User talk:JzG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Admin mop.PNG This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Book of Knowledge2.jpg This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Free Errata Sheet.
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 800 most active Wikipedians.
Rouge-Admin JollyRoger.svg This user is a
Rouge admin
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 10 years, 4 months, and 2 days.
Wikipedia Administrator.svg This user has been an admin for
8 years, 11 months, and 5 days.
No Quacks logo.png This user resists the POV-pushing of
lunatic charlatans
Obligatory disclaimer
I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

Replied at my Talk Page[edit]

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I replied to it there. User talk:KenAcoustic --KenAcoustic (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nyu Media[edit]

This article just went through AfD so I don't believe the PROD is appropriate czar  16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Find a source that is primarily about the subject, rather than a recycled press release, and I might believe you in spite of the spamming. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
... there are a dozen sources at the AfD, if you'll take a look. I literally just recreated the article and it had an "under construction" tag at the top. I wasn't using the first source I added as its claim to notability. In any event, it doesn't qualify for a PROD as it just went through AfD. czar  16:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The AfD is sourced? I'll be sure not to delete it then. Pity nothing other than a recycled press release has made it into the article, really. Hint hint. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I've removed the prod, since subjects that have been discussed at AFD are not eligible for deletion by prod. I also think the G11 speedy was inappropriate after the AFD closed as no consensus, as you were basically trumping the community's opinion with your personal opinion. If you think the article should have been deleted, you should either start a deletion review for the AFD, or start a new AFD if you think you have some reasons for deletion that were not brought up in the first one. Calathan (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The G11 was not tagged by me, I think, I was just cleaning up, but it is in any case unquestionably established that it was promotional and written for pay, and therefore eminently deletable. And if I could just be absolutely unambiguously clear here: THERE IS STILL NOT A SINGLE SOURCE IN THE ARTICLE OTHER THAN A RECYCLED PRESS RELEASE, and as far as I can tell the "sources" proposed at AfD were the same, so instead of bitching at the janitors perhaps the 3 people in the entire known universe who think this subject is of pressing importance (I discount of course the one who was paid to think it is of pressing importance), could actually add some sources establishing that the subject is encyclopaedically notable. You know, like we say in WP:5P and all that. Point made, I hope. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I just patrol prods looking for ones that are invalid. I don't know anything about Nyu Media, and I agree with you that it seems non-notable and should probably be deleted. However, the prod policy is clear that it can't be used on subjects that have been discussed at AFD. As a long-time admin, I would expect that you would be very familiar with the deletion policies and understand when they should be used, so it bothers me that you were using prod incorrectly. Furthermore, it seems obviously inappropriate to overrule an AFD outcome, as established by another admin, by deleting the article when he left it in place (I know you didn't add the speedy tag, but you should have checked the article history before deleting and seen that it had just had an AFD). One of the primary principles of Wikipedia is that it runs on consensus. Giving people the impression that admins will ignore consensus and not follow policy does far more harm to Wikipedia than allowing one low quality article to exist for a few days while you go through the proper procedures to have it deleted (which in this case would be deletion review or a new AFD). Calathan (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, you're not the problem here. I am old and grumpy and constantly hovering on the brink of admin burnout but the one thing absolutely guaranteed to get my goat is people who will do absolutely anything to keep an article apart from the only thing that actually matters, namely providing reliable independent sources. Feel free to ignore me. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin[edit]

Please consider reverting this edit which you made through the full protection. As you can see on the talk page here has been discussion of whether the tag is accurate and it has been removed and reverted previously. The protection policy only allows administrators to make edits which are "uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus" in this case neither applies. Also given that there is a discussion on the talk page about how to word the lead and which sources to use your other edits to the page could also be considered controversial, so it might be worth gathering consensus for them or asking for feedback on the talk page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, fair point. Adding sources should be uncontroversial, though, as it's a BLP and a contentious statement. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Being sand?[edit]

Is this some obscure slang I've not come across, or just a surrealist spellchecker at work? [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

That's is a bizarre one even for me. Sarcastic is the word. I have burn scars on my left hand that make typing reliably unreliable, but I don't recall making that error before! Guy (Help!) 23:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)