User talk:JzG/Archive 106

G. Edward Griffin
Guy, with regard to this edit, we recently had an RFC that specifically addressed the question of including "conspiracy theorist" in the first line. The closing was a clear "no", based on the derogatory nature of the term. In fact, the closer (an admin with no little experience) removed CT from other parts of the lede. We have Griffin listed in the CT categories and CT is in the infobox. So I urge you to self-revert the edit and put the term somewhere lower in the lede. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC) PS: At present the question is moot. The edit was reverted, citing the consensus BLP problem RFC result. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Question, in addition to bypassing consensus to make the lead fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV, did you also just violate 1RR by making 2RR?    Just wondering.  I was concerned that your concern over me crossing the sanction line may have caused you to cross the line instead.  Uh oh.  Hope not.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The RfC concluded we do not call him a conspiracy theorist, which we don't. It did not conclude that we may not say that he is known for promoting conspiracy theories, which he is (as per the infobox). Your view on Griffin's ideas is so far out of line with the consensus of the reality-based community that I do not think you are actually qualified to comment, and in any case the RFC was dominated by walls of text from you. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy, please stop casting aspersions. Your comment "I do not think you are actually qualified to comment" is hurtful, and unwarranted.  I would never say anything like that to you. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  17:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You insist on taking this personally. It is not personal. Wikipedia aspires to be a reliable encyclopaedia, therefore we reflect the consensus of reality-based sources. You have consistently over several weeks now advocated the legitimacy of laetrile, a quack cancer treatment that is not only refuted, it is one of the few that has been vigorously prosecuted by the medical authorities in the USA. You plead that his advocacy is not conspiracy theorising, but the very book in whihc he does it, posits a conspiracy by the medical establishment to suppress the "fact" that "vitamin B17" deficiency causes cancer, and that laetrile therefore cures it. That's a conspiracy theory, and one based on fundamental errors of fact.
 * Along with that, you have consistently downplayed the overwhelming consensus that the Zionist conspiracy, New World Order, 9/11 Truth, chemtrails and other ideas for which Griffin is known, are (a) wrong and (b) conspiracy theories. Every time you address one of his ideas, you do so form a standpoint that is substantially outr of line with the real-world consensus view. Your best course is to shrug and leave the article. Your worst course is to claim that you're being oppressed and attacked, because you aren't: you're merely advocating content, at enormous length in some cases, that has no place on Wikipedia. You seem to want to turn the article into a GA by removing all reference to the fact that every word he's published appears to be paranoid conspiracist twaddle. A genuinely good article would not downplay that fact. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not downplayed anything, and you need to stop spreading lies and casting aspersions about me. I have asked you politely to please stop but you continue to ignore my requests.
 * It is with much regret that I must now make this a warning to advise you that if you do not stop, I will file an AE to have you TB. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? You might want to think long and hard about that. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not really. That isn't at all who I am, and I believe the same about you.  It just saddens me that we are at odds.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On this, at least, we are as one. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder
Would you mind slightly re-phrasing your close? As it stands, it looks like it could apply to state legislators, when the proposal (explicitly) only applied to U.S. Representatives (i.e. federal legislators). Thanks. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Griffin: Please discuss content, not contributors
Please discuss content, not contributors. I am going to start taking action on this pretty soon. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you void the prior RfC consensus about not naming folks who have no biographical value?
Your close at Template talk:Infobox officeholder is being interpreted to mean that this edit is what you believe should be implemented. My read of your close indicated no such extreme change, and that you did not find the prior strong consensus to suddenly be void, nor did the convoluted wording of this RfC seem to envision any such edits that I can see. In fact, I suggest that you emend the close to state that rash edits are unwise as the strong arguments and the prior RfC indicate. The speed of the absurd Rangel edit indicates that such should be strongly worded indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read User_talk:Newyorkbrad noting Kraxler is blatantly edit warring on the Rangel page. and saying he will take me straight to AN/I. ("this was done according to the expressly stated instructions in the closing rationale, one more revert and the thing goes to ANI, directly") Note my clearly rhetorical question therein. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. That seems to go well beyond the cautious approach I advocated. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services again
Dear Guy, our not feeding the troll doesn't seem to have the desired effect. Please, take a look. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits and your enlightening comments. Cheers, WeatherFug (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey
Thanks for closing the RfC there. Just to clarify the situation, it wasn't a matter of one editor doing X and another editor doing Y in response, it was, in fact, one editor replacing images with their own (X) and then opening an RfC (Y) when the replacement drew objections. It happened on three or four articles. Best, BMK (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OIC. Well, that makes sense, and also explains the toys being thrown out of the pram. Matters not, it was not a hard one to judge form the comments. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Thanks for solving the uncontroversial issue. Can you please add these two uncontroversial Infobox items too (both ref to CIA) that I was trying to add in order to complete the Infobox, when the article got protected:

