Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:01, 11 December 2007 editJmitja (talk | contribs)12 edits →Openbravo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:48, 5 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,459 edits →Administrators' newsletter – January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
<center><br><div style="align: center; width: 60%; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px gold; background-color: black;">
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<span style="color:white;font-weight:bold"><s>R&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E</s>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;T&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;R&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;E&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; D</font>'''</div><br></center>
| archiveheader = {{talkarchive}}
| algo = old(7d)
| archive = User talk:JzG/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 218
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1
| maxarchivesize = 32K
}}
{{Misplaced Pages:TPS/banner}}
{{collapse top|Discretionary sanctions}}
{{Ds/aware|9/11|a-a|a-i|ab|acu|aerc|ap|at|os|b|blp|cam|cc|cid|e|ecig|fg|gc|gg|ggtf|gap|gmo|ipa|lr|lw|muh-im|old|pa|pr|ps|r-i|saq|sen|sci|tm|tpm|tt|we}}
{{collapse bottom}}
]
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=User talk:JzG/Archive index|mask=User talk:JzG/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{Centralized discussion|width=30%}}
{{Archive box
| archivelist = <!-- /archivelist -->
| auto = yes
| index = Special:PrefixIndex/User_talk:JzG/Archive
| search = yes
| collapsible = yes
| collapsed = yes
| root = user talk:JzG
| bot = MiszaBot
| age = 7
}}
__TOC__


<center>'''This user is tired of silly drama on Misplaced Pages{{#if:{{{date|}}}|&nbsp;as of {{{date}}}|}}.'''</center>

I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases. I am prepared to do this. I am not intending to be here much, at present. I have not yet decided whether to start using this account actively again. No, I don't want to talk about any of the foregoing, thanks, the people concerned know who they are and how to get hold of me. This is about some ongoing unresolved issues being discussed on one or more mailing lists, when that debate comes to fruition I will take a view. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

* Please see ].
---- ----
;Smelling pistakes
]</sup>]]
:In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have ], so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa.
* Bored? Looking for something to do? Try ].
* See my '''''' - feel free to suggest more!
* '''My take on .'''
---- ----
{{wikibreak}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
== God Jul och Gott Nytt År! ==
|algo = old(2d)
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">
|archive = User talk:JzG/Archives/%(monthname)s_%(year)d
]
}}
]
----
] is wishing you ]<br />Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's ] or ]<br />], ], ], ], ],<br />or the ],<br /> this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.
== Cypri ==
<br />
{{clear}}
</div>


== ]! Are you still out there? ==
We may have another problem related to that issue, and articles that link there. Next time we're both on IRC, remind me, and I'll explain. ] 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
<!-- ] 09:57, 15 January 2032 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1957773473}}
Hi ]! I was going through some old ArbCom cases and ran into one where you had added some statements. I realized that I haven't spoken to you in quite some time, and I see that you haven't made any edits since May... That sucks! I don't want to see someone like you go! If anything, I hope that you're doing well and that you're happy and that you'll someday return here. I just wanted to leave you a message and let you know that I was thinking about you... Keep in touch. :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


:I hope it goes without saying, despite the fact that I'm saying it, that many of us feel the same way. Happy new year ]] 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
== In the middle of all the other drama... ==


::We didn't cross paths very often lately, JzG, but we could really use you back. If you get the urge to return, please say "Yes!" <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I know you have been busy with all that is going on and may have missed the NPA stuff. I have been playing with the wording of the proposal on ] and made a bit of a radical proposal at the bottom. I would like to know your opinion on both to see where we can go from here. Thanks!
:::October JzG sighting at ]. Does my heart good. --] (]) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
::::Lovely to hear from you! I have spent the past two-and-a-bit years working at incredibly high stress for a hospital. In that time I have retired around 80% of their legacy application and server estate, instituted architectural guidelines and piloted the process for demand review, reduced the measured risk burden by around 80%, instituted objective risk monitoring using ], and I've just proposed (and had accepted) a plan to remediate or mitigate most of the rest. I have, in short, been busy in that there real life of which you read, and that really wasn't going to fit in with having to be nice to people who sincerely believe that Ashlii Babbit was the real victim of the "legitimate political discourse" on Jan 6 2020.
::::I have a week's leave. I have 28 days to take before year end, having managed I think three days off this year so far (including weekends). And because I have an offshore team and an onshore customer, my working day can be 8am to 3am.
::::I thought I'd drop in :-) ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Yikes, sounds like, umm..., a lot of responsibility. There will be plenty for you to do here when you are free! ] (]) 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Glad you dropped by! ] (]) 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::Glad to hear you're OK - and busy, by the sounds of things! Hope you enjoy your break. ]] 11:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::If Guy doesn't look at ] real soon now, where Eddy is being accused of plagiarism, I may be forced to contact him on bookfarce. That would mean giving Guy my real name. He always forgets me. - ]the ] 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I try never to remember people's RW names unless they are "out" on Misplaced Pages. Even when they out themselves, this has led to huge problems, e.g. with a user whose identity was revealed by accident off-wiki, showing him to be the source of fact-washing his own side in Misplaced Pages disputes via a journalist. That ended badly for everyone. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Very happy see the little JzG! ] ] ] 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC).
:::::Hah! Good to see you're still around! ] 20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::This is a few months late, but welcome back! Wishing you well. ''']] (])''' 09:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
:Welcome indeed! Just came across your signature ]. It's always great to run in to another 'old-timer'. Hope you're well, ]&nbsp;<sup><b>(])</b></sup> 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


