| Revision as of 10:45, 22 January 2016 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,071 edits →What scientific, verifiable proof do you have that RT is a propaganda station?: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:35, 10 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:JzG/Archive 218) (botTag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Administrator topicon|icon_nr=0}} |
|
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 5: |
Line 4: |
|
| algo = old(7d) |
|
| algo = old(7d) |
|
| archive = User talk:JzG/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = User talk:JzG/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 124 |
|
| counter = 218 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 32K |
|
| 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 |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=User talk:JzG/Archive index|mask=JzG/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=User talk:JzG/Archive index|mask=User talk:JzG/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Centralized discussion|width=30%}} |
|
{{collapse top|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 Misplaced Pages. 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 ], 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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 ] 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 ] issue which requires you to undo an admin action of mine, go right ahead, but please post it immediately on ] or ] 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 ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
---- |
|
|
{{Boxboxtop|}} |
|
|
{{user admin}} |
|
|
{{User Ten Year Society}} |
|
|
{{Looshpah IV Userbox}} |
|
|
{{User MAW800}} |
|
|
{{User rouge}} |
|
|
{{User Wikipedian for|year=2004|month=08|day=20|sc=y}} |
|
|
{{User admin since|year=2006|month=01|day=17|sc=y}} |
|
|
{{User:JzG/charlatans}} |
|
|
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#F8F8FF}}};" |
|
|
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: white; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | '''{{{3|]}}}''' |
|
|
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | {{{4|This ] believes '''] is ] a ]'''.}}} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Boxboxbottom}} |
|
|
{{Archive box |
|
{{Archive box |
|
| archivelist = <!-- /archivelist --> |
|
| archivelist = <!-- /archivelist --> |
| Line 51: |
Line 29: |
|
| age = 7 |
|
| age = 7 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
* In ], any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, ]. |
|
|
* My ] is 53mKo (milli-]s). |
|
|
* Sad now. ]. |
|
|
* |
|
|
* {{twitter|vGuyUK|vGuyUK}} | {{twitter|SceptiGuy|SceptiGuy}} |
|
|
{{quotation|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 ] 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 ]. 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. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
;Smelling pistakes |
|
'''RfC and other closes''' |
|
|
|
: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. |
|
|
|
|
I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from ]. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on ], where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
---- |
|
|
{{wikibreak}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
== God Jul och Gott Nytt År! == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> |
|
== Flow-Based Programming primary-inline tags == |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
Season's Greetings, Guy! One of the changes you made to the Flow-Based Programming article was to add "primary-inline" tags in 4 places. I did look up the definition of this tag, and wonder if you could explain to me why it applies, and what should be done about it/them (since I can't modify the article). As I said a few days ago in jpaulm/talk, Technical Disclosure Bulletins are vetted by company lawyers and go to law firms all over the world (this document guarantees nobody can take out a patent to prevent the company (IBM) from using the concept) - it was in fact written by a lawyer, not by me; the IBM Systems Journal - http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/sjindex.html - is very highly regarded world-wide, and my manager had a senior architect vet that article before it went out; and the other two publications were by Wayne Stevens, who is not the author of the WP article, so that seems secondary to me. Clearly, I'm very confused! Help would be appreciated! ] (]) 19:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
] 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. |
|
: It's still a primary source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<br /> |
|
::Thanks, Guy, but what is "it"? I asked about 4 articles - maybe you're referring to the article ''I'' wrote (the SysJnl article), but what about the other three? So I'm OK with your removing the SysJnl article from the History section, but why can't it be moved down to External Links? My book should be able to be listed in External Links as well, surely? What are the rules about External Links - maybe you could point me at a WP guideline. TIA ] (]) 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
::: All sources that I tagged as primary, are primary for the text they are offered to support. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</div> |
|
:I was looking at your changes from the WP point of view, as I understand them, and just noticed that reference 5 (the TDB) has my name on it. This is my error as it was in fact written by a lawyer whose name I have forgotten, if I ever knew it - so it's secondary, not primary. I didn't realize this error could have such serious implications, so I wasn't sufficiently careful! If we remove my name from this reference, can we then use it as evidence that FBP was invented in the early 70s (the statement you removed in History)? Of course, we may have to change it to the ''late'' 70s, as the first publication with my name on it is dated 1978. Would you be OK with that? (Of course, I would have to ask someone else to make the change). BTW The 1978 paper was cited in one article, and 5 patent applications - see http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abstractCitations.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5388019&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fstamp%2Fstamp.jsp%3Ftp%3D%26arnumber%3D5388019 . Can these be used as secondary sources? Help would be much appreciated! TIA Paul M. ] (]) 21:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reply == |
