User talk:JzG/Archive 116

Archive 110

←

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

Archive 118

→

Archive 120

blacklist handler

Hi! Good to see you are making good use of the blacklisting script. It looks however like you are using an outdated version of the spam blacklist handler - it contains some bugs that I have changed in my own version. You may want to use the version from my userspace. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it makes it a LOT easier! Guy (Help!) 09:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD notice

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

History merge

Can you do a history merge of the original and new versions of WP:Don't be high maintenance? Right now, it looks like I wrote the whole thing! I ain't that good. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jenks24 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recess (song)

Beatport is a music player. Is genre tag reliable? 115.164.49.74 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - MrX 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Close of RfC at WP:Don't feed the divas

Hi JzG. I would like to challenge your close of the title change RfC at WP:Don't feed the divas. For the life of me, I can't see how you arrived at consensus to re-title the essay to that title (or any other title). Only a small minority favor "Don't be high maintenance". A few thought it should be moved to "Tantrum" and several others thought it should remain at the original title. I don't see how there is a consensus to for any title change at all and I think it should be closed as such, and the title moved back. Thank you. - MrX 12:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Challenge away, WP:ANI is the place. I saw a consensus that the existing title is bad, and a lot of evidence that the accusatory tone was better handled by a different approach, which I boldly instituted based on what is clearly a decent essay on not being high maintenance. Consensus was not to have "diva" in there, after all. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but would you mind explaining how you arrived at that consensus? I may be missing something. I don't want to raise it at AN and waste everyone's time if I've misread the consensus. Thanks again.- MrX 13:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the debate. It took a while, there were a lot of detailed points made. Overall the claim that opposition tot he word "diva" is political correctness was successfully countered (I am reminded of a comment I saw recently that comments on this should best be handled by replacing "political correctness" with "treating people with respect" and seeing if the argument still holds up). I chose the title on the basis that none of the others had consensus. I chose to move the draft in because that was, to my eyes, the best outcome, but that one point is my own sole judgment and you are free to rework the content as much or as little as you see fit. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

" I chose the title on the basis that none of the others had consensus." - I'm interpreting this to mean that you decided to make WP:BOLD title move on your own, even though there was no consensus. This seems to be further reinforced by your statement "Overall the claim that opposition tot he word "diva" is political correctness was successfully countered" (emphasis added) which support the opposite of the edit you made.

Since it requires admin tools to put the essay back to WP:Don't feed the divas, am requesting that you do so. I would also caution you not to close an RfC and make a bold edit simultaneously in the future, as it looks very much like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Many thanks.- MrX 14:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there was clear consensus that the title was wrong. Feel free to choose a better one from those suggested. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:JAGUAR: I don't care much what title it's at, but if you follow the course of the discussion over time, "don't be high-maintenance" was increasingly favored, after it was relisted when a name didn't clearly emerge the first time (principally because of actual objections raised to WP:TANTRUM - tone, just a shortcut without a title, and redundant/confusable with WP:PRAM). It has to be titled something, and if necessary would have another RM/RFC to pick another name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Move review for Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas

An editor has asked for a Move review of Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. - MrX 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Atsme

You have been remarkably patient with Atsme. But about this - please look at her contribs. She went from ANI, to the Gabor Racz article, then, her "return to fish" was PRODding 14 articles by an editor who she had only crossed path with before, at the ANI about her, and who supported sanctions against her. That is at best, a very ugly coincidence; it is definitely terrible judgement (like my pursuit of the COIN case against her was bad judgement on my part). My wish is that you do not support an unblock with a restriction only from drama boards. She is disruptive in can carry her disruption into article space - as that series of PRODs shows. Your semi-support of the unblock gives succor to her view of herself as the victim who has never done wrong. As long as she holds fiercely to that view she is continuing on the road to a site indef. In my view, you are not helping her, nor the community, with that stance. fwiw.... Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (amend to be more nuanced Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC))

JD makes a very valid point, you have been remarkably patient, but I think the time for that has come to an end. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

the block is only for a month; it is a good thing to not burn bridges and Guy's patience will remain valuable. We always hope people can change. I was just suggesting that supporting an unblock is not good for anybody, including Atsme, at this time. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I remain open to reappraising my view of people. I acknowledge that in this case I may be on a Quixotic mission. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Guy. You are tilting at windmills. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Leuchter Report

Why did you lock the Leuchter Report? Changes made by 62.255.104.106 weren't disruptive editing. 6millionjuice (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Arnis: Cebuano Eskrima - Beyond the Myth

Please do not remove the entry again due to being published by Xlibris. Many of the older Arnis books, especially by the old masters, were published under similar conditions, dating back to the 1st known one, Mga Karunungan sa Larong Arnis, which was a "work for hire" publication with a different kind of UP press back then. Do read the book (Cebuano Eskrima), it is probably the best-researched book in existence on Visayan Eskrima. There is a dearth of proper knowledge about the FMAs, as such there is little or not enough scholarly work on them on the Philippine side. Though it has its flaws, Cebuano Eskrima is one of the most scholarly books ever written on the subject. -Object404 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not link to offsite sales pages. Xlibris is not a publisher as such, it is a print-on-demand shop. You need to reference original peer-reviewed publications or the ISBN. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

