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)

---

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 19 years, 8 months, and 26 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 3 months, and 29 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

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

• 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

JzG reacting to yet another drama

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)

Predatory open access publishing

These two publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.

• DOI 10.4172: OMICS Group
  • esciencecentral.org
• DOI 10.4236: Scientific Research Publishing (mainly done)
  • scirp.org

---

I have a large and disruptive building project starting, and I'll be doing a significant part of the work myself. Email me if there's anything urgent. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Donald Henderson

On 25 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Donald Henderson, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Tomas Gorny

Are you sure the draft is similar to the previous copy? The second copy that was deleted [1] is identical to the 1st copy that was deleted [2] but both do not have the content from the Summer 2016 coverage [3] [4] [5]. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your close

There actually was a strategy to my recommendation despite it not having a specific direction, but why didn't you go ahead and propose something yourself or at least make a suggestion to help get things back on track? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A unilateral sanction is not going to fly, and firther discussion will only cause more drama. A systematic solution would be a good thing. This argument is a plague on the project. Guy (Help!) 06:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

So I've recently learned and it's the silliest thing I've experienced yet, but what would you suggest as a systematic solution? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I figured it out. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Noël Coward

"Importantly, most "outsiders"": i.e. people who haven't bothered to look at the article, don't know the subject and haven't read the arguments put forward. That's a poor close: vote counting ILIKEITs is not good admining. I would add that in contentious situations, where there is supposed to be a solid consensus to change a long-standing status quo, to make a decision that bastardises one of our quality articles on what you describe as a "rough consensus" is sub-standard. As for "this appears to be a minority view", since when did we start ignoring Wikipedia is not a democracy just to force an issue to a personal preference? - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I am out and about today, but just quickly: I don't have a personal preference, other than for less of this drama. The point absolutely is that Wikipedia is not a democracy, this should be clear from my closing statement. 12:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:645D:1900:E18C:3528:CE28:FC66 (talk)

Yes, wikipedia isn't a vote. To close that as a consensus to add is bollocks. At AFD if there was such a mixed back it would be closed as "no consensus". Given the amount of people who oppose you can never call that as a consensus to add one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• If the show was on the other foor (i.e. to remove a long-standing IB, you can guarantee a big pile of cash that the result would have been... to have an IB. There is, rather sadly, an uneven playing field when it comes to IB discussions. The vote-stacking of ILIKEITs is counted and swallowed purely at face value, despite most of the voters (not !voters) turning up and giving a generic answer to the use of the box, rather than specifically addressing the use on that article as ArbCom ruled should be the case. When you take out all those votes who don't address the Coward article, or that give any indication outside the fact they like them/expect to see one on an article, there is absolutely nothing that remotely resembles a consensus to change the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider your closure. Note Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (and the related Talk page), where editors have set up a WikiProject whose goal is to force infoboxes into articles over the objections of the principal content contributors. I think your reasoning in the closure is also wrong: Why would the content contributors' opinion be given less credence than a band of editors who go around trying to force infoboxes into articles? It seems to me clearly a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom infobox case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Alas for your desire for less drama. Because a small group of editors at Talk:Noël Coward came to and acted on a consensus that your close was invalid, I've opened a closure review at WP:AN#Overdue RFC closure review so it can be discussed in the proper venue. Sorry for the trouble. FourViolas (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Noël Coward

Hi Guy, I've protected the page because of the reverting. I'm wondering whether the RfC should be re-opened. They're normally left open for 30 days unless consensus becomes clear earlier, but at c. 21 yes and 13 no, that's not the case here. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Particularly when many of those 21 probably haven't even looked at the article and have made no attempt to discuss the use of the box at that specific article, as ArbCom tells us we should. Discount those and the ILIKEIT/IEXPECTTOSEEITs and it's a long way short of a strong enough consensus for change. – SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith betrays your personal investment in infobox warring. It does not make you look good. At all. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no bad faith in pointing out inadequacies with your close. Several neutral, unconnected editors raised similar questions in the ANI thread over the close (which is just one of the reasons it was reopened). To accuse me of bad faith to cover your error does not exactly make you look too good. At all. – Gavin (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The tone of your assertions here and elsewhere demonstrates bad faith bordering on paranoid conspiracism. You urgently need to get a sense of perspective about this. To read your comments, anybody would think that an infobox is a fundamental subversion of Wikipedia. Honestly, to an outsider, it's like reading the ramblings of an antivaxer. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Guy, there seemed to be agreement on AN to re-open the RfC, so I've gone ahead and done that. I'd have preferred to wait until you were back online, but it's been 17 hours or thereabouts, and it's midnight your time, so you're unlikely to be back until morning. I hope this is okay with you. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Rolfing

I am a fairly new editor and trying to learn the ropes. You recently closed a discussion on the Rolfing page stating that the good sources all consider Rolfing as pseudoscience. True, but I think the majority of the sources do not consider it quackery and that's the main POV problem even among non-practitioners like me. I have been gathering material from my local library so we'd have a better representation of information available. Based on this, I have found some good sources that consider Rolfing a reasonable treatment in some situations. I have let this project slip to the back burner, but will finish it up in the next day. Since the discussion on the Talk page has been closed, how would I go about adding this information? Thatcher57 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good sources that consider pseudoscience to be an appropriate treatment? That should be interesting. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at this a few weeks ago after it showed up at one of the noticeboards. I hadnt heard of it before (it sounds ridiculous just from the name, like something involving a muppet pianist) so tried to find out more about it. I could not find a single MEDRS compliant source that claimed 'Rolfing' had any benefit. The only positive sources I found that were *not* quackery/pseudo related, were along the lines of 'well the patient feels better afterwards'. Which is basically placebo. It has no physical benefit that a good masseuse could not do better. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)