User talk:JzG/Archive 24 - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 16 July 2006 (→Your comment on my talkpage: sp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:44, 16 July 2006 by JzG (talk | contribs) (→Your comment on my talkpage: sp)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Archives
Archive Archive 2: The Sequel Archive 3: Return of the Archive Archive 4: The Revenge - This Time It's Personal Archive 5, Jan 2006 (general archive) Archive 6, Feb 2006 (general archive) Archive 7, Mar 2006 (general archive) Archive 8, Apr 2006 (general archive) Archive 9, May 2006 (general archive) Archive 10, June-ish 2006 (general archive) Archive of discussions pertaining to Jason Gastrich Archive of discussions pertaining to personal rapid transit Archive of discussions pertaining to adminship and requests archiving policy privacy policy

Good work on User:Socafan

I might not have pushed so hard, but you were clearly right, and the Socafan was clearly in the wrong. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

I see you've been down this road before. Talk:Asperger syndrome#What the autistic community feels about the medicalized article I'm somewhat new to Wiki myself: is it time for an ArbCom, would that help considering the extensive history, and if so, how does one do that? Sandy 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

God knows. It's a thorny problem - the reliable secondary sources here are medical, so those who are in what might be termed denial of the medical interpretation simply don't make it into the medical journals. It might be worth floating it around the mailing list (WikiEN-l) or the admin noticeboard; I freely confess to be well out of my depth with that one! Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Editor Crossmr and LiveJournal

Please look at the edit record with regard to Crossmr and LiveJournal: it appears that he is (ab)using Misplaced Pages rules to systematically remove all material which places LiveJournal management in a bad light regardless of the facts: for example, multiple LJ users' accounts of identical actions by the LJ Abuse Team are removed "because LiveJournals are weblogs and Jimbo Wales has decreed that these are unacceptable as sources" (quasi-quote). OTOH, he allows LJ management statements to appear unchallenged because LJ management speaking for itself is "an official source." The net effect is that the article POV in favor of LJ management.

He does this with other material in the article as well. In another example, he has repetedly censored the fact that some LJ users abbreviate the phrase "Friend-list" as "flist", even though a casual LJ user will see the neologism repeatedly in use.

A quick scan through the record will show many similar removals and reverts of factual information he just plainly doesn't want to appear in the article, all under the guise of following WP guidelines, following their letter but not their spirit.

We have disagreed in the past, but you strike me as basically a fair man. I realize I can be hot-headed when information which I personally know to be true is reverted, and have a tendency to personalize, so I withdrew myself from arguing with him about this several days ago. Your advice and perhaps intervention would be appreciated.

Davidkevin 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I find your accusation that I'm abusing the rules a bit of a personal attack. Just because you want to include material you can't source properly is no reason to start accusing me of abusing the rules. Perhaps you need to re-read WP:OR, WP:V and several of the other policies on including content in wikipedia again, but we don't relax the rules just because you think the content should be included, especially on policies that are the cornerstone of wikipedia. Schmucky was able to go out and find sources for the breastfeeding material, as such, it remains. Its not a complicated process. If you want to include a theory, put forth an original idea, define a term, introduce an argument (like a criticism), or several of the other things on this list WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F You need to bring a citation. If you cannot, its original research and cannot be kept in the article. The policy cannot be misinterpreted as it clearly states These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. So while you, or I, or a dozen of us may agree that some term means something, without a citation it fails the original research test and must be excluded. The complimentary policy Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth also has a very clear definition of what may be included. This is also a non-negotiable policy. The first paragraph very clearly defines the goal of this encyclopedia and what you wanted to include flew in the face of that. This spells it out very clearly The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is thus verifiability, not truth. These are not just good ideas, these are binding policies for inclusion of content.--Crossmr 00:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's extraordinarily tacky to attempt to start an argument in someone's User Talk page, but since you have misinterpreted my request for review as a besmirchment, I will reply here this one time. I don't presume to speak for him, but I would request that this not occur again in JzG's User Talk page.

I would be more inclined to believe you if these policies were enforced as stringently elsewhere as you enforce them in this one particular article, and if it didn't appear that your pattern of these deletions enforce a particular point of view.

However, rather than make the mistake of claiming my perception is an objective fact, I have asked JzG to please review the LiveJournal edit record.

