Jump to content

User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
→Hi Guy: No, I have nothing to discuss with you.
Line 123: Line 123:
::Thanks! That'd helpful, and I will do so. --[[User:Thespian|Thespian]] 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks! That'd helpful, and I will do so. --[[User:Thespian|Thespian]] 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


== Hi Guy ==


I think before too long we are probably going to have to discuss what happened last week - it would be nice to hope that we can have a pleasant, or at least honest, conversation - much like I have been having with Will on my talk page over the last few days.

[[Image:Nice Cup of Tea.jpg|right|175px|thumb|Have a cuppa.]]
The best outcome from my perspective would be for me to fully understand where you believe I went wrong, and for you to understand why I feel you have acted poorly also - I think a chat over a cup of tea (or a beer or two) would be the best option at the moment. Take care, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


== Pavel Tsatsouline ==
== Pavel Tsatsouline ==

Revision as of 09:39, 5 November 2007


R       E       T       I       R       E        D

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
  • Replies are packed by intellectual weight and contents may settle in transit.

Cypri

We may have another problem related to that issue, and articles that link there. Next time we're both on IRC, remind me, and I'll explain. DS 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to bug you...

Are you going to work on Ticket#: 2007101710014636? It was marked urgent but there hasn't been any action on it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. Thanks for your hard work, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Clarke & Gordon Wilson

Today you deleted entries on Jeff Clarke and Gordon Wilson. What basis do you have for deeming both men "generic CEOs"? What kind of benchmark are you using for what makes a CEO worthy of an entry? For reference, Jeff Clarke is featured on the cover of the current issue of BusinessWeek, one of the most respected business publications in the world with a circulation of 1 million. This is in addition to recent articles in Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal. I would hate to see these entries replaced with less substantiated text in the future without a good reason. TP kelli 20:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are employed by the company with which they are associated. Neither had any claim to notability beyond simply being a CEO, and Wikipedia is not a directory of CEOs (or anything else). My employer is a damn sight bigger than yours, the CEO was on the cover of NewsWeek, and we still don't have an article on him - rightly so, there's not much to say, fine and visionary leader though he undoubtedly is. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for responding. I understand your point of view but we're obviously still in disagreement over the significance of the two CEOs. Since the entries can't be flagged, as they were deleted without process, what do you think is the best way to open this up to other admins for review? Should I repost and flag it or is there a better way? TP kelli 21:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnon

Thank you for the course correction on reliable sourcing for the Sonnon page. Per your suggestions, I've replaced only non-POV cited info. If there is anything else that you need leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you again. B-ham 1 November 2007 (UTC)


For administrative bravery

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For showing considerable courage in the defense of Wikipedia against disruptive editors, I award you this barnstar. ScienceApologist 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moo

The MONGO cowstar award is hereby awarded to you in recognition for putting up with a lot of "stuff".--MONGO 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you...

Even if it's only on a limited basis. I like the new essay. Be well. Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Guy, it looks like you might be online. Do you have some time to give some advice for a reality check? --Kevin Murray 09:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've sent an email. --Kevin Murray 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galisteo

I saw your edits and thanks for looking at it. Just wanted to doublecheck that you can speak Spanish, so could read the source material. Jeffpw 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope, not a word. This is the English Wikipedia, mind, so that should not be required. The problem was that the section was of questionable importance, and read like a personal opinion. Do we really need to be told that a good-looking male singer appeals to both gay and female audiences? I'd have thought that qualified as blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but you deleted the entire paragraph, so that there is no mention of his sexual;ity, or that he was outed in the press. Or did I misread the edit? Jeffpw 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's significant, you know where the edit button is. Personally I think that being or not being gay is of no actual importance, and the insistence on including the sexuality of individuals in their articles is a bit tacky, but that's not a point of principle or anything, just an opinion. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated that I will not edit further on this article, though I disagree with you about this subject. Just so that you are aware, he also wants one of the references deleted, simply because the magazine article has the word gay in it. One last request: Could you post on ANI how you edited it, and your reasoning behind the edit? Thanks, Jeffpw 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's just an editorial action, like any other. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting all Michelle Merkin pictures

Hi Guy. What is meant by this edit summary: [1]. Why does it matter how the image was created (e.g., whether by painting, drawing, film or digital camera, software, etc.), as long as it illustrates the subject matter? Please don't misunderstand. I'm not lobbying for the inclusion of that particular picture in any particular article; I'm just trying to wrap my flabby mind around the principle that Photoshop composite = bad.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a very good image, and the rationale in most cases was POV. Who says it's an archetype for female beauty? We have a source for that? I don't think so. Since it;s a promotional image I'd want a rather better rationale - plus it's clearly retouched and an obvious composite. It's simply not a good picture. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about the POV-ness in physical attractiveness. I left a snarky comment about ugly people on that article's talk page. But I disagree that it's not an aesthetically pleasing/composed image; that's a very poor reason to remove the picture, especially if editorial consensus does not share that view. And who cares if it's retouched by the way? All pictures are manipulated to some degree. Photography's very nature has always been about manipulating light/perception/reality, long before computers were invented.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 12:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "editorial consensus" I presume you mean you like the image? There are great reasons to remove the picture, first among which is that its inclusion was backed by an image summary that was uncited POV. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which article(s) are we talking about? I already said I don't support its inclusion in physical attractiveness. I was not referring to TFMWNCB when I referred to consensus; I was referring to the person(s) who elected to include her picture in various articles in the first place; moreover, I presume a certain number of editors find it of high quality, or it would never have reached featured status.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a debate about that right now. It should not have featured status, it is a badly-made composite. And do not mistake silence for assent still less consensus, many people don't care overmuch about what gets included. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hear any "silence" at all; the original discussion involved many people. The fact that there's still a debate about this means there are people on both sides of the issue. Please avoid presenting the view that this is an inherently poor quality image as fact, when many see it as quite the opposite.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody seems to have noticed that it's a photoshopped composite. I think everyone was carried away with the fact that a release was obtained from a glamour model, and forgot to actually look closely at the image. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Combining two images doesn't automatically equal aesthetic disaster, nor should that alone disqualify an image from featured status. Some of the best works of art are conglomerations of more than one work: See collage and sampling (music) for a couple of examples.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the goalposts doesn't overcome the objection that an image included as an archetype in an article not on the image subject, should have a supporting reference to show that it is indeed an archetype. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIV

I've been trying to fix the info boxes, and never read the full article on this one. Thanks for deleting the, uh... obnoxious paragraph :-) Tim 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Agustin Dovalina, III

Just wondering, but I looked over the article, and I didn't really think WP:CSD#G10 was applicable. It's a legitimate article, and it just details the person's criminal activities and background. What's wrong with that? Nishkid64 (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Essentially because it details nothing else, and is drawn exclusively from tabloid sources, but if you think you can write a real article drawing on thoughtful coverage in non-sensationalist sources then go right ahead. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the article contains sources from a local newspaper, not the tabloids (but yes, I understand they're only writing because it's something that might peek the interest of readers). I don't think the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, but I disagree with your deletion rationale. CSD A7 would be my inclination, but since an assertion of notability has been made, I suggest taking this to AfD. Would you consent to that? Nishkid64 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a bad idea. If we both think it should be gone, at least in that form, then why make it anything other than gone? And if we think the subject has potential, then it can hopefully be rewritten better ab initio. It was a WP:BLP problem, and bringing it back just so we can gaze at or navels for a while is probably not a great idea. If you want to start a new article with some attempt at decent sources, please do feel free, but I'm of the opinion that that is unlikely to be possible. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been pointed out that he's already quit the project once in response to kickback over his articles stemming form his own work, I think we need to look long and hard at this editor before we start inviting him to re-create questionably sourced negative articles on living individuals. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, probably not smart. I've just spent half an hour looking over his history, and there are a lot of deleted articles there, mostly unanimous AfDs. Some editors I'd trust to understand the problem and try again, but not this one. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on Billy Hathorn's page

In fairness, the BLP policy isn't likely to be of much use to him, since his usual MO is to cut & paste every obituary that appears in his local paper. Ever since this piece of idiocy I've given up even trying to keep his mix of copyvios & ludicrously non-notable biographies (if you look through some of his articles, you'll see "phone call to subject" as a reference in at least 25% of them) in check, and I think the other editors who were watching him have given up as well - this might have given him the idea that policy's changed as more of his articles are slipping through the net than before. When DGG is nominating your articles for deletion, you know something is seriously wrong somewhere. — iridescent 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Youngandrestless

You've indefinitely blocked this user for what you call "spamming of youngandrestless.com by image uploads". I'm a little confused by this block, as I don't see any warnings or an explanation of how s/he could correct the image problems. Simply uploading images from one site, as far as I know, isn't spam, so I'm assuming there's more to this story. Either way, s/he is requesting to be unblocked, and I'd appreciate if you would add a comment. - auburnpilot talk 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted) Hi, I noticed you blocked User:Youngandrestless for his inappropriate image spamming. From his unblock request, it looks like it was an honest mistake and he realizes what he's done wrong. Are you opposed to an unblock on that basis? --Haemo 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a pile-on, or anything. Apparently AuburnPilot and myself are on the same wavelength tonight. --Haemo 02:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I could be wrong about this one. What I saw was a slew of image uploads with questionable copyright status, but maybe I was fonlating two simulataneous cases. I'll have another look, thanks for letting me know. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: whitelist

I'm not an admin right now, but was trying to tidy up the whitelist page a little further (provide notes so an admin could go through it more speedily), and I'm wondering if you can tell me how things have been interpreted in the past (since you seem to have thrown your hat in over there). Situation: a user would like to link to his homepage, which he has hosted on a free service (in this case, batcave.net, but it could be any of the blacklisted ones, freeport, myspace, etc.; this has come up on the whitelist a couple times). He wants to link from his userpage only.

Things that I have thought:

  1. Linking to it does nothing to the site goals; which is to say, there is no encyclopedic benefit to whitelisting something so someone can say, 'go to my homepage!'
  2. However, allowing this doesn't actually *harm* the site; users who own their own domain, even when it is hosted on a free host, are free to provide links, etc.

Neither of these really sways me one way or another, but I'm wondering if there's been a discussion of this in the past. It appears that some myspace pages have been whitelisted previously for just this purpose. Your opinions? --Thespian 13:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A good-faith request to whitelist a single blog or site for a user to put it on their user space is usually honoured, but requests to delist blogs to be used as sources tend to be denied, I think. Eagle is the best one to ask, though. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That'd helpful, and I will do so. --Thespian 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pavel Tsatsouline

Guy, can you help me understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Tsatsouline ? After your explanation of proper citing being required in order to make claims, I don't understand how so many potential biased and even presumed fraudulent claims can be made on this wiki page without any apporpriate sources being cited other than his own commercial website. Can you help, please? B-ham 02:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=169344925"