page" (which apparently is defamation!). When I raised the question of what gets given out at ANI I was told that there were some reasons when you would/could... and as much as I didn't think this case fitted any of them (generally very serious police related issues), I just wanted to check. If only I was in the area that broadcast his TV show... might make for interesting viewing! The-Pope (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • JzG isn't a Checkuser, but an OTRS volunteer. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi JzG. I'd like to tell you that I reverted your redirection of July article. The band meets several of the notability criteria listed at WP:BAND. Have a nice day and weekend. ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Funny, the article states that they are not notable and an OTRS ticket says much of it is wrong or nonsense. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi JzG.. The article meets the criteria #1, #5 and #6 at WP:BAND. And I'm not sure if you really checked the references. Only two references out of ten are about one of the member of the band. On the other hand, even if you think the band is not notable enough, wouldn't you be adding the notability tag and then let the other editors improve the page or let them vote for redirecting the page? Thanks in advance for the further answers. ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I need hardly remind you that WP:BAND is a guideline saying the kinds of articles that are likely to have enough substantial independent coverage to meet the fundamental and non-negotiable requirements of reliable independent sourcing. Namechecks in articles about one member do not really cut it. The article says the band was active for only a year and never charted. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The duration of the band being in the era is not a criteria and never being charted just wouldn't make it non-notable. See for instance Tintern Abbey (band), One in a Million (band), Kaleidoscope (UK band).. And I'm sure there are a lot more if I must dig. July article was meeting several of the notability criteria as listed at WP:BAND with reliable online music sources including book references. I'd like to see the article aired back and a discussion on the talk page of the article with the other editors that are expert about music articles could be started to see how notable the band is. Again, wouldn't you be adding the notability tag instead of redirecting it without any consensus? Thanks in advance for the further answers. ~ Elitropia (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
From the OTRS ticket: "As in all other articles, especially it seems that if they didn't know anything about the band, they would just make it up, e.g. we were never a skiffle group, and were never called the Playboys! As for "Bassist Alan James later worked with Cat Stevens and Kevin Coyne, among others, pure fiction!" - and so on. This is why we demand non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. The sources for this article are plainly unreliable in respect of this band, because (as the article points out) it never made any kind of mark. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Alright. Would you please tell me if I can use the information you provided here about the band as a reference to edit the article to remove the misleading info that was caused by the so called reliable sources. Thank you. ~ Elitropia (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't use it as we don't have a reliable secondary source. We're stuck, really. All I know is that someone closely associated with the band says that what little information appears on teh intarwebs is mostly rubbish; there is so little of it that it's hard to argue, nobody seems to have published anything deeper. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concern. Wouldn't an appropriate solution be to just delete parts of the article that are inaccurate according to the information that you've provided? Thank you. ~ Elitropia (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that so much of it is inaccurate that it calls into question the validity of all the sources used. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole article on July in another encyclopaedia, which also states that James went to play for Cat Stevens and others. Whoever you are in correspondence with would do well to take the matter up with M. Larkin et al..

And as you can see from this, they should take it up with M. Joynson, too. What basis do we have to question M. Larkin's and M. Joynson's reliability here? It cannot be merely that the subject is small. They've documented a lot of small subjects. That doesn't automatically make what they say unreliable. Uncle G (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Good morning JzG and Uncle G. As for the reliability I can still tell that mainly five sources were used in the article. Allmusic, Vernon (1998), Dinnes (1993), Facebook and Jade Warrior. Facebook page is the band's official. And Jade Warrior is the band that includes two members of July. And according to the ticket information that you've provided Allmusic is causing the problem. We could just remove the info that is provided by the Allmusic. What do you think? Thanks in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the specific statements challenged are supported not only by Allmusic, but by Larkin and Joynson as well. Larkin talks about skiffle and The Playboys in the very first sentence of xyr "July" encyclopaedia article, for example. JzG is in a different position, but I am in the position of all other editors here. We have printed sources, written by identifiable people (Larkin and Joynson) with known reputations, on the one hand, and a third-hand report from an unidentified origin on a WWW discussion page contradicting them, on the other. In that situation, one can only go with the information from the identifiable sources. We know who M. Larkin and M. Joynson are. We have good reason to think that they did their legwork here as they did in so many other cases; and no reason to think them unreliable in their fields of expertise. And we cannot dismiss that on the basis of an unidentified person's say-so; any more than we could dismiss it if I (using this pseudonym) decided to stand up and claim that I was around in the 1960s, and know for a fact that everything that M. Larkin and M. Joynson say is wrong. You could not identify the origin of such a claim, nor determine my reputation for accuracy and abilities to check my facts. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
      • And Wikipedia is "definitively wrong" in several other cases too. The problem here is that someone is complaining that we are repeating twaddle. Telling them to go and talk to the sources is a poor response as even if the sources recognise they are wrong, they're not going to recall and pulp the books. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
        • People can, and do, publish errata, though. If a complainant can get M. Larkin to publish an erratum, we can use it. I just used two such after-publication errata at Mormon sex in chains case. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Just to add my twopence to this debate, I agree with Elitropia that the band do indeed meet notability criteria for bands on Wikipedia. In addition, in no way does this article state that the band are non-notable...the fact that none of their singles charted doesn't automatically equate with non-notability. Also, of the 10 references that are used in the article, seven of them pertain directly to July and not to Tom Newman alone, as has been stated. It's also worth mentioning that the Allmusic guide is a well respected and widely used independent, third party source that is used in many, many Wikipedia articles.

