User talk:JzG

R       E       T       I       R       E        D

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.

Cary says: Ignore All Dramas.

Reading

June 2024

22

Saturday

6:59 pm UTC

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)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

---

Content of Wikipedia, December 2007^{citation needed}

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!

• My take on the Durova incident.

---

---

My father died this evening. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/George_Stait_Chapman Guy (Help!) 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacks

Guy, I'm a pretty small editor here, and I have more respect for you than I do for almost anyone else on this site. Can you explain your rationale in rollback'ing all of Cdog's invitations to discuss the Hezbollah userbox thing? Was something at risk that needed to be immediately corrected? Franamax (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (I forgot, also see here) Franamax (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. While I don't care about userboxes at all in any way, I do object to a comment being removed from my talk page by anyone. This includes myself, the person who wrote it, God almighty, etc.Detruncate (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. And it's strange that an editor whose talk page notes that they are "retired" would go around removing messages on the talk pages of other editors that are alerting them to an ongoing debate in which they previously participated. Tiamut^talk 12:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing entries from talk pages other than your own is considered vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism). Please refrain from making such edits to my page in future. Tomyumgoong (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome-Thai-shrimp-soup, "is considered vandalism" is going too far, I've taken obscenities off other editors pages so they don't get up in the morning and see them. I'd do the same for you until you told me to stop. We're just asking for an explanation here. It's not vandalism yet. Franamax (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback of wide-scale canvassing is not vandalism, see WP:VAND. Accusing administrators of vandalism for doing mundane cleanup tasks, however, is considered incivil. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Herm, I can't follow the escalating alphabeticals too well, that might be answered with an AGF or something, I always get a STACK_OVERFLOW around there :) Returning to my first, was there a specific violation? It did seem that the editor was trying to solicit a wide variety of opinion in good faith. Perhaps a desire to not return to the "userbox wars"? I'm too new for that. I would like to understand your rationale, and I'm still unclear on the use of rollback in a non-vandalism case. Franamax (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, within the criteria of Canvassing and especially friendly notices, certainly because I was (briefly) involved in the ANI discussion I would be "involved" for consideration of the policy, and it would not be unreasonable to consider the censorship project members as having involvement. I regularly respond to posts at this board, is there a great degree of difference? Franamax (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Canvassing is considered harmful. A notice on the appropriate WikiProject(s) is the accepted means of notification, and even that can be a problem if it's (for example) the Anti-ZOMG-Censorship WikiProject. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well now, give me a link to follow that mentions the GOTO statement, I can understand that, it's poison! My concern was the apparent total vacuum of discussion or notification in which you operated, and also the thought that you might screw with my talk page, for whatever reason. As usual, you only need about six words to make things clear (30 this time, tsk-tsk), it just would be nice to see those six words beforehand! Thanks. Franamax (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• I thought we forced them to remove the word ZOMG from their name? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the query is here. I see a series of about 130 reverts by JzG, all of edits by a certain User:Cdogsimmons, all of which are apparently part of a mass messaging campaign of user talk pages.

Is there any serious question about the appropriateness of reverting mass messaging? Is there any serious doubt that using a tool designed for quick reverts was the correct way of repairing this abuse of talk pages in an obvious attempt to pack the discussion at deletion review? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you Anticipation for the answer, and congratulations on your apparent five-day mastery of the intricacies of WP ;) I was actually hoping for Guy's explanation, as he is an editor who I truly respect. In review of your comments, as I have discussed above, I'm of the opinion that Cdog's actions are (perhaps marginally) within compliance of WP:CANVASS and it is also my understanding that rollback is intended strictly as a tool to address vandalism. Your further illumination of these points is appreciated, and Ze Guy's is as well. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't try to imply that I'm masquerading as a new user.

If you believe User:Cdogsimmons' edits on over 100 user talk pages were in any way acceptable, you're wrong. If your reading of Wikipedia:Canvassing leads you to believe this, it needs to be written more clearly. Wikipedia:Rollback, on the other hand, is written clearly, and expressly does not limit use of rollback to the reversion of vandalism. It might have been more appropriate to use a script that permits an edit summary to be given, assuming JzG was able to use such a script on his browser. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is there to fix things which are time-consuming to fix in any other way. Rather than have an escalating argument and people demanding use of the Wikitrout against Cdog, I assumed good faith (specifically, excess of zeal) and quickly and quietly fixed the problem. It took very little time, which is what rollback is for. Soonest is best, to avoid conflicting edits. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User Alansohn

I have received the following snippy message on my talk page today from Alansohn[1] He is again asserting, falsely, that Runreston and I are the same person. It appears that we are in the same geographical area, but I do not know which specific person has that user name.

Regardless, I believe Alansohn's actions are highly inappropriate. He has been bullying a number of Wikipedia editors for months, and has been very sloppy with his facts and accusations. Assuming that everything that he says is true, he is certainly confessed to knowingly violated WP:OUTING. If there is some basis for you believing that I have violated Wikipedia policy, please let me know directly, rather than hearing about it through Alansohn's misguided and provocative posts. Racepacket (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Red Barnstar
		On my watchlist recently I saw a talk page edit summary that read admins don't get barnstars enough, and I thought that was kind of true. Thanks for always going above-and-beyond my expectations.David Shankbone 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible?

Is it possible to get the material of the page User:Aditya Kabir/Sandbox 4 back for a very special purpose? It was deleted without notifying me anything (yes, by the time I found out it was up for deletion, the body was already cold and rotting). And, it was deleted because "user pages are NOT a semi-permanent home for the not-ready-for-primetime" and "should not be preserved in userspace indefinitely" (see here). Fine with me. But, there's another place for not-ready-for-prime time pieces that draw so violent opposition because people fail to appreciate the usefulness of growth. It's the Prop-Up I'm talking about, a tiny greenhouse for delicate articles that can't peacfully grow in the jungle we lovingly call the Wikipedia. Can I have the material back, so that I can work on it there? You can mail me the stuff, and therefore do no harm to Wikipedia. I am asking for this for a very simple reason - the material I was working on already incorporated painstaking diligence of a over a dozen editors, and it would be very difficult to redo the good work all over again. People should not start repairing by throwing them off the cliff first. Even if you are unable or reluctant to agree to my request (which is indeed a bit unorthodox already), please, do tell me how else can I attempt to start working on the stuff to make it Wikipedia-worthy one day. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• For this subject? Sorry, no. If it were a company or a garage band then no problem, but we already cover this subject more than adequately and no amount of nurture can fix the problem with that particular POV-fork. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. I am sorry to have asked. I was under the impression that the stated reasons were the basis of deletion. Sorry that you feel so strongly about the subject. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• The subject was extensively debated, and consensus was clear. It's the subject that's the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

spam

In case you didn't notice - IP address reverting your deletion of his spam links. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another admin blocked him. I'm reverting his reversions of your changes now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC posted

The RfC I mentioned to you about a week ago has been posted here. Cla68 (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)