User talk:JzG

R       E       T       I       R       E        D

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.

Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam.

Cary says: Ignore All Dramas.

Reading

April 2024

19

Friday

8:11 pm UTC

I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Wikipedia is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

---

Content of Wikipedia, December 2007^{citation needed}

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

---

---

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

Can you explain this edit?

Hello, can you explain this edit? Thanks! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and can you explain what moel of horn you play and whether you are a member of the International Horn Society and why is Giovanni Punto not up to FA standard yet, I want to know? Guy (Help!) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, I am wondering why that particular site is blacklisted, what "linksearch" is, where the list of blacklisted sites is, and why they should not have links that go to them. I'm just wondering, as I don't really care whether it has a link in it or not. I play a Conn 11Dr. I don't know why the Punto article isn't a FA yet. I don't think I've done any editing at that article yet. Most of my edits are on topics other than music. Thanks.JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A website tends to get blacklisted when it has no particular value to the encyclopedia but gets repeatedly placed on article pages. An external link needs to be reliable and informative, and to contribute something of encyclopedic value which the article itself doesn't already have. See WP:EL for the policy, and WP:SPAM and WP:WPSPAM to get a handle on what a problem external links are.

There is an en:wiki spam blacklist and a meta blacklist. Linksearch means this page where you can see what sites are linked from within the wiki. Hope this helps! Franamax (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is how you sidestep a block

Recently, you blocked 75.57.196.81 (talk · contribs), an anon with an IP banner for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor)". That anon subsequently adopted a new anon IP address (quie likely simply restarted his modem and received a new dynamic IP address) and began editing under as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs). As there was also a prior caveat to keep the IP banner identifying the IP range as well as an apparent avoidance of the block you placed, I filed an AN/I complaint in regards to the matter. With apologies, I meant to notify you immediately, but was sidetracked. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, were you planning on commenting on the block you placed on the anon user who then sidestepped it by rebooting their modem and start editing from a new one? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, In the section of AN/I in which you originally banned me - it was Arcayne that was severely admonished for the following edit in which he removed my entire post after I changed the tag on a thread I had opened in accordance with the written instructions: [1] No one was aware of your action as the thread was Archived shortly after your post. The thread which you posted in regarding Arcaynes threatening of me appeared to conclude with an edit by ThuranX at 01:57, 16 April. My IP changed and I had confirmed edits from a new IP at 14:07, 16 April. I was apparently blocked at 21:35, 16 April by you. I am now charged with Block Evasion by Arcayne and he is now engaged in a private effort to have me banned. As I have stated I do abide by the rules here and will continue to do so, I have refrained from all edits except those specifically allowed by the rules to post your page and AN/I. I am not comfortable with Arcaynes continued relentless obsession with me - and I am certainly not comfortable with him going to you after failing to harm me through AN/I - he has an open complaint against me regarding this allegation of Block Evasion. [2]

The allegation of Block Evasion is untrue. I would further defend myself against your initial coloration of me by pointing out that Arcayne has colonized my Talk page and will not allow me to Archive his threatening posts to me - My talk page is a picture painted by Arcayne. I am also fully with community consensus in the dispute over allowing a films credits to be cited and referenced in a films InfoBox. As a point of fact, Arcayne failed to enlist a single voice in support of his effort to overturn community consensus, he has tried to find support to overturn community consensus in the Scarlet Pimpernel article, the Fitna Article, five[3][4][5][6] [7]different sections on WP:RS, taken it before WP:OR, efforts to enlist support were made on numerous user talk pages; it has been marked as resolved and archived four times in Fitna:Talk, edited into the Infobox by numerous distinct editors and then immediately Reverted by Arcayne on Ten Separate Occasions and he has now opened still another front in the campaign, The Wiki Manual of Style! WP:MOS[8]

I am sorry to have troubled you for your time over this but things are not necessarily as Arcayne has painted them to be. 75.58.32.90 (talk)

Just to be clear, and Arcayne knows this to be true as it was brought up in his failed attempt on AN/I to ban me for this very same Block Evasion: My IP address changed before you blocked me.75.58.32.90 (talk)