|
|
There is nothing "fringe" about the reputable universities and institutions that conducted the studies, nor is there anything fringe about the maintstream sources that I have cited, all of which are in accordance with wikipedias policy. The fact is that the verifiable studies that I have cited have been routinely deleted by materialists who use bully tactics to force their agenda. If you are not familiar with wikipedias "neutral point of view" rule I urge you to study the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Criticism . It is you who must desist. --] (]) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: Bullshit. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cryonics == |
|
|
] will not win any popularity contests, so just because some editors are against edits that improve its credibility does not mean the edits are incorrect. The point is that this new UK research network by prestigious scientists in Oxford, Cambridge and other institutions showcases that cryonics has some scientific acceptance. Basically, it demonstrates that reputed scientists support research into cryonics. As such, I think it is relevant to the topic of the paragraph on whether cryonics is scientifically feasible. If my sentence needs changing, please advise. If I'm mistaken please let me know. ] (]) 00:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
: Or you could stop promoting a commercial entity. You have so little recent editing experience that your error is not a surprise, but your failure to acknowledge that your edits do not have consensus is a problem. Action may be taken to resolve this problem if you continue. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It is not a commercial entity, it is a research network, just a bunch of scientists getting together to support research on cryonics. ] (]) 00:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== For information == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have mentioned you at ]. ] (]) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Best known for" closure == |
|
|
|
|
|
I realize the numeric situation seemed fairly clear at the time you made your closure, but it was still closed rather early, after only half a day, and given the fact that several well-respected editors have now registered "opposes", would you mind reopening the discussion to give those concerns a proper airing? ] ] 18:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:I was also surprised to see the discussion closed this quickly. I agree that it would be a good idea to reopen it and let all viewpoints air. In particular, Drmies makes good points but they are not in themselves the reasons I started the thread, and that deserves an explanation. ] ] ] 11:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You are both wasting peoples time. The current situation is edits (when identified) of 'best known for' get reverted on site as they are socking. The result of the community actually banning them is that the process gets done a little quicker and a proper discussion has to be had to allow them to edit again. Assuming you could rustle up another 4 or 5 people to make decent counter-arguments in favour of not community banning (at the moment they boil down to 'they make good edits sometimes' which isnt a very persuasive or weighty argument), it will make no difference to their edits being reverted. ] (]) 12:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Only in death, if you don't think the ban discussion is a good use of your time then ignore it. However there are several people who would love for this situation to be resolved properly. There has been rather a bit of disagreement on how this user should be handled, and if they are indeed defacto banned, and this is going to settle the matter. I would like to see it run its entire 24 hours as the banning policy requires, this person is a wiki-lawyer and I don't want them to have a valid point about their ban not being proper. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I also think some of the claims snuck in after the close need a good solid refuting. ] 03:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: If you think the drama needs stringing out then revert, I don't mind. I am currently in South Africa on business and have no time to deal with this right now. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Arbitration motion regarding ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that: |
|
|
|
|
|
:The ] which currently says that " Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed" are replaced with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." |
|
|
|
|
|
For the Arbitration Committee, ]] 14:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:''']''' |
|
|
|
|
|
== What scientific, verifiable proof do you have that RT is a propaganda station? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, would love to see the sources for myself, since no one else certainly has. ] (]) 21:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
* See , , , and so on ad nauseam. More tot he point, is there any reliable source which credits RT with a neutral position? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can you help me? == |
|
== ]! Are you still out there? == |
|
|
<!-- ] 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) |
|
Hi ].There is an individual on the ] page, ], that I am having a problem with. He seems to have a COI (he interacted with ] regularly on a personal level up until about 20 years ago and admitted to being in direct contact with him currently) and is vehemently denying any COI. He stated he created an alternate user account to post on Native American topics but has thus far only participated in the ] article. I posted to his talk page about the COI because it was muddying up other pages and his reply to me was rather insulting. I don't know how to create a COI report or even if one is actually warranted. Could you please offer some advice? Thank you ] (]) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (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!" <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
== OneSky == |
|
|
|
:::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, ] <sup><b>(])</b></sup> 11:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
` |
|
Wondering if you can review my request at ]. --] (]) 08:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
.jpg)
