|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.
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)
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
|Threads older than 7 days may be archived by.|
- 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.
- 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?
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)
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
- DOI 10.4236: Scientific Research Publishing (mainly done)
|JzG is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.|
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)
As you've dealt with two of the nine previous instance of a Zeke1999 reincarnation would you mind reviewing this one? It would be easier for an experienced admin than someone who had to begin learning this history from square one. LavaBaron (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy. There's a proposed guideline that you voted against a while back (2008) called WP:MICROCON. I want to tidy up the micronations pages, and that policy would be very useful, specifically the bit that says: "a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years."
That'd give us a clear reason to remove a bunch of the more spurious ones. "Main subject" removes any news-of-the-wierd cites, and the multiple countries part ensures we don't have to deal with things like multiple mention in local newspapers. As things stand at the moment, we have to discuss notability on every add, and no one is addressing the existing entries on pages like List of micronations.
Anyway, this proposed policy looks more prescriptive than the current situation, which I'd have thought fits with your preferences. Is that correct? Any idea how I can get this approved? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Well, on the face of it, a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years is simply reiterating the General Notability Guideline. I have a pet peeve with people who think that subject-specific notability guidelines, which indicate the kinds of subject likely to meet the GNG, are instead a replacement for the GNG, and meeting these criteria automatically confers notability. I would burn them all, frankly. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The suggested criteria looks to me to be stricter than GNG, as GNG does not require "multiple countries", nor does it require "over a period of years", or the subject to be the "main subject", which is a higher standard than the "significant coverage" that GNG requires. I'd suggest that GNG makes allowance for this sort of policy in the "Presumed" bullet; having the guideline just means we don't need to debate for every possible micronation whether, for example, three articles in two local papers and one brief mention in a foreign is enough.
- If I was to re-propose it, are there any places where I should advertise to make sure it gets enough attention from people like yourself, rather than just those who are watching the WikiProject Micronations page? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)