With respect, the anon suggesting here - posting on your talk page - that he isn't evading a block - seems odd. If he was blocked the first time, and was made aware of the block and continued editing, that's block evasion. That he started up not one but two different IP addresses after being blocked that the second address the one commenting here is one of them. I don't really know how to respond to the irony of the situation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article in userspace

Why did you delete the article Leftist-Islamist Alliance from my own userspace? You have no right to do that, so please restore. /Slarre (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• You created the article, moved it to mainspace, and it was promptly deleted by acclamation. Feel free to try Conservapedia, where I believe that kind of content does not violate site policies. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not "move it to movespace". It was created in mainspace before I moved it to my userpage. I moved it to my userpage to have a copy of it, so I could work on it to become a decent article under a new title or integrated into an existing article. What policies are you referring to that says you can't keep copies of old articles on your userpage? /Slarre (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I can't quite understand why you deleted that page; when an article is AfD'd, I was under the impression that it was acceptable for an editor to userfy the content in order to work on it and add references, with the aim of eventually moving an improved version of the article back into mainspace. (I've seen this done before, at any rate.) I agree that the article, as was, did not meet notability guidelines for neologisms, but User:Slarre seemed to be making a good-faith attempt to improve it. Apologies, of course, if I've misunderstood the situation. Walton^One 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It very much depends ont he reason for deletion: poorly written articles on borderline or good subjects are certainly game for user space rework, but as you'll see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leftist-Islamist Alliance this was just a piece of political advocacy sourced from Free Republic and the like. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion. As you can see from the discussion, several users seem to think that the content is encyclopedic enough and worth expanding/improving under a new title or merged into another article, that's why I moved it to my userpage to try to improve it. It should also be noted that the article was previously nominated for deletion and was then voted to be kept. You have also not pointed to the guidelines/policies you seem to be relying on that says admins have the right to delete non-inflammatory content from other users' pages without even notifying or asking the user before. I ask you kindly once again to restore the article, otherwise I'll have to take this to another level. /Slarre (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Several? Oh, you mean three. And it's only your opinion that it's non-inflammatory. Actually, if that genuinely is your oipinion then I foresee trouble. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's 'inflammatory' in the article then? /Slarre (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ask a passing Muslim, I'm sure they'll help you out with that. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asking you, since it was you who made the assumption. /Slarre (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(To Guy) I agree (looking both at the AfD and at the deleted text of the article in Slarre's userspace) that the article did not meet WP:NEO, and obviously Free Republic is not a reliable source; thus I completely agree with the consensus on that AfD. However, I also think it's worth noting that the version in Slarre's userspace did cite two published sources; that isn't enough on its own to meet the notability threshold, of course, but it does suggest that the term is actually in use, and therefore that there's a possibility of writing a decent article at some point if enough acceptable sources can be found. Even if this won't be possible, it might also be possible to merge some of the content into another article (as a representation of a particular viewpoint). I agree 100% that the article, as was, doesn't belong in mainspace, but wouldn't it be acceptable to let him store it temporarily in his userspace to let him work on it? Walton^One 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I noticed you removed the archive links of three references on three Degrassi: The Next Generation articles yesterday, which pointed to pages at freerepublic.com. In the summary, you put unlink copyvio per WP:C; I read the page but see no explicit mention of the site or why any like it cannot be used. What then, is the problem with the website?

Also, when you removed the link, you messed up the formatting of the entire reference by not removing the archive date:

"McKay, John (2004-07-19). "American teen channel delays abortion-themed Degrassi episode". National Post. Retrieved 2007-09-10. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)"

Please be aware of this in the future. Regards, -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Free Republic is a polemical web forum, not a reliable source. Content sourced form Free Republic falls into two categories: unreliable source, remove; or copy of reliable source with no assertion of permission, remove. See WP:RS, WP:C and WP:EL. Free Republic is going on the spam blacklist, long overdue, but as a courtesy to those whose edits would be interrupted I am unlinking the site first. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't realise it's contentious nature. Hopefully the Wayback Machine will archive the pages instead at some point. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's a very common error and easily made. we have a lot of links to new stories scraped by other sites without permission, Free Republic is far from being the only offender. See also L.A. Times v. Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Republic

