User talk:JzG/Archive 129

You reverted the below parenthetical as it being "link spam"

"At the extreme, some people are openly hostile to the idea of cryonics.^[1] Because of the existence of such attitudes, scientists and cryonicists will sometimes avoid disclosing their personal or scientific interests in cryonics to the public, for concern that it may tarnish their professional reputations. (But not all, see ^[2])"

In discussions on the cryonics talk page, this reference was noted to be significant, having been mentioned in a number of reliable sources. It seems to me that the paragraph above, without a reference to the scientists open letter, is violating NPOV.

Full disclosure, I am signed up with Alcor (since 1985), and have participated in 20 suspensions, including two in which I acted as lead surgeon, putting cryonics patients on cardiac bypass.

Keith Henson (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidencebasedcryonics is not a reliable source and not a site to which we should link, it is being pushed by corpsicle activists. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• NIX Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since you were the admin who deleted it near a year ago when it was A7, but we do not understand why. Our company is the same quality and in the number of people such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciklum,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxoft, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPAM_Systems and they are presented on Wikipedia. Can you please allow our company to create a profile. --AntWSP (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Oh, and also WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? 87.228.171.124 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

YA RLY. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Something something no filter. They've not posted in 6 hours; why would you reignite the inferno? 87.228.171.124 (talk) 09:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel fee to log in and use your normal account, otherwise we're done here. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you please send me the page history from here (userfy). I am creating a page on the subject. BlackAmerican (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That is an appalling idea and I suggest you promptly abandon it. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is similar to the Duke lacrosse case / Reactions to the Duke lacrosse case and had a wider range as of effects like the Southern Methodist University football scandal or the Penn State child sex abuse scandal and occurred during a period of racial tension including Crown Heights riot 1992 Los Angeles riots and the Tawana Brawley rape allegations. There are a number of primary and secondary sources including , , , , , . I believe that this was a big issue in the era. Major political figures including David Dinkins, and Congressman Charles Rangel BlackAmerican (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a notable event, and writing an unbiased article seems possible. I think the request to see the deleted material should be granted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing there that is usable. It was deleted as WP:CSD#G10, not a good idea to undelete it even if there was anything usable. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There's not much there, agreed. But on the other hand it's not entirely negative or unsourced. I certainly don't think it was a G10 candidate. I don't mind userfying it (where it is not indexed by search engines anyway) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

List of names of private individuals linked to a rape allegation? Nasty. Please do not userfy it since there is nothing there that can be used on Wikipedia and that adds to the existing draft. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: the article is at User:BlackAmerican/1990 St John's Lacrosse Team Rape Case. I've removed the names of the individuals. Let me know when you're finished with it and I'll re-delete. Good luck with the article. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

So you ignored my expressed preference and undeleted the article, in order to provide no context over and above what's already in the draft. The "sources" in the article you undeleted are:

http://newsday.typepad.com/sports_lacrosse/2006/03/index.html, not a WP:RS

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D61E3BF93AA15756C0A967958260, already in the draft

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v43/ai_11162544, dead link

http://media.www.torchonline.com/media/storage/paper952/news/2005/10/05/News/A.History.Of.Violent.Events.On.Campus-1998658.shtml, student newspaper not really usable due to lack of independence.

Good job. Not. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand the difference between content disputes and conduct disputes. The personal attacks have nothing to do with the RfC going on (which I started). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 03:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your close got reverted.--v/r - TP 04:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Fancy that. Obviously the disputants are desperate to get blocked and want to pay out some more WP:ROPE. Me, I don't give a damn if they want to continue digging. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I came back from school, But the question that I don't answer at WP:ANI was a manual block, not an autoblock. Try my my talk page so, I can respond here.KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked the same thing before... For example, in German article there's an article about Walter Krickeberg (1885-1962). No article about him in English Wikipedia. Also no article about Hermann Trimborn (1901-1986) in English Wikipedia. I can't write these articles. But maybe the others can write them. Regards, Böri (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the someone is not me, as I don't have the language skills. Maybe a talk page stalker will be able to suggest somewhere. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

::jumps around like an excited grade-schooler:: Ooh, ooh! Me, me!

@Böri: In all seriousness, I'm willing to help. I have to admit I'm not personally familiar with the subject, but I've always done well at composition. If you can get together some sources, I'll happily start a draft.

