User talk:JzG/Archive 168

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. GMGtalk 14:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Good to have you back! GirthSummit (blether) 14:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am triggered! I love pie but have coeliac :-) Guy (Help!) 20:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: remove predatory open access journal

Are you checking the content of the articles you're removing from references? Nemo 07:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Normally not, as predatory open access journals are not reliable sources. They have no peer review. It's also depressingly common to find they are added by the authors. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Other than knowing them, is there a way to identify these, such as a definitive list? Jehochman Talk 10:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Check my user page. There are lists, and there are also tells. For example, use of fake impact metrics. They vary - OMICS is huge, well funded and pretty much an organised racket, with fake conferences to go with its fake journals and a spamming effort that led to the entire company being banned from Wikipedia, whereas something like "Scientific Research Publishing" is a bit of a bottom feeder. WP:RSN is the usual venue for discussion. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Saying that "predatory open access journals [...] have no peer review" is a tautology: the reality is that we don't know which journals have or don't have a functioning peer review. Lists of potential predatory journals are largely based on speculation about their internal practices. A lot of respectable research gets (sadly) published in questionable journals by authors who are not aware of alternatives such as the thousands of journals without APC. The general rule at WP:RS is "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors"; publisher features are only a proxy which may or not be easier to observe.
While removing references of questionable value without inspecting each of them closely is viable and even necessary to counter additions which either introduce extraordinary claims or spam articles in a self-serving way without any useful information (example), in other cases I'm not that sure: Talk:Spironucleus, Talk:Cannabis in Morocco, Talk:Tropical cyclones in the Mascarene Islands. Nemo 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This has been discussed endlessly on RSN and I have been doing it for years. No, we do not erect a bureaucracy to demand consensus before removing crappy sources. RS is RS, and predatory journals, by definition, are not. The last thing we need is to turn this into a culture war where "free means good" even when, according to multiple reliable observers, it definitely doesn't. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Well that was fun

Thieving monkey bastards

I went to Bangalore and while I was there we had a massive issue with the program I was working on, then I was sent to the hospital with a possible heart attack (spoiler: it wasn't). Now I am back to a sane project. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Welcome back! Hope the health is on the up and up! Arkon (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ooof J. Sorry to hear about your travails but I am glad to hear that you are okay. Sane is always open to interpretation though :-D Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Overowkr, old, panic attack, meh. Could be a LOT worse. My firned Dave is currently in hospital in an induced coma after a genuine heart attack. I'm lucky, and a drama queen. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Fuck, my fingers are worse than ever. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Welcome back, Guy! – bradv🍁 20:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Blimey - glad you're alright, that sounds terrible (but, as you say, could have been worse...). Sorry for the inappropriate food choice - although maybe it's a (disappointingly crumbly) gluten-free crust? GirthSummit (blether) 21:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Heh! No offence, of course. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Welcome back :-) How was the traffic in Bangalore? :-D ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Hilarious, mate. I have pictures. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
      • If you have a picture of Lady Curzon Road on Monday 2019-06-10, Wikipedia could possibly use it. Uncle G (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I was there in April. I did get some pics of the HAL Aerospace Museum though. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
          • So … you went absconding from Bengaluru in May after a massive issue in April, eh? Was your program funded by I Monetary Advisory, by any chance? ☺

            You know that thing where a high profile news story breaks, it affects members of the legislature causing expulsions and resignations and threatens to destabilize a government, we instantly get a bad article edited poorly by loads of people, which goes through at least one round of page protection and possibly AFD, has a current events high traffic editing template notice and a massive talk page, sanctions, AN/I discussions, and U.S./U.K. politics?

            None of this happens when the country is India.

            I was free to edit without edit conflicts, slowly. The talk page is still red. I happily left out non-information like people being arrested and random vox pops, and didn't have to argue about it. And I stayed several news cycles behind, allowing the dust to settle. It's still in the news a month and a half later, too. There's a Bill that just passed in the Lok Sabha, and there have been knock-on effects on the economy of Hajj travel companies.

            Mind you, that fight over a parking space went to AFD. ☺

            Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Heh. No. I was there for 3 weeks in April, while I was out there, the wheels fell off, I came back and carried on with the program but the wheels not only remained off, they started bouncing back and hitting us on the arse. I was doing like 95 hours per week. I was mainly in marathahalli (Bagmane Tech Park) but spent many happy hours walking round the city. I also visited Mysore and a few other places, and saw the sunrise at Nandi Hills. And I was robbed, but I got a picture of the perpetrator.Guy (Help!) 10:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Glad you're ok. I bet you're thanking your lucky stars they had good doctors, and none of them publish in a predatory journal. ^_^ I can only imagine what it must have been like to be away from home, and have something like that happen. Atsme Talk 📧 10:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • funny time you chose to return to wikipedia Woscafrench (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