If you want to personalize this review request into a personal attack upon you I cannot stop you from doing so, but that is not my intent. My intent is that facts not be disincluded for capricious, arbitrary, or rules-abusive reasons. An unbiased administrative review will help in this regard, I believe.

I am trying very hard (JzG knows with what a temper I can sometimes express myself) to not be "personally attack-ive", as it were. Looking at what I wrote above, I guess I could still have been better at it, and I'm sorry for that. However the issues are valid ones over which to be concerned, it seems to me, which is why I'm asking someone else to look at the record.

I await JzG's review at his convenience, or if he is not able, I would hope he can request someone of equal disinterest to do it instead.

Davidkevin 01:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all an argument, just ensuring he receives both sides of whats going on. Your tone was accusatory and very negative in regards to your perception of my behaviour.--Crossmr 01:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is somewhat ambiguous here. It allows the use of blogs as primary sources when discussing their subject but in this case that woudl depend on whether you consider the subject to be LJ or the individual LJ users. Either interpretation is valid, and if there are a significant number I would be inclined to allow it with some care given to the wording. I'd also be inclined to keep it very short, as there is no evidence presented that this event was considered significant by anyone other than the livejournallers themselves. But that is just my personal view; as always, secondary sources are preferred. It would be much better to find coverage of this story in one of the tech journals and say "according to s--and-so" where so-and-so is a source of known authority, and most importantly it would allow us to have a secondary source for the purported imnportance of the events, which is the real issue for me. Have any of the notable web-watchers covered this in sufficient detail to be helpful? Just zis Guy you know? 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case its seemingly used to support criticism about Livejournal and to support a definition of flist. I don't believe anyone's written a blog entry about what they feel flist means, so that usage is definitely out. I'd also mention that RS was recently changed by someone trying to push an agenda for inclusion of certain content in a couple of articles based wholely on unreliable usenet posts. Previous to this it read that blogs were never usable unless the person was a well known researcher or journalist. I think trying to source blog opinion on LJ is a bit pointless. You have no way of knowing if they're in the significant majority (unless you can find some credible sources), so simply saying "xx livejournal user said this" doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion because really, why is that person's opinion encyclopedic? There are hundreds of thousands of users, we could make the article pretty long sourcing each of their opinions.--Crossmr 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggets mediation. I really don't have the time to get into another content dispute right now, and the arguments are detailed. Just zis Guy you know? 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Notices

Thank you for the "Rouge Admin" thingy. Please be aware that I do not use userboxes, nor am I particularly enamored of the sentiment implied by that one. I realize you meant well; however, I have removed it. DS 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Rouge is as rouge does :-) 12:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help with this though...

I meant to move a page this morning List of tallest structures in Paris => List of tallest structures in the Paris region) and almost made a mistake - I cut and pasted the article content from one page to another (where there was once a redirect back to the original page) and saved it. I should have used the 'move tab' - I did not know that it was possible to move 'over' a redirect but caught this in time by some 'in doubt' last-minute reading. - and my error gave the page I wanted to move to a history, which made it impossible to complete the move. Could you somehow efface my 'history' error and make the move possible once again?

Thank you, regards,

THEPROMENADER 08:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a complex move, I will do it when I get a minute. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? I had no idea it would be hard to fix - apologies. No hurry at all, as the move has been temporarily 'waylaid' through some creative juggling. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. THEPROMENADER 13:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not hard to fix. I have to delete the redirect, move, then undelete to restore and merge the deleted history. It's a mildly tedious action but not an especially arduous one. Just zis Guy you know? 13:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - perhaps I wasn't clear. I was asking that you clear the history of the List of tallest structures in the Paris region - leaving the redirect there - but 'freeing' the namespace for an eventual future move. If a page has a history, one can't move over it - and the only history the List of tallest structures in the Paris region page has is my 'paste' error, so it would seem alright just to just eliminate this without worrying about special treatment. Or did I miss something? Anyhow, thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Might work, but doesn't matter too much if not. Just zis Guy you know? 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! Sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Overreaction

I think you need to actually look at the edit history of the Religious life. It was never pointed toward Religious order. Your tone is really over the top here. Vaquero100 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone who writes this:

I wonder which hoary old argument has just been revived? Could it perhaps be the perenial demand by the Papists to move their article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church? I must wander along and have a look - maybe there will be a new argument this time. Yes, yes, I know - the triumph of hope over experience... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

perhaps should not be so quick to judge. Your edits have a clear bias. I have not seen any evidence that you are willing to engage in a discussion of Catholic naming issues from the perspective of WP conventions and policies. This is problematic for an administrator who can enforce his bias with impunity. If you would like to have a rational discussion, I am more than open to it. But threats will not help the situation. You might also want to read this article: Papist Vaquero100 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you appear to view everything through the filter of how closely it matches your own agenda, I have little doubt that you would never perceive any position other than your own as neutral. This is known locally as MPOV. For your information I have taken part in these discussions some while back. As far as I'm concerned the issue is settled long since, notwithstanding the occasional rehashing of the same arguments. Of course I, as an Anglo-Catholic, have a bias as well. The difference is that I am open about it and do my best to discount it.

You are right that the redirect was not to religious order. I aoplogise. On the toher hand, it should have been. To point it to a Catholic-specific article in the first place was a failure of WP:NPOV. Your user page makes it quite plain that you are waging a POV-pushing campaign. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I should have directed "religious life" to "religious order." It was a thoughtless error on my part but not with malicious intent. And I have no argument with the present redirect. Your anti-Catholic commentary suggests that you have a bias regarding issues I edit on. When Anglicans and others move an article without discussion, administrators look the other way. If I move it back because there was no due process, I get threats. If you are going to have a role in Catholic related articles (which your Papist comments to me suggests you shold not), then you and other administrators should be more even handed. Also, it would show good faith on your part if you would actually demonstrate in your commentary a familiarity with CC vs. RCC. The arguments have become much better developed than they were in March. The March discussion was not argued from a WP standpoint but a theological one. The arguments on the page just sited are not a rehash. However, it appears that you are comfortable hiding behind "an old conversation" because it suits you. This kind of intransigence among WP administrators will be WP's undoing in the long run. How is it possible for 17 people last March to decide with authority and finality something so obviously controversial. This is irrational.

It is also a convenience for you to label me as one who cannot possibly see another side of an argument. This of course works both ways. You and your fellows have shown nothing but disdain for rational discourse. You almost appear to be afraid of it. There really IS a serious problem when administrators can use terms like "Papist" when they talk to one another and no one says anything. Apparently that is just fine. Apparently it is also just fine when it is brought to your attention on your talk page. If you are going to remain an administrator you ought to have a more professional way of handling things, including recusing yourself from editing topics which arrouse some layers of bigotry within you. Vaquero100 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh FFS, calm down. It's only a website, you are taking this way too seriously. Intransigence? Nonsense. Like I said, the discussion has been done to death; you are wading in to a long-settled compromise and asserting your particular prejudices. You appear to believe that only your POV is neutral - read m:MPOV to see how the community views this kind of thinking. As I said before, people whyo come to WP to "right great wrongs" tend to be problematic, because when their belief clashes with policy they tend to assume that it is their belief which must prevail. A look through the Arbcom archives will show you any number of examples. Just zis Guy you know? 11:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case will be filed

As you pretend to own anohter user's talk page, abuse your admin power to violate the 3 revert rule in order to push you POV, make derogatory comments, and as I see above not just concerning me and the French, you removed a POV-tag in spite of an obviously ongoing dispute and blocked me in spite of a conflict of interest I file an arbitration case. Socafan 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you get round to this, don't forget to post the link so we can comment too. Stephen B Streater 22:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see how many ArbCom members reject the request. (→Netscott) 22:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments are in. Feel free to add yours. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

Hi, I noticed you had some history reguarding the myg0t article. Well, the article is up for DrV, and I ask that you post your thoughts on whether or not it should be undeleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t - thanks, cacophony 23:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ;)