            However, I can also see that an OTRS ticket is a problem. I may be way off mark here but I suspect that this complaint came from IP User:, who made some edits on 24th October that I duly reverted, since the changes in information were not supported by the inline refs. Regardless of whether I'm right or not, I must say that this seems like a ridiculous situation to me. We've essentially got some random member of the public, who is "allegedly" associated with the band, saying that well respected sources such as the Allmusic website or Vernon Joynson's British psych bible The Tapestry of Delights have got it all wrong and demanding that the Wikipedia article be changed to reflect his version of events. As Uncle G has pointed out above, we know that Allmusic, Vernon Joynson and Colin Larkin have a reputation for accuracy and reliability, but we know no such thing about this random person who is claiming to be associated with the band.

            The problems associated with a member of the public wielding this kind of power over Wikipedia are numerous and hardly need to be spelled out to regular editors such as ourselves. Suffice it to say, how do we know that this person is even legitimate? Even if we assume that he is legitimate, how do we know that he hasn't got some kind of agenda in place here? More worryingly from a Wikipedian's point of view, if this article, which is well written, well sourced and features multiple inline refs, is essentially deleted because a solitary member of the public claims that it is erroneous in places, doesn't that make a mockery of WP:V?

            This article is a lot better referenced than most C-Class band articles and it also adheres closely to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines laid out at WP:BAND and WP:V. If this article gets removed or redirected because of a single e-mail complaint, it begs the question why any editor should worry about WP:V and WP:BLP in the first place? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

            • Outright blanking or deletion is a nuclear option if this is the extent of the accuracy dispute. And I think that JzG has probably put in the effort to determine that xe really is talking to who the person whom xe is told xe is talking to. Not being mis-led by the ease with which electronic mail messages can be forged in anyone else's name is first year OTRS Studies, I would have thought. ☺

              I think, at this point, a more relevant question to ask is this one: Does Jason Barnard trump Vernon Joynson+Colin Larkin?

              When you've found out whence I obtained the name Jason Barnard, you'll see a potential for resolution, here. ☺ There really is a right way to do these things Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

          • I would agree that outright blanking or deletion should be a last resort if it turns out that the changes that IP User: made are the full extent of the problem. The quote from the OTRS ticket that JzG quotes above certainly correlates with the edits made by this IP user and therefore lends weight to my theory. However, this brings with it it's own conflict of interest issues: note herehow this editor has disputed Les Tomcats' "moderate success" in Spain and "a lack of publicity" being the cause of July's album not charting.

            I assume that your mention of Jason Barnard relates to the interview that he did with the members of July for his Strange Brew podcast. That's a very interesting interview and although it doesn't meet the requirements for reliable sources as laid out at WP:V (it's essentially a private blog and a self-published source), I am inclined to use it in this case. After all, it is an interview with the band themselves and sometimes blog-like sources like this are great for the more obscure 1960s bands like July. For example, I used Nick Warburton's blog article on H. P. Lovecraft for the Wikipedia article on that band because it consisted of exclusive interviews with the band members themselves.

            OK, so my question to all concerned is, if I edit the July article to reflect only the factual changes that IP User: made, using the Jason Barnard interview as a source, would this be an acceptable resolution to this problem? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi y'all. I'd like to tell (if it would make any difference) that I was contacted by Alan James and he says that there was no Playboys nor Thoughts and he never played with Cat Stevens and others as mentioned in the book sources and Allmusic. I'd gladly edit the article according to the interview published by Barnard if this is acceptable. ~ Elitropia (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd be quite interested in knowing where this bollocks all came from! Guy (Help!) 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

See the article as it stands now. Discuss the battle of the sources at Talk:July (band)#Source reliability. The Cat Stevens issue remains outstanding. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he will care too much about that, the fact that you have found a way to work in their own version is sufficient. You are very much better at this sort of thing than I am and I thank you for fixing this so deftly. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi. You used to have a great essay on harassment, which you deleted. May I ask why? Do you feel that the WP Harassment policy incorporated all that was best in your essay? I liked it (your ssay) and it did not seem to refer to any one specific person so I was not sure why it needed to be deleted. I hope you don't mind my asking. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I decided I was tilting at windmills as the hardline free-speechers would rather see harassment preserved forever than the feelings of individuals respected. I'm happy for it to be undeleted if you think it has value still. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it does, if you do not mind. Should I keep it as a sub-page of your own? I don't feel comfortable moving it to my page as I did not write it ... Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)