User talk:JzG/Archive 131

corpsicle
you recently deleted the "offensive term" sentence due to the citation, which someone went to the bother to obtain 8+ years ago. I'd go with a "well, duh" citation but it's not good WP. No idea why this was important to you.

Meanwhile I would like to note the proximity of the term's creation 5 years after cryonics' appearance/splash in the public eye in 1964. Robert Ettinger has details. He in turn was inspired by an SF author. But I cba to make the effort if it's just going to be deleted as superfluous. Mother may I?Ukrpickaxe (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As a member of the tiny minority for whom the fictional term causes cognitive dissonance, I am certain you would think "well, duh". But this is Wikipedia, and we need robust sourcing. Reality-based sourcing, that is, not the fantasy world of "cryonics". Guy (Help!) 00:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI
As you've dealt with two of the nine previous instance of a Zeke1999 reincarnation would you mind reviewing this one? It would be easier for an experienced admin than someone who had to begin learning this history from square one. LavaBaron (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Micronations
Hi Guy. There's a proposed guideline that you voted against a while back (2008) called WP:MICROCON. I want to tidy up the micronations pages, and that policy would be very useful, specifically the bit that says: "a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years."

That'd give us a clear reason to remove a bunch of the more spurious ones. "Main subject" removes any news-of-the-wierd cites, and the multiple countries part ensures we don't have to deal with things like multiple mention in local newspapers. As things stand at the moment, we have to discuss notability on every add, and no one is addressing the existing entries on pages like List of micronations.

Anyway, this proposed policy looks more prescriptive than the current situation, which I'd have thought fits with your preferences. Is that correct? Any idea how I can get this approved? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, on the face of it, a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years is simply reiterating the General Notability Guideline. I have a pet peeve with people who think that subject-specific notability guidelines, which indicate the kinds of subject likely to meet the GNG, are instead a replacement for the GNG, and meeting these criteria automatically confers notability. I would burn them all, frankly. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The suggested criteria looks to me to be stricter than GNG, as GNG does not require "multiple countries", nor does it require "over a period of years", or the subject to be the "main subject", which is a higher standard than the "significant coverage" that GNG requires.  I'd suggest that GNG makes allowance for this sort of policy in the "Presumed" bullet; having the guideline just means we don't need to debate for every possible micronation whether, for example, three articles in two local papers and one brief mention in a foreign is enough.
 * If I was to re-propose it, are there any places where I should advertise to make sure it gets enough attention from people like yourself, rather than just those who are watching the WikiProject Micronations page? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really sure, ask at WP:CENT talk I guess. I would simply reflect te GNG myself, not extend past it. Most of the no-hopers are abject failures on that basic test IIRC. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons & the like...
I know you want nothing to do with it, and I understand your frustration but certain things need to be changed regarding the way images are being handled because most of the problems arise from those editors (including some admins) who are unfamiliar with copyright laws. As a result, they are speedy deleting images that should not be deleted. At the very least, they are creating major time sinks and frustrated veteran users because of the sloppy system. You have the experience and wherewithal to at least guide me in the right direction if you are willing. If not, I understand. Atsme 📞📧 19:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Atsme, I'm very familiar with image use policies and copyright issues, so feel free to ask me at my own talk, if you want. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate Commons. They have a long history of being complete dicks - for example flatly refusing to delete images of private individuals who do not want the pictures made available. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Articles
Hi,

I just wanted to know why the articles "NIKSUN, Inc." and "Parag Pruthi" were deleted. If possible, could you provide me with the source code of "NIKSUN, Inc." so that I could remedy any issues you had with it?

Best,

Cyber defend (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your connection with these subjects? Guy (Help!) 13:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I work in the industry and have attended many of those symposiums. I don't work for the company but I do admire the work they have done to advance the field. Just thought it would be nice to help document them for the public record. I haven't really edited Wikipedia before but I assumed it would be a great place to do so and this would be a good topic for me to start with!

Cyber defend (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Any update on this?

