User talk:JzG

This user is a member of the Wikipedia Ultra Secret Inner Inner Cabal, a cabal so secret that not only am I not allowed to know who the other members are, I am not even allowed to know if there are any other members, and if I ever did find out that anyone else was a member I would have to kill them immediately. You can contact WUSIIC on #wikipedia-ultra-secret-inner-inner-cabal on Freenode. As a courtesy you are requested to kill yourself afterwards.

R       E       T       I       R       E        D

This user is tired of silly drama on Wikipedia.

My crap Stuff and nonsense This editor is a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, and Chewed Broken Pencil. This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user has a userpage on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. 15,000+This user has made over 15,000 contributions to Wikipedia Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam. BEngThis user has a Bachelor of Engineering degree. Cary says: Ignore All Dramas. Reading November 2024 14 Thursday 7:38 pm UTC Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout. Content of Wikipedia, December 2007citation needed

I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my 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.

Dispute resolution, Bible style - and actually an excellent model on Wikipedia as well.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

— Matthew 18:15

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.

the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

---

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• Really bored? Visit my website: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
• User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing - extremely interesting debate on what I feel is one of the worst problems on Wikipedia right now.

---

---

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

<3

Joy

Celarnor ^{Talk to me} has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cycling events

Argh - just realised you are a cycling fan anyway so removed this mini-rant ;-)

m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Cosmoetica.com

Responded there. Thanks for your attention.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A thought on Wiki vs Pedia

Hey Guy. Happy weekend to you. I just wanted to run something by you, as you and I have jousted a few times, and we both have a grudging respect for each other's beliefs and actions (plus, you're already aware of the various issues about Sarah Palin).

Where do we strike the balance on being a wiki, and being an encyclopedia? I'm sure there's no hard and fast rules that "This level of vandalism is ok, but this level of vandalism means the article needs to be full protected..." etcetera.

A couple folks I really respect seem to fall on the left side of that scale.. that the highest priority of Wikipedia is being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I fall on the other side of the scale, I guess you could say, being a free encyclopedia.

Obviously, the way you view this scale affects how you read the policy. One of the unprotects of the main article states "This is a wiki". Meaning that despite the things going on at the time (which I would call large-scale edit-warring with a large amount of BLP Violations for good measure), the best benefit to Wikipedia is to have the access available for editing for the maximum time possible. I couldn't disagree more with it, that by keeping a page unlocked during such activity (on a large scale), it is NOT a positive for Wikipedia, and in-fact, can be a gross negative.

I'm honestly interested in reading your thoughts, if you're willing to share. SirFozzie (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of those times when we have to give priority to the "pedia" bit, but I don't see that as antithetical to the wiki concept either - it's just that at this level the concept of open editing does not scale, too many people are trying to edit at once. So we have to make it possible for people to edit by gathering their input, seeing what has broad agreement, and getting agreed content into the live encyclopaedia with reasonable dispatch. I don't think there is any significant dissent that "the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" is not to be interpreted too loosely; we already accept that this is "for some values of anyone", since we rightly block and ban those who cause trouble, and it's obvious that we also interpret it as "for some values of edit" since we have protection and semiprotection and we use them all the time. Unfortunately I think that some of the philosophical debate is coloured by personal opinion on the merits of the content. One reason I have kept away from the article itself is that I am a European small-l liberal and Palin's opinions on most things are anathema to me.

I'd like to propose a temporary injunction in the arb case on this, but I can't phrase it right. I think no admin who has expressed an opinion over content should use tools on Palin-related articles, and no admin should perform more than a few editprotected requests in any 24-hour period on those articles. We need to get more admins involved, and help those who do come along to walk away and leave it again for a while, because the more you get into handling the requests the more likely you are to start having opinions on the content, and that looks really bad - the evil Anarcho-Communist-Syndicalist-Capitalist-Liberal-Conservative Cabal at work. We get wingnuts at both ends of the spectrum attacking us for being wingnuts of the opposite persuasion, and this is usually a good sign as it means that neither side has got its way. Anyway, I am off to play with my trains (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Railway/In_progress) so I will come back and give this more thought later. Oh, and not so grudging - I think you are a decent chap :-) Guy (Help!) 10:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wiki vs Pedia". This phrase can also be applied to what I call "antimyspaceism", that is intolerance for things like userboxes, guestbooks, "overdone" user pages, and other non article fluff and the drama between those who want to get rid of most of that (Pedia) and those who use such things and/or find them of value in community building (Wiki). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration

Concerning the topic ban of Benjiboi can be found here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Cheers for your input - I've made a topic ban proposal below the ban proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Hammes Company

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hammes Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CyberGhostface (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Ralph Ovadal article

I agree with your changes; I've done several edits on the Ovadal page for more NPOV myself. But I didn't edit out all that I could because there used to be people who would routinely delete anything negative from the page and turn it back into an advertisement. So I tried to take it slow to avoid rousing those people. If you look at the history you can see how much of an improvement the current revision is compared to the earliest versions. Einamozam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.196.241 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help

You are the interested party, how do I re-write the Hammes Company article so it gets approved. Do you think it's not a significant company? I have a hard time believing it is less signifant than many of the companies that already have pages. I look to your guidance to help define how to get an article approved. The latest version of the article that was posted yesterday included sources, was written from a neutral point of view, had relevant external links, and told the story of how Hamme Company has designed two huge parts of American culture. Wikipedia is a very important resource, and having a neutral wikipedia page for Hammes Company would seem appropriate. Please give me any input or ideas. Thank you! Sharnden (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)