|official_languages = Bosnian (official), Croatian (official), Serbian (official) a

|religion = 40% Islam

31% Orthodox

15% Catholic

14% Atheism and other

Thanks again! Sevvyan (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please use editprotected on Talk, it needs ot be seen by other editors of the article. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't, as the Talk seems corrupted: look at my 3 attempts to post unblocking requests (scroll to bottom). Their fonts are all messed up, and when you click the "edit" tabs some nonsense text is displayed that looks like random excerpts from the article. Sevvyan (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did you now remove the Inbox's internal reference to the footnote a, instead of entering the above CIA ref stating country's official languages? Sevvyan (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it was a footnote without a number. Your editoprotected requests appear to be showing up on the talk page. I checked that, and while doing so noticed the stray a. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then please see my comment in the Talk and restore the Official Languages entry in the Infobox (where you left "a" alone by mistake, and then removed "a" altogether also by mistake). You can use the CIA ref again for the Official Languages entry, as it clearly marks Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian languages as the official ones. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Xenoglossy page issue
Please remove the semi-protection from this page and stop blocking us from revising this page. Stop this destructive supervision please.74.195.244.87 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been going at it since November at least... frankly, you need to find something else to do. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What part of "no" are you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 18:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy (JzG), you say "NO" to people not based on Wikipedia policy but based on your personal taste. If you can't do it right, let the other people do it. You don't have to have so much in your plate that you can't handle. You are really making Wikipedia a worse place than better. REmove the Semi-protection and comply with Wikipedia policy of proper referencing and editing. You can be a much better administrator than you are now. Think hard about what I said.74.195.244.87 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED
Looking at your and Collect's user contributions, and at the history of the talk page at G. Edward Griffin, I saw that you have been interacting at that highly contentious venue for some time prior to your recent close of an RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder where Collect was the main opposer. Besides you closed the RfC 15 minutes after your immediately previous edit. I don't believe that it is possible to read intellegently through the 2 previous RfCs which had a direct bearing on the discussion, and the actual RfC, checking out the links, and come to a learned conclusion. Besides, your closing rationale was questionably worded (what do you mean by "suck and see"????), partly struck through and ambiguously worded, so that it triggered even more controversy. As a courtesy, I offer you now to do the following: Unclose the RfC, delete your rationale and the subsequent comments thereto, and refrain from making any further comments about it, essentially returning to the status quo ante as of February 23. The section header is meant as a hint. Kraxler (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Um -- I posted here for input as to what his intentions were in the close. Why this post?  If you are accusing us of tag-teaming on Griffin, I really would love to see you make the claim at AN/I.   If you are accusing him of admin misconduct as WP:INVOLVED, then post at ArbCom noticeboards.  Please!   Collect (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is entirely Guy's decision. He's an admin, and is held as such to the highest standards of prpriety. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, at this time. On the contrary, I'm willing to let it go, and start from the status quo ante, without prejudice. Kraxler (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In short -- you are accusing him of being WP:INVOLVED on a template issue because he and I have both edited the same BLP page where there is absolutely no conceivable evidence that the two are related, or that our edits are related in any way whatsoever - right? And where that BLP page does not have the WP:INVOLVED template at all?   I suggest you note that I have edited   well over 5,500 pages, and JzG has edited  over 27,000 pages.