`
And if I was still living in the ] area, I would most definitely come up to have a beer with you in Philly. Cheers <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:Well, that is one way to comment :) Instead of adding the "not acceptable" phrasing, could the section be moved to the "never acceptable" section up top? I will copy this comment over to WT:NPA. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
:: I'll have a look. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the comments. I sincerely hope this solves the issue once and for all and it is not exploited nor abused. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::: You never know your luck. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
== Your archiving at ANI ==
I really don't think was a helpful action which will do anything to lower the temperature. Could you consider reverting yourself? ] ] 17:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
* I really ''really'' don't think you want to reopen that can of worms. Seriously. Some of your recent actions have raised eyebrows, and pressing for the continuation of that debate is very unlikely to help anything. That battle is already raging in one or two places, let it reach its natural conclusion. If you consider there is genuine cause for concern you are welcome to try ], but I see a number of contributors to that debate who would not come out of an arbitration well. Better to let it drop, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
== ] ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
JzG, I am trying to find out why this article was deleted. Also, Is there anyway to find the article in wiki now that it has been deleted. Thanks (] (]) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
:] ]
* Because it was ] in the opinion of everyone who saw it, a personal essay of no obvious coherence. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Woops I didnt see your note at the beginning ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
You said beer as in beard hole in Oslo? Just kidding... But I am serious about its deletion... LoL... just teasing... No I am serious.... hahaha... No. Seriously (] (]) 21:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
==Nattering nabobs of negativity==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
The civility-above-all-else crowd is getting restless. It may be wise to file off some of the rough edges so as to deny them ammunition (sorry for the mixed metaphor). ] (]) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
== AN notification ==
</div>


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
It's only courteous to inform people when something is posted on AN, so I'm just directing you to ] where someone has started a discussion about you. ] ] 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----

{{center|{{flatlist|

* ]
== RWI? ==
* ]

* ]
Could you briefly clarify on your evidence this means "Real World Information" (I think?)? It took me a bit long to figure this out, and I'm usually pretty quick. I had at first thought you meant some ], i.e. yet another sock. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
}}}}
* Real world identity. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
<!--

-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
== James Randi ==
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
Thanks for going ahead and deleting that bit about the sex scandal on the talk page. I was unsure whether it could just be eliminated all together. Glad to see we can delete such trolling. I just wish that the particular user would just stay away. Happy Thanksgiving! Cheers!!! ] (]) 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
* Sure. You can always remove crap posted in bad faith, and ] supports removing from talk any material which is clearly unsuitable for the article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
==Thank you==

Thank you. ] (]) 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
* No problem. It might help if you were to give people some context - this is clearly not your first day on Misplaced Pages. There are suspicions. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

==Unprotect==
If you'd kindly unprotect my "sockproblems" page, I'd like to db-userreq it. Thanks. ] (]) 16:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
* OK, I have deleted it for you. Thanks, <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

== The True Values about being Hip in New York ==

What's all this swindling-gibbering talk about wikipedia policies against articles that contain the word Hip within them
*And what about words like Hip Hop which sound like Bebop in the reversedMode of Pihpoh?
**Truly yours, (] (]) 23:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC))
*** All words I recognise, but the order is unhelpful. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

== For doing what few have the balls to do: ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 10; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Golden Wiki'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |Going above and beyond most people and protecting '''''Misplaced Pages''', the 💕'' and supporting the few users/bots who do the most unpleasant and thanksless, but never the less important tasks, I award a rare gift '''''The Golden Wiki''''' for ] 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
|}
:I, as always, appreciate your work on Misplaced Pages, Guy, and always look up to you to provide inspiration to me and the countless other contributors to the 'pedia! — ] ] 05:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

::yay!!!] 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Dunno if you've seen it, but you got 3 messages there (including a barnstar, woot!) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
* Oh, thanks! Now I've purged my watchlist and got down to about 20 pages I will watchlist it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

== Block ==
Guy, can you explain ? ] ] 16:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
* Yes. I explained it to Cary Bass. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
* OK, checks finished, worst fears luckily not realised. Mercury downgraded to a softblock. In other news, world continues to turn. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

== Privatemusings arbitration ==

Left a suggestion on the workshop page.... inspired by those TV documentaries on the police forces! --<font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 21:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Your edit to ], citing OTRS ticket 2007080210005311, appears to be problematic under both ] & ]. I have posted detailed concerns at ]. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

==]==
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 18:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

== Durova/Jehochman arbitration ==

I noticed your section on posting of private correspondence, and I believe you might be looking for ]. I don't think anyone got sanctioned for posting email, but the editor who did it had already requested desysopping and left Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
* Thanks, well done. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thanks for providing a link to the original Ikkyu2 material. I added some stuff that guides readers to the meat of his comment.

I never really liked linking to WR, so this is an improvement, even though it requires a bit of work to see his comment. There's some good stuff over there, and I used to go there every day, but I got tired of the constant negativity. (I kind of remember seeing the occasional mention of JZG over there -- sometimes they pick on the wrong people. <vbg>) ] (]) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

* Well, yes. Overall I am in favour of linking to the source of truth rather than some commentary on the truth that may be - how to put this? - designed to promote a particular interpretation. Thanks, <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

==SSP deletion==
Yes, the submitter an obvious sock, prob the same as the one that submitted the first one that was oversighted, but it's way more complicated than that. I'll get to the bottom. Thanks for helping.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
* I just bet it is. Good luck. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

== Your opinion please... ==

I expanded ]. Your opinion please as to whether you still think an article on the topic merits deletion.

