User talk:JzG/Archive 153

Nomination of Christopher Booth (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christopher Booth (disambiguation) 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 Articles for deletion/Christopher Booth (disambiguation) 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. feminist (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just for interest, not a request
Your friend Maximiliano Korstanje seems to have a spiritual brother in Hani Sarie-Eldin. Sitush just pointed me to the continued sock activity. Compare also Draft:Sarie-Eldin & Partners Legal Advisors and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rashakhalifa. (I for my part can't face creating SPIs for this kind of sockfarm, but I've been tagging the socks' pages.) Bishonen &#124; talk 17:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Ugh. Did this one add self-citations to dozens of articles too? Guy (Help!) 21:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that I've seen — that doesn't come so naturally, since the subject isn't primarily a writer (though he has written books, which are listed in the bio with very little ado). But the socks/meatpuppets do keep trying to create another article mainly about the same person, Sarie-Eldin & Partners Legal Advisors, in userspace, draftspace, etc, more or less copypasting this. So the attempts to spread across Wikipedia are there. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC).
 * FWIW, my gut tells me this one passes GNG, albeit perhaps as a scrape-through, but I'm not happy about what has been going on. Things are made more awkward (for me) because I can't read Arabic etc but it seems very similar to a long-term problem with promotion of Birbal Jha. Not that the two are connected but that there is a distinct whiff of promotion in some form or another, be it students or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Guidelines for removal of template
I see that you created the template Undisclosed paid.

Wikimedia received an email through the OTRS system from someone asking the entirely reasonable question about how this template can be removed.

Have we established such guidelines?

I am aware that in the case of many maintenance templates, any editor in good standing can remove the template if they believe that if you cured the problem but it isn't obvious to me how to demonstrate that in this particular case so I think we ought to have some guidelines.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would imagine it would be the same as for any other maintenance template: remove the undisclosed paid content I have seen some demands for removal by th3people who paid for the edits. probably bringing up the specific article at COIN is best. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Jihad Kawas page draftification
Hi, I noticed that you moved the page of Jihad Kawas to Wikipedia draft over the suspicion of sockpuppeting. Can you please redirect me to the sockpuppet investigation? Mr RD  06:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy (Help!) 13:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a WP:COI with this page and cannot edit it directly. Do you think the subject is notable for Wikipedia mainspace? If so, should I submit it to WP:AFC? Mr RD   13:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding outing at COIN
Having seen another editor blocked for violating out WP:OUTING policy at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, I asking for some advice. I have my eyes on an editor who uses what is presumably part of their real name when editing articles. After becoming suspicious about some of their edits, I google-searched for the subject they were editing along with their username and sure enough found results (from both Linkedin and a company's website) that indeed indicate a major conflict of interest exists. I could easily compose an entry at COIN now, but I would like to ask your advice on whether or not I could use links to the search results I found when writing said COIN discussion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * COIN is here --SamHolt6 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained revert
Hello, i have found that you reverted few edits without any explanation.Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati  Speak  10:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Born2Cycle and SJB
Some people can't let go: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lourdes†
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
 * † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news
 * The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
 * Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
 * A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
 * A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news
 * CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
 * The edit filter has a new feature  that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards:, , , ,.

