User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions
Dr who1975 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
::::* Since you are in denial about the problem the list addressed, it does not surprise me that you are also in denial about the list and what went on there. The fact remains that every single person who had access to the list - from Jimbo down - said ''exactly the same thing'' about what the list was for, and you and a few others chose to believe your conspiracy theory instead. It is also demonstrably the case that Ainsworth and you told the Register your side of the story, and ''only'' your side, in an attempt to escalate the drama for your own ends. And for that you have earned my abiding contempt. Now goodbye. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
::::* Since you are in denial about the problem the list addressed, it does not surprise me that you are also in denial about the list and what went on there. The fact remains that every single person who had access to the list - from Jimbo down - said ''exactly the same thing'' about what the list was for, and you and a few others chose to believe your conspiracy theory instead. It is also demonstrably the case that Ainsworth and you told the Register your side of the story, and ''only'' your side, in an attempt to escalate the drama for your own ends. And for that you have earned my abiding contempt. Now goodbye. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::*I think I remember seeing statements, on wiki, by Krimpet and Alison that they had seen firsthand evidence that at least one of those lists was used, at least in part, to complain about and badmouth editors that members of those lists didn't approve of. That was one of the reasons Alison gave for leaving one of the lists in question. Also, in a discussion between me and Jimbo on his talk page, he admitted that the lists were used to canvass support for issues and debates taking place on wiki. So, since you were a member, and even administrator of more than one of those lists, I think that your effort to remove mention of the issue from the COW article is an attempt at a coverup and you definitely have COI. Instead of one of us readding the material (which I'm not sure if that article is currently unprotected or not. I remember you edited it before after it was protected, in violation of policy, a policy which you were suppposed to have pledged to follow when you became an admin) you need to readd it and I'm formally joining Krimpet and DanT in asking you to do so. Of course, the choice is yours. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
:::::*I think I remember seeing statements, on wiki, by Krimpet and Alison that they had seen firsthand evidence that at least one of those lists was used, at least in part, to complain about and badmouth editors that members of those lists didn't approve of. That was one of the reasons Alison gave for leaving one of the lists in question. Also, in a discussion between me and Jimbo on his talk page, he admitted that the lists were used to canvass support for issues and debates taking place on wiki. So, since you were a member, and even administrator of more than one of those lists, I think that your effort to remove mention of the issue from the COW article is an attempt at a coverup and you definitely have COI. Instead of one of us readding the material (which I'm not sure if that article is currently unprotected or not. I remember you edited it before after it was protected, in violation of policy, a policy which you were suppposed to have pledged to follow when you became an admin) you need to readd it and I'm formally joining Krimpet and DanT in asking you to do so. Of course, the choice is yours. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::* Gosh, you ''think'' you remember? Amazing. Another amazing thing: a mailing list comprised of hurt and angry people contained some hurt and angry statements. Never denied. What is denied is that it was a "secret banning cabal", or that Durova gave anybody any idea beforehand that she was about to block !!. If she had we'd have told her not to. The only COI here is you and Dan, who are Metz's sources, pretending that you are neutral and that everyone else has a COI. Now go away and never post here ever again under any circumstances, because while Dan and often behaves like an obsessive trolling idiot, I consider you an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel based on your steadfast refusal to assume anything other than outright malice form all involved in that list, your refusal to accept any interpreation other than your own ludicrous conspirtacy theory, and your going to the press with something you had been told many times was wrong, by people who had absolutely no reason to lie, and presenting your sick, twisted little fantasy as truth, thus prolonging the drama. An d worst of all, you have the effrontery to come here and accuse me of COI while demanding that I put back in the utter bullshit that you fed Metz, so that your lies are preserved forever in Wikipedia as a pretence of truth. No. No chance whatsoever. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Patrick T. McHenry]] == |
== [[Patrick T. McHenry]] == |
||
Revision as of 22:04, 15 April 2008
|
Smert' spamionem! This user is a member of WikiProject Spam. |
I check in most mornings and most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my new office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets.