I remember we have interacted before. I am hazy on the details. Do you remember if I was correct to write that you had been generous and helpful? If so thanks again.

Cheers! ] (]) 18:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

:Ah. Well, even if I am misremembering you being helpful in the past, best wishes in the present anyway. ] 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
:: Sorry, I missed it - was out of the country and using intermittent crappy wi-fi connections. Plus all the drama, of course. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

==DRV notice==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- ]]/] 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

== If you're still around... a problematic user page you unprotected ==

I would say that it looks like ] is not using the unprotection of his userpage for constructive purposes. He's soapboxing, etc, and only digging a further hole. Would you consider declining the request and protecting the talk page again? ] (]) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
* Completely agree. Callmebc has done nothing but prove that the indefinite block was right. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 04:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

== CyclePat ==

Guy, Pat's driving me crazy. He's off on a kick. He's also raised it at RfC and at WP:RSN.

I called him on the absurdity, but he's playing the 'how dare you threaten to block me, we have a content dispute' card. Can you talk some sense into him? He seems to listen to you more than most, and it would be good for the encyclopedia if he could be persuaded to put some of that boundless energy into something useful. ](]) 01:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

:Before I go on making any brilliant proposals (which I fear may be mis-interpretated as some Pointy insult and lead to some sense that I'm trying to be disruptive) perhaps you would be so kind as to propose to ] and I what steps you believe we should take to resolve this dispute? --] (]) 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Step 1: You stop adding superfluous and ludicrously inappropriate sources to ] (as in ] + ]). Step 2: Dispute is resolved. Pleased to eb of service, <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Thank you Guy for the suggestion. However I don't agree with this. WorldNet defines inappropriate as "not in keeping with what is correct or proper; "completely inappropriate behavior"." To date I believe I have been keeping in line with the spirit, policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. Simply take a look above the edit summary box which states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate what exactly is superfluous (in excess of what is required) with the sources to '''which I want to add'''? (Notice: the correction I made to you accusatory tone in step 1 "You stop adding..." which lead people to believe that I am being disruptive in some editorial fashion.) Furthermore according to WorldNet "ludicrous" is defined as "incongruous; inviting ridicule "the absurd excuse that the dog ate his homework";". This being said, let us assume you are correct in saying that adding references, despite the fact that when there are no references this is a violation of ], to the article ] is, as you say, "]". I would put it to you, in light of the definition that you are lacking ] and falling into the trap. This is because the definition states "inviting to ridicule", which means being "ridiculizing" (or bullying). In this case TenOfAllTrades would be considered the bully ridiculizing my good faith attempts to add the references which are conform to wikipedia's policies.

:::Maybe it's not the references themself but the amount of references? If this is the case, I would understand. That is why I've post a compromise for ] that we only have 2 references instead of 4. So what exactly is "ludicrously inappropriate" with the sources I added to the article millisecond, where then removed by TenOfAllTrades, and now, to which we discuss?

:::In light of the fact that I don't quite agree with your method, I ask you again, what steps do you think we should take to resolve this issues?

:::p.s: On a secondary issue: When you look at the definition of ] it states in that article that it's 1/1000. However when you read the second sentence it then states that the prefix's etymology means 1000. Is it 1000 or 1/1000? How can this be verified? Where are the sources? --] (]) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
::::p.p.s: I just noticed the addition you made to the article ] regarding ]... etc... I'm happy to see this contribution. --] (]) 16:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent for my pleasure...) Mind moving the talk page as well? It seems to be splitbrained right now. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;">] | ]</small> 16:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::I know, I know... you can say it... "I'm a ]". Thank you again for your interest in what is happening. --] (]) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Hey, at least you have a sense of humour about it :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
== psi research ==

hi guy: when you get a chance, perhaps you could do a quick NPOV check on ], which was added recently. i'm not sure whether to link to it from the main ] page, which is rather a mess at the moment. but since you've been monitoring that page, i thought perhaps you might like to do the relevant linking. thanx! ] (]) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

==McMoneagle==
Joe McMoneagle was awarded the Legion of Merit for his RV work. Whether you like it or not does not matter. It is a fact. Did you ever check it out? Or do you just believe things that make you happy?
I did check it out. Mc Moneagle was a remote viewer for almost 20 years in experimental intelligence operations to gather information no one else could furnish. That is why the medal was awarded. ] (]) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
* So, like I said, link the citation and let people make up their own minds. Otherwise we have to use scare quotes to make it clear that RV does not have any objective validity, and the obsessive fans of RV really hate that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Hey, sorry about that block/unblock thing. I asked Ioeth to let me do it and I thought I had. I went through the steps, hit the button, then flashed back to a different tab and posted the block message. IRC cvn-wp-en alerted me to the block by you, so I go check, system error, my block did not go through! Ha. Anyway, sorry for the confusion. ''']''']''']''' 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
* No biggie. You can unblock and reblock, it just wasn't blocked when I saw it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

==BLP==
I already know.