De-linking Xlibris is acceptable. Here's a journal entry with Cebuano Eskrima so you can get a feel of the writing style: http://www.fmainformative.info/Newspaper/2014/FMA_Informative_Newspaper-Vol3No6-2014.pdf Unlike half the books on FMA, this one is written from the Filipino, Visayan perspective from actual residents of the Philippines. You can also check the reviews on Amazon to get another feel on how it is. This is not for promotion of the book. I cite it as a source as it is excellently written and meticulously researched. A lot of the books on FMA out there lack scholarly fact-checking and have many inaccuracies.

Amazon link for the reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Cebuano-Eskrima-Celestino-C-Macachor/dp/1425746217/

This is the imporant one. It has been peer-reviewed by other highly respected FMA Grandmasters: http://www.fmatalk.com/showthread.php?1834-Cebuano-Eskrima-Beyond-the-myth

Good enough, no? I understand that you are not very familiar with the subject and the history and context of publications on it, but I have cited sufficient proof above. I understand your reservations with such self-published books and motivation (quality control) but such is the nature of Filipino Martial Arts. I assure you, the book is one of the most scholarly pieces ever written on FMA. As such I hope you find no offense that I am reverting your deletion. All the best, -Object404 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't rely on my own view of these things, I look to reliable independent sources. It really doesn't matter how scholarly it is, if it's self-published, you'd need independent evidence of its significance from reliable independent sources (e.g. if it is cited by national or international associations as a source). Guy (Help!) 13:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We really can't bro. There's *very little* scholarly literature on Arnis given its history, context and obscurity. We'll have to do with material like this. -Object404 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, have you read the content at the links I posted above? Please do so first before forming your opinions. Especially the take of the other FMA Grandmasters, who're the ultimate peers here. What's also different about this book is that it's written by Filipinos with a Filipino context. Around half the FMA books & articles you'll see out there are written by Americans so this book is closer to home. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a recent journal dedicated to Cebuano Eskrima: Beyond the Myth: http://www.fmainformative.info/Informative_Issues/2015/FMA_Informative-Issue187.pdf Please read it. Regards, -Object404 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, I always get this uncomfortable feeling when people want to use a dubious source because better sources don't exist. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Richmond Pharmacology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richmond Pharmacology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Pharmacology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC close of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds

Hi JzG - pretty puzzled by this edit. You "closed" an RFC that was clearly labelled as a DRAFT (ie, not actually an RFC at all). Note that the "real" RFC is immediately below that one, has been live for more than a month, and is extremely contentious, with a very large number of posts and multiple drama-posts at ANI and other noticeboards stemming from it.

Your "close" was unnecessary (again, not an actual RFC) and is just going to throw fuel on an already out-of-control fire by giving half the people involved a pretext for challenging the validity of the real, ongoing RFC. Your call and your edit, obviously, but I suggest you revert - this page has been wracked by a very tense and very intractable conflict for months now, a lot of people on both sides have been counting on the (real) RFC to resolve it. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want to take that up with Cunard, who habitually brings large numbers of outstanding RfCs to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I assessed it on the basis that it appeared to be running, whatever its stated status. Feel free to restart it as a live RfC if you like. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The "RFC" you closed was never templated and was never listed at that noticeboard. This one is the one listed at requests for closure. You should at least revert there since it is not, in fact, closed. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Large numbers never are templated. For which reason they often stick around for ever. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

You're not hearing me, please take a moment to actually look at the Americans for Prosperity talk page and the requests for closure discussion and I think you'll see that you've made an error. With this edit you've marked an RFC at Americans for Prosperity as "done" - but the RFC which was listed at Requests for Closure is actually this one - it is plainly still open and active. So even if you insist on sticking to your "close" of a non-RFC, you need to remove your "done" from requests for closure. The real RFC still needs closing and should not be marked as "done." Fyddlestix (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaah, now I understand. Let me go and look. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to our backlog of RfC closures. Thank you for your suggestion of rewording. May I remark, I was hoping for a somewhat more thoughtful closing statement. May I respectfully ask that you expand on your closing statement to explain how the decision was reached? Did you examine the arguments advanced? For example, were any arguments advanced for or against the RfC question that contradict policy or guideline, or that demonstrate a less than thorough understanding of policy or guideline? Did you note the recent !vote activity? Thanks again. Hugh (talk)

