Misplaced Pages

User talk:JzG

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrWhich (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 19 December 2007 (→Block of User:Timjowers: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:02, 19 December 2007 by MrWhich (talk | contribs) (→Block of User:Timjowers: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

R       E       T       I       R       E        D
This user is tired of silly drama on Misplaced Pages.
Reading January 2025 5 Sunday 10:57 pm UTC

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. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Trout this userWere this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout.
Content of Misplaced Pages, December 2007

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roy R. Theriot

Twinkle didn't finish this AfD for you, so I did. Hope you don't mind. Ten Pound Hammer • 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Planoclear! halfready

Please see the investigation that's been done here and provide any additional information you can. Thanks. - Jehochman 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence

Hi. :) An editor on this article has requested that the protection be lifted from Race and intelligence. Since you last changed the protection level, I'm checking to see if you're in touch with the disputants or have any objection to its being lifted before it expires in February. Cheers. --Moonriddengirl 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on 'em. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration...

I found the comments you made here to be highly inflammatory, lacking in any sort of civility or assumption of good faith, and completely untrue. I am sorry that you have this impression of me, but if you read my response to your comment, I hope you understand that this impression is completely false. -- Levine2112 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have worn out any presumption of good faith. You attack every article with a passion that only the Creationists around here match. OrangeMarlin 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, OrangeMarlin. I understand that I can't expect any good faith from you, but please know that despite your lack of good faith in me, I will still assume good faith in you. How about you, Guy? -- Levine2112 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Levine, you can add me to your growing list of people who don't believe you act in good faith with any article/talk space edits. Shot info (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As with OrangeMarlin, I still will assume good faith with your Shot info, despite your inability to do so with me. -- Levine2112 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit history showing bad faith editing and inability to accept a consensus nor achieve a compromise position suggests otherwise. Shot info (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Currently, I am working hard to achieve a consensus at Quackwatch. I have suggested several compromises and agreed to other's suggestions. So, I hope you understand that I am unclear what you mean when you say I have an "inability to accept a consensus nor achieve a compromise position suggests otherwise". -- Levine2112 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly I do care. I did come here and talk to you, did I not? I would appreciate some constructive criticism from you - an Admin - rather than personal attacks I've come to expect from editors like the ones commenting above. Again, I found your comments on the AN/I particularly offensive and I am asking you to either redact or explain your rationale to me, giving me specific examples of ways I may have offended you. Thanks! -- Levine2112 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
At least I'm honest with myself. I don't say "Gee, should I assume good faith or not." When I don't have AGF, I just state it clearly. OrangeMarlin 02:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
And I am honest with myself. And I always try my best to assume good faith in others. Everyone please consider this from WP:AGF's nutshell: If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is not ever necessary nor productive to accuse others of harmful motives. -- Levine2112 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Enjoining others to assume good faith is usually a failure to assume good faith. In this case, though, you have established your position as an advocate for fringe and pseudo science, leading to unavoidable tension between you and those editors who have as part of their self-declared Misplaced Pages mission the enforcement of WP:NPOV in respect of fringe and pseudo science. You just need to learn to live with it. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, that's why I quote you on my user page. EXACTLY. OrangeMarlin 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Essittam

It's Ekajati's on her hosting machine. DYK that the same hosting machine dug up by CU was blocked by Dmc ten months ago...I presume your comment about Mattisse is a joke.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Timjowers

