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)

User talk:Zeke1999 unblock request

You've previously told me you didn't mind too much being uninvolved in appeals of your blocks, but I'd still like to bounce my thoughts off of you about Zeke1999's. A brief review of the SPI and of the Interaction Analyzer doesn't do anything to convince me the accusations of sockpuppetry (more specifically, of logging out to edit while pretending to be a second person) are unfounded or implausible. That being said, even if there *was* logged-out editing, that still does not justify an indef-block IMO. Do you mind me giving the user some good-faith WP:ROPE, perhaps with a promise to stay away from Frank Gaffney and Center for Security Policy and with a strongly worded warning about logged-out editing? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same thing, after seeing that sitting in the unblock requests for so long. I'm of a mind to unblock, and Guy's not been active recently. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Since there is consensus for an unblock, both in the comments above and in another editor's comment on the user talk page, and since you are not around, Guy, and the editor has already waited quite a while for the unblock request to be settled, I have gone ahead and unblocked. Please let me know if you think that was a mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Richard-stilgoe.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The image was provided to me by Richard's PA and I talked her through the licensing beforehand. It is cromulent. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

They require a release from the photog not just a single release from the subject or the subject's PA. If the subject owns all copyrights (work for hire or selfie) then the email must state same. Isn't Commons fun? Oh, and I'm amazed that you used "cromulent". You must watch the The Simpsons. Atsme^📞📧 03:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I know what they need. I already have it. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Huge...

...a towering pillar...exemplary. No need for me to say anything else. Atsme^📞📧 22:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Assuming that Atsme is referring to you and SageRad, I agree! Thank you very much for that, and please accept my genuine admiration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)