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You'd probably find it hard to locate any busy Wikipedian with whom I have had no interaction, after seven or more years with the mop. You're welcome to request a review of the close if you like. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy, may I inquire how you became aware of the existence of the RfC? It's not something one stumbles over by chance. And, how many RfCs have you closed this year, so far? Please provide links, if there are any. Kraxler (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do you think? . Now stop making a fool of yourself. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to quote from WP:Admin accountability: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." And now I'd like to repeat my second question: How many RfCs have you closed this year, so far? Please provide links, if there are any. Kraxler (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your question shows clear ill-faith and is clearly vexatious as I have responded fully on the relevant Talk page - the fact that you don't like it, is your problem not mine.
 * At the top of the admin noticeboard is a backlog list. It exists in no small part because those admins who do from time to time decide to try and deal with the backlog, spend the next month responding to querulous demands from disappointed partisans on their Talk page.
 * I have next to no interest in the topic (making me an ideal closer, whether my close is itself good or bad) and I've indicated how you can proceed from here, I gave three options if memory serves, and I am pretty sure that continuing to hector me here was not one of them. Goodbye. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraxler WP:Admin accountability does not mean you get to interrogate people. If you want to know how many RfCs this person closed this year you can find out right here. Given your tone don't be surprised if you don't get the warmest of receptions. Chillum 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * RE Chillum: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions" seems to indicate that one can indeed ask questions. How to answer them is their choice, of course, I'll have to take what I can get. Besides, this is only preliminary to an ANI report that will come later today, or tomorrow. I'm not hectoring anybody, on the contrary, I was expressly asked to request a review of the close, as you can see in the first post by Guy in this section. My tone remains civil and appropriate to the occasion, I didn't invite anybody to "suck it and see" and I didn't call anybody a fool. Kraxler (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You already had a civil and prompt response. Then you went off the deep end. At that point, all bets are off. Now go and take your crusade somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I shall certainly do so. I'm a little busy right now IRL, but I think tomorrow or on Sunday I can finish my research, and request the review of your closure, as asked for, at the appropriate venue. See you soon. Kraxler (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I hereby notify you of my request for review of your closure, see the pertaining thread at AN. Feel free to comment, if you like. Kraxler (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had already done so before you left that note. Your summary is somewhat partisan, I note. Don't expect your words to be taken at face value, we admins are suspicious bastards. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Article Titles
Please make a small change to this close AT is a policy not a guideline. Using guideline is likely to be confusing once this section is archived and read in the future by editors who were not involved in the debate. -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I am old fashioned. Policy is WP:5P and a tiny handful of extensions such as WP:NLT and WP:BLP. Any rule that can be ignored with impunity isn't what I call a policy. However, I will tweak the wording. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:Grey line close
Hi, Guy. Though there's no consensus to delete, would you not say that there's consensus to diligently orphan the template? That is to say, that it should be kept for the convenience of translators. I'd like to replace (most) transclusions of it, for the reasons I've mentioned at the TfD, but doing so without 'remit' is likely to be seen as disruptive. Alakzi (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'd say there was no consensus for any wholesale action. Make a better, more focused proposal. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Alakzi (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