Best,

Cyber defend (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations that I have lied about you.
In this diff you accuse me of telling lies about you, that you have taken me to a noticeboard and "they" (presumably the community) agreed with you. Please can you provide evidence of such an interaction. DrChrissy (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody loves a hypocrite. Go away. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are an administrator. I am raising a legitimate concern about your editing about other editors. Please address this. DrChrissy (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your lies about me - revisited
Of course we all know that we can all do pretty much as we wish with your own talk page, however, I have asked you a legitimate question about you telling lies about me. As an administrator and editor, you have a responsibility to answer me, not simply delete the thread I raised. Please give me a direct answer. DrChrissy (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Please be advised I have raised a question at WP:AN regarding your behaviour. The thread title is "Advice please". DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for NIKSUN, Inc.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of NIKSUN, Inc.. 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. Cyber defend (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please undo your changes
Today, you went through many of the edits I have made and deleted them. I would understand, that if you thought I was self-promoting, that you would delete the citations of my own articles. However, you went through and deleted significant portions of text with dozens of citations of many authors (e.g., 129,814 bites and 131,186 bites on the PTSD page). I spent a good deal of time trying to improve pages on wiki about topics I am an expert in (e.g., PTSD, interpersonal trauma, benzodiazepines), hoping it would help clinicians, researchers, trainees, and most importantly patients. As a psychiatrist, I have only ever edited topics I am very familiar with, and included some of my research and reviews because they are relevant. I read the policies you cited and I in no way see how I was in violation. I would appreciate that if you could at least justify your reasoning. If you are really sure I am self-promoting, I ask that you return the pages the way they were but without my articles' citations. Otherwise, I think you are doing a real disservice to readers, which I am sure was not your reasonable intentions. Thank you Jg16540 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)jg16540
 * Today I went through a number of articles into which you had added references to your own work and removed them. I also advised you on what to do if you want your work cited on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You say on this very page that you are willing to talk, but you won't. Please tell me which specific words of the policies I violated. According the the policies I read, you can reference your own work as long as it is relevant and not excessive. It seems to me Wikipedia would want experts in their field to make these pages stronger and include their research when relevant. I cited my papers (again, relevant, helpful and the only topics I feel comfortable commenting on) alongside dozens of other relevant and helpful citations. In a matter of minutes, you deleted several hours of work I put into making these pages as useful for clinicians, trainees and patients as possible. I think it warrants a rational explanation. Wikipedia is one of the first things patients and trainees use to learn about mental health conditions and treatments so I feel very passionately about making it accurate and useful for them. Jg16540 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)jg16540
 * Here's how it works: if you want your work cited here, propose it on the talk page and let someone else decide. If all of someone's edits to Wikipedia add citations to their own work - which is pretty much the case for you - then that is basically self-promotion. We're not here to boost your citation index. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep failing to respond to my most important point: If you are so confident that I violated a policy (which I did not according to the words you cited), why not delete just the selfpubs but leave all the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg16540 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I already pointed you to Conflict of interest, and pointed out what to do to ethically request cites to your own work. You are now coming across as a spammer. You probably don't want to do that. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not just add back all the sentences/paragraphs and non-selfpub citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg16540 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because then they'd be unsourced. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I must not be communicating well or something. No, they wouldn't be. I really wish you would have read them closely before deleting hours of work. I cited dozens of other papers that are not mine. Why not just add back all the sentences/paragraphs that are cited to other papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg16540 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. You have come here, added your personal opinions supported by your own research, and I have reverted you, because that is what we do when that happens. Sorry you find this so hard to understand. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If by "we" you mean Wikipedia's policies, I would argue that your actions are not in line with Wikipedia's policies. I've been in the military 10 years -- I see people claim to be acting based on policy but not act based on the actual words in the policy. Here are the actual words of the Wikipedia policies:


 * "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."


 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."


