User talk:JzG/Archive 134

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, 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) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Deletion review for Tomas Gorny

User:KGirlTrucker81 has asked for a deletion review of Tomas Gorny. 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. —Cryptic 20:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Mike Corley

That my friend is a pretty good obscure reference, I salute you sir. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Id love to take credit, but I am simply old. It will always be September. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I remember that first September..... Perhaps we're both old. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha! I was a teenager then... I... I... I'm not helping my "I'm not old yet, damn it" cause, am I? :( MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I remember the glory days of CompuServe's UK Politics forum, infested by Corley but also by the late and much lamented Vincent Hanna, whose analysis was always worth reading. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The other day on my Facebook status I typed 'September used to be when noobs showed up on USENET, now it is when University students fuck up wikipedia articles'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck I'm JzG and I approve this message! Guy (Help!) 21:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Mike Corley was the guy who single-handedly convinced me to start questioning my beliefs in all the conspiracy theories. (Seriously, I used to believe ALL of them when I was a teen. I actually once told someone that I was pretty sure the X-Files was written by 'undercover whistleblowers'). I realized that with folks like that on my side, I needed to seriously re-evaluate my thought process.

The September that never ended is actually funny. I had noticed people making reference to it, but had no idea what it meant until I saw you (Guy) make reference to it elsewhere, a few days ago. I believe I used to think it referred to the generally depressive tone of the fall season, as it was always mentioned in a context of despair. Now I know where it originated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. I wanted to let you know that you have been mentioned here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Guy. You may have already seen it but I wanted to let you know just in case. I hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Character theory (media)

Why are you harassing me? You have removed my character theory for reasons that could equally apply to anyone on that page. I see you edit a lot of articles relating to skeptics. Are you harassing me because I have been helping victims of one of your "gods" - Andrew Lewis of Quackmeter? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with your comment here that I hardly know where to begin.

I am not harassing you. One of the things I do on Wikipedia is remove promotional editing and citation spamming. This is not remotely personal.

I had no idea that you are involved with Andy Lewis, a man I have never met though we have some mutual acquaintainces and at least one mutual friend. I only know of one group who consider themselves "victims" of Lewis, Steve Paris and Angel Garden. If those are the people you are helping, then you are in a very bad place. They are crazy people. And I use that word carefully and with due thought. Their campaign against Lewis is utterly bizarre, as bizarre as the stalker who harassed me for years. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm not the only one who got a message from Jonathan with false accusations and unsupported allegations. Ravensfire (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No indeed. And the links he posted in the COI report paint him in an exceptionally poor light. For example, he characterises Lewis' scrutiny of a quack as bullying and harassment, and takes pleasure in reporting that Lewis' service provide terminated his account - that kind of suppressive action to stifle scrutiny is not usually popular with real experts in online harassment. He also supported two people who sued Lewis under the old version of England's Defamation Act (Lewis was one of the group instrumental in getting that act changed to something much less friendly to the Robert Maxwells of this world). I think Bishop's method for telling right form wrong is badly broken. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of me from Character theory (media) and whatever other pages I was on is in effect WP:Wikihounding by proxy. You think all the pages you have removed me from were edited by me using sockpuppets, when this is not the case. You hold a gripe that my professional life has included helping people who have been bullied by people you support. So even though I did not add myself to all the articles you have removed me form you have broken WP:Wikihounding because you assumed I did and that was why you removed me from them --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You should take him to ANI. Oh, wait..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey there

May I ask you for your opinion on third-wave feminism and how it is damaging the sovereignty of men as a whole? I assume you know that at least 80% of divorce-cases taken to family courts in the US and Canada are favorable for women, leaving the men to lose a lot of their hard earned money and not being able to see their children again? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

May I ask if you have stopped beating your wife yet? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(serious response from (talk page stalker)) I've taken the liberty of re-posting the comment with some... Markups.

May I ask you for your opinion on third-wave feminism and how it is damaging the sovereignty of men as a whole? I assume you know that at least 80% of divorce-cases taken to family courts in the US and Canada are favorable for women, leaving the men to lose a lot of their hard earned money and not being able to see their children again?

— TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

...For linking that Lewis/Garden/Paris judgement. I spent an interesting 10 mins reading the full thing. I found this quote very apt: "Over time during the hearing before me the impression became irresistible that in truth the Second Claimant finds it extremely difficult to accept that others may rationally form any view different from her own; and naturally, repeatedly, and very rapidly leaps to the conclusion and settled belief that if they do, they can have done so only out of personal hostility to her." - So not unlike any number of editors then.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, it's easy to see why judges are paid the big bucks! Imagine being forced to sit through that case and pretend to take it seriously, then write it up in such detail! I skimmed through the judge's statement which appears to be from this blog. The horror of the unfolding drama set out by the judge was compelling, but as noted above, the similarities with some contributors was both hilarious and disturbing. And the icing on the cake is that there is an editor at WP:COIN who has apparently reached the opposite conclusion from the patient judge. Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"When pressed that the Second Defendant had not in fact publicly commented in any way about the Claimants in any post or tweet, the Claimant stated that her silence was “highly aggressive”. This is quite remarkable." That´s effing poetry, that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. The trial was, as far as I can tell, a car crash in slow motion. And the relevance here is that Bishop still thinks that Lewis was the one doing the harassing. Which to my mind undermines any claim to competence on his part. As indeed does the fake institutional affiliation, the refspamming and the petulant response to his vanity text being removed. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, one of my ex's could manage highly aggressive silences sometimes. Especially if I forgot to buy cat food on the way home... Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point! Not via twitter or a blog though, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I did what wikipedia would call 'original research'. Jesus Christ. Its turtles all the way down. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, JzG. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

ErinMOBrien's contribution to Vegetable

I see you removed [1] the first source in the new content [2] added by ErinMOBrien (talk · contribs). How carefully did you look at this new content? I would have removed it all if you hadn't removed that one source, which suggests you may have looked closer than I. All edits from ErinMOBrien that I have looked over closely appear to be FRINGE-leaning, MEDRS-violating syntheses that is often tangential to the topic of the article subsection. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not look closer, so feel free to excise further text. It does not surprise me that someone who uses this kind of source turns out to be a fringe advocate. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

request

Would you please weigh in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Morgellons? i am really bothered by how the article is currently structured and sourced. am considering an AfD or merge discussion; am thinking of going AfD as it a stronger process but want to get some feedback before i do either. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I share your concerns. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

history

did this arise from someone actually claiming that an admin here had gone "rouge" or is this some broader internet history thing? I have always wondered where that essay came from and was amazed to find out it was you! I went digging if there was some context and saw that earlier that day you had written this mini-version on a talk page, so i guess was stewing... (and just to mention, in the course of looking into the history I discovered the origin of your username, which had seemed entirely arbitrary... but apparently is a very practical acronym per this)  :) Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, talk about what goes around comes around. Did you check out the edits by user:ExpertWitness? Do you recognise the name in the blog? I must have checked the spammed blog at the time, but I had no recollection at all of the name of the quack concerned. Turns out this is the same guy that caused Netcetera to shut down Andy Lewis' Quackometer blog, which he then moved to Positive (which is also Ben Goldacre's host, I believe, and may also be David Colquhoun's). user:Jonathanbishop blogged about this in 2008, as we found out when he blew up on COIN recently. That was four years before the Angel Garden / Steve Paris bullshit, so whatever caused him to align with Obi seems likely to be the cause of his original beef with Lewis. I was seriously busy in 2006, a newly-minted admin, I didn't remember any of this! Guy (Help!) 04:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Laughing.... blast from the past indeed! So you don't remember the origins of that wonderful "rouge admin" essay at all. too bad! as to what you wrote, quacks can be amazingly persistent in quacking. hm! no i don't recognize the name of the blog - sounds like some UK dustup... Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I remember the origin of WP:NCR, but not WP:ROUGE. Wikipedia was more fun back then. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

oh you did that too! wow. Ok tell me! Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See [3] for the first enforcement of the policy. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think ROUGE may have started out with PSRuckman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who I think was Peter Ruckman). This was a time when we had a big problem with articles on non-notable creationists, including the "Gastroturfing" of Jason Gastrrich (I had his account renamed to something random after he was banned, I do not think it is a good idea to leave real-named accounts sitting around with a history like that). But I could be entirely wrong. However, NCR was definitely inspired by dfrg.msc, and that I do remember. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I had somehow gotten the (mis?)impression that that cabal had come about via some sort of overlap or interaction with the Bathrobe Cabal, but I could be wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no cabal! Guy (Help!) 09:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

that first enforcement made me laugh out loud, for real. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ref from Nutrients

Hi, JzG.