Also, I'm unwatching Guy's talk page, so reply at my page or hit me with a TB template. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure enough to go ahead, so I wanted to ask. Is anyone permitted to make a statement at AE, or is the request for enforcement a more formal process than that? I just wanted to ask because I have something to add that no-one has brought up yet, for whatever that's worth. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can make a statement, please feel free. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up: You might want to take a look at Conzar's editing at Talk:Natural News. It seems to follow the same pattern here, and while it's not included in his ban, it might be necessary to do so. I don't know how to go about making such a suggestion, so I'm just mentioning it here. And now my monthly quota of drama is all used up, I'll go do something else. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Guy. Unfortunately I won't have time for several days to do anything (I'm traveling), and something needs to be done right away. Mucoid cap needs to be restored to Mucoid plaque, and some of Heelop's edits need to be undone/fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the mess created by the POV fork. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Good job. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There are independent sources in my submission, the lawsuit is notable (whatever ones view may be), verifiable and warrants being mentioned. See my response in Talk:Energy Catalyzer. -- Egil (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The original filing is not an independent source, neither is PR Newswire, and there is a very obvious lack of consensus on Talk for inclusion. WP:ITEXISTS does not mandate inclusion. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see ANI here Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

re: (Deletion log); 14:20 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Charlene McMann (3rd nomination) ‎(block evasion)

This was unwise. You are involved.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Not in any meaningful sense. I have no history at that article, I found it only because of the request for admin involvement, and all my actions in respect of that article are to do with fixing the problems identified at ANI. Guy (Help!) 19:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Shows that you are the proposer of the AFD You should not be using administrator's powers on an AFD you proposed yourself. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't. The AfD stands, and I won't close it. Consensus at ANI favours a ban of the user who initiated the Talk page, and there is substantial evidence of long-term sockpuppetry, so this is just routine. We don't have enough active admins to do separation of duties at that level of granularity - one admin dealing with two or three aspects of a disruption and self-promotion campaign, with which they have no prior involvement at all, is fine. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Guy, Yesterday I did a complete rewrite of National Guard of Russia, but it was reverted back to its original form and I was hoping that you would be so kind as to review this critical issue. The most important fact to understand regarding this issue is that before April 5, 2016, there was never such a thing as a National Guard in Russia. Here is what I wrote to the editor who reverted the article back to it incorrect form:

Thank you for your input on National Guard of Russia, however, my rewrite of the entire article was absolutely correct as whomever first created this article (and there is no better way to say it) made the entire thing up.

For example: The emblem of the front page of this article can be considered a very cruel joke because whomever created it took the Coat of arms of Russia and superimposed it on the Prussian, German Empire and Nazi Iron Cross (the Ukrainian national guard uses the Iron Cross). Anyone believing that the Russian’s would use a Nazi symbol on anything just doesn’t know correct history. (go to Google images and the only place you’ll find this absurd emblem referenced is on Wikipedia)

Secondly, and as I wrote and substantially referenced in the rewrite of this article, before April 5, 2016, there was no such thing as a National Guard of Russia.

Thirdly, the article as I found it was nothing more than a mishmash of at least 15 current and historical Russian policing and military units having nothing more in common than they were all Russian…e.g. it would be like someone created a United States national guard article describing the history of every local police force, every state police force and every federal police force.

Any help, advice, etc., you’re able to render would be appreciated. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing much to offer. This just looks like one of those articles where back and forth between competing ethnic groups has led to a disjointed mess. Maybe one of the WikiProjects can help? Guy (Help!) 19:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and for responding. Picomtn (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the proper procedure when an RfC peters out and expires without closing? Most !votes were "yes" so I'm thinking first to contact the "no" votes and see if in light of the discussion they agree to calling it a "yes", and if any of them object, ask at ANI for a formal close. Is that correct? (Sorry for this probably-dumb question but it's been contentious so I want to resolve it properly.) Thanks! --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 22:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Middle 8: Try listing it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Chinny-reckon gave me a chuckle. I have not heard that since I was at school in SE London in the 80's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

On the plus side, that also means you are old enough to recognise the Jimmy Hill reference :-) Guy (Help!) 11:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you indef block an editor with whom you were edit warring on an article that you are in involved with ? I see no warning or discussion with the blocked editor about adding unsourced content. It is astonishingly inappropriate to use admin tools to prevail in a content dispute on a subject that you obviously have strong opinions about. I've lost count of how many times I've seen you ignore WP:INVOLVED as if that policy somehow doesn't apply to you. I would really like to know if you just don't understand the policy, or if you think that you enjoy some special privilege.