Anyway, though, I checked the BLP policy again and there are restrictions for public figures, so the deletion of my post is justified. ] 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
* Fairy nuff. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I started a talk section about "involuntary public figures" at BLP - Maybe more restrictions should be placed on involuntary public figures than voluntary public figures in terms of BLP: ] ] 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== ] / ] ==

Dear Guy,
Thank you for your quick reply. Let me observe that I brough to the attention the following text on ] page: "'''My page was vandalised by User:Moldorubo related to User:Dc76.'''" It is right in bold there. IMHO, suggesting I have anything to do with a banned user or with vandalism, is a form of PA. Same goes for the things Moldopodo implies in his answer that you saw. About the other issues, I agree with you, the better place is dispute resolution. However, I respectfully insist that the sentence I mentioned by removed from this user's page. (I asked him, but he refuses to answer.) Thank you for your assistence.:]\<sup>]</sup> 16:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== Early psi research at SRI‎ AfD ==

Thanks for this feedback. I'll scope it out and change my opinion accordingly. ] 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
:Re: boggles the mind, ''The men who stare at goats'' ]'s book about the ] was a jaw dropping read, highly recommended. (even though it left unanswered my question of whether these people expect that when a special forces soldier walks through a wall, that his clothes & gear will also make the trip through...) Cheers, ] 06:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

==Wales==

Thanks for the note. My edit history might look strange but that's because I only log in when I need to edit a protected entry. The vast majority of my edits are under whatever IP address I'm using at the moment. Why log in if you don't have to? ] 22:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== Perhaps you should refrain from assuming too much ==

Not every account is what it seems. You are very presumptive to assume I have only a few hundred mainspace edits. Have you ever stopped to consider why Durova's block of !! angered me so much? Anyway, you're very emotional about all of this. Perhaps you should retract your angry, bitter message on my talkpage? ]] 13:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
* The thing is, I am not very happy about the current trend for using sockpuppets to engage in contentious policy debate. For better or worse, Giano edits only as Giano and any crap he gets attaches to the reputation of Giano. People who choose to use another account for argufying causes, unfairly disadvantage those who are prepared to stand up and be counted. My statement on your talk was a plain statement of fact: I would be much more able to take your words at face value if you used your usual account. I suspect that we would agree on moist things, given your userboxes, and one fo the things Occam's Razor suggests to me is that people who are in good standing in the community are rarely in need of concealing their identity in order to join in an argument. I happen to think that the loss of transparency caused by the present tendency to use sockpuppets for argument is rather corrosive. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
**That's not what I'm doing. This is not a sock any longer. That's all I'll say. If you wish to know who I am, e-mail me, and I'll tell you. Honestly, I don't think I ever crossed paths with you in my previous WP existence. ]] 16:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


== Bravo ==
Thank you very much.Thanks. ] 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
:: Please, could you kindly erase this redirect to the same article? Thx in advance. I tried to do it myself (I deleted the redirect) but deleting the title - I could not do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/Timothy_A._Hill_%28U.S._congressional_press_secretary%29
] 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

==Help!==
Sorry to bother, but can you please encourage this Crum375 to stop nagging me to make an Arbcom case? This is highly inappropriate, and really not their proper business whatsoever. Thanks much. ] 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:: Oh, I see. It was you who moved it. This person has been pestering me to no end. Two pages worth of nagging. :/ ] 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
::: Hi again. Ok, now I see what you are talking about. I dont really have thetime for this, but I will state some corroborating information related to that post. I had no idea what he/she was talking about. I thought Crum was talking about my comment on the article of Ruud Lubbers, not the Durova Arbcom case (and she called it an ANI, which completely confused me). The main point I sought to make was "inform better about COI" and to highlight the damage, which D participated in. But since Crum is going to make a federal case of it, then fine. I'll add the annotations as requested. Thanks for putting the edit there, and I'll follow up.
] 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

=== Please ask Crum375 to stop bothering me ===
He/she started out with accusations, non-stop nagging (and I had no idea you'd copied that passage to ANI, with my IP on it - but this person was so vague I had no idea what they were talking about. I thought it was a comment about Ruud Lubbers article). This person has been quite unkind, and tossing all kinds of accusations at me, and when the person refused to stop, I told them that their accusations and threats were bordering on harassment, and instead of leaving me alone, Crum375 threatened me with a block. Possibly the person is trying to provoke me so I can be blocked, or perhaps the person simply can't respect polite requests to be left alone. Please, if you can communicate that I want nothing more to do with this person, I'd be grateful. At this point, the person has stepped over the line. Thanks. ] 04:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

* I would like you to send me email, please - guy dot chapman at spamcop dot net. There are very good reasons why we do not need another witch hunt, equally there are good reasons why I would want to review evidence (as opposed to assertions based on interpretations of evidence) in some detail. I can help with the former, if I decide it's the latter I should at least be able to advise you how to avoid future problems. I don't think this conversation should be conducted on my talk page, though. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Thanks for trying to help with the content dispute but things just ]. Meatpuppetry galore. -- ] (]) 07:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

==Your endorsement of Perspicacite's position==
Is this a correct statement of your position: at ]?

Do you indeed endorse ] ''alias'' ]'s position (<small>'''not''' my own, which is that he should simply cease reverts and harassment of other editors</small>) that an RfC would be a waste of time and that we should proceed directly to an ArbCom considering ''my'' conduct? ] 09:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting at the "Tokelau ArbCom". One of the links you provided seems to be dead:
"* ] #216, possibly relevant" ] 17:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