 * You claim citing one's own published work is not allowed, but the Wikipedia policy clearly says otherwise. I did not violate the policy because it was relevant, not excessive, and not an exceptional claim (I cited multiple other papers about the same points that my papers made). Once again, I implore you to explain which part of the policy I violated. If you can make your case based on the actual words of policy, than I will admit I am wrong but I still ask that you return all of what I wrote (the vast majority of which was based on citations that were not mine) with only the self-published citations removed. If selfpub is the issue, than delete the selfpubs but not all the other sentences and paragraphs that you are depriving patients and trainees of, and all the changes I made to fix the changes from other editors who used stigmatizing and/or erroneous information about mental health conditions. I worry that in 10 years of doing this you have lost sight of the whole point of Wikipedia: desseminating accurate and complete information. You deleted my edits, not based on the merits of their content, but based on a misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy (again, read the actual words above).--Jg16540 (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the ten years have been an admin here, I have seen thins many times. You have pretty much NO history other than adding references to your own work. Did you ever consider the possibility that you might be reading the policies with an eye to seeing what you want to see, whihc is permission to promte your own work here, and I might be seeing them with an eye to long-standing practice and a decade of experience? Might be time to start doing that I think. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you refuse to actually cite the words in the policy that you are seeing with your "eye." I have tried to very reasonably cite the words as they apply to justify my actions and have asked you to reasonably do the same to justify yours, but you have only cited your authority and threatened to ban me. I even told you that I would be willing to admit I was wrong if you could cite specific words showing I was wrong and merely asked that you return the posts to how they were but without my self-citations, but you continued to ignore and attack. Therefore, I am asking independent administrators to arbitrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg16540 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I cited the words. You have chosen to interpret them in a way that serves your desire to promote yourself. I interpret them otherwise. I have all the expoerience here and none of the motivation to read policy to personal advantage. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You have most definitely not quoted policy yet. Merely citing my own publication does not in and of itself constitute self-promotion or a conflict of interest, and that is based on Wikipedia policy ("Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason"). More importantly, it is not self-promotion because I have repeatedly asked you to just delete my selfpubs but restore the myriad of other sentences/paragraphs which I edited (citing numerous other publications which you threw out with the bathwater). I have never claimed you are motivated by personal advantage. I can only speculate on your motivations (e.g., power? feeling superior? cutting others down to build yourself up? righteous indignation?) but, regardless, you are citing your subjective opinions/experience over the actual words of objective Wikipedia policies. If you are so sure you are right, than please address each of my questions, quote the policy to justify your actions, and consult with other administrators to get their opinions. I am completely willing to admit I'm wrong if you can do all that and demonstrate I am wrong. Are you willing?--Jg16540 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, we're done here. You are determined to cite your own work, that is your sole purpose at Wikipedia, you don't want to hear any reasons why you may not cite your own work, and you consider that your judgment of policy as someone here solely to cite their own work is on a par with mine, a ten year veteran admin. We have nothign more to say to each other. Take it to WP:COIN. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. I guess you've proven my point. I'll ask again, 1) please address each of my questions, 2) quote the policy to justify your actions, and 3) consult with other administrators to get their opinions.--Jg16540 (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

unsalt request at WP:RFUP
Hi - don't know if you have pings turned off but there's a request at RFUP about a page you salted. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 17:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Gorny
I heard you didn't use pings. Here was where you were pingsed CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Alan Bleviss AfD
Hello Guy,

