User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

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 20 years and 30 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 8 months, and 2 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)

---

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Your help is needed

Hi, Guy, and Happy New Year. I'm sorry to bother you with this, but an editor for whom an RfC didn't fall his way in March is now ignoring the RfC outcome and your very words, and making disruptive changes with false claims about the RfC.

As you said here regarding the infobox television template's "runtime" parameter" "The point at issue was, narrowly, are we allowed to use running time figures measured by individual editors directly. The answer is an unambiguous "no" for the same reason that we would not allow such sources for the height of an actor or the size of a building. --Guy (Help!) 18:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yet User:AussieLegend is saying the RfC outcome was different. He's insisting on making an uncited claim of running time at New Girl, offering no citation either in the infobox or in the article body. Worse, he's accusing me to edit-warring though we're allowing to revert vandalism, which a direct contradiction of an RfC outcome and insistence on original research would be. Could you possibly join the discussion at Talk:New Girl before things blow up? Indeed, ab apparent tag-team editor today tried to remove the agreed-upon wording from the infobox template! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:ANI. If AussieLegend is including unsourced runtimes, he needs to be formally warned and if necessarily blocked, but that needs review by more than one pair of eyes. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: - Could you please take some time to read the RfC and your closing comments, as well as the evidence at AN3 again? Contrary to what Tenebrae said, I'm basing the RfC outcome on what you actually wrote at the RfC and in your clarification, which Tenebrae was obviously not satisfied with. However, this is not about me. This is about Tenebrae edit-warring while 3 different editors have reverted him. Tangential to this is his uncivil behaviour towards other editors, telling one he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if he doesn't know how to cite.[1] For the record, to head off Tenbrae's edit warring, I actually went to the trouble of citing the episode runtime at New Girl.[2] The runtime that had been in the article for a very long time was easily verifiable, but Tenebrae didn't even bother adding {{citation needed}}. He just deleted verifiable information, as he has done at other articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, but Tenebrae just seems to want to be combative. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How about if you stop adding unsourced information? Find a source: fine; edit-war unsourced material back in: not fine. Very, very simple. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RE your comment at AE.

"Its not going to change". Well it wont with that attitude mister! Although more seriously this is why I have started taking a less-than-relaxed attitude to this sort of bollocks recently. If people actually started taking action sooner when the fringe loons started their pattern of behaviour, we wouldnt be down the line having endless arguments on talkpages with people with the critical thinking capacity of a doorknob. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's never going to change because it's not only a problem here. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the article "Andrei Siderski"

Hi, could you please explain why article "Andrei Siderski" was deleted? There were added 4 references for third party resources, including municipal library and online magazines. Thank you.

Which time? The article has been deleted more than once. And the most likely answer is: because you are engaging in blatant promotion. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

: @Guy JzG: First time content for this article was copied from other article (Siderski), but I have deleted this content by myself as inappropriate. Second time there was stated a shortened information only from confirmed third party resources. Which content is considered as a promotion, but not as confirmed information about a person? Thank you for response.

Reference errors on 5 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Chiropractic page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions message- Electronic harassment Talk

I don't understand you leaving this message below on my Talk page. I have done no edits in Wikipedia so far. I am a learner. I am attempting to discuss the article in question not disrupt a controversial topic. I am attempting to clarify the controversy. I sincerely believe that two views on the subject are valid within Wikipedia Guidelines, not just the Delusions view. An article with only one view is no longer about a controversy. I thought I was behaving appropriately by discussing my ideas in the Talk section in the attempt to reach consensus as to how to describe what is meant by 'electronic harassment' and the two quite varying views of it.

"The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions." Jed Stuart (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case modified

DrChrissy's topic ban which currently states that "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed" is replaced with "DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed."

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case modified

Food Matters

Hi JzG: I noticed that you deleted Food Matters as a copyvio, but you did not provide a url in the rationale. I noticed upon searches that many sites appear to have copied the content from the Wikipedia article, in which cases this would not be a copyvio. For example, notice how this site actually has the [1] in it, which was also in the deleted version of the article. The [1] indicates that this was simply copied from the Wikipedia article, because it indicates an inline citation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Per the above, could you please provide a url upon which you based the deletion of the article upon? Again, this may not actually be a copyvio. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of the article text was derived from a series of cut & paste edits from IMDB, made by an anonymous IP editor in February 2015. At the time the article was deleted a day ago, the majority of the article's text – a summary of the film's content – was still word-for-word identical. (To add insult to injury, that same section of the article had borne an unresolved, ignored cleanup tag since March 2015.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Universal Medicine

Hi, is it possible to protect, or semi-protect the Universal Medicine article? Seems a couple of revisionists have decided to try and gut it. I've reverted but can see a pattern developing. 79616gr (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. 79616gr (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, return the article "Andrei Siderski" for improving

For the second time (the second deleted article "Andrei Siderski") there was stated a shortened information and only from confirmed third party resources (including municipal library and online magazines). Could you please clarify, which content in the last version of the article "Andrei Siderski" was considered as a "blatant promotion", but not as a confirmed information about a notable person? In addition to the included references, there is also a reference to the article (created since 2008) about this person on ru.Wikipedia.org - "Сидерский, Андрей Владимирович" (in Russian): https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 . You can see through Google Translate, that all information is confirmed, and can be additionaly resourced by lots of resources (but mainly in Russian). Could it be a problem that resources are in Russian (not in English)? I hope, Google Translate can solve all problems with checking. In any case I will improve this article (if you return it) by adding mentioned above reference. Thank you for your response.