User talk:Jusdafax/Archive 11

Thought you might be interested
Some very good comments here and here. SageRad (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Arnnon Geshuri
Hello Jusdafax,

Was the WMF board fully aware of Arnnon Geshuri's central role in a major anticompetitive scandal at Google when they approved his appointment to the board? In 2010, the Justice Department shut down the illegal collusion between Google and five other Silicon Valley corporations. Geshuri helped manage that collusion for Google. A class action lawsuit settled in September, 2015 forced those companies to pay $415 million in compensation to 64,000 employees whose careers were damaged by the conspiracy that Geshuri was part of. Geshuri was directly involved in the ugly and humiliating termination of a woman who did not comply with the illegal scheme. He was chastised by federal judge Lucy Koh for attempting to pull Facebook into the conspiracy, and threatening retaliation if they didn't. Details can be found at User:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I had no idea of these particulars. I'm appalled of course, and as I mentioned on Jimmy's Talk page, think a Rfc for a vote of Wikipedia editor "no confidence" should be discussed. In fact, not if it should happen, but where and how. Thanks again. Jus  da  fax   10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk page header
Jusdafax, I see that you added a talk page header to Talk:Radioactive decay. The documentation states repeatedly that it should only be used where needed ("Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template.") Talk:Radioactive decay seems a quiet, well-behaved page, so it would probably be better off as it was before. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted some similar additions of the template, for the same reasons. Kanguole 09:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

ITN RD criteria
Just in case you didn't know, there's an ongoing discussion regarding the merits of the trial update to RD criteria here. Banedon (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

my talk p
I added a note to my previous remark on your comment--it is not intended as personal criticism or anything of the sort, but your reply gave me occasion to say something I think needs saying. My sincere apologies if it may have seemed otherwise, but I couldn't think how to say it better.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI
I should let you know that I mentioned you in the course of a comment that I made at WP:AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You've been mentioned
Hi JdF,

For some reason, I had a hard time creating a ping when I mentioned you, your name appeared in red. But it was here, in relation to the RfC process.  petrarchan47 คุ  ก   09:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks Petra. Jus  da  fax   18:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Coffee discussion
FYI. Your name came up in a discussion at Coffee's talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jus  da  fax   18:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - The Buzz Magazines
Hello,

My name is Maddy Payne. I am a local resident of the Bellaire, Texas area, and I am wondering why you keep petitioning for "speedy deletion" of The Buzz Magazines Wikipedia page. The page does not try to promote or advertise the company. The page is up for informational use only and I believe it is extremely beneficial considering the magazine is sent out to 58,000 residents in the Houston area.

Is there something I am doing wrong in particular? Or is there something I need to be doing to ensure the page does not keep getting deleted? I have read over (multiple times) the background and circulation information I provided on the page and did not find any information that was either "unambiguous advertising or promotion" or "did not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Both of these are reasons that have been listed as to why the page was deleted - G11 and A7. Could you explain this, please? Should I add references at the bottom to ensure the credibility and importance of The Buzz Magazines page? I read somewhere on Wikipedia that it was not required to have references, though.

Also, I have not tried linking anything in The Buzz Magazines wikipedia page to anything outside of Wikipedia. In other words, I keep all links within Wikipedia. Thus, that could not be mistaken or labeled as unambiguous advertising or promotion since I keep it within Wikipedia and my descriptions are neutral.

Please get back to me soon. Thanks, Maddy Payne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddypayne99 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As you know, I was not the first to nominate your article for speedy deletion. What caught my eye was that you had rapidly recreated the article without addressing the concerns expressed in the first deletion. Anyone can make a mistake, of course, but I renominated the article for speedy deletion after a quick look showed no references were included. I also made a Google search, and a look failed to show The Buzz Magazines had significant third party coverage from reliable sources. But I could have missed something, and if you can come up with this requirement, you can try a third time. As I have previously noted on your page, it helps to read WP:RS. The notice on your talk page also has other links worth reviewing.


 * Writing an article with no previous experience in Wikipedia can be difficult. I'd suggest a bit of editing on other topics, to get used to how things work here. This also will deflect the impression that you are here for one purpose only (see WP:SPA). Assuming you have no close connection to this business per WP:COI, the article will eventually be created if the subject can be sourced reliably and meets notability requirements, per WP:NOTE. The main point is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Best wishes! Jus  da  fax   11:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Helping BMK
BMK believes he did nothing wrong. insists that "there was, and is, no impetus for me to verify what I'm certain exists. When the onus for proof is on the other guy, and they refuse to build a consensus (and especially when they're a POV SPA), I am not going to spend any more time and energy on the matter than necessary. Anyone who is accusing me of lying is engaging in a personal attack." He believes that if he's certain he's right, he doesn't have to explain himself or verify his claims. He believes someone accused him of lying&mdash;search the AN/I discussion for such accusations; they don't exist. He believes no attempts to discuss and reach consensus were made. He believes this AN/I discussion is about him making a factual error, instead of his conduct issues. Perhaps someone he trusts, maybe you, should help him understand. Furry-friend (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Note on AE request
Hello Jusdafax, I've recently closed an AE request with which you were involved. While this request resulted in no sanctions against you, you're notified that the practice of casting aspersions is not acceptable conduct. Specifically, this means that accusations of wrongdoing against other editors must be backed up by clear evidence, or not made at all. Failure to do this going forward could result in sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe it is not in my best interests to respond to this message at this time. Jus  da  fax   02:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I prepare to archive my 2016 Talk page posts, I'm going to note that my comment regarded two admins who I observed were involved in the case, which was factually true. In 2016 I was not willing to take further action, but seeing as, over the past 3-plus years, at least one editor has seen fit to cite this warning repeatedly, if to little effect, I am going to hereby dispute the characterization of my comment. I have never been blocked in over 90k edits, and I believe this is the only official warning I have ever received in over 12 years of editing Wikipeda. Jusdafax (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Closing on David Tornheim is ridiculous
Wow, Jusdafax, i recently saw the closing on David Tornheim and it's so over the top ridiculous i can hardly believe my eyes. And this is the process by which the repository and representation of the world's knowledge is being processed? It's absurd. It's so unbelievably biased. What can be done? SageRad (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that people get banned and warned for talking about the behaviors of other editors, but only in one direction! -- never does the same action get banned or even warned or reprimanded when it's about calling someone an "activist" -- as if that is admissable and as if it's a bad thing.... it is neither... and as if others are not "activists" in the other direction which based on their actions they obviously are, but they simply claim to be "pro-science" even though it's not science but an agenda that has clear bias... and "skeptic" even though it's an ideological movement, not a true skeptical position... it's absurd and mind-blowing. SageRad (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Now watch them kick me right off of Wikipedia for saying that. Please keep an eye on me. SageRad (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've taken a lengthy break from what we used to call The Project, and am just returned. I'm taking your statement under advisement. As always, I wish you the best. Jus  da  fax   02:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case you might be interested in
I just filed an arbitration request against, citing an example in which you were involved in. You might be interested in the case. Link is here:. Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. As I say just above, I took a couple months break. I believe the action you took was long overdue, and I see the case was accepted by a large margin, so I'll be following it as time permits. Best wishes, Jus  da  fax   02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fisher's Exact Test
Regarding the following paragraph in Fisher's Exact Test:

The formula above gives the exact hypergeometric probability of observing this particular arrangement of the data, assuming the given marginal totals, on the null hypothesis that men and women are equally likely to be studiers. To put it another way, if we assume that the probability that a man is a studier is P, the probability that a woman is a studier is p, and we assume that both men and women enter our sample independently of whether or not they are studiers, then this hypergeometric formula gives the conditional probability of observing the values a, b, c, d in the four cells, conditionally on the observed marginals (i.e., assuming the row and column totals shown in the margins of the table are given). This remains true even if men enter our sample with different probabilities than women. The requirement is merely that the two classification characteristics—gender, and studier (or not)—are not associated.

As the main hypothesis of Fisher's Exact test is that of independence of the two categories, the probability that a man is studier should be equal to the probability that a woman is studier and both should be equal to the probability that a person is a studier. Hence the notations "P" and "p" which imply that these two probabilities differ are not constructive and are rather confusing.


 * I don't presume to debate the text, but you deleted it leaving the next paragraph to begin "For example..." which I found unencyclopedic. May I suggest you discuss this proposed deletion on the article Talk page? Thanks. Jus  da  fax   05:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Will do! Thank you so much for your reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.180.21 (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)