| Note to admins reviewing any of my admin actions (expand to read). |
|---|
|
I am often busy in that "real life" of which you may have read. Blocks are the most serious things we can do: they prevent users from interacting with Wikipedia. Block reviews are urgent. Unless I say otherwise in the block message on the user's talk page, I am happy for any uninvolved admin to unblock a user I have blocked, provided that there is good evidence that the problem that caused the block will not be repeated. All I ask is that you leave a courtesy note here and/or on WP:ANI, and that you are open to re-blocking if I believe the problem is not resolved - in other words, you can undo the block, but if I strongly feel that the issue is still live, you re-block and we take it to the admin boards. The same applies in spades to blocks with talk page access revoked. You are free to restore talk page access of a user for whom I have revoked it, unless it's been imposed or restored following debate on the admin boards. User:DGG also has my permission to undelete or unprotect any article I have deleted and/or salted, with the same request to leave a courtesy note, and I'll rarely complain if any uninvolved admin does this either, but there's usually much less urgency about an undeletion so I would prefer to discuss it first - or ask DGG, two heads are always better than one. I may well add others in time, DGG is just one person with whom I frequently interact whose judgment I trust implicitly. Any WP:BLP issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on WP:AN or WP:ANI for review. The usual definition of uninvolved applies: you're not currently in an argument with me, you're not part of the original dispute or an editor of the affected article... you know. Apply WP:CLUE. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
 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 |
| Threads older than 7 days may be archived by MiszaBot. |
- In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
- My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
- Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
- My Last.fm profile
- vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter
You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.
- Obligatory disclaimer
- I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?
About me
I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Predatory open access publishing[edit]
These two publishers are on Beall's list, feel free to suggest others with DOI roots I can work on.
- DOI 10.4172: OMICS Group
- esciencecentral.org
- DOI 10.4236: Scientific Research Publishing (mainly done)
- scirp.org
Contents
I have a large and disruptive building project starting, and I'll be doing a significant part of the work myself. Email me if there's anything urgent. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Added as an involved party in the Gamaliel and others arbitration case[edit]
Hello JzG, following a decision by the drafting arbitrators you have been added as an involved party in this case due to your involvement in the dispute. We decided to do this a couple days ago, however I haven't had a chance to add you until now. This also means that you're permitted to include up to 1000 words and 100 diffs in your evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Odd, since I have nothing to do with it. Guy (Help!) 08:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others[edit]
Hi JzG, I've reverted your edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others, since only clerks/arbs are supposed to edit that page. You're welcome to put the same material on the case talk page if you so choose. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- What L235 should have said was that because the case has already opened, the page has been frozen in the state it was when opened, and that any further comments should go to the talk page. Rather than removing your explanation, it should have been moved where it belonged. Jehochman Talk 12:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @L235. As JzG is a named party (as of this edit), shouldn't his statement still go on the main case page, maybe with a note to say it was made after the case was accepted and opened, following his being added as a party? It may be worth consulting with other clerks/Arbs, but I'm not sure the talk page is actually the right place for a (late) statement from a party. I think it's quite important that the responses of named parties are given suitable prominence. WJBscribe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Vaxxed Drama[edit]
Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello JzG/Guy. I know you're on a break, and hope you come back to this in due course. In the course of the arbitration discussion above, TeeVeeed said "Also, in trying to reach understanding and consensus, one editor/admin? apparently uses two different names, which is confusing, and I am trying to AGF, so I am not accusing them of anything since they are obviously doing it in an open-fashion, but it has the effect of a SP-(appears like two different accounts in agreement when it is one), on myself at least" (my italics). He also mentions this in the Discretionary Sanctions section of the Vaxxed talk page, which you may have seen. I think he's talking about you. Leaving aside the whole Vaxxed drama, I've also been confused by your signature. It looks like Guy, but underneath it says JzG. When you sign something on a Talk page therefore, it looks like Guy, but when you edit something it looks like JzG. That does have the appearance of your being two separate people. You may do this intentionally or unintentionally, but it is confusing to this editor. I hope this helps Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- User:Shhhnotsoloud, I asked Teeveed about that. He said he was confusing me with Guy. See here. This happens sometimes even with very experienced users per this ;) Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks Jytdog (talk · contribs)! Assumption is the mother of all... Let's just say Guy/JzG's split personality confuses me! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 09:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Vanjagenije (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)[edit]
I distinctly remember a discussion to name the accused and his side of the story. If I remember correctly, you closed the discussion in favor of including the accused point of view per NPOV, I can't seem to find this discussion anywhere am I mistaken? Valoem talk contrib 21:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)