User talk:JzG/Archive 110

RFC close
Hi Guy. Thanks for taking the time out to close the RFC at Talk:Christina, Queen of Sweden. Unfortunately, the close seems to have led to more consternation. Many of us didn't (refused to) participate in the RFC on the basis that it was invalid and was part of a long pattern of POV-pushing from one particular editor (who was at ANI at the same time for the same thing, in addition to edit-warring). As a result of the lack of participation, that editor now believes your close supports his position and has started edit-warring again to impose his anti-LGBT agenda in the article. I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Really, the RFC (which wasn't a valid RFC) should have been closed as "no action" which is exactly the direction the ANI thread was going. Anything you could do to make your close clearer would be much appreciated.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Open an RfC in which people are prepared to engage, then. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Days after an invalid one that was validated-by-closure? I'm not sure that would help prevent edit-warring. But thanks for having a look and for the response (here and there). The clarity there should at least work to discourage some disruption.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The original was narrow. Ask a better question, it's all good. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please revert your closure of Reliable sources/Noticeboard
How is it neutral of the BBC to ignore the majority of what their various interviewees say and go their own sweet way and then to compound this with an actual misrepresentation of content that their interviewees have directly presented? I do not agree with your, I think, judgemental interpretation that I would "shoot myself in the foot" and, in any case, this is not your judgement to make. In effect you shot the thread down with deliberate certainty.

I would be grateful if you could please revert this close. GregKaye 06:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me think about that for a moment.
 * No. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit on the Chanticleer Article


You edited the list of notable people on the Chanticleer article, based on your knowledge of Wikipeida's definition of "notable". Keep in mind, "notable people" can be used to describe those worthy of attention or notice, or those who may be remarkable. Your edit was superfluous, unnecessary, and deleted content carefully compiled by knowledgeable people. This list was not erroneous, why change it?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.185.64 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't keep laundry lists of non-notable individuals. And that's despite my own view that Matthew Curtis is indeed notable. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Murun
I agree with your last tag, but the first two seem a little harsh. Though either way, the article's in poor shape. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a personal essay written from observing the primary sources. Which is a shame, because the subject is actually rather interesting. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Message to Jacob A. Henderson
JzG I noticed you have recently commented to me says that Wikipedia is not to promote religious dogmas though I have done nothing of the sort. I am trying to display facts about Kent Hovind that are able to be known by anyone who has watched his videos. I his videos he provides scientific evidence, quotes, theories, and biblical scriptures to validate the bible. If you say he is not doing so, then you are implying that all his videos are non-existant which is simply wrong.

I am not trying to promote any religious beliefs, I am only trying to tell the truth.Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, he provides religious dogma. A dogma not even shared by most Christians. If you are unable to distinguish dogma from science, even after reading the article, then you are not competent to edit the article. The article goes into some detail as to the comprehensively refuted status of his claims. His claims about geology and the origins of life are no more valid than his beliefs on tax law. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your jerkiness
You don't go overwriting Talk secnames that I opened, without good reason - and you had no good reason. If you have an opinion to express, that isn't the way to do it. (And I think you already know that, if you know anything from being an admin. But mostly I think you just like to assert your jerkiness, which explains the infamous Internet reputation you have. Why don't you quit the fuck trying to bait me, asshole? IHTS (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A change was justified. Maybe that was a bit much, but your version was outright false. Striking the word was an option which left your original wording in place, but the last change (removal) was the best solution. Too bad you didn't take the high road and do it yourself. These nasty personal attacks are going to be your undoing. It reveals a childish, primitive, and petty mentality. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @IHTS Please provide diffs in messages such as these.  I also have great concerns about the editing behaviour of this admin and if I/we/others are to take to ANI, it is so much easier if diffs are readily available.  I hope your editing becomes more relaxed soon.  DrChrissy  (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you really don't. I think I may have has as much as one brief exchange with you in the nine years or so since I joined this project. I don't have a lot of patience for quackery apologia. See Lunatic charlatans for evidence that I am not alone in this. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't get to assert that a study is independent when it isn't. I had good reason. I was making a point. The current title is neutral, yours wasn't because you don't check your bias at the door, mine wasn't because I was deliberately making a point about your advocacy.
 * Baiting? Not so much. You need to back off form that article, because you have clearly drunk of the kool-aid. Burzynski is the very worst kind of quack: he blamed the parents of one of his victims for stopping her treatment in the final weeks of her life, to spare her the appalling side-effects. Think about that for a minute. He defrauded the family of large sums of money, gave them false hope, inflicted a worthless treatment that made her even sicker, and then blamed them when she died of the disease he wasn't curing. Oh, and he also gave them his two signature lines: misdiagnosing the regression of pseudoprogression as therapeutic effect, and asserting that ischaemic necrosis was the tumour "dying from the inside" due to his treatment, and that this was a good sign.
 * I don't know you from a hole in the ground, but I know Burzynski rather well. I do not think very much of him, or his cult of personality, or his many internet shills.
 * So my suggestion to you is: stop advocating for this quack, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy you seem to feel that every time a user makes an edit that you disagree with, they are automatically a "quack". Try standing back and look at the edit without that preconceived idea.  You might find that people are actually improving articles. DrChrissy  (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not in the least. I don't think you are a quack, I think you are a person who is naively advocating quackery and is therefore likely to get caught in the crossfire between Wikipedia and the endless parade of quackery shills who come here to try to "correct" our coverage of quackery. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide one single instance where I am "naively advocating quackery". Just one!  DrChrissy  (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your input to Acupuncture, seeking to cast doubt on the quality of the Cochrane reviews (thread shown here: ). There are Cochrane reviews with which I passionately disagree, but I don't dispute their quality without reliable independent sources tot hat effect, because Cochrane is generally high quality.
 * Now, I apologise if I have misread your intent, but it appears to me to be in line with the ages-long attempts by acupuncture believers to recast our article in terms more friendly to their beliefs, whereas in fact the science is headed in the opposite direction (hence the need to invent "integrative medicine", to crowbar scientifically unsupported quasi-religious treatments into medical practice). Guy (Help!) 16:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. You're correct about the doc naively advocating quackery, but isn't it just normal newbie behaviour? It'll improve, given some experience here. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy I have absolutely no opinion regarding the efficacy of acupuncture. None whatsoever.  Your diff points to me questioning a point of editorial behaviour/content.  Just because I might disagree with an edit that happens to be against your POV does not make me an enemy and it certainly does not make me a quack!  It makes me an editor concerned about editorial process. DrChrissy  (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's what the "naively" part is about. Someone could "naively" and in good faith argue that our coverage of geodesy is biased toward the round-earth view, and needs more emphasis on flat earth. That doesn't necessarily mean they're a flat earther. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, they could simply be discussing (naively or not) whether an edit conforms to the expectations of Wikipedia editing, without any view or comment on their own point of view on the subject matter. A neutral edit.  They can actually happen! DrChrissy  (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's theoretically possible. It is also theoretically possible for all the molecules of air in the room to move to the corners leaving a vacuum in the middle. Possible. Just not terribly likely. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