SPS - note

Hi JzG, Thanks for your edit to Butley Priory this a.m. In quite rightly removing a reference and link to a SPS, you also removed some pukka references which were aggregated under the same reference number. I have reinstated the good refs to verify the information given in the text, but left the SPS out (as I imagine you intended). Hope you approve. Thanks, Eebahgum (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that. There were a number like that, obviously my eyes glazed over at the crucial moment so I missed that one. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Quick quiz

Two edits to Bequia:

  • The [Princess Margaret] beach is also known as Tony Gibbons, though the origin of this name is uncertain.
    — User:129.97.124.13 2019-01-23T16:31:16

  • The islands' anthem is considered to be 'Only in Bequia'.
    — User:Bequia Foundation 2007-09-25T16:38:53

Which is the verifiable content? The edit by the non-logged-in person who has not edited a talk page? Or the edit by the person with an account who talks on talk pages?

Expand for the answer.

You are correct.

The Princess Margaret Beach verifiably was originally named Tony Gibbons, the name turning up in old 19th century naval references and the story of how it was renamed because Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, once swum there can be found in numerous places, with no-one seemingly having an explanation of who or what Tony Gibbons was. Whereas the logged-in editor with the rôle account representing the Bequia Foundation provided weasel-worded passive-voice content for which there is no source to be found, and whose timing is suspiciously close to when the song was posted to Youtube.

  • Barnett, Edward (1866). "The Grenadines". The West India Pilot. Vol. 2. London: Hydrographic Office, Admiralty. p. 32. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Kilgore, Cindy; Moore, Alan (2011). Adventure Guide Grenanda, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Hunter Publishing. p. 143. ISBN 9781588436245. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of anti-vaccination tropes

Hello, JzG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of anti-vaccination tropes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Rollidan (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

French Homeopathy reimbursements ban

Hey. I saw your addition on homeopathy and was initially pleased, but I read the source about the French ban and I see nothing other than medical professionals Petitioning that it should be done. Not that any actual decision has been made. Did I miss something? RobP (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, put the wrong source in. Hang on. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed discussion on talk page

Hello Guy, I'm the user who started the discussion on Talk:TERF that you closed. Are you sure this was the right decision, given that the page is in violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and reliable sources? As the links I've listed show, there are about as many reliable sources that hold the opposite point of view than that which is currently presented as fact on the "TERF" page. There are also political opinion pieces supporting both sides, some of which are used in the article to make statements of fact, whereas the ones I provided for contrast were disregarded with very unkind and hyperbolic remarks. The editors making these remarks have proven themselves to be highly opinionated and emotionally invested in the topic, but their voice seems to be drowning down dissenters because they are several of them and some of them are experienced editors. Thanks in advance for your time and reconsideration of the decision. Rhino (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Your argument consists of conclusory statements, see begging the question. The lede is actually a masterpiece, given the minefield that is trans exclusionary feminism. As to the rest, you may succeed in changing the body incrementally by proposing edits in the "change X to Y using Z source" form, as long as you assume that other editors are acting in good faith and do not succumb to the regrettable tendency to proselytise which is so often seen in this area. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the lede is far from a masterpiece, but the discussion was not about the lede. It was about this sentence in the "Coinage and usage" section: "It is used to describe a minority of feminists who espouse transphobic hatred." I don't mean to "beg the question" by the way, I simply state what seems evident to me: that sentence is a severe breach of the "neutral point of view" policy. (Wikipedia's welcoming pages and intro guides kept telling me to be bold, you know.) Rhino (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am quite surprised at this edit that constitutes the closing of a talk page thread mid-discussion. You've closed off a discussion because you like the lede as it is? Your rationale that the lede has "been hammered out over a long time" isn't even close to being true.
I think you might be a little too close to the topic to do something that an uninvolved editor/administrator should be doing. Please undo this edit. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
You may be mistaking me for someone who cares. The article talk page is over thataway, and if you can't frame a question in a neutral way that respects other editors you may expect to be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Gerda Arendt, you light up this project with your warmth. Bless you. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Edited your comment

I edited your comment here. Nick Humley (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

PD-USGov academic articles

You have written on the topic before, so you might be interested in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bischoff and Rosenbauer, 1988 - Liquid-vapor relations.pdf. Nemo 19:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello. I noticed that you deleted the article Rafael Andrade, which was created by a banned user. I worked on the article and checked the information on it, so there was no need for it to be deleted. Is there any way to restore the lost content in any form? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It was a long term abuse case. Your best bet is to prepare a well-sourced draft from reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hello again JzG, I just wanted to thank you for all you've done here, and I hope you'll be back whenever you decide your break is over. —PaleoNeonate – 05:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Real glad to see you back, welcome. (I'm also removing the {{DNAU}} tag from this thread.) I couldn't patrol my watchlist in the last week or so, so only noticed your return now. I used the little time I currently have for Wikipedia to update my knowledge on supremacism, scientific racism and related topics, though (and study a few LTA sock cases). I suspect I'll be able to resume patrolling in a week or two... —PaleoNeonate – 23:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_168&oldid=910447289"