I have expanded and referenced the article. Will you be so kind as to take another look? Thanks. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to speedy close, I'm just cleaning up articles "referenced" to beforeitsnews.com. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the rules of self-published sources?
Colavito is a skeptic of Giorgio and I was going to add a line about Colavito's views. Here's a summary:. But since the book is self-published, it can't be used? Mr. Magoo (talk) 11:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Self-published material should not normally be used (WP:SELFPUB), and in this case there are better alternatives cited for every item as far as I can see. The issue is that a book publisher will normally conduct fact-checking, editorial review and so on, whereas a self-published book, even by someone who is known in the field, could contain any damn thing. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The magazine is pretty much defunct but all I can find to state this are self-published sources. I used web archive to see his store's selection in as far as 2011 and the magazine hasn't been updated since then. Colavito wrote that 2010 was the last time it was updated. Can I use web archive to state this somehow? Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is because he stopped adding year dates to the issues at one point, so one can't use the date of the final release. I only have this . Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I found this: which I think I can use as a primary source as it states 2008 as the latest release. Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for your fantastic work recently in removing unreliable sources from the 'pedia. Much appreciated! Neutralitytalk 21:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hypertext Fiction
Hi, Just a wee note to let you know that I found a publication for the source removed from Hypertext fiction and will add it back in with an updated url in the ref. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, Just as long as it's not the same author, because he's been sockpuppetting and spamming his crap here for years. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Noël Coward
Hi Guy, I've protected the page because of the reverting. I'm wondering whether the RfC should be re-opened. They're normally left open for 30 days unless consensus becomes clear earlier, but at c. 21 yes and 13 no, that's not the case here. SarahSV (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Particularly when many of those 21 probably haven't even looked at the article and have made no attempt to discuss the use of the box at that specific article, as ArbCom tells us we should. Discount those and the ILIKEIT/IEXPECTTOSEEITs and it's a long way short of a strong enough consensus for change. – SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of bad faith betrays your personal investment in infobox warring. It does not make you look good. At all. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no bad faith in pointing out inadequacies with your close. Several neutral, unconnected editors raised similar questions in the ANI thread over the close (which is just one of the reasons it was reopened). To accuse me of bad faith to cover your error does not exactly make you look too good. At all. – Gavin (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The tone of your assertions here and elsewhere demonstrates bad faith bordering on paranoid conspiracism. You urgently need to get a sense of perspective about this. To read your comments, anybody would think that an infobox is a fundamental subversion of Wikipedia. Honestly, to an outsider, it's like reading the ramblings of an antivaxer. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "paranoid conspiracism"? Oh, for fucks sake, considering you are supposed to be an admin, that's a comment so far outside CIVIL it worthy of an ANI trip. Commenting in complete and utter ignorance of the mental health of another editor is low, shoddy and despicable, but I don't really expect much given your actions and comments so far. - Gavin (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, you could try re-reading my comment, this time for comprehension. You have entirely lost your sense of perspective and you are attacking everybody who does not agree with you - the classic True Believer's inability to distinguish the agnostic from the militant atheist. I am not the only person to have noticed your extremely aggressive argufication on this issue. It's WP:NOTTHEM, it's you. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've read it, and it's still an utterly obnoxious comment to make. What a despicable thing to say - I doubt you will feel shame from what you've done, but it's shameful and you really should be ashamed that you—a fucking admin—are acting with less honour than the very lowest form of troll. - Gavin (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy, there seemed to be agreement on AN to re-open the RfC, so I've gone ahead and done that. I'd have preferred to wait until you were back online, but it's been 17 hours or thereabouts, and it's midnight your time, so you're unlikely to be back until morning. I hope this is okay with you. SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Noël Coward
"Importantly, most "outsiders"": i.e. people who haven't bothered to look at the article, don't know the subject and haven't read the arguments put forward. That's a poor close: vote counting ILIKEITs is not good admining. I would add that in contentious situations, where there is supposed to be a solid consensus to change a long-standing status quo, to make a decision that bastardises one of our quality articles on what you describe as a "rough consensus" is sub-standard. As for "this appears to be a minority view", since when did we start ignoring Wikipedia is not a democracy just to force an issue to a personal preference? - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am out and about today, but just quickly: I don't have a personal preference, other than for less of this drama. The point absolutely is that Wikipedia is not a democracy, this should be clear from my closing statement. 12:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:645D:1900:E18C:3528:CE28:FC66 (talk)

Yes, wikipedia isn't a vote. To close that as a consensus to add is bollocks. At AFD if there was such a mixed back it would be closed as "no consensus". Given the amount of people who oppose you can never call that as a consensus to add one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the show was on the other foor (i.e. to remove a long-standing IB, you can guarantee a big pile of cash that the result would have been... to have an IB. There is, rather sadly, an uneven playing field when it comes to IB discussions. The vote-stacking of ILIKEITs is counted and swallowed purely at face value, despite most of the voters (not !voters) turning up and giving a generic answer to the use of the box, rather than specifically addressing the use on that article as ArbCom ruled should be the case. When you take out all those votes who don't address the Coward article, or that give any indication outside the fact they like them/expect to see one on an article, there is absolutely nothing that remotely resembles a consensus to change the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider your closure. Note WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (and the related Talk page), where editors have set up a WikiProject whose goal is to force infoboxes into articles over the objections of the principal content contributors. I think your reasoning in the closure is also wrong: Why would the content contributors' opinion be given less credence than a band of editors who go around trying to force infoboxes into articles? It seems to me clearly a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom infobox case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alas for your desire for less drama. Because a small group of editors at Talk:Noël Coward came to and acted on a consensus that your close was invalid, I've opened a closure review at WP:AN so it can be discussed in the proper venue. Sorry for the trouble. FourViolas (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)