==]==
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:Hi Guy. I've been looking at the evidence you've presented in this case, and I noticed that you describe as one that ''"removes great chunks of the article"''. It might look like that at first glance, but if you look closely, you will see that in fact what has happened to the article is exactly what the edit summary said (by which I mean the technicalities of what was added and removed - not whether the definition is indeed more precise, or whether it the edit eliminated "creationism" - I'm not going to get involved with that without reading a lot more deeply into the background) ''"Gave more precise definition of intellgient design, and eliminated "creationism" due to lack of reliable secondary source (source given was a public policy paper, which has partisan intentions)"'' The paragraph starting "The originator of irreducible complexity..." (which might be the big chunk you were referring to) is the same before and after the edit - ie. no change there. The change was to remove a reference (as the edit summary said), and to change the first definition sentence from this: <blockquote>'''Irreducible complexity''' (IC) is the argument intended to support ] creationism and argue that certain ] are too complex to have ] from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, and are at the same time too complex to have arisen naturally through chance mutations.</blockquote> to this: <blockquote>'''Irreducible complexity''' (IC) is an argument often used to support intelligent design, which posits that certain ] could not have developed incrementally through natural selection because they could not function without the simultaneous presence of multiple parts.</blockquote> That doesn't look like removing "great chunks of the article" to me. Maybe you meant a different edit? ] 19:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:Some other thoughts (I'll try and put these on the evidence talk page later): ''"very few people will be sufficiently up on the jargon to cite NPOV"'' - I wouldn't be so sure of this any more. Misplaced Pages has being going for over 6 years now, and NPOV has been one of its most widely quoted policies even off-wiki. Only last week, a popular British quiz show had a question asking what, in the context of Misplaced Pages, NPOV stood for. Seriously. have a look at what I wrote ]. ] 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:Thirdly, you say ''"If an editor responds to a block with an indication that they understand the issue and will handle the dispute differently in future, then there is no reason not to unblock them."'' This presumes that a new editor will immediately read up on everything and give perfect answers to the blocking or reviewing admin. A more normal response, given human nature, is to get upset and aggrieved. Which normally results in the unblock request being denied. A potentially productive editor may have been lost. A culture of blocking that drives away new editors is one of the ways that Misplaced Pages could decline. Each successive generation of productive new editors will get smaller and smaller as it gets more self-selecting. When the volume falls below a critical level, Misplaced Pages will be in trouble. New editors learn best by experience, which crucially involves being able to edit Misplaced Pages (not trying to negotiate a shortening of an indefinite unblock). They are not going to learn how to handle themselves correctly after a few exchanges of posts on their talk page with a couple of admins. Discussion on article talk pages is how they will develop into an experienced editor, able to handle themselves. This is why I favour the philosophy of short blocks, and several second chances, with an indefinite block only coming after they have shown they will not change their ways, and ''crucially'', being warned that the next block will be indefinite. Anything else means that inexperienced new users ''will'' be caught in the indefinite block net, and that will be damaging to the encyclopedia. The best of the new editors will try again with a new account, and do better the second time round. Some, though, will just give up. What would ''you'' have done if you had been blocked indefinitely after your first 20 or so contributions? Tried again or walked away? ] 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:* You're right about the summary, I'm a dunce. As to Hoffman, well, I see another POV-warrior coming in to right great wrongs. Intelligent design ''is'' creationism, the two are "one concept under God, indivisible". <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
::*You'll get no argument from me there about ID and creationism being the same thing. In a way I wish this the whole ID thing had not been mixed up in this. To my mind, this is more about what should have been the correct way to handle this. The user was making perfectly adequate arguments, and was not verbose at all, in my opinion. What was needed was sensible engagement on the topic, rather than the ban-hammer being produced after such a short time. More worrying to my mind is the way some of those involved misrepresented things, both at ANI and in block log summaries. There was no ranting from Hoffman, and no rudeness either. Both of those accusations were levelled at him, along with others. The ANI discussion that basically went ''"Yeah, you were so right to block him. Hey! I've got an idea, why not just indef block him? Yeah! Great idea!!"'' still looks really bad. But this needs to be presented as evidence, not as an essay on your talk page! :-) Oh, well, there goes my hopes of voting early in the ArbCom elections... (I might just pick a few candidates to back and oppose early on, and then vote on the others later). ] 20:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:::* Yes, excessive haste, I think, will be the verdict. Is this characteristic of Adam? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
::::*I guess we will find out. ] 22:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. Everyone so far has been saying that MatthewHoffman is a new editor (me included). You said it in the following "a brand new editor...". But the account was created in October 2005! Why has it taken this long for anyone to spot this? It doesn't change my opinions, but I'm certainly not going to refer to Hoffman as a new user any more. Even if he lurked for 2 years (or maybe he went somewhere else for 2 years), he should have picked up on 3RR in that time. I'm decidedly ambivalent about this now. ] 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

:Ooh! Is that the time?! :-) ArbCom elections!! Tally ho! ] 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

== You have email ==

Sent you a reply. ]] 18:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
* Appreciate it, by the way. Thanks, <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

==Removing links==
You are removing a large number of links, including from a protected article. This is both disruptive and an abuse of your admin privileges. I would urge you to self-revert before I take this further. ] 19:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
* How predictable. See the thread on the admin noticeboard. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

==Biased Edits==
You edits seemed to be biased as ] has not deleted but ]. Please stop this. you dont have right to be an administrator
] 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:Ignoring the accusations of bias, the two deleted pages are substantially different and not therefore G4 speedyable. ]] 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::See for all the ] discussions. I will say this once and want to make this absolutely clear.] 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

::: Sorry you got dragged into my fun. Been like this since I responded to a editprotect request in October. No good deed indeed .... -- ] (]) 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::See , for all the ] discussions.] 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

