Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:58, 15 August 2008

My crap Stuff and nonsense This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This user has a userpage on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. 15,000+ This user has made over 15,000 contributions to Misplaced Pages Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam. BEng This user has a Bachelor of Engineering degree. Reading January 2025 7 Tuesday 1:50 pm UTC Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.

I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.

I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Misplaced Pages is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.

Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.

the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

• Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
• See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
• My take on the Durova incident.

Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747

<3

Celarnor has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD Paul Wehage

Edits that suppressed Meltzer Commission critiques

Hello, JzG,

The Meltzer Commission majority report is a controversial document, with defenders and critics. Your recent edits to the article on the Commission removed the article's discussion of published criticisms that have been made of the Commission's work (and of subsequent defenses of Commission majority positions made by Meltzer himself and his associate Adam Lerrick). They also suppressed a reference to an edited work in which both sides of this debate -- Lerrick and one of the critics -- had a full chance to express their views. I suggest that both balance and freedom of expression suffer from edits of this kind. I have endeavored to revert those parts of the edits which tended to suppress the account of the substantive critique, while preserving the elements of your edits that provided a more precise account than before of the voting within the commission. Nandt1 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Woops! I thought the edits had provided a more precise account of voting in the commission, but now that I checked the original report I see that the edits got the numbers wrong! I have corrected this. Nandt1 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• You know, I have never once seen the term "suppression" used in justifying a properly neutral edit. I will have a look and see if this is a first. I changed it in response to an OTRS complaint from the subject, so if the subject is wrong then he's wrong, but suppression? I don't think so. What on earth would be my justification for that? Guy (Help!) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• No wonder I couldn't remember the detail - "recent" = April 5! Guy (Help!) 17:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see the changes made in April as a "neutral" edit. If I understand you correctly, "the subject" asked for the removal of coverage of published critiques of his own work, and this was then done (without public discussion?). This is neutral? I am entirely willing to debate the specifics of the language used in the article, if anything in the tone is considered too strong, but the fact remains that the edits made at the request of "the subject" both removed all reference to a book in which both his side and one of the critics each had free rein to make their case, and -- it would appear -- inserted an inaccurate account of the voting in the Commission. Nandt1 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have drafted a more mildly worded account of the controversy, which is now included in the article on Meltzer himself (rather than that on the commission). I would hope we could reach agreement on the appropriateness of wording that lies somewhere in the range covered by these two alternative drafts. Nandt1 (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually the subject complained that material was being used to advance a POV, and that it was not correctly represented; he provided evidence that this was the case. Read WP:BLP very carefully. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Having read WP:LP, I see nothing to suggest that an account of professional critiques of this subject's (public and highly controversial} work -- provided it is appropriately phrased -- should be unrepresented within Misplaced Pages. The subject's argument that the criticism "was not correctly represented" is hard to counter without seeing the evidence he provided, but the phrasing of the article prior to its April editing seems to me an accurate account of some of the central critiques presented, e.g., by de Ferranti in his debate with Meltzer's surrogate Lerrick. I repeat that, rather than trying to press a single POV, I am keen to encourage interested readers to explore both sides of the debate -- as set out respectively in Lerrick's defense and de Ferranti's challenge. This said, I will tone down the nature of the account of the critique just to make sure that is not an outstanding issue that anyone could reasonably object to. I hope this will then settle the matter. Nandt1 (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP: Trying again

Articles for deletion: NLP Modeling

Paul Barresi

Hiya, I was perusing through indef full protected articles and ran across Paul Barresi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you protected back in april. Of course, since the protect reason involved lawyer-speak, I'm shying away from unprotecting it, so I figured I'd drop this on your talk page and let you go from there. Cheers =) --slakr 07:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh dear, the problem is that the ones agitating for unprotection are usually agitating precisely so they can put the disputed text back in. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Thalarajwali Khan. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Ctjf83Talk 22:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, well another admin deleted that, after I reverted you, so if you wanna put it back up Ctjf83Talk 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm! Guy did not create the article, and he is an admin who can make the decision of whether or not to speedy delete, so why did you slap this inappropriate template on his talk page in the first place. Moreover, it is considered bad form to use template on the talk pages of established users. -- Donald Albury 00:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bio-Circle

JzG, I am a first time contributor and I am hoping you can help me. First, is there a way to take my time creating a page without it being deleted? Secondly, can you unprotect the topic Bio-Circle so I can finish my article. I am not trying to advertise and will gladly make necessary alterations. I am still learning how all this works. Thanks! Says Simple Simon (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This author asked me to unprotect the page at Bio-Circle and I have declined to do that; I think you were correct to protect the page notwithstanding that I wouldn't change your decision without consultation even if I thought you were wrong. However, I have restored the deleted material to a sandbox page for the user (see talk for the location) and advised him/her that WP:Deletion review would be the way to go. This editor seems to be canvassing a number of other editors/admins for support/assistance, and I thought you should be aware of the entire situation. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'm wrong on a minor point -- he only canvassed you and me, possibly because I was the last person to tag the article as spam and possibly because I took a moment and fixed the hang-on tag so that it would show properly. No good deed goes unpunished. I will keep an eye on the article if it goes to deletion review. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I diagnose a mixture of clueless newbie and conflict of interest. That is the norm in such cases, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Although not too positive, the term clueless newbie is pretty accurate Says Simple Simon (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The bearded lady

You know User:Gretab is "Fiery Angel" on Misplaced Pages Review, don't you? Actually, he also trolled the WRers. Here he is jerking around on Badlydrawnjeff's Request for Adminship . --Folantin (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace process with FT2

I have offered here an olive branch to FT2. Would you be prepared to help in mediating? Misplaced Pages has always been about forgiving and second chances (I do know a bit of the culture, I've been here since 2003) - I would like to see Flavius and Headley given a second chance. Peter Damian (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good grief, me a mediator? Whatever next! I'm perfectly happy to do what I can, of course, but honestly, beyond both accepting that you are each acting in good faith and doing your very best to judge content entirely on its own merits and not impute motive, I would say that there is not much to do: you both seem to be decent people who simply got off on the wrong foot somehow. Admittedly it's hard to reforge a relationship once it has gone down the route of acrimony, but I know FT2 has it in him and I'm sure you do to, from our few interactions. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The issue is really how we deal with pseudoscience issues in Misplaced Pages. I have identified a number of cases where it seems to have been done wrongly, and I would like to see how we could learn from this (trying to look forwards, rather than backwards). I would particularly value your advice and help on the NLP issue because that seems a very difficult one. There is evidence of apparently reliable sources validating NLP. On the other hand, there are equally reliable sources suggesting it is complete pseudoscience. How do we deal with these cases? WP:FRINGE is not much help here. Could we adopt 'default' principles whereby if there is strong evidence of a pseudoscientific nature, the default is to prove that the given subject is not pseudoscience? I have looked at cases where editors are struggling to find reliable sources to keep material out of Misplaced Pages. For example, there are reliable sources to show that the 'classic' version of pseudoscience X is bunk, but nothing about the 'core' version of X, i.e. detractors claim that there are two different versions of the pseudoscience X, and that the RS only work against one of them (I have actually seen this being used). How do we modify policy to deal with such cases? I would like FT2 to be involved, because he clearly has strong views on the issue. And you, because of your obviously strong scientific background (I have linguistics-related higher degree, but know little of medicine). Best Peter Damian (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Spam members
• Misplaced Pages OTRS volunteers
• Misplaced Pages administrators
• Misplaced Pages administrators open to trout slapping