User talk:JzG/Archive 194

Protection request
Can you please protect the article Andrew Holness, he has been persistantly attacked. Catfurball (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Botched ping
Hello Guy. I think I may have mis-formatted a ping to you from AE at this thread.  SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests
Hi, JzG. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; in any event, concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * By my count your statement reaches around 1000 words. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier statement:
 * Feel free to trim the fuck out of it.
 * Also, feel free to discuss, as a group, whether the target of the single most stressful process we have on Wikipedia is held to the same limits as the initiators. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to think we do apply the limits equally. I've asked MrX if he could either trim their statement or request an extension too) I'll ask the arbs if they will extend your and their word limits. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I feel bad for MrX. I (and others) did bad by him. His pride is hurt, and he's not wrong about that. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * After a discussion on clerk-l, we wont enforce word limits on your statement for this case request (and also not on MrX's statement). Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 06:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Did trim, but am away for the weekend with minimal access. Thx. Not logged in, using mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.185 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was the link to a documentary's official website removed?
In edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Greater_Good_(film)&oldid=975997130 I added an "External links" section with a link to the official website of the documentary that is the subject of the article. You reverted this edit, if I understand correctly.


 * Linking to the official website of an article's subject is helpful and common practice.


 * While articles about documentaries have no website link in their info boxes, it is common practice to at least provide an IMDB link in the "External links" section; e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein:_Filthy_Rich#External_links and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy,_Not_Insane#External_links; here's a high-profile example of a documentary that also has a link to the official website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Not_Your_Negro#External_links


 * On a general note: Reverting an edit with "No, I don't think so, thanks" as the rationale is both unhelpful and likely to antagonize.

Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision - adding the IMDB link would be helpful too (doing so hadn't occurred to me initially).

Tabledhote (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , because there's already one link in the article and we're not here to drive traffic to sites that seek to actively harm our readers. Oh, and it's not a documentary. It's a crockumentary. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy:

> we're not here to drive traffic to sites that seek to actively harm our readers

Your statement directly contradicts Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral point of view, and I find disconcerting that you, as an administrator, would consider this a valid argument. If a topic is considered noteworthy and therefore deserving of a Wikipedia article, there is no justification for not giving it the same treatment as other topics, especially not for reasons based on your personal opinions.

> It's a crockumentary.

See previous point.

Unless you see a flaw in the argumentation above, please reinstate the linked revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabledhote (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly allowed per WP:ELOFFICIAL so I have replaced it. The community has consistently allowed links to Pirate Bay, Sci-Hub, Silk Road etc. and I don't see how this is any different. SmartSE (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , some people think that Wikipedia's mission does not include killing our readers. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy, as Smartse has demonstrated, including official links to the topic of an article is standard policy ("Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself."). That you personally don't like what the subject says about itself is immaterial and letting personal opinions drive editing decisions is highly inappropriate, especially for a high-profile administrator. Please restore the version that includes the official link. Tabledhote (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that standard policy should be changed, See Village pump (policy).


 * For example, look at what I did at
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Jan 1
 * External links/Noticeboard/Archive 12
 * Talk:International FOP Association.
 * I deleted links to an official site. Should I have followed the "including official links to the topic of an article is standard policy" advice instead? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , not policy, usual practice. But Wikipedia does not link to sites with malware, and antivax is worse than malware because it kills humans, not computers. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy: If it is usual practice and allowed by existing policy, disallowing it in a given situation requires a policy-based reason. It is completely inappropriate for you to justify such a deviation from something that is both customary and allowed by an official policy based on what you personally wish an existing policy should be changed to, in the future, if ever. More generally, it isn't the mandate of Wikipedia - and certainly never should be - to protect readers from access to "harmful" ideas, especially not based on your personal assessment of what readers should be protected from. The malware example is inapplicable, because it isn't a free speech issue - it's about protecting readers from harmful intent that is unrelated to the free and open exchange of ideas. Again, your personal opinions on what you perceive to be related to the largely meaningless propaganda term antivax are immaterial (and, to be clear: this applies to any topic, irrespective of anyone's personal stance toward it), and basing your admin activities on them amounts to an abuse of power. Therefore, please restore the version that includes the official link. If you're unwilling to do that, please let me know how I can officially complain about your conduct. Tabledhote (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Guy: In the absence of a policy-based reason to disallow it and in accordance with WP:ELOFFICIAL, I have restored the official-site link (and added an IMDB link, which is also customary). I ask you to refrain from reverting the edit for a third time. Tabledhote (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , because you're a True Believer, or because you hate our readers? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
For your thoughtful responses at Articles for deletion/Aaron Bastani (3rd nomination). Too often dialogue between nominator and !voter becomes an unproductive mire of accusations; I appreciate your respectfully pointing out the shortcomings in my argument. Clearly WP:BLP had slipped my mind. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedian changes mind shock! Pictures at eleven!
 * Thank you, it is a pleasure working with you, as always. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Urgent request
Can I suggest you remove your edit mentioning this case. WCM email 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , because? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Something I can't talk about openly.  WCM email 12:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe WCM is right here. The number of people who have accepted citizenship is a complicated question to effectively discuss for reasons we can do nothing about. It is 3/4/5 depending on how you count. But sourcing is complicated by external factors. Whatever language you care to propose re: rarity is fine by me. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Falkland Islanders
Hi. Do you think there is any point re-submitting the RfC on that page with a revised question, as you mentioned earlier? --Boynamedsue (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you take a look?
Hi Guy, I wondered if you could take a look re: the discussion I began here. Thanks a lot. Sxologist (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Kiev/Kyiv Sep 2020 RM based on new evidence from Ymblanter
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of tje Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine, and Ymblater later also found out that it was most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.