== Sectarian Conflict ==

Hello, saw your comment on Ricky's page. I'll try to give you a picture of what's going on. ]s and ]s form two "castes" in the South Indian state of ]. Kerala used to have a casteless society prior to the arrival of the ] around AD 700. ] was also prevalent in Kerala at this time. The Namboothiris imposed a caste system in Kerala, but this system was different from the usual four-tier caste-system in the rest of India. At the top were the Namboothiris, followed by Kshatriyas (Nairs who underwent a certain ceremony to ''become'' Kshatriyas), followed by Nairs, then Ezhavas, then things get a little hazy after this. Although Nairs fulfilled the role of "warriors" in Kerala after the arrival of the Namboothiris, they were still considered ]. Nairs ended up being rather powerful and became feudal chieftains and landlords. ] are believed to be Buddhists who initially resisted attempts at conversion to Buddhism by the Namboothiris. Certain sections of Ezhavas were ] trainers and physicians. Other sections practiced toddy-tapping, agriculture and other trades. I didn't grow up in India, so I am not entirely sure of the root of the animosity between Ezhavas and Nairs. Suffice to say that some level of animosity does exist. For example, members of these two castes do not intermarry. Ezhavas think Nairs are arrogant and are dwelling on the past to make themselves feel better and Nairs think Ezhavas have an inferiority complex. This is not what ''I'' personally think, because honestly, I really don't care. But this is the general idea between certain members of the community. Anyway, I started editing the ] article, to try to clean it up, I was immediately attacked by a group of editors who assumed that because I was a Nair, I had some sort of agenda. Anyway, that's a brief synopsis of what's going on! --]<sup></span>]]</sup> 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
* They need a holiday. I suggest <s>Gdansk</s> <s>Danzig</s> <s>Gdańsk</s> <s>Gduńsk</s> Bognor. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:* I'd guess this is close enough to an executive summary. Frankly, I can't even begin to imagine how things went this bad so fast. -- ] (]) 23:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:* Neither can I; they do indeed need a holiday. I suggest <s>Gdansk</s> <s>Danzig</s> <s>Gdańsk</s> <s>Gduńsk</s> <s>Bognor</s> Belfast!! :-) ] 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

== Hi Guy - Re:] ==

:Hi Guy
:We bring up some interesting points at the ] (merger discussion). I will shotly be leaving a response on that talk page. --] 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

==AfD nomination of ]==
], an article you created, has been nominated for ]. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that ] satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "]" and the ]). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:AFDWarning --> <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

== policy policy ==

I am somewhat concerned that the policy protection policy isn't well planned yet. The {{tl|editprotected}} system is only well suited to simple edits to protected templates. As soon as the edit has any opposition, making the requested edit draws criticism for acting 'without consensus'. It occasionally leads to low-level wheel warring as others revert it. I say this as someone who regularly handles requested edits. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 03:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

== Request ==
Hi Guy, happy you are back fighting the good fight! Quick request. User Taric25 has made what may be the worst ever sockpuppet accusation: ]. The case should (and presumably will) be peremptorily dismissed. Meanwhile I reverted the sockpuppet tag placed on the ], but have had it reverted. In your view is a user obliged to retain a sockpuppet warning once a claim has been filed, no matter that it is completely spurious and unsubstantiated? Sorry to bother you with this matter, but it shouldn't take more than 30s of your time. ] (]) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* That has to be one of the most fatuous sockpuppet allegations ever. I have ] to save Taric25 any future embarrassment. Of course TTN is free to remove the silly tag if he wants. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
** Ta! ] (]) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

==Billy Hathorn RFC==
I saw your RFC about Billy Hathorn. I am willing to help, not argue. Two AFDs are given as evidence of the dispute. However, the article (Glenn E. Ratcliff and another one) is deleted so I can't see it. Therefore, I cannot offer a fully informed opinion about Billy! Others may feel the same way but not let you know. If so, you won't get as many responses for the RFC. I am willing to consider adopting him but I haven't decided yet. I will be busy, especially for the next 2 weeks. Is adoption a possible solution? ] (]) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* Anything's worth trying. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

==This diff==
Thank you for your defense. Yet it seems he's just angry. Maybe he'll change his mind. The door remains open. Further engagement seems counterproductive. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* No, I think he's just having a laugh. If he really cared he'd be acting rather differently, I think. I would leave him to it if I were you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Nigel McGuinness ==

Hello Guy long time, haven't talked to you since before my RfA and have been busy for a bit after that. I see we've ended up on opposite sides of this dispute. Here's to hoping for a civil affair all-round rather than degenerating into BLP warriors vs TELL THE WIKITRUTH zealots.

I just wanted to query you on the USPTO conjecture, which is that there is no way to tell if the person who filed the USPTO is the person who uses it. By the USPTOs own website under that patent type the person who filed the patent is the person it is intended for, there are separate patent types for corporations and attorney filed patents. This is not conjecture or original research, this is the equivalent of it stated "real name" on a birth certificate and, in my eyes, should not be interpreted differently. &ndash;&ndash; ''']'''<sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

I presume you are still waiting for a response from him? I gather you had asked him for more supporting materials. I want you to know I appreciate you being an intermediary in this for us. There is no rush of course; I know these things can take a long time. I have held off on editing the article and will continue to do so until either a lot more time has passed, or else we get some sort of response from him one way or another.--] (]) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Weiss ==

Hello JzG, I had recently read a few articles on the Weiss controversy and, as you can see, was making an attempt to remove any bias from the article and explain the situation objectively. I don't see how that could cause the lockdown of the article. ] (]) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* You'll be unsurprised to learnt hat this is not as simple as it looks :-) Protection is not for long and I have watchlisted for {{tl|editprotected}}. Please be aware, though, that the Register story is unmitigated bullshit so we won't be citing it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the information shouldn't be taken at face value, but I don't see the problem in explaining an accusation (editing wikipedia) and denial by Weiss, considering it is verifiable. ] (]) 14:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* We do not spread memes on behalf of banned abusers. Especially when those memes are part of a widespread campaign of harassment by said banned users. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is no reason to exclude verifiable information from Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== WordBomb Talk Page ==