Sounds good to me! Just make sure that, when you delete those sources, you aren't creating poorly-formatted nonsense text. That doesn't improve Wikipedia, either, and was more my concern. Good luck and take care! Aepoutre (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Doing my best, sir, and mostly but not always succeeding :-) Guy (Help!) 22:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess other people are wondering about this too. I have a different issue -- freerepublic.com may be a "polemical site" or whatever, but many of the references that are being deleted are to copies on the FR site of reports in the legitimate media. Wouldn't it be better to try to salvage the underlying original link, rather than simply blanket delete all of these? Perhaps another way of asking this is: why is it important to do all of these at once, rather than highlighting them for gradual improvement? --Tom Ketchum 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Ketchum (talk • contribs)

I'll have to ditto this point, but suggest that editors use or replace the freerepublic references with the original or underlying reference that a freerepublic article is quoting or using as a source (provided that the root source is reliable). Sf46 (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That would require an editor verifying the source. If the "root" source is reliable, then that source needs to be checked for referencing. If an unreliable sources claims to repeat a reliable source, it's still an unreliable source. Vassyana (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Fort Qualls

I found several references for Fort Qualls using the archives of Google News at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Fort+Qualls%22 --Eastmain (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Mike Huckabee

I have reverted this edit, removing ONLY the Freep citation. Please post a link to where WP policy states that the Washington Post is a bad RS? ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Libertyinfo still blocked?

Hi, is this still in place? OptimistBen (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The block log says yes. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

cleanups

please undo your deletion of User talk:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin and User:Jaakobou/Battle of Jenin. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't; I've dealt with Jaakobou before, and he's got a problem with POV. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I know. Abandoned userspace POV-forks, no encyclopaedic benefit, move along please, nothing to see here. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try this again but this time in a more collaborative manner and hopefully, without the snide comments by editors who don't know the subject matter.

Please return "User:Jaakobou/Celebrations" for a time span of 5 days. I believe there were a few minor differences between that version and the current one. I'd like to make a comparison and fix whatever it is I could fix and move on to the other pages. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted on your page (above), I request permission to WP:TROUT you for repeated use of the words "POV" and "FORK" in some combination with "no encyclopaedic benefit" bad faith assumptions; and also for lack of conversation/inquiry.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that made me smile, anyway - the first sane reaction in the whole silly dramah thus far :-) Guy (Help!) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing URLs...

I don't understand why you removed the URL -- your edit. Either a source is useless or it is of some use. Removing the link substracts. I reverted and added a link to a NYWT article. Nephron  T|C 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Free Republic is not a reliable source per policy. If the material comes from another source, then cite the other source. If the material is on Freep because the other source doesn't have it online, and Freep does, then that's a copyright violation. See also L. A. Times v. Free Republic. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find a reliable source for the info at the time-- so I used it as a source. Also, it is not up to Wikipedia to police COPYVIOs on Freep. If Freep is such a bad source just remove the whole thing... or better still-- look for a reliable source instead of deleting a point from which anyone could read a bit more and find a reliable source. I feel your edit had negative value-- if someone wants to read the (partially deleted) Freep source they have to invest time to find it.

Stated differently, I think a crappy source is made crappier if the reference is managled. Nephron  T|C 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Freerepublic link in T-44 article

Hello.

The link to Freerepublic site in T-44 article is a very valuable source for the said article. If a substitute will be found than it will be replaced but as of now the Freerepulic link is irreplaceable. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• No it's not. Free Republic is not a reliable source, per policy. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians page

Basically, whats up with that? I think speedy deletion was a bit brash, why did you delete that page without discussion? - Schrandit (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#A7. You want it userfied to add content establishing significance? Guy (Help!) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds dandy. So I don't jump the gun on anything - what would be your criteria, if any, for establishing acceptable significance? - Schrandit (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Userfied, WP:N and in particular the sourcing from WP:V and WP:RS is all that's needed: assertion of notability, backed by multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable independent secondary sources - profiles of the group in Village Voice, for example. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Proabivoac's sockpuppetry subpages

