User talk:JzG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Just zis Guy, you know?)
Jump to: navigation, search

Allied Academies

You might find this of interest. I created redirects for every journals on their websites. There's a few of them that are cited on Wikipedia (International Journal of Pure and Applied Zoology).

See also the 'What links here' for Biomedical Research, which has a standalone article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure why you decided to step up and block this dude, but it was considerably overdue. Thanks. IMO, he should have been indeffd back in August for his ludicrous attack on Donner60. Again, thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you've got everything when removing stuff

Hi, just a reminder to check carefully and ensure you've got everything when removing stuff. I'm particularly thinking about this edit [1].

I'm not so sure on the reasoning you gave as it is an article on the economist and that particular work or at least those lines seem very widely cited outside wikipedia. Although it can't be ruled out that this could have to do with them being in wikipedia since 2005 [2], I strongly suspect many of the citations are independent. That said, I do agree with the removal itself, as I said in my edit summary here [3], having such long quotations is not the way to illustrate someone's views in wikipedia articles. And if there really is the need for such a quotation it almost definitely should use some sort of quotation template to avoid any confusion. (The part on the ref doesn't apply to what you edited.)

My concern is you only removed part of the quotation, along with the ref. You left behind a whole paragraph of the quotation including with an opening quotation mark, and now without a ref. The risk here, and I've seen something similar happen before is rather than this text being removed it's going to be preserved eventually with all signs it's effectively WP:Copyvio missing. If I hadn't noticed it and recognised (and checked) that it was a quotation and removed it, maybe someone would come along and see the opening quotation mark (without a closing) and think it's just a stray quotation mark and removed that. Then someone else will come along and think "this isn't worded appropriately for a wikipedia article" but rather than thinking it's because it was a quotation which was copied and needs to be removed, they'll reword it slightly.

Eventually we'll end up with a situation where something is basically copyvio but it's far from obvious. While there's a lot less risk of this in an article on a person, it's still IMO not zero so we need to avoid risking it happening by only part removing or editing something which should be removed completely.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I split the quote. A simple misreading. Thanks for spotting it. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

The Fox Hunt (1893) by Winslow Homer, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


I think DalQ95 (talk · contribs) may be another of the sockfarm recently afflicting Chutiya articles. They're renaming stuff against consensus, changing spellings in articles etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, maybe not a sock. They could be just somewhat clueless, as suggested by their comments on my talk page, and their reappearance at the article so soon after the blockings may be coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, the socks have preferred Chutiya or Chutia to Sutiya, pretty consistently. This looks like a clueless n00b rather than a sock, as you say. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I'm out for now anyway. Left replies at my talk page and also a note about something at Talk:Chutiya people after belatedly realising I'd reverted them regarding a section on surnames. Not much more I can do because I am at the revert limit. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17th

Hello, you reverted my edit recently saying the sources were not reliable, but the guidelines on the talk page say that the Discovery Institute is a reliable source for primary source information. I would argue that the two sources I cited would thus be reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talkcontribs) 08:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Subuey: Primary self-published sources are not reliable for statements of fact, which is how you used them, only for uncontroversial statements pertaining to the publishers themselves (WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS). In this case the publishers ("Evolution News" and the creationist William Dembski) are asserting things which courts have assessed to be objectively false. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, my edit presented it as a statement by the proponents. The courts ruling is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a informational dictatorship.Subuey (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually you have remarkably little experience of Wikipedia to be lecturing me on policy ([4] v [5]). Your edit made statements purporting to be fact, from sources that are partisan and have been shown in court to be objectively wrong. Feel free to propose your changes on the Talk page, though. This is not the place. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You're a shit-ass job of an admin. Do not misrepresent what my edit said. A sentence beginning "Proponents assert" is not a statement of fact on the subject matter. Subuey (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) A sentence beginning "Proponents assert" isn't what you added. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 10:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The sentence currently reads "It is asserted" after JzG Guy did his flury of edits. That is the sentence I was adding on to. That would have been clear if you had read the edit within its context. Subuey (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't understand WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. That's your problem, not mine. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The Siren/Epicstep

Hi there. I noticed that a few years back, you speedy deleted the article The Siren (musician), and then dealt with the subject's manager. I wanted to let you know that he has resurfaced and recreated the article at The Siren (artist), and created a new article, Epicstep, seemingly taking the promotion a step further. I was wondering if you preferred to intervene since you've dealt with him in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)