You seem to have a talk page as soon as it was linked from a story in a fairly major with the explanation "test page, or some such." I'm not really sure what's going on here. Could you fill me in? -] (]) 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* ] is untouched. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

==December 2007==

{{{icon|] }}}Thank you for your contribution{{{{{subst|}}}#if:User:Sfacets|&#32;to ]}}, but we are trying to ] here, so please keep your edits ] and ]. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Misplaced Pages, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use ] to get started. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-joke2 --> ] (]) 16:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

:If you knew the context, you'd know that JzG was removing provocative harrassment. --] (]) 17:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
I do not believe this was a poor moment in my judgement, and I believe my claim deserves serious consideration. I do not think whatever my “best friend” thinks is my finest hour has anything to do with the hard evidence I presented. In fact, my Adopter, ] is taking a close look into it. Please undelete the page and let Wikipedians consider the evidence and judge for themselves. ] (]) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* That was... unwise. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

* This user needs to be warned. Despite my attempt to enumerate clearly the problems, he is apparently not blessed by abundant self-awareness: ]. Is there an appropriate censure for this kind of disruptive behaviour? ] (]) 19:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

:* Discuss on the admin noticeboard. I think he may be heading for the timeout bench. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== Openbravo ==

Hey, why did you delete the ] article again? It was restored by DR decision: . ]<span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* That was just an unsalt, not a restore. I see it as ] based on ]. The article has no independent sources and no evidence of notability. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* You can find independent evidences of notability in Google (200,000 references), (a regular in the Top 10 list projects in terms of activity , with more than 400,000 accumulated downloads, at a rate in excess of 1,000 per day -for the last year the fastest download rate for any open source ERP on SourceForge-), Awards (InfoWorld's 2007 BOSSIE award to the best open source ERP ]; ; ). Please, also note that if you want independent writers for this entry, you need to allow for some time for the community to work on it. If you ban the article there is not time for the community to contribute to it. (Full disclosure: I am an Openbravo employee) ] (]) 12:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
:* Sorry, I'm not big on ] whose only actions are to promote a piece of software. I presume you are the same user as {{userlinks|Jordimas}} and {{userlinks|Sanjeevnath}}? They, like you, have no history other than adding to this article and adding it to a couple of lists. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
::* I am not the same user. My name is Josep Mitja and I am the COO at Openbravo. You can find about me at ]. To avoid any missundersanting, everytime I have posted an entry I have always disclosed my status as an Openbravo employee. {{userlinks|Jordimas}} is Openbravo's Community Director. He is a well respected member in the open source community and actually somebody (not himlself) wrote an entry about him in the . {{userlinks|Sanjeevnath}} is another Openbravo employee. We are totally respectful of the Misplaced Pages rules. Being an open source project ourselves, we understand very well the power of the community. Nonetheless, I think the Misplaced Pages would be a better reference tool with the inclusion of Openbravo (eg. in those pages where other open source projects are listed). We want to be good Misplaced Pages citizens and follow whatever process is defined, but -honestly speaking- the Misplaced Pages universe is very complex and difficult to understand by outsiders (eg. should we write a good entry as a starting point, or leave it up completely to more expert editors?). If you make a mistake (ie. too eagerly writing an Openbravo entry when the project was too small), you get punished (ie. blacklisted) and it seems to be impossible to get out of it. Please, help us do the right thing. ] (]) 13:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
:::* In which case, see ]. Good day to you. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
::::* Fair enough. I will instruct everyone at Openbravo to refrain from editing the Openbravo entry, and, if useful, propose suggestions for the article in the discussion page with full disclosure of their relationship with Openbravo. However, I have noticed that very recently (some hours ago) {{userlinks|Sfacets}}, {{userlinks|Thylacine222}} and {{userlinks|Brunoy_Anastasiya_Seryozhenko}}, which to my knowledge have not relationship whatsoever with Openbravo, just edited Openbravo's entry and you deleted it again. I am lost. We want to be good Misplaced Pages citizens and follow any rules that apply, but I think we deserve a fair treatment. ] (]) 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

== Appeals to authority ==

When I am contributing anonymously and get in a debate with someone, I am usually quickly subjected to threats and bragging "I know so many administrators, when I tell them about you, you'll be so blocked, so drop this thing immediately." If I press the issue, indeed, they email some administrator and wham-bam, I'm blocked. This is called an ] and is a logical fallacy. It also has a chilling effect. When you (JzG) say "I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases." do you mean to say that you only use wikipedia to support other users who are making appeals to authority? If not, would you please clarify? Thank you, ] (]) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
* No. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] escalation ==

Hey, Guy, I suggest that you go review the edit changes you made with the reverts. I don't see any credible case that his userpage was actually harrassing anyone when you got into it with him (a link to "Simon Says" is pretty tenuous, his conflict with Simon D M notwithstanding).

I'm suspicious of him, too, but picking a fight with him about his userpage and managing to put yourself in the wrong over it is not the right way to deal with him.

