User talk:JzG

Discretionary sanctions

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)

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).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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)

Question

If you are allowed to post in a closed section, am I also allowed to do that? Or do admins have special rights to do that? KFvdL (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A closure is an action by one editor. It can be challenged, but when challenged by a conflicted single-purpose account it is more likely to be restored. So: you can try, but I don't advise it. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I saw that you removed the closure of the section that was closed by Roxy. I missed that. Sorry about that. I think if you would close it again and thus allow yourself to respond while blocking another editor to respond it would be frowned upon.... KFvdL (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Refspam?

Hi JzG, writing to you as an editor with experience in academic spam. these edits don't on the face of it look terribly helpful, but it could be good-faith ineptitude. They seem to be adding links to "Management Science Letters" articles, which isn't a journal I know anything about. From my phone on the train it's a bit tricky to investigate further, though I see that it's recent and open-access. The journal articles might be relevant to the WP articles, or might not. What would you suggest doing in this specific / a general similar case? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's refspam for sure. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I see that it's already been cleaned up. Thanks for the advice: I shall be a bit bolder next time! Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, or ask again, a friendly talk page stalker may well help out, too. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

McCarthy

I have replied on my talk page, but I see your edit has already been reverted by MPS1992, who agreed with my reasoning per WP:BLP. For your convenience, here is my reply to your implying that my edit was in any way 'taking sides' or had anything to do with me being 'familiar with editing about autism' - the topic is irrelevant:
"Whether I am familiar with a topic or not had no bearing on anything - does a quote that is attributed to the subject of a BLP article have a reliable source to confirm the person said it or not? That's what matters. I did not state any opinion either way, nor did I say anyone else did - I simply fixed issues introduced by a new editor who clearly had strong opinions (that did not belong on Ms. McCarthy's page to begin with) and wished to introduce them into the living person article. It is also why I did not include the 'vulnerable' qualifier - it is not neutral, or unbaised a term. I think perhaps you did not look at the edits from the person who was introducing the issues; all I did is add a PBS reference he wished added, and clarify what he continued to try to introduce into the article repeatedly - the terminology she stated in two interviews that she preferred - attributing it to her in quotations. I did so in an unbiased, sourced way, moved the other source that confirms it up to that line, and removed a link to someone's random Facebook page that should not have been there in the first place (and was re-introduced by you reverting my fix.) Please take another look at the actual diffs before assuming I was not fixing errors introduced by others. Cheers Ariel♥Gold 01:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

On further digging, it appears that the odd facebook link was a strange way of linking to the author of the last reference from The Washington Post. (I'd suggest putting a link to that person's actual Washington Post bio page instead of her personal Facebook page, if necessary.} I'd also like to clarify that you reverted the very thing I had done - your edit summary says this: " No. McCarthy claims not to be anti-vaccine, but reliable indpendent sources say she is, and the weasellry about "vulnerbale children" is just that: weasellyry. Vaccines do not cause autism.". I did not approve the pending edit from the person claiming she isn't anti, instead added the source that shows that is what the press does categorize her as, but also has her claims to the contrary, with the quote of her "preferred term" - it is not claiming one is right, or wrong. It's simply what she said in response to the interviewer. I removed the inappropriate word 'vulnerable' from the previous editor's pending edits, and I reminded him that his views on the subject were not appropriate for her page. Additionally, I removed his edits that added comments about what 'Most parents' think - since it was not appropriate for her article, and I suggested he open a dialog on the Autism talk page about such things if he feels they are incorrect on Wikipedia. So I'm quite confused as to how you can accuse me of being 'weasellry', or biased in any way in my rejection of the controversial pending edits from CMTBard. I'm sure if you do take a thorough look through his attempted edits and my review of them, you will see my addition of the PBS ref with her quote, and moving of the other ref up to another line, did not introduce any issues to the article in question. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 01:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice that the WaPo source is a series of uncritically repeated antivax claims made by McCarthy? It's not a secondary source, it just parrots her propaganda. Did you notice that the Frontline source is an unattributed interview (no interviewer named) that parrots her propaganda without challenging it? Did you notice that the claims have been strongly rebutted, as per the sources in the following sentence, which sources are sufficent to cover the fact of her lying about not being anti-vax? I don't blame you or anyone else, by the way - this is absolutely normal in articles on antivax tropes. Antivaxers are adept in pretending to be "pro safe vaccine" or "pro parental choice" because they know that being anti-vaccine is a fringe position, but these arguments are 100% pretextual, as all the reliable independent sources show. When you ask them what they mean by a "safe vaccine", their response is either incoherent or involves unicorns and flying pigs. Especially the demand for a randomised controlled trial, which would never pass an ethics panel because it would mean exposing children to deadly diseases without a known effective protection. It would be like an RCT of sunscreen as a protection against skin cancer: we already know that vaccines save lives, so exposing people to deadly diseases to satisfy the post-hoc rationales of people seeking to excuse a quasi-religious hatred of vaccines does not amount to a scientific question sufficient to risk life and health of children. Especially since the monomaniac focus of the likes of McCarthy is autism, which has been conclusively shown not to be in any way related to vaccines. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The only source I added was PBS. If you are going to try to tell me that PBS is no longer considered a 'reliable source' then Wikipedia surely has changed far more than I imagined. And that is the only source that I used for a four word quote. Again I think you are getting hung up by a topic, and not my edit. Even here - you are expounding about the topic - and not my edit. I am an ICU nurse and I have full knowledge of the topic, but I neither wish to discuss it with you, nor do I think it appropriate that as an Admin, you go on and on about it here as it relates to my edit - it has absolutely nothing to do with how one edits Wikipedia. Please let me know if PBS is no longer considered a reliable source. If it isn't - well then I may need to reconsider my decision to return to editing. And I strongly suggest that you remove yourself from editing on this topic, as you are clearly unable to be objective. The fact that you felt you had to type out an entire paragraph about autism, rather than discuss my adding a source to an article about a person, shows you are not able to be unbiased. I could care less if the topic were Autism, the Air Force, or Aliens. I treat it the same - is the source reliable? Did the subject say the words according to the reliable source? Then it is absolutely proper to attribute the quotation to the subject in an article. In this case it wasn't even so much a quotation, as a "term" she has made up. Either way again, it is irrelevant to the edit. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 21:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)