comments unbecoming of an admin
You recently added a comment here to my request for an apology from another user. Your intervention was completely inflammatory and designed only to fan flames. My original posting was 8 days ago! As expected, I did not receive an apology from the user. That, for me, was the end of the matter. Why do you wish to start provoking me? DrChrissy (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a common view on Wikipedia that forced apologies are worthless, and that demanding one makes you look petty and ridiculous. If that's the reputation you want for yourself go right ahead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. I had requested (not demanded) the apology, it was not forthcoming, so I had dropped the issue.  The issue now is the inflammatory intervention by JzG - see WP:Mind your own business.  Please keep your comments to the subject of the thread. DrChrissy  (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you should let JzG manage his own talk page and define what he considers appropriate discussion, rather than attempting to do so yourself. If JzG asks me not to post on this topic (or not to post at all) I will of course honor that request. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like stoats William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Close this discriminatory anti ferret thread. It is against Talk page guidelines. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's toatally out of order. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually it was not offered as an admin but as an experienced Wikipedian. Your input to our articles on fowl is excellent. Your input to our articles on quackery, not so much. You might also want to read WP:QUACKS. You're welcome to ask for advice if you like, but my immediate thought would be: stick to what you know. You're good at it. Jytdog, on the other hand, is good at holding back the never-ending tide of bullshit from quackery shills. Horses for courses, or perhaps ducks for ponds. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are repeating a personal attack - again not the sort of behaviour I would expect from an admin. Your original intervention was uncalled for, unwelcome and a personal attack. Please explain your behaviour. DrChrissy  (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weasels are cute, too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear unable to distinguish forthright advice from personal attacks. The problem is your end. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is your end. You have suggested that my editing on certain pages is below the standard required by Wikipedia.  Please provide the diffs to support this personal attack. DrChrissy  (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * keep digging. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a refusal to provide evidence to substantiate your personal attacks? DrChrissy (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's a refusal to play silly buggers with a troll. Bye. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Clearly you are not willing to provide evidence to support your personal attacks. DrChrissy  (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi JzG, interesting topic, how come you lot can get away with such language and frankness? When an admin was acting insane I called him insane, and then in revenge I was humiliated, posts deleted, reported and threatened! Wish I could say bu11shit freely like you can JzG. I'm trying to learn how to say 'that sentence you wrote is so illogical it is insane', rather than calling a spade a spade. Have a nice day! Zxcv9 (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

DING DING DING! Congratulations! Your service award has advanced!
I just check X!'s tool and you have crossed the 78,000 edit line. Along with your 10 years of service you are now a Master Editor IV (or Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia) and may now display your new service award.

Congratulations again! (Please continue to enjoy the drama while occasionally making an encyclopedia.)

