User talk:JzG/Archive 122

Archive 115

←

Archive 120

Archive 121

Archive 122

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

UTRS appeal #14446

Hi, I'm responding to UTRS appeal #14446 by Againstdisinformation, and at the very least the appeal is not disruptive, and it even looks like it might be acceptable and appropriately apologetic. I propose to reinstante TPA and let him post his appeal on-wiki. Are you fine with that? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Allow talk page access by all means, and feel free to do whatever you think best in respect of the block. I tend to stand back where block appeals are concerned, I feel it is best not to risk one's personal pride standing in the way of respectful handling of a request. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

flying monkeys

I long ago came to the conclusion that flying monkeys armed with shit circle 90% of WP. AlbinoFerret 02:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You may well be right! Guy (Help!) 06:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Shit circle? Are you privy to special counsel on this? . . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think this puts The Daily Telegraph "stripped and snubbed" reports, as well as any claims of "teetotaller", into useful perspective. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy, Its impossible to stop the constant rain of the missiles. The way to avoid them is to just do the right thing. Follow the PAG, and then those shit missiles veer off course when they toss them. Some may look like they hit, but its really old dry poo that just bounces off the ground near your feet. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

bat bricks or brickbats?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Miljenko Horvat

Hello, could you have a look at Miljenko Horvat. It has been recreated 3 days after you deleted it. Thank you, Curiocurio 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Marathon

Statement by JzG

I think this belongs at WP:ANI, at least in the first instance. It does not take much digging to find that Mark Marathon is given to rhetorical exuberance, overstating trivial disagreements, grudge-bearing and the like. I think we can probably handle that sort of garden-variety misconduct. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=marathon&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard%2F3RRArchive&fulltext=Search+3RR+archives&fulltext=Search

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Mark_Marathon

Turns out AN/I can't even come close to handling this. Any link provided results in a look at wall-o-text edit warring. And there are lists of edit wars. I could have copied any of it to AN/I (I have a computer, you see) but then somebody would have said MEGO, tl;dr. This was pretty pathetic. And your suggestion and prediction on ArbCom was a fail. SBHarris 04:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Overstrike please

Guy, I'm asking for the 2nd time for you to overstrike the comment where you erroneously accuse me of gaming the system. The same way you overstruck the deadnaming warning on my Talk page. Thank you. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirect Roman Catholic

Hi JzG,

Way back in 2006, you protected Roman Catholic, a redirect, after a POV fork. No great problem with that but I should like to categorise it as {{R from adjective}}. Could you do that for me, perhaps (it seems pointess to unprotect it just for me to do it.) I guess this should go in at RfA or something but it seems easier all round just to ask you as the editor who protected it. I doubt such a modification would be controversial.

Thanks, Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi JzG. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that on this PD's talk page I do discuss the PD involving you. Certainly nothing personal. Just offering that if your conduct that they mention in the PD is objectionable that they should address it. While I agree that you aren't a party to the original conflict you are a party involved in the case. How do I quantify that to be more clear? There is ample warning on the talk page and in other places that warns "Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision." As a long time editor and an Admin I feel your already aware that you can be judge on the basis of your actions when you join a conversation. I take real stance there on whether you had actually done anything wrong. To take a position though I don't really see a problem. Again it's no offense or anything. anyway take it easy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)