User talk:JzG

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?

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

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

busy

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom Dougweller (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this interests you, but a while ago it was cleared up, it's now a mess again with the same editor replacing his earlier stuff. "It is a commonly held belief, whom some see as an established fact, that within the politics of the UK today the Israel Lobby is extremely influential, as is the case in the US, but admittedly in Britain to a smaller yet still substantively significant degree." with no source, as an example

Re: Stargate Project

Aloha. Regarding your addition to the lead in the Stargate Project article,[1] would you have any objection to me moving it into a footnote or somewhere else in the body? Per WP:LEAD, that section should really be a condensed summary of the article that attempts to draw the reader in and hold their interest. Unfortunately, I don't believe a two paragraph quote does that. However, it might work even better if you could paraphrase the quote in one sentence in the lead and link to the full quote in the footnote or somewhere in the body. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that I was restoring information removed by one of the remote viewing True Believers at some point, but I can't remember. The termination merits mention in the lede, as does the fact that only a tiny few true believers consider this at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, paraphrasing the termination would work perfectly. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban/Blocks

Hey Guy. I've been working over at WP:COIN lately and have been asked, as an uninvolved editor, to review a situation and pursue whatever resolution I find suitable. Some involved editors have suggested a topic ban. After reviewing the situation, it seems to me that the editor is unwilling to work with others regarding a strong POV and I'm trying to decide if I should pursue a topic ban or some sort of block but WP:BAN say that to receive a ban, there must be "very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors". The former is certainly true but there have been never been any sanctions. My question is, should I pursue sanctions (which I interpret to mean blocks) then pursue a topic ban if the blocks don't improve things?

The case in question is about a user named Jespah. Two admins and two or three other editors have been trying to work with her for over a year now to curb the POV pushing and article ownership that has been taking place. While it seems drastic to suggest any type of ban on an editor that has never been blocked, I can't help but think it's appropriate in this case. You can read my full report here if you'd like.

I'm not sure where to go from here. Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 15:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and proposed a topic ban at WP:AN. There's a lot of involved people so I'm sure a discussion will work things out. OlYeller^Talktome 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luxoft

Hi JzG, I would like to offer the content for the page on Luxoft. Could you, please, help me with the best way to do it as the article is protected and I am not able to add the content directly. Actually, I would not like to go with deletion review - I just want to recreate the page with my content. Thank you Wikiuser2001 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every version thus far has been blatant spam. It's highly unlikely that you'll be able to make it anything else, given that you, like all the other users who have expressed an interest, have no other apparent reason for being here other than to promote this company. In short, I think you're wasting your time. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IBS Group Holding Ltd.

Hello, I have a question, you've deleted IBS Group page, I believe you did it with racialist intention, as IBS Group being the largest Russian based IT Company. If we take for instance such IT companies as: Logica PLC, Wipro, Infosys, Capgemini, Atos all of mentioned companies have their company profiles on your Wikipedia. The page was rewritten couple of time so that it fits in line with the Wikipedia policy, what is more interesting it was revised by moderators of Wikipedia couple of times, where none of them had found any sign of SPAM, I understand if you would edits IBS Groups page, at least it would look as you are interested in keeping the article, but by deleting it…. Taking into account what I've just mentioned, i believe the deletion of IBS Groups page was made with the intention to damage their right of free speech, if you believe that IBS Groups page was spam, than please be so kind delete the pages of companies mentioned above, their structure and content is same as it was in IBS Groups page. Looking forward for your reply & and hoping on your moderate opinion.