50/50 "yes" / "no" on pretty much partisan lines. There's not much I can add to that. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:Consensus explicitly says that voting is not how consensus is determined. So this comment of yours greatly raises concern that you did not do your due diligence in acting as a closer. Please tell me the Wikipedia policy that those "opposed" cited as their reason for not including a neutrally phrased line supported by multiple reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say that I counted? I weighed up the arguments. There was equal merit on both sides, and equal numbers as well. Anybody who can tease a consensus out of that is willing to try, if you want to ask at ANI for a reappraisal. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When you say "50/50 'yes' / 'no'" and then say "equal numbers as well", that's clearly an admittance to counting votes. It's also hard for me to believe you weighed the arguments when you didn't even close the right RFC to begin with, it took someone 3-4 tries to get you to recognize your error, your initial response to being questioned about the closing rational was to reference voting, and even after being called out on that still didn't give an answer that demonstrated an understanding the "opposed" position. You didn't answer my question, which is a requirement of a closer, which was to name the "Wikipedia policy that those "opposed" cited as their reason for not including a neutrally phrased line supported by multiple reliable sources?".Scoobydunk (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's really not. I'm not going to argue this point with you. If you want a review, WP:ANI is second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:ANRFC "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale." and "All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies." Here, I've twice asked you a very straight forward question regarding your rationale and you've refused to discuss it. Instead, you've tried to brush me off to a closure review. Before requesting a closure review, I'm suppose to first discuss the closure with you, but it's clear you're besmirching the responsibilities of a closer when you refuse to answer reasonable questions about your closing rationale. Furthermore, you've twice admitted to counting votes which has absolutely no relevance to determining consensus and, therefore, doesn't even merit mention, yet you've chosen to mention it TWICE when responding to questions about your closing rationale. Please discuss the valid policy based arguments that the opposition held that lead you to believe both sides had "equal merit". This shouldn't be hard to do since you're suppose to be well versed with policies behind the RFC before acting as a closer.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no dog in this fight but have briefly looked over the RFC. In my opinion User:JzG deserves a medal for reading through those interminable walls of text. That anyone could wade into that cesspool and come out with their sanity intact is remarkable. My reading of the RFC also suggests you and others (such as User:HughD) could benefit from reading WP:LASTWORD. [[User:|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

JzG has yet to demonstrate reading and understanding of the issues in the RFC, so if you enjoy handing out medals in lieu of no evidence, that's your prerogative. Thank you for voicing your opinion though you didn't address any of the issues concerning the rationale behind the closing.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Short Brigade Harvester Boris said you deserve a medal for reading the RfC and that it is remarkable that you read the RfC. Did you read the RfC? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: you wrote "I weighed up the arguments. There was equal merit on both sides" May I respectfully ask, what would you say in your opinion were the most meritorious of the arguments in opposition to the RfC question (that is, in favor of exclusion of the proposed content)? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Scooby, Hugh, what really do you expect JzG to say in response to these questions? It's clear that he's not going to change his mind. I share your concerns about the close and was also hoping for a different result, but accusing Guy of not reading the RFC or making an arbitrary decision is not going to change his mind. If you want to challenge the close, file a request for it to be reviewed at WP:AN. That's literally your only option here (besides accepting the close and moving on). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I would like to better understand what happened here. I would like to learn from this. A closing statement less than dismissive and we would not be here. I have expectations based on WP:CLOSE. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD, you are about on the edge of getting banned from several topics for this kind of battering behavior. Please read WP:CLOSE to learn about the way to contest a close with which you disagree. Guy has answered the question already and you have exhausted (and I mean exhausted) that step of the process. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, I just want to demonstrate that before I raise a review that I did attempt, in good faith, to discuss my concerns with the closer, which is suggested before opening a review request. An example for opening a closure review states "The issue the closer was to decide was (describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X not ever intended to apply to issues such as this." However, it's difficult proceed without the closer first articulating which policies he/she used to close the RFC. JzG has refused to cite a single policy backing his decision in every response thus far. I'm also taking this moment to address concerns about inappropriate closes based on misunderstandings of WP:consensus and editors who feel they're above WP policy and don't have to adhere to closing responsibilities. There really isn't much recourse for that type of discussion that I'm aware of, but if there is an outlet to address that type of behavior, I'm happy to look in to it.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed and justified my rationale. You don't like my explanation, and seem to want me to come to a different conclusion. I am not likely to change my view of the debate, especially as a result of browbeating, so your next step is, as I said, ANI. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:ANRFC"All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies" So where are those underlying policies we've asked you about multiple times now? Maybe I missed it, but if you could give me the diff where you stated the policies behind your decision making, that would be most helpful.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Scoobydunk: per WP:CHOICE and WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures, I suggest that, if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, you request a close review at WP:AN. - MrX 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You've said that twice now. Seems to me you're not interested in discussing it, you want it changed. That requires independent review. As I've said more than once, and MrX has also said, ANI or AN is the corrcet venue. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well your ability to discern others' interest is not my concern. Before knowing if it should be changed, I'd like to know the policies underlying your decisions. If I feel the policies you based your decision on have merit, then I won't need to seek a change. However, you've yet to articulate and explain which policies supported your decision. So, the only one here who's not interested in discussion is you and you've already explicitly expressed this.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

One of us is being aggressive and confrontational. It's not me. Did you see the bit where that guideline says the closer must be prepared to engage in discussion on their talk page? Me neither. Feel free to discuss this somewhere you'll get wider input, i.e. AN or ANI. I think I might have mentioned these before. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)