User talk:JzG

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 Free 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 18 years, 11 months, and 24 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 6 months, and 27 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

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 X | SceptiGuy on X

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?

QG again, FWIW

QG was blocked and there was some gnashing of teeth over how such a thing could happen to someone so awesome. Mentioned your previous critiques, FWIW [1], as one of several examples of non-woo-promoting editors who (a) have problems with QG and (b) have actually been on the other side of a content dispute with him -- a group that oddly has virtually no overlap with the "QG rules" posse. Suggested that people with strong opinions do as you've suggested, i.e. keep an eye on things and gather diffs. And on and ennui go. Happy editing, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 09:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really don't think he understands how vexing his behaviour can be. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think he sometimes does. I've seen him subtly mock editors who endeavor to point out to him things he doesn't acknowledge, dickishly parroting their words. More unfortunately, I don't think most of the editors who support him understand how vexing his behavior can be, since they've never been on the other end of it. Yes, in a way it's awesome that he counters woo-warriors, but his supporters don't grok that his behavior toward such editors is a subset of his general behavior. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 00:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of process close

Please undo your out of process close on Eugenie Carys de Silva. AfD challenges are supposed to remain open a week, not to be closed by random administrators because they find this or that aspect of the debate objectionable, as you did. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenie Carys de Silva was already clear (with you as the sole valid dissenter), and the zombie armies were being massed. We should always be conservative in biographies, and in this case a bruising war between single purpose accounts and the community, followed no doubt by even more drama, does not serve the best interests of anybody. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not file that ANI

Guy, I did not file that ANI. If MarkBernstain filed it I quite do not see why I should have paid for his action. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK< I accept this. I will fix it. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guy, I quite enjoyed your sense of humor. Nevertheless here there is a serious issue. I regret that MarkBernstein took the decision to file an ANI without consulting me first. Indeed, I would have told him that I was on the verge to do so. I do not know if the language that User:Director uses with me is compliant or not to WP rules. The only thing I know if that it hurts me a lot. I need to know from an administrator if it is normal to deal with people ad Director does. If it is normal, clearly I cannot contribute on Wikipedia. I will file an ANI within the next 30 minutes. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what hurts me? That you are still engaged in WP:ICANTHEARYOU [2]. I stil think you need to be sanctioned, and severely, for continuously refusing to reply (in any meaningful way) to user posts. Maybe you should correct your behavior, curtail the disruption, and stop with the condescending, arguably-racist, Mussolini-style comments about the Balkans and everyone from there? -- Director (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is pretty much the worst place for the two of you to have a ding-dong. Trust me on this. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Burdett Baronets

Please move Move Sir Thomas Burdett of Dunmore (disambiguation) to Thomas Burdett (disambiguation). I expect to sort out the two baronets tomorrow. Kittybrewster ☎

Fixed by user:Missionedit. Nice to see you passing by, sir. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PresidentistVB

Re: PresidentistVB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi JzG. You mentioned yesterday that PresidentistVB's style seemed...familiar. He's slid further off the rails over his most recent edits, getting more offensive ("60 hours a slave" for a 2.5 day block? Really?) and more bizarre in his explanations (secret breaching experiments for Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner) and legal theories (blocking him somehow infringes his civil right to comment on talk pages).

Do you have any specific alternate user accounts in mind? The WP:NOTHERE issues are pretty obvious, but I don't know which particular banned user he fits. (And incidentally, with this account he's been pretty transparent about his associated real-life identity—so much so that I'm honestly a bit concerned that this is a joe job to damage the real individual's reputation.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is a crank. His claims in respect of doing work for the foundation are, as far as I can tell, without merit. Whether he's a returning crank or a one-off crank is probably moot: I don't think he'll be around much longer. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I certainly didn't find his claims plausible or his reasoning sound; I was just wondering if he reminded you of someone we'd seen before. Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He does, but not so strongly that I would wield the banhammer, and in fact the real world identity is easy enough to trace that he probably is not, in the end, a returning loon. Guy (Help!) 06:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRV notice

Just a note that I have hauled your closure of Eugenie Carys de Silva to DRV. Thanks. —Tim, Carrite (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Eugenie Carys de Silva

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eugenie Carys de Silva. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Please see here.Heicth (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shanker Singham

Hi, I have re-written and updated the page of Shanker Singham to no longer be advertorial.