A friend already started a discussion at Move review/Log/2020 September - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.--172.58.140.238 (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Отличная работа, товарищ. Вы получите за это дополнительную плату. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Canopy express truck links
Since I prefer to avoid an edit war as much as you seem to be, I'm going to explain the reasons for the links I've added to the Canopy express article that you seem to dismiss as merely fanpages. Those sites have more detail that can benefit the article. The Stovebolt page is more geared towards the Chevrolet models, but it's not without worthy material. The one from "Brad's 1941-46 Chevy Trucks" had three different weight classes; 1/2 ton (3107), 1 ton (3807), and 1 1/2 ton (4107). However the page is dead and for some reason can't be archived, therefore I've hidden that link, until something new can replace it. -User:DanTD (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Talk:Canopy express --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:ELNO #11. These are personal web pages. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They still provide useful information. -User:DanTD (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, WP:USEFUL. Doesn't trump WP:ELNO, sorry. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So information showing old ads with evidence is cancelled out by WP:ELNO? And what about simply external links? And what if using an official source is too boastful? I'm not using sites claiming that "Foo trucks are the best trucks in the world," or anything like that. I'm just using sites that do a little more to explain what they were. -User:DanTD (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , ELNO says we don't link to personal websites, fansites and the like. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that have external links that you dismiss as "personal websites" and "fansites," which aren't used as reflinks. Are you going to delete those too? -User:DanTD (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I always delete them, but only when I come across them, I dont search for them. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , "other crap exists" is not a compelling argument, I'm afraid. As to whether I am going to delete other crap links when I find them, I suggest you look at my user page and contributions history. Finding and removing crap is very much a thing that I do. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now we're at the point where nobody can post external links at all, and only reflinks that meet rigid standards will be allowed? Something's wrong with that. I have seen your userpage, and I agree that most of the sources you mentioned are total crap (I called "globalresearch.ca" "global-non-research.ca-ca" myself). But if we can't add external links related to vehicles, because you think it violates WP:ELNO, the post below this thread probably shouldn't have been added either. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are plenty of links that don't meet WP:RS but are acceptable as external links. But recall that fundamentally the purpose of external links is as a staging point to bringing content into the article, so anything that seriously fails RS (personal pages, fansites and other user generated content) is out of scope. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read those links at all? Or is this something you automatically blow off because it's not MotorTrend, Kelley Blue Book, or Hemmings Motor News, or something to that effect? -User:DanTD (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes I did, and it would not be much of a problem if I did reject them simply because they are not well-known and trusted sources. Seriously, if you're fighting for text like:
 * 1937 Chevrolet Trux page!
 * [link 1]
 * [link 2]
 * ...then you are doing something wrong. That's how you do amateur SEO, it's not how you write an encyclopaedia article. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, those two were supposed to show how both the Canopy Express trucks and GM Suburbans, IHC Travelalls, and other truck-based station wagons were based on the panel trucks of that period. Now I've got others(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4LsNZrLJMU). I know, YouTube's not a reliable source either, but this should serve as evidence that the Canopy Express isn't something made up on Wikipedia. ---User:DanTD (talk)  02:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody said it is "something made up on Wikipedia" it may be something that some manufacturer put in an ad back in the day (yes, I know that you say that some book somewhere has a copy of such an ad, but you get all evasive when I ask which book, and you keep posting copies of ads that don't use the name canopy express and saying that they do). It certainly is a name used in blogs about antique vehicles and ads for antique vehicles, (and in your 2020 YouTube ad for a 1936 Dodge above), but the name appears to be a non-notable modern name for something that was originally calls an express body with a canopy top.
 * The real question is why you are so emotionally invested in having Wikipedia say something that is not found in any reliable source. Either find a source or drop the stick. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Parasite (film) overturn
I want to formally object to your inappropriate close of the Parasite (film) MR. The RM closer found the Support side to be based in policy much better than Oppose. That’s subjective but it’s not a super vote. It’s doing their job per every applicable policy and guideline. For the MR closer to second-guess the RM-closer’s evaluation of the RM arguments based on policy is inappropriate. But what makes this outrageous is that the RM Closer explained how they arrived at their evaluation in much clearer terms than did you in closing the MR. Accordingly, I request that you reverse or at least revert your close of this MR. —В²C ☎ 00:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC) More specifically, you assert without basis, “ the guidelines do conflict”. Please identify which guidelines applicable to this proposal you believe conflict and explain how they conflict. To make this assertion in your MR close, fundamental to your decision, without identifying/explaining accordingly, is just another example of what’s wrong with your close. But doing it now, better late than never, if you can, would be helpful. But what would be better is to realize there is no such conflict, as clearly explained in the close you overturned, and reverse your decision accordingly. Thank you. —В²C ☎ 00:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Having endorsed Sceptre's closure, I agree with. There was no consensus at the MRV, so the closure really should have been endorsed. Please understand that the fact that you are an admin and a trusted editor is important to me, and yet your MRV closure was a supervote (or maybe a mega-supervote?); you did call it a "judgement call", so how is that different? Your speedy response would be appreciated.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I just want to add that I just noticed the MRV was still quite active today when it closed after only one week, and, I, for one, would like to participate. MRVs are often for weeks. What was the hurry on this one? —В²C ☎ 04:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , 1 week is the standard time for a move review. This is already being discussed at AN, we do not need to open an additional venue. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I will just leave this here.
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice. -User:DanTD (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So I leave this here. Thanks for the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions closed and archived
Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions has been closed and archived. The archived amendment request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my reply to your proposal on Talk:Kyiv
Hi. I recently replied to your proposal on Talk:Kyiv. Shortly thereafter Talk:Kyiv was edit protected from non-usernamed editors until Sep 30. Shortly after that, K.e.coffman removed my comment (supposedly accidnetally, as in their edit comment they only mentioned they are removing the re-organizing under one header of post-RM clean up, that I previously did). Since then I have asked K.e.coffman to restore my comment, but he just ignored me and did not do so.