Hi JzG, I have no plans to step into the Orderinchaos mess, but regarding the two Oldwindybear subpages: I think to any reasonable definition, sockpuppetry *was* established on-wiki (and, in any case, Oldwindybear has confirmed to me via email that he was doing it; we are in semi-regular email contact these days). The WP:ANI thread at the time was nearly unanimous, and OWB resigned rather than have an official ArbCom type thing. These two subpages were essentially WP:SSP reports in all but name, people acted on them, and several ANI threads link to them; I think, historically, they should be undeleted. Whether they should remain where they are, or be archived as SSP cases with a redirect from where they are now, I don't much care. But I think these two, at least, ought to be restored. Although Proabivouac evidently has a different opinion, I have no problems with a courtesy blanking. --barneca (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

p.s. If you don't wish to mess with it, I can do the actual restoration/pagemove/blanking/etc, but I don't want to do that without your OK (or indifference). --barneca (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even care. Here-and-now vandalism we can work on, but old cases, people who have left, then courtesy blanking should be entirely uncontroversial, and if people won't let that stick then the pages should be nuked or blanked and protected, I don't mind which. Wikipedia is not evil. We get so many emails from people who have come across stuff fomr years ago that embarrasses and humiliates them, once the problem is gone (and it does very much look as if it has), then we should quietly file it under "completed". I really don't mind if they stay red or get {{courtesy blanking}}, but old sock pages for long-gone socks are of no obvious value to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess now I don't care either; blocking Proabivouac is, to me, a much bigger deal, and since that won't be overturned, I guess caring what happens to two pages would be stupid. If you'd like a biased, but outside opinion, that block was wrong. No idea if it was against policy, but vengeful and wrong. --barneca (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(shrug). I'm going by a much longer and more problematic series of behaviours by that one. He seems to want to stay on as a drama-only account, and that's simply not on. I'd do the same for any editor who exhibited similar behaviour. Anyway, it's midnight here, so if I don't respond further it's because I've gone to bed. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted the page n question (mfd it if you want it gone, speedy is in no way applicable) and someone else has unblocked him. Viridae^Talk 23:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Once again you undo my admin actions despite a long-standing interpersonal dispute. Why am I not surprised at this piece of blatant wheel warring? Guy (Help!) 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again why am i suprised that you ran rough shod over process and didnt use MfD like a nomral person? Guys, you realise that RfC on you was partly about actions like this...Viridae^Talk 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have redeleted User:Proabivouac/Orderinchaos&DanielT5&Zivko85 - these claims were investigated by Mackensen in the time as both a checkuser and arbitrator. He concluded that the sockpuppetry accusations were unfounded and that three users were concerned. The community accepted Orderinchaos' explanation for the IP evidence linking them. The continued existence of this page (and personal comments being made about the users concerned off-site) is a clear cut case of harassment. Having an MfD would allow that harassment more prominence and isn't an acceptable outcome. Please don't restore the pages again. WjBscribe 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

JzG, as deeply offended and appalled as I am at the vulgar phrase with which you characterized me on ANI, your placement of a false charge - "harassment" - in my block log is intolerable.Proabivouac (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is a drop-down menu in the block interface, and you were indeed harassing Orderinchaos. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestion on what to do about this?

User:GundamsRus has the habit of following me around and "getting involved" in anything I do on the wiki, usually in an attempt to troll me-- he always will attempt to do the opposite of whatever I'm trying to accomplish. He also likes to make trolling comments on AfDs when I participate in them, such as [[9]].

I've complained about wikistalking on WP/ANI before, but the thread was archived with no admin attention. Jtrainor (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gene Ray

Thank you for deleting the Gene Ray article; I just happened to notice it on my watchlist. That was needed. --Allen (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pleasure. It was a nightmare, whatever one thinks of the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Yes, they most certainly do have lawyers! I find it fascinating that they were so quick to blank the page and complain. But I expect they are not that clever. If you could make any suggestions about what would be more neutral then I'd be grateful. Wikidea 21:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• A history of the firm from some impeccably dull sources would be good - Forbes, Business Week, anything like that. Sources that have not even the faintest whiff of a political agenda. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)