You mentioned that you blocked this user here. Several users have since questioned that block. Please consider unblocking or explaining your decision further. --Onorem♠Dil 13:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, no, it has a few opinions, but his response to me was of the right-wing-zealot variety, which causes me more rather than less disquiet over his editing. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Disquiet over his editing" isn't listed as a reason to block, as far as I can tell. Mr Which??? 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, unless I misread, Onorem, Finlay McWalter, DGG, Horologium, Alansohn, MrWhich, and I have suggested that the block was unwise and ought to be lifted, even in the absence of Timjowers's promising that he will no longer engage in (that which it is purported is) spamming, whilst Hu12, (perhaps) Metros, and you suggest that the block was appropriate and that it prevented, and, one supposes, appears to prevent, disruption. To be sure, the user's response to your block was suboptimal, but one supposes that so too was his being blocked without warning and with substandard explanation. That doesn't excuse any incivility or assumption of bad faith, but it suggests that the "right-wing-zealot"ish quality of the de facto {{unblock}} request might not be representative of the user's general temperament or indicative of his purpose for being here. You may, of course, continue to believe that your block was justified and that the user was engaged in spamming and is likelier than not to be a problematic editor should he be unblocked, but it is clear that several other editors feel otherwise, and so I would once more urge you to unblock; if you're unwilling to do so in the absence of further comment by Timjowers, I'd much appreciate your stating that plainly in order that I might try to focus the ANI discussion more clearly on establishing a consensus for an unblock. Cheers, Joe 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Alansohn opposes everything I do on principle. But somebody does not seem to be reading what I've written about it. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (EC, to Joe)He may, in fact, have already damaged the situation beyond repair. Having bitten his head off with a block, Timjowers hasn't edited in quite some time. Hopefully this isn't the case, as he seems to be a productive editor, who didn't even make a mistake in this case, but was rather hastily blocked, and responded poorly to the bad block--an understandable reaction from a new user who was just bitten. (And in addition, it appears that he has hardened his position in defense of this bad block, and won't be even considering lifting it, no matter the evidence that this is a good user, and that the links are not badlinks.) Mr Which??? 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Timjowers made about 20 edits yesterday. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's the point. They were mostly adding links to two sites. But as I said, I don't have a problem if some other admin feels confident unblocking him, or considers it was not a problem, but I didn't like the look of it and when he finally did respond to me it was to accuse me of blocking him purely because of his right-wing politics and my left-wing politics, which is a bit odd as I have virtually no edits to political articles, am not American, and had no idea of his politics anyway. So I don't feel comfortable letting him loose on political biographies and related articles, his content of choice, until I have a better idea of what's going on. Others may view it differently, they are free to do as they think fit, but I'm suspicious of this one. I don't see why such a big deal is being made of it, though. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
First: you placed a block on him with no warning, no attempt to ascertain his thinking, nothing. He had a right to be angry, and you were completely, totally wrong to proceed in this way.
Second: The block was awful. Not only was there no warning, and no attempt to engage the user, but the links were not bad links, and were placed properly in the articles in which he put them. And you blocked him 2+ hours after the edits you mistakenly thought were "suspicious."
Third: You were snarky and rude to him when he was justifiably angry with you for blocking him with no warning. Telling him he had two "enforceable rights here", and that one was "the right to leave" is so far beyond the pale of how an admin should treat a new user that I'm at a loss for words as to how to express my disgust at your having done so.
Even if you don't care about doing what is clearly the right thing, in the interest of "saving face", you should do the unblock yourself. Mr Which??? 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Spamming is one of the more pernicious forms of vandalism, we often don't warn spammers. His response was defiant, which is a concern for me. If another admin feels comfortable unblocking I'm not gogin to stand in their way, but I am not a huge fan of either spreading links everywhere or politically biased editing on articles related to political biographies. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What you are a "fan" of doesn't matter when blocking. Did you even look at the links he was adding before blocking?!? Did you even look at his contribs before blocking?!? I ain't no right-winger (quite the opposite, actually), but calling what he was doing "spamming" strains credulity. Even if I were to give you that, though, a new user, with all his previous contribs being good faith, does not deserve a warning-less block. Can you not just swallow your pride and unblock him yourself? Mr Which??? 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I looked, and yes I reviewed his contribs. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Then your block is worse than I thought. There was nothing in his previous contribs that justified a block with no warning. Nothing. I have opened a request to review your block at AN/I. Mr Which??? 00:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - Race and intelligence

Guy, Thanks for the help at trying to control the maelstrom at Race and intelligence. I tried to get some focus on a cooperative edit in sandbox-mode during the protection period but with limited success. A battle emerged over a new title for the article and then .... Without controls not acceptable at WP this will just be a festering sore in perpetuity. Please keep up your enthusiasm for the project! Happy holidays to you and your family. Cheers! Kevin. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OMPT

Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy is a real thing, with much significance to the field of rehabilitation science. You deleted the page which I was building and recruiting the help of others to build. I wonder as to your timing, b/c previous to my edits today, I had to remove links to personal web sites on the page. Regardless, this is a very real sub-specialty supported by numerous peer-reviewed publications, including funding by the NIH. I see no reason for you to have assumed it is only a page to serve a professional organization. If the organization should not have been on the page, fine, but you were a bit over-zealous. By the way, I am a professor at a Medical University...hired to teach Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy ONLY! How's that for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekrdpt (talk • contribs)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of LBU. 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. Ra2007 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I kindly thank you for relocating my autobiography to my user page if that is where it is intended to be. I'm still disappointed with the deletion of the OMPT page. I do not understand how to participate in a deletion review on that topic.--Ekrdpt (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jericho

Thanks for protecting. Unfortunately, the anon just logged in. —Angr 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Ra2007/JCSM&action=history

Should we just delete it already? David D. (Talk) 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Category: