User talk:JzG/Archive 195

Matt Fraser
Hello, I added a section for your input on the Matt Fraser Dispute page.
 * Sorry, totally random and offtopic, but when I saw "Matt Fraser" here I immediately thought it was the CrossFit's Matt Fraser. Turns out there is a magician one too...--67.175.201.50 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Guy. This is a second reminder to add your input to the Dispute page. RobP (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be trolls commenting on this dispute. I've deleted one distracting IP post, and there have been some other strange comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , imagine that, a grief vampire mobilising trolls. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the first I heard a reference to a grief vampire. Is that someone who takes advantage of a death in a family to suck money, which is the equivalent of blood, out of the survivors?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yup. Fake psychics prey on the bereaved. Real psychics, of course, don't: they ride up on their unicorns and give their services free in exchange for a pig wing sandwich and some fairy dust. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Or real psychics, if there is an unsolved murder, work with the police to solve the murder, and the police can figure out whether the psychic is for real. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There may be something to be said for a deep theological conversation with the psychic. The fate of the soul really is the area where Christianity and Buddhism have different ideas.  If the psychic jabbers both about a spirit world and about reincarnation, then you know that they are just jabbering.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can tell they are just jabbering by seeing if their mouth moves. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

WTF was this about
Here?--MONGO (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , silliness on my part. The idea that it "will go sideways soon" was a delightful bit of optimism, since to my eye it already had. Nothing meant by it. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Syllabification of /s/ + consonant
Hello JzG, I've noticed that yesterday you closed the requests for comments in the Help:IPA/Italian talk page. I'd like to point out a pair of things, because what you've written isn't fully exact. There were three users whose preference was for "Tautosyllabic" (even if Nardog changed his preference to "Neutral" and mine was hidden inside a collapsed paragraph) and three users whose preference was for "Heterosyllabic" (even if Carnby's comment arrived just after Barefoot through the chollas's invitation to join, which is a near-canvassing case because he already knew his opinion about this matter before inviting him). So, to be fully exact, the result should be something like this: "The discussion ended in a stalemate, there isn't a clear consensus for either of the options, thus it's not recommended to make large scale changes". The closed discussion mustn't be modified, as I read, that's why I'm asking you, who wrote the text in the result field, to correct it kind of like the way I suggested, I'm hoping that there're no problems with this. I'm afraid that the user who pushed most for this change, Barefoot, may act "unwisely" as you feared if he, reading between the lines, feels authorized to start such a massive operation, I've decided to write you this message mainly for this reason.--151.64.146.189 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to request review at WP:AN. I read the discussion and formed the view I did, but I am not omniscient and I freely admit that I don't understand the nuances of IPA. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's necessary to make such a request there? Can't you, being a sysop and the one who wrote that text, modify it just to correct your words regarding the final result? There's no need to understand IPA nuances, I'm not talking about that but about the result of the discussion: 2 "Tautosyllabics", 1 "Tautosyllabic" turned to "Neutral", 2 "Heterosyllabics", 1 not fully acceptable "Heterosyllabic" because of a sort of canvassing. To me it's clear that there isn't a consensus, neither for an option nor for the other, not even "leaning". Anyway, in case you don't feel like refining the text of the result, what will happen if mister B. interprets it as a "green light" to start a massive operation of changing the IPA transcription (maybe subtily not to be noticed)?--151.64.146.189 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * any wholesale change goes beyond the close anyway. I'll read it again though. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * if anything the re-reading is stronger in favour of the original assessment: gets less weight having checked their contributions. No change to my original assessment thoguh as in the end there is very little participation. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is that Barefoot through the chollas doesn't decide on his own to change the IPA transcriptions as he likes, because there isn't consensus to do that. It seems strange to me that you've reiterated your assessment after reading it again, because I, Junghiano and Nardog (who later turned his opinion to neutral) agreed on tautosyllabism, while Barefoot through the chollas, LiliCharlie and Carnby (who joined after being invited and his invitation was aimed to alter the result of the survey) agreed on heterosyllabism, but I won't try changing your mind, as I said my only concern is that an operation of massive changing isn't started by him now that the survey has been closed.--151.64.146.236 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is evidence of long-term abuse here, so any further discussion should be at the admin boards. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In case someone starts making large scale changes I'll report at the admin boards, then. Is Barefoot through the chollas you're referring to when you talk about long-term abuse?--151.64.146.214 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not interested in further discussion here. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok.--151.64.146.214 (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What about this article then
Since you were the admin that closed the DRV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_September_25 I would like to show you another article of the same criteria.What about West Block Blues.It is also a fan club that doesnt even satisfy the notabilty criteria. Yet it overcame 2 deletion discussions.Please take action against this also. Shahoodu (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are free to nominate it for deletion if you like. Just be aware that if your nomination appears to be disruption to prove a point, it may reflect badly on you. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all disruptive. Did you go through the article? I am not just saying. That article already overcame 2 deletion discussion. Iam comparing it using WP:Other stuff exists.Shahoodu (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , try reading again for comprehension. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