I have seen that you deleted this reference from Nutrients. MDPI is no longer included in the Beall's list. I have rescued the reference for not to leave parts of the text unreferenced, but I am open to your opinions.

I do not have any special interest in this reference, it can be replaced by another one without problems, it's just a matter of doing a search.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is not that it's predatory, but that it was apparently added by one of the authors, all of whose history on Wikipedia appears to be citation spamming his own work. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

References

RE JB & Legal Threat

Given his, how shall we say, loose grasp of the legal system I am sure its groundless and has been filed in the appropriate recycling bin. However if you need anything, I am located in South Wales. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your moral support and hope not to have to call on any other kind. Apropos of that, I visit South Walesland reasonably often so do ping me an email and we could perhaps share a glass at some convenient moment. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Unwarranted reference

Thanks for reverting the addition of the unwarranted reference to several articles that I have written or monitor frequently. While I would like to see the reference for its content, it was not cited in any of the articles, so didn't fit with the parenthetical referencing style. Take care. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Holy crap....

... Are you safe and do you need to put up a canary? I thought I had some horrid stuff going on, on wiki and at work. You just took the cake from me, man. (And I think you must know what I'm referring to?) I've got to get to bed, but stay safe, man. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 04:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Frivolous legal threats are stressful but ultimately not dangerous. The user in question badly needs to get over himself. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Good to know all around. LaughingVulcan ^{Grok Page!} 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hi,

Would you explain why sources I added weren't reliable? They are published journals and studies. Ferakp (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You could follow the links I left on your talk page, that explains why self published sources and predatory open access journals aren't reliable. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, sorry :) I misunderstood you. I will remove all those sources and bring my own edits back. I had difficulties to recognize which were reliable and not. I edited it again, can you check is it OK now? Ferakp (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp:: Yes, your last edit was fine. I have now removed some more self-published sources, I am sure there are more left yet. The article has obviously been abused for polemical purposes over time. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for improving the article. I added neutrality tags for that reason (a long time ago). Ferakp (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The Lithuanians

Viktoras Kulvinskas and Ann Wigmore were health advocates born in Lithuania. What is to question? That information is found in the Wikipedia articles about them. Their stated goal was improved human health through prevention of disease and injury and recovery of health through natural therapies (C/AM - complementary and alternative medicine) and natural health practices (including rest, sunshine, fresh water, exercise, etc.). MaynardClark (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Health advocates? A value judgment. Actually I think they were cranks, and funnily enough our sources also support that view. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_Enforcement_review. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In other news:

Parents try to cure child's autism with alternative medicine. I was reading that and just hoping it didnt have 'they got the idea from wikipedia' in it.. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And in other news at talk:Jimbo today...

Anti-Star Trek and anti-catholic! Busy day? ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And this not too long after the legal threats from a certain "internet trolling and cyberstalking expert!" Guy gets all the love, apparently. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Not anti-either of course, just pro-policy. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep an eye on these articles

I did some rewording on that article because the previous text was too similar to the source and copyright infringement so I just reworded it a little this time. Check it and the source [4]. I was also going to ask you to keep a special eye on these kind of articles I notice suspicious IPs and users take advantage of my absence on wikipedia. Although I have done what I can to remove promotional propaganda, suspicious IPs come in and put questionable information. Articles that we should keep on our watchlists are tagged at [Category:Brain training programs]. Two heads are better than one! Thanks.--Taeyebar 17:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hydroxylamine-O-sulfonic acid

Hi JzG, you removed a citation from the page. I do admire your fight of predatory journals. However, the quick deletion would leave a unreferenced statement. I would admire if you would either leave it or substitute it by another reference. --Minihaa (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Seemed uncontroversial, but I have no problem removing it. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Topic banned User:ה-זפר seems to be ignoring the ban

Do you want to handle this?[5] Doug Weller talk 10:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I left an only-warning message. If they edit in this area again, please ping me or ANI. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Generous of you given the edit summary for Jerusalem. Doug Weller talk 12:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I see they don't understand the ban or why they were banned. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Experience indicates that if there's at least one final warning, any block sticks. This is a WP:ROPE job, really. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN

There is a discussion at WP:RSN involving your edits where I have directly mentioned you (the discussion opener refrained from directly referring to you, I assume because they wanted to avoid personalising the issue to concentrate on the background) however since I have directly mentioned you, I thought I should let you know. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick note that I enjoyed your post so much, that I quoted it at length here: User talk:K.e.coffman#Luftwaffe pilots. Thanks again. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)