Thanks.... ] (]) 20:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

:George, it was provacative harrassment, plain and simple. Sfacets linked to a site harrassing me and to my place of work. --] (]) 11:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

== Star ==

Thank you Guy for the star and your kind remarks. It is very much appreciated. ] (]) 14:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

==Moon Griffon==
I barely know Billy Hathorn, just seen his username once or twice. I commented on the AFD. If there's anything to learn about the WP process or logic used, feel free to let me know. The best solution is to improve the article so it's a clear keep. That improves the article, eliminates controversy, and improves WP. ] (]) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! I just saw that you submitted a RFC on Billy. You also wrote the AFD on the Moon Griffon article. I'm more interested in improving WP, not arguments. So my solution tends to work around the problem by improving articles, not directly addressing faults. Anything I can do to help, just let me know. My expertise is aviation related, not Louisiana, so I'm a bit unqualified to write about someone that I don't know anything about. ] (]) 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

* He's got more deleted articles to his credit than anyone else I know. He started off copy-pasting obituaries, then paraphrasing them; lots of them are small-town types and he keeps citing his own master's dissertation as a source. He's wasting a lot of time but not listening to people who are trying to help him not to make the same mistake over and over again. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

== protected edits ] ==

Hi Guy, I saw you've twice edited this in a content manner since it was protected. I thought this was only allowed in situations where the edits were supported, and the editing person was not involved? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 07:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:I have to agree, you really shouldn't be editing this especially given the circumstances leading up to the protection. ] (]) 09:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:: It was pointed out in IRC and email that one word needed to be changed for NPOV. Actually the whole sentence needs to go. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::But that is not an administrative decision. That is a content decision which will be decided by discussion on the talk page. Will you be able to revert your edit, as you're involved on this page, and should not be doing content edits under protection? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I had actually made a similar NPOV edit to that sentence , which JzG then reverted as part of one of his blanket reverts. Given that he was part of the edit war prior to protection, it's not proper for him to do any editing to it during protection. ] (]) 14:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Dan, I hadn't seen that one edit. No one should be making content edits like that without Talk consensus under protection... Guy, would you mind reversing? I actually happen to agree with you here on the wording, but it's not appropriate to do that edit unilaterally, and it should be someone other than you anwyay as you're involved. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 14:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::: It's one word. It said "reported", but it was "alleged" as "reported implies accuracy. If I went with what I want the whole sentence would come out, since the story puts Cla68's side of the story but there is no independent source for anything and no source at all for the other side of the story. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::: To correct a possible mis-impression, my version of the edit was done before the page was protected (as it had to be, given that I'm not an admin). ] (]) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:48, 5 January 2025

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Discretionary sanctions
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: He should not be given alerts for those areas.
Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
Archiving icon
Archives

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
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
Smelling pistakes
In addition to bone-deep burn scars on my left hand I now also have C7 radiculopathy, so my typing is particularly erratic right now. I have a spellcheck plugin but it can't handle larger text blocks. You're welcome to fix spelling errors without pinging me, but please don't change British to American spelling or indeed vice-versa.
JzG is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

JzG! Are you still out there?

Hi JzG! I was going through some old ArbCom cases and ran into one where you had added some statements. I realized that I haven't spoken to you in quite some time, and I see that you haven't made any edits since May... That sucks! I don't want to see someone like you go! If anything, I hope that you're doing well and that you're happy and that you'll someday return here. I just wanted to leave you a message and let you know that I was thinking about you... Keep in touch. :-) ~Oshwah~ 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope it goes without saying, despite the fact that I'm saying it, that many of us feel the same way. Happy new year Girth Summit (blether) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
We didn't cross paths very often lately, JzG, but we could really use you back. If you get the urge to return, please say "Yes!" Liz 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
October JzG sighting at WP:RSN. Does my heart good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Lovely to hear from you! I have spent the past two-and-a-bit years working at incredibly high stress for a hospital. In that time I have retired around 80% of their legacy application and server estate, instituted architectural guidelines and piloted the process for demand review, reduced the measured risk burden by around 80%, instituted objective risk monitoring using Tenable, and I've just proposed (and had accepted) a plan to remediate or mitigate most of the rest. I have, in short, been busy in that there real life of which you read, and that really wasn't going to fit in with having to be nice to people who sincerely believe that Ashlii Babbit was the real victim of the "legitimate political discourse" on Jan 6 2020.
I have a week's leave. I have 28 days to take before year end, having managed I think three days off this year so far (including weekends). And because I have an offshore team and an onshore customer, my working day can be 8am to 3am.
I thought I'd drop in :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 18:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Yikes, sounds like, umm..., a lot of responsibility. There will be plenty for you to do here when you are free! Johnuniq (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Glad you dropped by! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Glad to hear you're OK - and busy, by the sounds of things! Hope you enjoy your break. Girth Summit (blether) 11:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
If Guy doesn't look at Talk:Alexander technique real soon now, where Eddy is being accused of plagiarism, I may be forced to contact him on bookfarce. That would mean giving Guy my real name. He always forgets me. - Roxy the dog 16:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I try never to remember people's RW names unless they are "out" on Misplaced Pages. Even when they out themselves, this has led to huge problems, e.g. with a user whose identity was revealed by accident off-wiki, showing him to be the source of fact-washing his own side in Misplaced Pages disputes via a journalist. That ended badly for everyone. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Very happy see the little JzG! bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 19:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC).
Hah! Good to see you're still around!  RasputinAXP  20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a few months late, but welcome back! Wishing you well. starship.paint (exalt) 09:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Welcome indeed! Just came across your signature here. It's always great to run in to another 'old-timer'. Hope you're well, Arbitrarily0  11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

`

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Category: