User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:07, 21 October 2015

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 user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years.

This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Free Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.

This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

This user is a
Rouge admin.

This user has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, 1 month, and 15 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 8 months, and 18 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

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

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.
My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
My Last.fm profile
vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.
— - Robert A. Heinlein

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?

About me

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Squeeze

See Marriage_squeeze

You reverted my edit when I used a secondary sources stating that it was not an appropriate source. Then you reverted my edit when I used two peer-reviewed primary sources. What evidence DO you find acceptable? AsianWeek apparently.

By deleting any explanation for the marriage squeeze that isn't based on negative attributes of African-American men, you are continuing with the racial stereotyping that is so damaging. There are scientists who believe in a more racially neutral explanation for the marriage squeeze (based on height or skin tone) but anyone reading wikipedia would not know that and are only getting the racist received wisdom that marrying a Black person is necessarily marrying down.

I am not asking you to adjudicate on which hypothesis you think is true, but just allow the wikipedia article to reflect ALL the various hypotheses that are in the scientific literature.

Please re-think your reverts.Nsxsvn (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-think being a WP:SPA devoted to pushing this speculative stuff. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am new to wikipedia - I don't even know if this is the correct place for this kind of discussion - sorry if it isn't. I had hoped that wikipedia would be open to alternative views (Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views) when stated with an NPOV. I don't want to enter into an edit war but would like to have an open and respectful discussion on the topic. Could you direct me to the correct forum for such a discussion. Nsxsvn (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin attention appreciated

JzG,

You previously commented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Attention_needed_at_Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations.2FZeke1999.

No action has been taken at the case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000 -- in over two (2) weeks.

Could use some admin action there, please.

Also: this one is an easy WP:DUCK case, with a smoking-gun-DIFF for ya: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

The 2nd one involves ongoing disruption of our site's WP:GA Quality improvement process, socking, and block evasion -- so we could really use some admin action there as the problem issue is ongoing.

Thank you for taking a look,

— Cirt (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new report with WP:DUCK evidence, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama. Perhaps you can have a look ? Action would be appreciated here to stop blatant disruption of our Quality review processes including WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:FLC. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

What the heck does "phwooooaar!" mean? Is this something they failed to teach me during my year at a British university? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A coarse expression of lust directed at a young, attractive female, typically by readers of The Sun. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My 12 months in British academia did not allow for a lot of time to read The Sun. Should I consider myself culturally deprived?

Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is precious little of culture in The Sun, so probably not :-) Guy (Help!) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where I really don't want to be...

I'm feeling a little sad and down in the dumps. ArbCom is not where I want to be because I don't like being exposed to such negative thoughts about people we should respect and hold in high regard. It exposes our underbelly for all the world to see. I prefer to be behind the camera. At times it seems like ArbCom is survival of the fittest and I'm so out of shape it's not even funny. Que sera sera. I hold you and Tryptofish in high regard despite the fact you are both from what I affectionately refer to as the "other side" . Your impression of me and several others is way off base but oh well, chacun a son gout (sorry this iPad won't allow me to place accents where they belong so you'll have to wing it). I was a bit of a science geek as a kid - had a microscope and dissecting kit when I was like 9 yrs. old - but it got me in a bit of trouble because of my curiousity over the derogatory term, "bird-brain". And no, it wasn't a term frequently used against me. I didn't know the mockingbird was the State bird of Texas; therefore, protected. I also didn't realize how tiny a bird brain actually is, or that it required a microscope far more powerful than the one Santa brought me. Atsme^📞📧 18:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's brutal. I told you it was, and I suggested you be removed as a party precisely because it is brutal. I think it's unlikely you will be sanctioned, but I think it has been said before that Arbcom workshop pages are where people are left to display the behaviour that Arbcom are scrutinising. Many people have dug their own graves there. If you want my advice, walk away and leave it. That won't make it any worse for you and may well make it better. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice, but I'm not sure what an endorsement from me is worth. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 22:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Can you strike out this comment? Thank you. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 07:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early close

Hi. Why was this (opener: Samwalton9) RfC closed two days early? The default RfC duration's 30 days. I do genuinely think that as this involved something which, as you pointed out, is 'capable of causing more damage at a stroke than almost anything else', it should get at least the full 30 days. A guideline for the filter extension's been asked for for a long time; ending the discussion prematurely/early doesn't seem an obvious choice.

As you might imagine my interest isn't purely academic (I'd been working on it for a few days). As it stood, I'd have commented and opposed it, as inadequate to the point it's not fit for purpose. Additionally, major concerns already raised during the discussion hadn't yet been addressed imo. Obviously completing tasks early is attractive, but honestly if there was an RfC I'd never dream would be closed early it would've been this one. (By virtue of the above, affects so many etc.) Thanks --31.185.222.136 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that the two extra days would have changed anything given that the voting was 30-4 in favour and only one person had voted in the past 3 weeks? Sam Walton (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, conceivably, or I wouldn't bring it up. I think that question's oddly framed. It was still active, with new comments + voting added as recently as 58 minutes before, when it was suddenly closed with days still to go. As an aside those were from one of the EFMs. Was this discussed off-wiki?

On the other aspect you brought up: wp:PAG/RFC say stuff about numerical vote counts. Looking at it I see several writing "Support" for something other than the proposal or without having the slightest idea of what was being asked. A few more participants gave comments not in favour of the text in Discussion, too. --31.185.222.136 (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite disingenuous to point out the recent vote given that the last edit prior to that was three weeks before. There wasn't any off-wiki discussion that I'm aware of. If you really don't think it was closed properly then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures and take the matter to WP:AN. Sam Walton (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though first, this person needs to log in, because the number of IPs honestly participating in the arcana of process is approximately zero. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miljenko Horvat

Hello, could you have a look at Miljenko Horvat. It has been recreated 3 days after you deleted it. Thank you, Curiocurio 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

flying monkeys

I long ago came to the conclusion that flying monkeys armed with shit circle 90% of WP. AlbinoFerret 02:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right! Guy (Help!) 06:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shit circle? Are you privy to special counsel on this? . . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think this puts The Daily Telegraph "stripped and snubbed" reports, as well as any claims of "teetotaller", into useful perspective. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Guy, Its impossible to stop the constant rain of the missiles. The way to avoid them is to just do the right thing. Follow the PAG, and then those shit missiles veer off course when they toss them. Some may look like they hit, but its really old dry poo that just bounces off the ground near your feet. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bat bricks or brickbats?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #14446

Hi, I'm responding to UTRS appeal #14446 by Againstdisinformation, and at the very least the appeal is not disruptive, and it even looks like it might be acceptable and appropriately apologetic. I propose to reinstante TPA and let him post his appeal on-wiki. Are you fine with that? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow talk page access by all means, and feel free to do whatever you think best in respect of the block. I tend to stand back where block appeals are concerned, I feel it is best not to risk one's personal pride standing in the way of respectful handling of a request. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted ping

I mentioned you pseudo-critically at User talk:Tribscent08#Universal Medicine. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poem

There once was a terrible admin whose operating system was multitasking so he banned in parallel the editors of body odour smell and then came the end of this poem

81.158.98.214 (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Anonymous Fan[reply]