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BLow me! I never noticed. Thank you for that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider
Please reconsider your close on Andreas Lubitz, instead of an AN request I'd rather ask for you to reconsider it seems more reasonable. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME state "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" and "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". I've mentioned this in the DRV. RoySmith believed that AN is more appropriate. There was a guideline based policy for retaining the information which leads me to believe no consensus was formed, your closing statement stated so itself. Please reconsider. Valoem  talk   contrib  22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I already did. I concluded much the same second time (and it would be amazing if I did not, human cognitive bias being what it is). Try asking someone else. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough, would you object if I ask DGG to reclose the discussion? (I haven't pinged him do not know if he is interested). Or simple yet reopening discussion with your permission. Valoem   talk   contrib  23:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Recruiting a specific admin who has already expressed an opinion? Bad idea. I trust DGG implicitly, but recruiting him by name is likely to backfire. The backlog list works on the "cab rank" principle, use that maybe.. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only way I would be able to close this decision is if I closed against my own opinion, recognizing that the consensus was opposed to my view. I have done that a number of times, usually in the hope of making  it clear that the matter had been settled decisively. In this case I think JzG's close was wrong, and subsequent publications have demonstrated so; therefore of course I cannot close a disputed discussion in support of my own view. JzG, is you didn't notice, he as a person was the subject of a first page NYT story last week.     DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can reopen it if there are no objections, the best way would be go through AN for a random uninvolved editor. A few more source could be added to the discussion. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I intensely dislike the "keep asking until you get the answer you like" approach to Wikipedia articles. I can't stop you, but my recommendation is to wait a couple of months and see if any kind of historical perspective begins to develop out there in the real world. Either way, I'd rather not know about it, so I think we are done, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not what I am trying to do, I feel the answer could be better addressed given sources provided. I understand where you are coming from. In someways I agree, and you are definitely not alone in your views. Some editors believe that having articles on perpetrators of heinous crimes in someway glorifies their actions. On the contrary I feel the opposite is true, the only way to prevent something such as this going forward is to understand it which requires documentation. It is especially true when the event is current, more sources can be provided with greater detail due to sheer interest and input from multiple editors. After several months of expansion we can look at the article and see if it has stood the test of time, logically I feel this is more efficient. Anyways, I hope we agree on somethings, if you don't mind can you or DGG remove full protection from the redirect I am going to reopen discussion. I'll leave you out of it going forward as requested. Sorry for any troubles. Valoem   talk   contrib  02:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannotdo it, being involved.JZG can if he wants, as he originally placed it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved per RoySmith request, I feel that you are a reasonable and rational person, given this here is my logical breakdown why the most vital time to retain this article is now not three month down the road. Currently this person is receiving intense continuous coverage participating editors are most likely to expand this article when the event is ongoing, so the true growth potential is maximized now. The optimal way to handle this is expansion for the current year and reevaluation in the future. I hope you agree, but I will gladly listen to opposition. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You had an RFC, and an AFD and a DRV and still you want to keep beating this dead horse. Guy's advise is wise and sensible and we will have a much clearer basis to establish a clear consensus after some intervening time. Have you read the essay about dropping the stick? Spartaz Humbug! 18:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Spartaz have I been unreasonable about this? I chose not to AN this because that's always a mess, plus Guy personal bias is understandable. If he truly disagrees then I will drop it for now, but I certainly did point out legitimate reasons did I not? I did not make a big stink of this talking to the editor directly engaging him in discussion with reasonable approach is how we should operate. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously you are being unreasonable. At what point will you accept that community process has gone against you? Seriously? If you are to be a successful editor you have to learn that process doesn't always go your way but you seem unable to accept this when it happens. Its got nothing to do with right or wrong, just the amount of disruption that re-arguing the same case causes by drawing in other editors to a subject that is already closed. If you carry on then at some point someone is going to start questioning whether you are a net negative - and this would be a real shame because you are keen and energetic and trying to do what you think is right. Its just that occasionally you have to accept that process doesn't give you the right answer - sometimes not even half the time.... Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Spartaz I am very active right now so I'll respond quickly, I do not believe in bias on Wikipedia, it is very clear to me that is person is notable. If you think I am sticking this I would gladly AN, but I think that Guy is an editor whose bluntness I respect. For example he believes that Global warming skepticism is in fact Global Warming denialism and he is correct here, but has not made the appropriate argument to favor this change, I feel that I could change this throughout Wikipedia with help. The same is with you, your closure of Allied Wallet is in fact correct canvassing did indeed have an affect I've overturned it in your favor, I hope you understand that now is the time to have an article for progressive expansion. Let me know if I am wrong. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you are wrong. Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I am going to clarify for both Spartaz and Guy because of this comment. I believe I am correct based on policy which is why I am pursuing this, a simple "you are wrong" doesn't cut the muster, but more specifically, I have only participated once in this discussion and was not involved the in the original merge discussion. I did not bring this to DRV, so I'd like to give this a shot. I thought this way would waste less time for everyone. It has not worked out, I will revisit in the future ... for the first time. Valoem   talk   contrib  00:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You are going to pursue it because you did not get the answer you wanted and will not accept any clarification that does not move you towards the answer you want. You won't accept "no", you won't accept "wait", you won't drop the stick. Feel free to continue pursuing your crusade, but leave me out of it please. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)