...
Hi, any chance you could comment on the ANI thread? It's probably not likely it will lead to a block at this point (it's entered TLDR territory) but if I could get more eyes on this guy's behaviour (over a dozen other users have weighed in on the issue on the talk pages, all of them taking my side, but none sticking around long enough to help much). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Category:Deaths from surgical complications
Please see and reply at your convenience. Thanks. Quis separabit? 15:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi
Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of amended RfC
There is an RfC related to paid editing on which you commented or !voted, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Enough I think
Hi Jzg, I think that not is far you block the variation of company name because my mistake. It was a mistake, not was my intention save the page again and make them live. So I think that you action is too much... Thanks. Johnf1982 (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Deaths from surgical complications
Just a reminder that the redlinked categories remain on article pages after the category was CFDed. Yours, Quis separabit?  19:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to help me get it properly listed, I am still trying to work it out, the bot changed ages ago I think. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So what do we do? What do you mean by "properly listed"? I am afraid I have never worked with bots before. Yours, Quis separabit?  17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Great work (see ) and thanks. Now I can update my watchlist. Yours, Quis separabit?  14:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't claim any credit, whoever got it listed properly for Cydebot deserves your thanks, not me. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussions on TP
I thought the purpose of discussions on TP was to work things out. You explain your position (which I disagree with), and I explain my position (which you disagree with). During that exchange there may be an editor who can come up with a solution that appeases both sides. That's usually how it works, isn't it? At least that has been my experience at all but one article. On what grounds would such a discussion cause an ArbCom? I have not made any disruptive edits on the article. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it's you stating your belief as fact and me pointing out where you are wrong and what the consequences may be if you continue asserting your incorrect view as fact. The issue is that you will not accept the answer "no" and instead adopt the standard POV-pusher technique of keep asking until you get an answer you like, or have driven everyone else away.
 * It is time to start breaking the logjam. As a first move, I am asking for independent review of some of your preferred sources, starting with geoengineeringwatch (see WP:RSN). Then, if you continue to refuse to start and RfC proposing your changes, I will start the RfC myself. It is long past time you dropped your crusade and I ahve had enough of patiently explaining it to you. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI followup
So are you going to start treating editors respectfully per WP:ADMINACCT or not? NE Ent 02:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, JzG, have you stopped beating your wife? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * NE Ent: please post diffs when you make a accusation. Thank you. I don't know why you think Guy was being rude. . Jehochman Talk 05:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll put my hands up to being sarcastic, rude even, short, firm to the point of bluntness. There are only three people I have encountered on Wikipedia who I do not respect as people, one is banned indefinitely, one rarely edits and one I avoid. Some people think that challenging their ideas is disrespectful. They are nice people but lousy Wikipedians. A few people stalk me from time to time looking to cause drama and rake up grudges. I don't bear grudges, I find this behaviour hard to understand, I've had endless arguments with Andy Mabbett, and I think he's a prince of a bloke, Dan Tobias and I gave had stand up fights on Wikipedia, but we follow each other on social media and I find his comments often thought provoking.
 * Wikipedia is text based and the accusations fly thick and fast, few people bother to ask why something was done, preferring to fill in their own narrative. Did the IP at ANI react to rejection of their text by discussion here or on the talk page? No. After reinserting it until I stopped them, they ran to the drama board. I'd happily have coached them on sourcing if they'd asked, as would others at the article talk page. But no.
 * apparently I am supposed to show a respectful response to vexatious arguments from people pushing a POV. Perhaps it's time for another wikibreak, because this is supposed to be a hobby, not the Spanish Inquisition. Guy (Help!) 06:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are. In a recent principle, arbcom explained: "Administrators are expected to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. This requirement is not lessened by perceived or actual shortcomings in the conduct of others." NE Ent 11:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I respect people as people. That does not mean that I treat all claims or statements as inherently correct or equally deserving of consideration, but all edits and all ideas are always open to question, and that is as it must be.
 * Some people think that challenging their belief in something, is disrespectful. They are wrong.
 * And now I think it's probably best to leave it since comments by others in threads where you're involved, plus Jehochman's point above, are leading me to question whether you are an honest broker in disputes with admins. I have no desire to start becoming cynical about your motives, so let's leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Did the IP at ANI react to rejection of their text by discussion here or on the talk page? No. After reinserting it until I..." That is not a fair assertion. I did bring it to the talk page. Regardless, the issue is closed in my view. You are on the talk page now. I do not want to post on a 'drama board' as you say. Its clear that as an admin you have plenty of critics. Naturally, in your duties you run into people who will never view your administrative contributions as valid. Just because some of those users do not present things in a fair way, does not excuse you to lower the bar. As I have observed above and on other pages, some of the rhetoric you use could be a bit more accurate. The name calling accusations directed at yourself are just too pedantic for me. It only contributes to the drama atmosphere. We all say things sometimes. Lets just try to maintain a modicum of accuracy in rhetoric. I'll politely ask you not to misrepresent things like above. I think for my own use of the site, I would rather wait and see if you can give any future sources a fair shake. Anything less would be unfair to you, and as someone who is appealing for fairness - you get the idea.36.252.1.157 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WOT Services part 3
Troll with the ever changing Nepalese IP re-inserted a passage you removed, designating his/her monologues as a "discussion". Diff. Strange, isn't it. Best, WeatherFug (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.36.252.1.178 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd how the anon is prepared to do absolutely anything to include this content other than provide reliable independent sources. Which is the only thing that will work. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job. You taught me some valuable lessons. Hope I wasn't the only one. Respectfully, WeatherFug (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Griffin
The 1RR per week restriction has expired. Callanecc imposed it on February 10th for one month; we're beyond that now. In that context, I'd encourage consideration of whether RAN's reverts today should be allowed to stand. I've already informed him that he has exceeded 3RR at this point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)