User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Closure of ED deletion review: Troll Tobias has arrived, all possible utility has now been removed frmo this discussion. Dan, you are unwelcome here. |
||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
::This has alrady been addressed here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cult_free_world/Proposed_page#Addressing_the_BLP_concern], and has already been responded at BLP notice board, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=204588018&oldid=204586050] it states that the newspaper report does not constitute what you are stating due to your [[WP:COI]] --[[User:Cult free world|talk-to-me!]] ([[User talk:Cult free world|talk]]) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
::This has alrady been addressed here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cult_free_world/Proposed_page#Addressing_the_BLP_concern], and has already been responded at BLP notice board, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=204588018&oldid=204586050] it states that the newspaper report does not constitute what you are stating due to your [[WP:COI]] --[[User:Cult free world|talk-to-me!]] ([[User talk:Cult free world|talk]]) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Closure of ED deletion review == |
|||
Just letting you know, only one of the three reasons you mentioned for the closure of the DRV for Encyclopedia Dramatica was valid (though perhaps that was enough). The most recent DRV prior to this one was never completed because a certain user ([[User:Sceptre]]) who was not an admin interfered with it and closed it and used rollback to keep it from being reopened despite not having a reason for doing so other than that the site has attacked him. As a result of what he did, his rollback privilages have been removed, however the deletion review has yet to be undergone, which was what this user was trying to do. Also, I find it disturbing that you give "just no" as a reason for closing a deletion review. That leads me to believe (even if I am wrong) that you closed it simply because of personal feelings you have toward the site. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. However, you are right that no changes to the sources of the draft have been made since the last real DRV. I wouldn't have started another review myself.--[[User:Urban Rose|<font color="purple" face="comic sans ms">Urban</font>]] [[User talk:Urban Rose|<font color="red" face="Papyrus">Rose</font>]] 23:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This user has a [[User:Urban Rose/ED|draft]] for the article up. It looks a bit short and could do with some expansion, but it is impeccably sourced. What exactly is so wrong with it that you can't even justify it with a response? <font color="629632">[[User:Celarnor|'''Celarnor''']]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">[[User_talk:Celarnor|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: If Urban Rose was not a self-admitted ED user I might be a tiny fraction more sympathetic, but ultimately ED is a festering pile of shit and an article on it inherently degrades Wikipedia. They viciously attacked members of the Wikipedia community for failing to allow them a self-aggrandising article in the past, and the fact that they have now scraped together a few mentions does not go anywhere near balancing that out. It was reviewed and endorsed quite recently, the constant requests are not so much becoming disruptive as they have always ''been'' disruptive. Plus I trust Will and I don't trust Urban Rose. Sceptre didn't "interfere", he gave a perfectly valid "oh no not again" response. Rose added ED to [[shock site]] (admittedly ED is shockingly bad, not a patch on what it was back when it was funny), requested deletion review three times in a week, added it to [[Dramatica]], asked at the Village Pump - when people ask, it's always nice if they listen, and take no for an answer. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Adherence to [[WP:NPOV]] requires putting aside such things as one's opinion about something being a festering pile of shit (WP's job is to cover what exists in the world, including festering piles of shit), past history of attacks against Wikipedians (which are irrelevant to the issue of whether something is notable enough for coverage, not something to be "balanced out" by other factors), or whether the users who happen to support it are ones you personally trust. By the way, I'm not an ED user. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Dan, I think Guy knows what you are saying already, and wonder why you would think otherwise. Thanks, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 00:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::His [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] "justification" shouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged, that's all. [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 00:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:34, 8 May 2008
|
Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam. |
I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.
I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Wikipedia is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.
Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (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. |
the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
- 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.
Note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747
Thanks for making this edit. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. It was quite simple, really: the site has vastly less information than the Wikipedia article, so is entirely superfluous. Guy (Help!) 18:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Request
I hate to unleash you on this issue, but could you look at Talk:Rosalind Picard#Question? Please ignore the initial impetus of the question, this is, naturally, my own concern.
In a more general sense, how long should we keep "This article has been edited by the subject" up? I can't help thinking that if we keep it up long after the edits they made have been erased, and the page is unrecognisable, its somehow unnecessary and sort of spiteful.... --Relata refero (disp.) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- Do give some thought to the more general point, I might want to return to it later in policyspace. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
infoboxes on RV
Can you go to Talk:Remote_viewing#Discussion_of_alternatives_and_addition_of_navigational_template.28s.29 and say if you agree on using those templates and moving the pseudoscience infobox to the criticism section where the scientific claims are discussed? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Admin Action
Hi there,
You blocked me for disruptive editing, probably referring to this [1], can you provide any diff, which constitute disruptive editing !! Sethie has stated there that i have used the term "Zombie", for these cult member's. Once again, kindly provide a diff for that, all i could find is this [2], where Sethie is stating that I have never used the term "Zombie". This is very strange..... (?) Pls respond at my talk page. --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please help!
Dear Guy, the user above (Cult free world/talk to me) has come off of his block and immediately reverted this article to the libelous, slanderous mess that it was on his userfied space. The talk page has been active all week with several editors gaining consensus, following Wikipedia policies, and working together in relative harmony (esp. during Cult's two-day block) and I can't believe that one-day off of the block he's back ignoring policies, reverting seven other editors' hard work, all to paste in what's on his blog here. Please help! This has gone on so long and we're desperate. Renee (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- This has alrady been addressed here [3], and has already been responded at BLP notice board, [4] it states that the newspaper report does not constitute what you are stating due to your WP:COI --talk-to-me! (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)