Obituaries
 * Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Bhargav Gajjar
I would like to contest this deletion. The MIT profile has been edited and material on Wikipedia page is authentic and was created first. Bhargav Gajjar has removed wikipedia material from MIT website so the wikipedia article can be republished. Thanks Gujwonwoman (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright was only one problem. The fact that this promotional biography which fails WP:PROF has only ever been edited by accounts with no other interests is also a bit of an issue. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Question
Why did you delete my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teambk (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps is useful. Perhaps JzG will reply more details to you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Alec Potts
Hi there, I'm don't know anything about the Sander.v.Ginkel issue, but you've deleted an article on a bronze medal winning Olympian. Please undelete, draftify or userfy. I'll check it out and make it suitable. The-Pope (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SvG articles are basically dir3ctory entries and often inaccurate, its wuicker to just start again. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to undelete this one. SvG's initial contribution to the article was a single sentence, the rest was added by others. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Transverse abdominis plane block
I took the liberty of removing your Prod of Transverse abdominis plane block, since other sources are easily found eg 1, 2. I agree, the article is not as well sourced as we might like, but hopefully it can be improved. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Cornerstone (statistics software) ‎
Hi there, could you please let me know what I accidentally did wrong. I sadly do not understand what exactly is wrong with the a historical description of a tool with long tradition and a user base of several 1000 active users around the world? Please help me understand and I will improve accordingly. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dortloff (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You accidentally wrote a promotional article about a subject where you have a vested interest. Please see WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comments regarding faith healing and pseudoscience
Hello, you previously participated in a request for comments regarding whether faith healing and whether it is a pseudoscience. I would like to inform you that there is currently an open request for comments that is revisiting this question that you might be interested in participating in. I am notifying everybody who participated in the previous request for comments.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  09:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news
 * Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
 * Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
 * The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
 * The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous
 * A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing other's text
Do not ever edit my talk page text again. I can summarise my own opening post to a lengthy discussion. I have added a signature to clarify that it is my summary. -- Colin°Talk 18:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not ever add a bold tendentious summary above text others have already commented on again. Oh, and also? Go away you boring person. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, are you twelve? Wikipedia has gone way way downhill. -- Colin°Talk 21:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am in my fifties. You on the other hand come across as angry, intolerant, determined to frame a debate to suit your agenda only, and unwilling to assume anything other than bad faith. You bore me. Go away. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Allowing recreation of the page of the physicist Lorenzo Iorio
Hello. Sorry if I bother you here: I am not sure it is the right venue, but I found difficult to sort out where I could do it better. I am contacting you about the case of the italian physicist Lorenzo Iorio. I think that an article on him should be present in Wikipedia. He has over 3200 citations (non-self citations), as per NASA/ADS database, a h-index of 39 (NASA/ADS source), he was cited several times by the Nobel prize 2006 George F. Smoot who is enlisted in the editorial board of a peer-reviewed journal, Universe, directed by Iorio himself. Also the Nobel Prize Kip Thorne cited a work of him in his latest book, and Sir Roger Penrose is enlisted in the editorial board of the journal directed by him. It seems to me that its page was deleted because of sockpuppetry issues, not for truly scientific reasons. Thank you for the attention. Regards. Redwheel (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did he ask you to do this? You have very few edits and this article was re-created many times by accounts with little or no other purpose. I conclude from the evidence that he is desperate to have a page and will do whatever he needs to get one. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for your reply, which I find unsatisfactory. Indeed, it is as if you have some form of personal conflict of interest with hime, or you are, for some reasons, personally biased against him. Indeed, you did not use arguments pertinent to the issue as his notability, scientific merits, etc. Can you explain me, please? Regards.Redwheel (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We are done here. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never understood why some academics so badly want an article. It won't get them more grants, and it won't help them get published in Science or Nature. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An editor named User:L.Iorio, Dr., Ph.D. was banned from Wikipedia by the community in May, 2016 per this discussion. The long-term campaign of promotional editing makes it hard to see clearly the merits of the proposed article. Iorio's own posts at Talk:Frame-dragging do not reflect well on him and you can see the logic behind the community ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Saylor and MIT
Hi Guy, I saw you snipped out the detail about Michael J. Saylor's graduating position from his biographical article. I don't know if you're aware this detail was added after extensive discussion on the talk page early this month. (FYI, I have a financial COI with this topic, as I'm working with Mr. Saylor's company, so I will not edit directly.) My initial request was to replace only the detail about his "top 1%" graduating position; a different editor added the bit about Mr. Saylor being a "hard worker" to which I am not overly attached. Would you be willing to restore the 1% detail? It's properly sourced and not an insignificant accomplishment. If so, I think it would fit well in the first clause of the sentence giving his graduation date. Thanks for your consideration. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware. It is a bit of resume-padding trivial that has no place on Wikipedia. Those of us who edit Wikipedia for love, tend to have a different view of promotional content to those who try to profit from a charitably funded volunteer-run project. For obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, well all right. I mean, I felt a little silly asking about such a narrow point. But then I never thought there was a good reason for taking it out, and the original objection to its restoration made no sense, and then it became a bigger thing. I'll let it go. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Allenroyboy
I presume you noticed Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy but just in case. I saw him last night just before I went to bed and told Bbb23. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you found the emails? --Neil N  talk to me 14:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm adding here what I wrote to Neil. This user has a serious honesty problem and may be a habitual liar. The basis for their appeal may be completely legit for all I know. However I watch this user's page because during the course of a dispute some months ago they led me on wild good chases by lying to me repeatedly. It was a huge waste of time and I don't want to see it happen to anyone else, including you. And it appears that has had a very similar experience.
 * They literally fabricated refs out of thin air to sources that didn't exist and when I asked to see the sources they said they would track them down, then never did, then when they finally admitted that the sources didn't exist, they said they were relying on e-mails they received from so-and-so, then I asked them details about the e-mails and they said they would track them down, then never did, etc. etc.
 * I'm not seeking to get this user in trouble for past behavior, as it was months ago and for all I know an isolated incident, but you should take whatever representations they made with a huge grain of salt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since any final determination must rely on non-public data, I suggest ArbCom. There will be several admins, including me, advocating they take it. 07:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's not really any non-public data relevant to the case. Who the editor is in real life has little bearing on their actions here with respect to copyright. The Schindler photo was a clear copyright violation - whether through carelessness or a hope it wouldn't be caught is the question. --Neil N  talk to me 07:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will read your latest when I am back at my hotel tonight. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , can you please point to this dispute as it will help us to judge the editor's credibility. --Neil N  talk to me 17:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The dispute is scattered across Talk:Lion Guard, but here and here are the two discussions that best demonstrate OberRanks' questionable behavior. I had to pester them repeatedly on their user talk just to get them to answer my questions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

St Edward's School, Oxford
I noticed that you deleted a revision at St Edward's School, Oxford as "Serious BLP violations". There are additional revisions with the exact same content to you may wish to do the same with. Instead of listing all of them for you, it's probably easiest to just look at the contributions of Special:Contributions/Endlesseditor who (as far as I can tell) is the only account adding the content. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, and blocked. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

‎Mark Z. Jacobson
Is there secondary sourcing in there? Everything looked like news reports. Which of them provides secondary coverage of the events in question? Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh? NYT, WaPo and so on are secondary. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Where? Again, all I've seen in the cited content is news reporting.  Nyttend (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The primary source is the court filings. An event like this, which is exceptionally unusual and was reported in national newspapers and the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet, is undoubtedly significant. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson
I filed a request, see WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Intro_discussion Rwbest (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Mail call
Bishonen &#124; talk 21:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC).

Deletion review for Lorenzo Iorio
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lorenzo Iorio. 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.

Time for a change?
The IP address has been used sporadically over 9 years for little else except vandalism. It became active for a period in March. Perhaps it needs an extended hiatus. Tapered (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Not born yesterday
I recently had occasion to block per your excellent essay We were not born yesterday. Always nice to be able to give a really pertinent block reason! Bishonen &#124; talk 10:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

April 2018
Please stop edit warring against consensus at Judicial Watch. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)
 * Ah yes, the version of consensus that means "me". Guy (Help!) 23:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)