User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:26, 24 April 2014

Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read).

I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read.

Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards.

User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly.

Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review.

The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This editor is a Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix and Errata Sheet.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user is a
Rouge admin.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 2 months, and 26 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 9 months, and 29 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
My Last.fm profile
vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

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?

Matthew Hoh

Hi. Could you please restore this article subject and its history? I'd like to work on the article. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter. Could respond please? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed the request. This was a WP:BLP1E that was deleted due to serious sourcing issues. Is this person now notable for more than one thing? Guy (Help!) 16:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you put it in my userspace I will make sure to remove any BLP violations. He is a columnist, Ridenhour Award winner etc. etc. Once I am done working with it in my userspace and move it to article space I will let you know and you are most welcome to take it to an articles for deletion discussion if you don't think it's suitable. Thank you for your kind consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk)

For example here are book sources. Several of them are since the deletion took place. The one at the bottom notes his leadership in Afghan related study groups etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will read around it a bit, I have to say I am still uneasy about this because form what I've seen so far this is still WP:BLP1E. I am not doubting your good faith at all, I am just very conservative about biographies (as you may have noticed). Please give me a couple of days to sift the sources and ask a couple of people I trust who are knowledgeable about this area. Fair? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know what you've decided with at least a ping after the two days. I am usually juggling quite a few things and I don't want to lose track of this one. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bircham International University

Do you think the protection on Bircham International University could be dropped to semi, and any socks just dealt with through normal SPI and blocking, rather than keeping the page indefinitely fully protected? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

um. William Martin is massively determined to change the article, to the point that I have had to block his phone number on my home phone. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could editors who cause problems on the article just be blocked (getting a CU involved if necessary)? I don't like the idea of keeping any article fully protected forever. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have reduced it to semiprotection. This may be a problem because this guy has spent literally years doing everything he can to use Wikipedia to give an appearance of legitimacy which, in truth, he could achieve overnight just by obtaining accreditation (rather than claiming accreditation from various fake or fraudulent bodies). It seems that paying Bell Pottinger is an option, while pursuing the one thing that will actually work, is not! Guy (Help!) 18:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added your Lunatic charlatans userbox

Hi, hope you don't mind that I've added your userbox to the gallery. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I wish you hadn't, he'll be impossible for weeks now. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So true. But I was impossible anyway, so no harm done. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Radin

Check the latest comments on the Dean Radin article/talk-page. I am pretty sure the IP 67.163.161.226 is 159.118.158.122 (Jamenta). He's got the same writing style, forgets to sign some of his comments, and he's talking yet again about "skeptic POV". He's also edited the Carl Jung talk-page on his old IP [1], compare that to the recent edits on this recent IP [2] which are in the same section. Goblin Face (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

67.163.161.226 is a confirmed proxy IP. Is there anyway we can report this user for that? Goblin Face (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's confirmation it's a proxy? Guy (Help!) 11:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[3] or [4] Goblin Face (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor James Constable

Hi there,

Would you mind taking a second look at this AfD? It's just that I've overhauled the article and I think (hope) you'd find it satisfactory now.

Thank you in advance. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I presume this was accidental? —Dark 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes. Phantom click on the iThing. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Accidents happen, but please fix it.~~ --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that it has already been reverted.[5]

Damn iThings! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overwrote mugshot with a quite different one

Re your overwite here You're not supposed to do that, IIRC. Definintely wrong on commons, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Overwriting_existing_files; is policy that different here at en.?--Elvey (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was an OTRS request. No harm, no foul, I reckon. It's a clearer picture. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping depends on a user page?

Not sure why, but {{ping|JzG}} is a red link. Not sure if that affects notification but is odd unless I made stupid error. I pinged you for attention on ANI and Bundy page protection. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control arbitration proposed decision

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown

I am not sure whether you noticed, JzG, but the current move request is a move request to a different name to the one under discussion before. The previous discussion was closed early by me (due to lack of support and preference for different target name) to this current one after the input of editors. I have undone your close, because I do not think you realised this. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 Hello. You have participated in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control|''Gun control'' arbitration case]], or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Proposed decision|Proposed decision]] page. Comments on the decision can be made at the [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Proposed decision|Proposed decision talk page]]. For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 11:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
+== [[Talk:Sarah Jane Brown]] ==
+I am not sure whether you noticed, JzG, but the current move request is a move request to a different name to the one under discussion before. The previous discussion was closed early by me (due to lack of support and preference for different target name) to this current one after the input of editors. I have undone your close, because I do not think you realised this. [[Special:Contributions/131.111.185.66|131.111.185.66]] ([[User talk:131.111.185.66|talk]]) 21:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)