What I would like to see is acknowledgement that you did the wrong thing here, and that you will refrain from similar violations of WP:ADMIN in the future. Thank you.- MrX 12:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What I would like to see is fewer blatant sockpuppets appearing at that article trying to promote the agenda of a convicted fraudster with a free energy device. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You blocked the account for "POV-pushing on article infested with WP:SPAs". Who are they supposed to be a sock puppet of? It also doesn't change the fact that you are involved (and were edit warring) over content about which you have an obvious POV of your own. This conduct is starting to look like a pattern to me, and your BLP violating comments aren't helping you either. How about not doing this any more? There are plenty of other admins who can step in when necessary on articles that you are contributing to. - MrX 00:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter, since they were acting exactly as numerous other Rossi spammers have done in the past. And that comment does not violate BLP. Rossi is, remember, a convicted fraudster, and his device has no significant independent validation. Are you familiar with the history of cold fusion on Wikipedia? This has been going on for a long time. Yes I have a POV: the mainstream POV. In Wikipedia terms, that's not a POV as such. Oh, and I posted the block for independent review. So, we're done here. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that you banned a new user, Hendersonmj. I am wondering how this works, as you seem to have unilaterally banned a user after only a handful of edits. I agree that the edits were very POV but you seem to have banned them without warning and without a relatively good reason (they seemed only to be trying to help, albeit misguidedly). Moreover it also begs the question whether you should be banning users from editing an article in which you yourself have also contributed significantly. While I don't disagree with removing the material they contributed, the ban itself seems unwarranted, especially as by any measure you are most definitely not an uninvolved admin in this issue (and even more especially as you seemed to be involved in an edit war with the editor in question, warranted or not).

I'm not an expert here but could you explain more clearly how you justify that the above situation is not admin abuse? Currently I am on mobile only and so cannot easily look up all the admin conduct guidelines but this whole situation looks very strange to me, and at the very least seems to be an extreme case of biting the newbies.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  07:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have not banned him, I have blocked him due to gross POV editing. The block will stand until he satisfies any admin that he understands the issue. This is perfectly routine. I would have warned him or used AE if it weren't for the fact that the editing pattern looks very much like that of a sock puppet. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did you delete the whole research section instead of flagging it? Now because I disputed it you have "protected" the page until July??!! That's kinda childish don't you think? There was "no disruptive editing", I just undid the hatchet-job of editing you did. The section has been in there for a long time and you just wholesale removed it with no discussion or request for "consensus" on the section. I will seek a dispute resolution if you don't follow the appropriate procedures. Thank You --71.181.66.90 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:Buspirone. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This still does not resolve the problem/dispute that a whole section was unilaterally deleted without flagging and/or seeking community input on fixing it first. The removal should be reverted and proper procedures followed! --71.173.84.169 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

All edits on Wikipedia are unilateral, but in this case you are factually wrong since two separate editors reverted your addition. The problem is pretty straightforward: most drug evaluations turn out to be a bust. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have replied to your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, regarding user Scolaire's recent pattern of edits. I request that you review this matter once more, as your comment suggests you have not understood what I found objectionable about Scolaire's recent activity.Wwallacee (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like you to review it as well. There seems to be no way of stopping this guy other than blocking him. Scolaire (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I like your "About me" introduction above. :)

Hey, I don't want to argue separately at all or to sway you from your position stated at my Amendment Request if that is how you feel. But while your name looks familiar, I don't specifically recall past interactions with you, and I think it is possible your stated concern about title-warring is based largely on the arbitration finding which, quite responsibly, you could have just read and have been concerned about. I wrote up a response that is probably too long and too petty to post in the Request. And the response is completely off if I presumed wrong about your basis for your view. Could you possibly please glance at it though, in case it does answer your concern? I hope you won't hold it against me if it is in fact off-base. If it does mitigate your concern, though, it would be a great help if you could identify which part of it holds water, so that perhaps that part could be introduced somehow into the regular proceeding. If you could respond and ping me, I'd appreciate it. If not, no problem. Thank you for considering this. --doncram 00:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)