I still stand by my reply to your proposal and think it is a useful contribution to that discussion. Since it was you, whome I was adressing my reply, I am asking how else can I get my reply reinstated?:
 * should I just wait till Sep 30 and reinstate it myself?
 * should I assume protection of that talk page on sep 23 to mean that IPs/non-usnernamed editors are not welcome in that discussion, and so I should create a username and re-instate my comment under a usnername?

You suggestion would be appreciated.--67.175.201.50 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please ask the person who removed the comment. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I already did a few days ago - he just ignored me.--67.175.201.50 (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. I suggest you ask at WP:ANI. I don't have time to wade into diff-level detail on this right now, and do it justice. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice JzG, I will create an WP:ANI thread asking for someone to reinstate my comment (but I might not get to doing it for a few days, as I am currently short on time due to work).--67.175.201.50 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Stephanie Gray
Hi, Jzg. I am not trying to promote her book, the book was written years ago. I have just been trying to update the page as it's been years. The book itself isn't getting an article, but I believe that the book is a notable portion of her career. My main issue with your deletions were the removal of the TED talks, and the conference in Mexico. The links are simply to provide evidence that they occurred, not for promotional purposes. If the issues are with the source, I'd like to find better sources, not remove the sourced information. Anyways, I hope that clears things up some. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , not saying you are, you just need a reliable independent source - a review in a newspaper or something. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ajpolino • LuK3
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jackmcbarn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news
 * The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (T261630).

Arbitration
 * The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
 * Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous
 * The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
 * Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)