Re-incarnation

You might want to quietly 'check' out this reincarnation of an (almost) anagram, I think the editor's agenda seriously concerns you too(sound familiar?). I see enough edit material to perfectly correlate & . Here he is now blanking a talk page setting forth his bias & previous uncivil behavior, deleting the (block) tag resulting from his numerical IP address. Other interesting diffsmiracle 1day rfarb, then going down in flames again, wipes the trail at withdrawal; last day scuffling with other admins; I can provide more. He has targeted me in several articles and harps on my topics in false and disparging ways while trying to create new onerous policies. I think a 3rd id is his IP address, I am unsure as to the relation of Hexagon1. His favorite subjects for both named id's: caron & stupidity/IQ; a recurring word is "psychotic". I apologize for the add'l security name, but I am really getting concerned here...--Needza restrayning odor 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please email me. Just zis Guy you know? 11:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Spell fixes

I just got obsessive compulsive and have to fix 3 minor spelling errors in your statement at RfArb. I hope you don't mind! =D --mboverload @ 11:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not in the least. I have bone-deep burn scars on my left hand dating back to an injury in my early childhood, and I routinely make characteristic typing errors - I'd never be able to successfully run a sock farm ;-) Anybody is welcome to fix these. Just zis Guy you know? 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank god, looks like it will be rejected. My RfA failed - guess I won't know what an RfC against me feels like =) =( --mboverload @ 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait, that doesn't really make sense, heh. Anyway, thanks for clearing up the sockmaster =D --mboverload @ 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You never know, in time things can change. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

=D. I seem to remember you on IRC, do you have a nick there? We can chat if you want --mboverload @ 12:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I only use irc for RC and when WP is down. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, nice to "meet" you =D. Laterz. --mboverload @ 13:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

American International School

Thanks for protecting this article. I was starting to feel like every second edit was a revert there. Kevin 12:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Me too man! Thanks so much! --mboverload @ 12:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talkpage

The comment with the diff you provided on my talkpage, is irrelevant, because I cooled down myself just like ten minutes after that and you probably knew it. There is no reason to warn me about something I removed, if I already realised my error. Your action doesn't fit the wiktionary nor dictionary definition of warning, because I didn't need to be informed on something I already knew, but it might be seen as bossing, which is an unacceptable thing for anyone here. Please remove the warning yourself. Azmoc 12:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know what is going on the other side of your computer screen, I am not psychic :-) is still a personal attack. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited under an IP address for quite some time. However, you should not be questioning my edit count at all. My opinions are as valid as yours even if I didn't contribute to the good thing (wikipedia) as much as you did. Azmoc 12:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, we need ot nkow your history so we can see where you are coming from. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In what sense is "I find the fact that you think that you are running wikipedia unbelievable?" a personal attack? And like I said, you don't need to know my history at all. Azmoc 12:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

At what point did anybody suggest they were runnig Misplaced Pages? "Us" in this case clearly meant the community, i.e. those editors with a history of contribution to the project. Balance of reply is on WP:ANI. Just zis Guy you know? 13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The real reason why you placed the warning on my talkpage was, that you just didn't like my proposal and were suspicious about the fact that I knew where the village pump is after few edits. You can request checkuser if you still want to know who I am. Stop using warnings in content disputes. Azmoc 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

...is the wrong answer. I don't give a flying fuck about your proposal, it has no earthly chance of success. There is no content dispute. Stop Wikilawyering and accept criticism when you are in the wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Hi. I'm curious why you thought it a good idea to revert Lance Armstrong to your preferred version and immediately protect it - especially since I honestly do not see any BLP issues in the version you reverted. But more to the point, I do not see how a single editor's single edit constitutes grounds for reverting an article and immediately protecting it under ANY grounds. Phil Sandifer 14:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my preferred version, it's simply a version I am comfortable with per WP:BLP. Socafan has repeatedly edit warred over the insertion of content and phrasing whihc implies that Armstrong is guilty of doping, when every test result and an official inquiry say the opposite. I posted it at WP:ANI for review, if others support a different approach they are welcome to propose or implement such. My sole concern is that Socafan's edits give more credit to the knocking copy than to the fact of his being officially clean (personally I don't believe any pro cyclist is actually clean, but that has no place here either). He also emphasises WADA over the independent review which criticised WADA. WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:BLP apply here. Above all, there has been absolutely no attempt to discuss the detail of content and wording, just the usual "ZOMG ROUGE ADMIN ABUSE" crap, of which I am more than a little tired. As soon as Socafan shows willingness to debate the details of wording, rather than simply edit-warring over it and kicking up a fuss about being prevented from doing so, the problem evaporates. Just zis Guy you know? 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)