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 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 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 25 days.

This user has been an admin for
18 years, 3 months, and 28 days.

This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.

• 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

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?

---

Your ANI close

Hi JzG. Your abrupt close of this ANI thread suppresses a legitimate and serious discussion about an editor's conduct. I think it's particularly faulty to close it as querulous, since the OP presented diffs, examples and clam explanations. While I doubt that you will reopen the thread, or actually intervene to address the reported issues, I at least want to go on record as strongly objecting to the close. Collect's battleground behavior which includes misrepresentation, edit warring, refusal to respond to legitimate questions, filibustering, false analogies, forum shopping, and personal attacks is damaging to the project. While I don't think that ANI is particularly well equipped to deal with it, the editors demoralized by his conduct should at least be able to present their evidence and have it objectively reviewed by uninvolved users. - MrX 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start an RFC. This is not an obvious quick-action case, and that is the only kind that can be fixed on ANI. Long experience indicates that ANI only makes things worse. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand and respect your view. RFC/U no longer exists, so I will explore other avenues of resolution.- MrX 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's only a battleground if there are two or more persons in dispute. It would behoove the lot of you well if you all (including Collect) disengaged. You file an arbcom case and it is going to go south on the lot of you.--MONGO 16:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. The issue with the ANI request is that it was not so much a request for review as a rallying cry to attract supporters, at least to my eyes. That is never a good idea, especially at that venue. I hadn't spotted RFC/U was shut down (though I can see why), but this still needs picking apart: content issues via RFC and AFD, conduct issues via DR. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

See the spanking-new ArbCom case just filed -- seems a bit too much, no? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A bit premature, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Damn you

I did a coffee take at work this morning when I read your comments at WP:ARBREQ. An "unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness," indeed. HiDrNick! 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Thanks for this. Would you mind indicating the version you reverted back to? Perhaps in the log? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

this one, but actually all the ones I reviewed suck to a greater or lesser degree, so please feel at complete liberty to find a better one if you can, and remove the tags (other than AfD unless you find one that is actually credible sourced). That's no disrespect to those involved in trying to clean it up, there have been many spammy edits and a good number of good faith attempts to tone them down or clean them up, most of which amount to a turd-polishing exercise. It's hard to believe that a right-leaning group who have published books on scientific dissent to Darwinian evolution, would have escaped any substantial criticism or scrutiny ion the process. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added a link to your closing comments. I hope you don't mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, thank you, I think that adds meaningfully to the attempt to get a properly Wikipedian outcome. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

The purpose of this message is to remind you that the consensus reached in the deletion review regarding BDD's improper closure of a debate regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect, which you closed approximately two and a half hours ago, is still awaiting enactment. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I just came by to post this same reminder. Does your close mean that you will relist it, or that someone else should relist it? I'm not too familiar with the ins-and-outs of deletion reviews, but I see that you also closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 8#Intercollegiate Studies Institute and have already carried out the required action; perhaps you just missed the other one? Ivanvector (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

someone else needs to resist it, if people still want it listed. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page for War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Thanks for close. I was wonder if you could also move the talk page as it is still at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–14).(Edit: talk page has been moved) I assume for the close at MRV you meant "Overturn (as No-consensus)" instead of just plain "No-consensus" (see Wikipedia:Move_review#Closing reviews). And yes I'm pretty sure they your comment at request for close will be true especially as the sides seem at least to me to be talking past each other. PaleAqua (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That's about it, yes. I did click the box for talk page move, not sure why it didn't happen. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and a question

Thank you, enormously, for closing that incredibly attenuated RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. I and I'm sure every one of us involved appreciate it every much. I'm not quite sure I understand what the result is. I think it means that running times need to be cited by third-party sources and not by measurement or a DVR reading, according to WP:NOR. Is that correct, or am I misreading? Thank you for any clarification / information, and again thank you for taking the very considerable amount of time to read that long RfC discussion. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. A reliable third party source is required. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect to what Tenebrae is asking, that both is and isn't true. WP:V requires that everything be verifiable, but not that everything be cited. Tenebrae is insisting that every running time be cited, essentially because that's the way that WP:FILM does it. However, there are arguments as to why this is not practical, the main one being that episode times vary, and because of this {{Infobox television}} does not ask for specific times, only an approximation, which every editor, except Tenebrae, agrees means that mandatory citing (which is beyond the requirements of WP:V) is not necessary. I agree with the aspect of your close that says we can't agree to ignore NOR, but that aspect of the discussion was ignored by everyone except Tenebrae. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You might want to re-read WP:NOR. I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)