For entertainment only
In 2016, I came across this redirect while DABfixing. The DAB page I made has been expanded since then; and I still can't help but wonder who might have clicked on that redirect before I spotted it, and had seen nothing unusual. Narky Blert (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it would be a giant kick up the arse. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up after Amitakhya
Thank you for cleaning up after. I greatly admire the swiftness with which you took care of it. Thank you. Chaipau (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

best laugh I've had all week
Thanks for this drollery. Schazjmd  (talk)  13:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED
Guy, please move your comments at this AE case out of the section for uninvolved administrators. As I showed, you are very much involved. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing Peerage cites
Hi, your edits on William I of Württemberg and Thomas West, 3rd Baron De La Warr removed the bibliography cite but left the short sfn footnote [which now leads nowhere and generates Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors] and did not address the statements supported by those cites. Not sure what's the best way to address it, but simply removing the bibliography cite is not helpful. Renata (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well of course the best solution would have been for people to stop adding and start removing these cites somewhere in the dozen ort more years that they have been flagged as unreliable... Guy (help! - typo?) 09:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sources
Hello! You removed hundreds of sources from the Biden 2020 endorsement page. This includes people who have signed letters saying they support, will vote for, or endorse former VP Biden. Most of these, especially the NatSec492 was widely covered by tons of independent reliable sources and the actual website where these people endorsed was the one that was cited. I think you’re deletions should be reverted immediately as there are now hundreds of names which are unsourced but previously had references in which the majority were covered by a political website that keeps track of endorsements. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You even removed the most recent one which was covered by medium that states Mormons for Biden. I think this must be reverted immediately Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:POLEND.
 * Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
 * Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
 * Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements"
 * blog.4president.org is not a reliable independent source, it's a blog. Natsecprofessionals4biden or whatever is not a reliable independent source, it's a primary affiliated source. Medium is on WP:RSP. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus on the reliability of Blog 4 president but it is based off of an organization called 4 president, it’s not a blog like you are thinking of. It’s just what they call their endorsements section. If you want to discuss the reliability of this source I would recommend an rfc. The natsec organization has been covered by many reliable sources such as CNN which have stated that there is a list of endorsements and links to this page. On the area where it talks about “covered by reliable independent sources” it uses Twitter and Instagram as examples, mainly talking about social media, not websites that have been widely reported as containing these endorsements. The same goes for the faith leaders. As for Medium, here is what it says about additions “ s a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.” What is included is a list of people who have signed a statement of endorsement in medium. It is information on the people who created the list, not just reported information. Due to the amount of entries which are unsourced due to a controversial removal which you made, I recommend that you revert your deletions and we can discuss specifics on the talk page and remove anything if necessary. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , And the About page for 4president.com says... oh, there isn't one.
 * There is absolutely no evidence at all that this is a reliable source, and its primary use is these endorsements. A large part of the point of the RfC was to tighten things up so that claims about living people (A endorsed B) are properly sourced in line with WP:BLP and WP:RS.
 * Feel free to chip ion at WP:RSN if you think the blog attached to this website is in fact a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m going to have to agree with you on the blog, even though it’s used on other pages for endorsements. However, the national security officials, the Mormons, as well as other sources you deleted have been very widely covered. The CNN source didn’t list all 498 or however many officials there were, but they reported that they did endorse and pointed to the website. Same for the others. When someone signs a list saying they will endorse, and the list has been covered by reliable sources, then the members of the list should definitely be added. The other sources have proven the reliability of the list. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , so cite it from the independent coverage, not the primary source. That's how we know #2 is satisfied. This is pretty clear. We need a reliable independent secondary source to establish the accuracy and significance of a claim of endorsement. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I cite that has been reported by many reliable sources as having endorsements that actually lists the endorsements than a CNN article saying “there are 498 officials”, don’t you agree? I think you’re taking criteria 2 a little too far. It is mainly used to show a social media post or a comment made on a poker website is not enough to be an endorsement, not a comprehensive list or former government employees who signed a letter endorsing Biden (or anyone) Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:RSN is the place for this. If you're claiming that a primary self-published source can be used against the explicit outcome of an RfC, it needs more than just two of us talking about it. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing citations
I noticed you removed citations to Worldstatesmen.org, which is sometimes inaccurate, from a couple of articles. You should replace the citation by a fact tag. If you do not, it looks as if the next citation supports the assertion. That is:
 * Dubious statement.&lt;badref> Valid statement.&lt;goodref>

becomes
 * Dubious statement. Valid statement.&lt;goodref>

instead of
 * Dubious statement. Valid statement.&lt;goodref>

Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's normally what I do, unless it's obviously uncontroversial. Which specific article please? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Jérôme du Sarrat, sieur de La Pierrière and another one I unwatched so cannot remember. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, I see the problem: I was not doing the same check for sfn as for &lt;ref&gt;. Thanks for catching it, I am fixing my regex now. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is an uphill battle to keep the text and cited sources in sync. I see other editors changing text to something the cited source does not say, or moving text around so it seems to be supported by a source that does not mention it. I tend to give up and unwatch after a while. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , not surprised. Sourcing on nobility articles is generally shockingly bad. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Edward Tilley
I'm still learning wiki's editor so excuse me if this isn't the correct page. I am Appealing the Blacklisting of three websites (which I can't list here obviously). I noticed that the edits forwarded to you? I wanted to ask why that system indicated an auto-forward? Edward Edtilley4 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the discussion page is here. I don't hold out much hope. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Bill Weld
Could you sanity check the citation I added here? NECN is a local news channel, so presumably passes WP:POLEND. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss ) 00:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , no obvious concerns for me there. Thanks :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Trolling by Emir
Since Masem specifically demanded "how do we write this to be parallel to all other similar organizations that have been written on WP" as a test for the Proud Boys article, Emir's edits hiding my work responding to that question of similar articles with an insulting template was obviously designed as a trolling move to provoke. I just feel I have to let an admin know, I'm fully aware that it was their intention to insult and provoke me. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That was not my intention. Please remember to assume good faith. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh you made your intention very clear. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously not that clear if you misunderstood this it this majorly. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's very clear that you are hoping your actions provoke an angry response. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:95CA:E510:8EBC:3A95 (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Then obviously they have been misinterpreted, and I apologise. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really have no interest in being dragged into this spat. IMO, both Emir and Masem are good people. It's not necessary to agree with someone on everything (or indeed anything) to accept that they are doing their best to make the project better. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert at 3RRN
Good evening. I assume this was a result of a misclick, and I reverted it. If I am wrong and you really wanted to make this revert, please undo my edit, but then please indicate the reason in the edit summary or in some other way. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, thanks for fixing. Auto refresh on watchlist results in clicks going to different links sometimes. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Spartacus Gay Guide edits
Hi, I’ve seen you regularly at the RSNB and would like a bit of advice. On the Spartacus International Gay Guide I removed vast swaths of content as it was POV written and seemed to be mostly original research and almost entirely sourced to the guide itself. The content essentially was contentious accusing the publisher of child abuse advocacy. That may be true but should be stated outright by a reliable secondary source as far as I’m aware. Also it was overly detailed without those reliable references. I also removed the advocacy category for the same reasons. Am I missing something? Or was this the correct direction to go?  Glee anon 08:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Contributor0
Hi JzG, could you please take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton? Neither nor myself believe  to be a sockpuppet. If you have evidence that we're missing, would you please comment at the SPI? Thanks. – bradv  🍁  21:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , an independent troll, you think? There is no way that is a geenuinely new user. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor seems primarily concerned with Great Barrington Declaration, which to my knowledge is not a topic that BKH has ever expressed interest in. Plus they are in different countries, in different areas of the world. – bradv  🍁  22:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy, I don't agree with this block - it certainly isn't Wikinger (please see my deleted comment at the Wikinger SPI), nor as Bradv says, does it remotely resemble Brian K Horton. It took them half a day to visit RSN, which was a suggestion made to them by an admin. Perhaps you would at least a) change the block message, as the current one is clearly not appropriate, and b) enable talk page and email. Personally I think you should just unblock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , so you think this is a genuinely new user, despite the first edit citing a deprecated source, the first comments acknowledging that it's deprecated, and the 8th edit citing WP:IAR in opening a WP:RSN thread? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns. However the user had already been told about the deprecated source, before they mentioned it. There are plenty of pointers to the 2019 RfC (which has a conclusion mentioning IAR) via WP:RSP. They were explicitly told to start a new RSN thread. And citing a deprecated source is not something an experience editor would do? -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks for unblocking. By all means keep an eye on them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
thank you! Guy (help! - typo?) 21:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop
Arguing with that user is putting your hand in a fan. They've shown us who they are.--Jorm (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool story, Bro. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I just... don't have words anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was soooo tempted to comment, but now that I have discovered that posting to Jimbo's talk page disqualifies you in an RfA, I didn't want to find out what other sanctions doing something so vile will trigger. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)