I am under considerable personal stress at the moment; my father died and I have a lot of other stuff going on in RL including a new job as senior engineer for enterprise storage and virtual infrastructure in a Fortune 500 company. Great job, lots of shiny expensive toys, big responsibility. But Wikipedia is still one of my top hobbies, and I come here to do what I can. I respond much better to polite requests than to demands. People who taunt me with "I dare you to block me" may have cause to regret it, as may I. Don't even think of trying to drag me into one of the many cesspits this project offers, I will likely choose only those disputes where I don't actually care too much. Not coming to your party? It's because I've decided it will make me unhappy. Sorry about that.
Above all, please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
 | Were this admin to act in a foolish, trollish, or dickish way, he is open to being slapped with a large trout. |
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- See my winter cycling tips - feel free to suggest more!
- My take on the Durova incident.
Note to self
CoI on Criticism of Wikipedia
JzG, I'm afraid your removal of content from Criticism of Wikipedia here may represent of a conflict of interest on your part given your role in operating the mailing list(s) criticized in the Register article. I strongly ask you recuse yourself from this subject, as it's generally difficult for someone in such a position to write and edit objectively on a subject they're so involved in. krimpet✽ 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not as far as I can tell, since it does not criticise me. Its inclusion was a COI, of course, since it was Charles Ainsworth and Dan Tobias who argued for its inclusion while asserting that I had a COI in wanting it out, but that was just a bit of deflection on their part I think. I did read the emails that Ainsworth discussed in his interview with Metz, and know that Ainsworth grossly misrepresented them, and I also remember debates on wikien-l where every single person who had been in receipt of the mails told Ainsworth he was wrong about them, so this does look to me like trying to launder a lie, and a lie that had been authoritatively rebutted, by passing it to a sympathetic axe-grinder, and that's why I think it's unreliable in context. I was only assigned ownership of one of the lists later, and not for very long, either. I am, of course, strongly opposed to conspiracy theories as a genre, and that's what this was: a conspiracy theory built on a bad misjudgment by one admin. Publishing conspiracy theories which have not had any critique outside the primary publishing source is fraught with difficulty. Naturally, if you can cite the sources which give a more balanced view of both sides of that particular battle, then we can cite them, but I don't think individual editors should get to have thier views included in mainspace as "fact" when they are both false and (more importantly) not subject to any kind of independent critical review. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Using your own impressions of the content of the secret e-mails to guide your position on including this passage is original research, isn't it? I just re-read the Register article now, and didn't see any part where Ainsworth makes any specific claims about the content of any of the messages on that list other than the one from Durova that was leaked, so there is nothing of that sort to judge as "a lie". All he said about it was that there was a large amount of frustration among some Wikipedians over the general mindset of the clique that used lists like that, and this is true. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong on every count. Not only were the lists PRIVATE NOT SECRET as you have been told every single time you repeat that canard, it is not "my impression" but that of every single person on the list, as noted on wikien-l, plus, my impression as one who read the emails is likely more accurate than yours as one who did not. Ainsworth was wrong, he was told he was wrong by everyone who had the information he patently did not have, he was spanked on wikien-l and so he went and planted the story with a sympathetic journo with an axe to grind. It's a primary source which speaks of one editor's false view of the situation, which he'd been told numerous times was false, and does not even bother to allude to the other (correct according to everybody who knows what went on) side of the argument. Now go away and troll someone else. Maybe someone else will believe your sophistry, I certainly won't. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Private means "Not done in the view of or with the possibility of disturbance by others; Intended only for one's own use; Not accessible by the public." Secret means "Knowledge that is hidden and intended to be kept hidden." Since the contents of the list in question are hidden and intended to be kept hidden from the public, and are not accessible by anybody else, and the discussions there are conducted out of view and disturbance by others and intended only for the use of those involved, the list clearly meets the definitions of both words. While the Register chose to use "secret" in its headline, the passage which you're trying to delete in our article actually used your preferred terminology, referring to the "use of a private mailing list to coordinate administrative actions". Whether private, secret, or both, the contents of the list are known only to a self-selected group which tends to be very far to one side of the spectrum on some of the "culture wars" around here, making the list not only unsuitable as a source due to its uncheckability by outsiders, but unfair to use in debate due to the inability of people on the opposite side to have similar access to be able to refute the unsourced assertions of the list's insiders. At any rate, Ainsworth's only quotes in the article are "I've never seen the Wikipedia community as angry as they are with this one... I think there was more hidden anger and frustration with the 'ruling clique' than I thought and Durova's heavy-handed action and arrogant refusal to take sufficient accountability for it has released all of it into the open", and "I believe that Jimbo's credibility has been greatly damaged because of his open support for these people". It's mostly about what he thinks and what he believes regarding the Wikipedia community and Jimbo's credibility; what factual assertions about the nature of the list are there to be called a lie by you or others? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong on every count. Not only were the lists PRIVATE NOT SECRET as you have been told every single time you repeat that canard, it is not "my impression" but that of every single person on the list, as noted on wikien-l, plus, my impression as one who read the emails is likely more accurate than yours as one who did not. Ainsworth was wrong, he was told he was wrong by everyone who had the information he patently did not have, he was spanked on wikien-l and so he went and planted the story with a sympathetic journo with an axe to grind. It's a primary source which speaks of one editor's false view of the situation, which he'd been told numerous times was false, and does not even bother to allude to the other (correct according to everybody who knows what went on) side of the argument. Now go away and troll someone else. Maybe someone else will believe your sophistry, I certainly won't. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Using your own impressions of the content of the secret e-mails to guide your position on including this passage is original research, isn't it? I just re-read the Register article now, and didn't see any part where Ainsworth makes any specific claims about the content of any of the messages on that list other than the one from Durova that was leaked, so there is nothing of that sort to judge as "a lie". All he said about it was that there was a large amount of frustration among some Wikipedians over the general mindset of the clique that used lists like that, and this is true. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since you are in denial about the problem the list addressed, it does not surprise me that you are also in denial about the list and what went on there. The fact remains that every single person who had access to the list - from Jimbo down - said exactly the same thing about what the list was for, and you and a few others chose to believe your conspiracy theory instead. It is also demonstrably the case that Ainsworth and you told the Register your side of the story, and only your side, in an attempt to escalate the drama for your own ends. And for that you have earned my abiding contempt. Now goodbye. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I remember seeing statements, on wiki, by Krimpet and Alison that they had seen firsthand evidence that at least one of those lists was used, at least in part, to complain about and badmouth editors that members of those lists didn't approve of. That was one of the reasons Alison gave for leaving one of the lists in question. Also, in a discussion between me and Jimbo on his talk page, he admitted that the lists were used to canvass support for issues and debates taking place on wiki. So, since you were a member, and even administrator of more than one of those lists, I think that your effort to remove mention of the issue from the COW article is an attempt at a coverup and you definitely have COI. Instead of one of us readding the material (which I'm not sure if that article is currently unprotected or not. I remember you edited it before after it was protected, in violation of policy, a policy which you were suppposed to have pledged to follow when you became an admin) you need to readd it and I'm formally joining Krimpet and DanT in asking you to do so. Of course, the choice is yours. Cla68 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, you think you remember? Amazing. Another amazing thing: a mailing list comprised of hurt and angry people contained some hurt and angry statements. Never denied. What is denied is that it was a "secret banning cabal", or that Durova gave anybody any idea beforehand that she was about to block !!. If she had we'd have told her not to. The only COI here is you and Dan, who are Metz's sources, pretending that you are neutral and that everyone else has a COI. Now go away and never post here ever again under any circumstances, because while Dan and often behaves like an obsessive trolling idiot, I consider you an evil underhand spiteful shit-stirring weasel based on your steadfast refusal to assume anything other than outright malice form all involved in that list, your refusal to accept any interpreation other than your own ludicrous conspirtacy theory, and your going to the press with something you had been told many times was wrong, by people who had absolutely no reason to lie, and presenting your sick, twisted little fantasy as truth, thus prolonging the drama. An d worst of all, you have the effrontery to come here and accuse me of COI while demanding that I put back in the utter bullshit that you fed Metz, so that your lies are preserved forever in Wikipedia as a pretence of truth. No. No chance whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The part fo the data that cause the page lock was the blog allegations that McHenry was somehow responsible for 3 deaths in the Green Zone... everything elase was accyratly sourced and noteworthy as itwasreportedby several news sources... please revert the article to this version. Otherwise, you've removed properly cited information.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Being "cited" is not a magic talisman to ward off WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes... I know that... in fact I've often had to remind people of that... I mean it was cited with a valid source.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- You did read the version I pointed to right? Are you suggecting that www.carolinapoliticsonline.com is an invalid source?--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou
Thankyou for spending so much of your own time on my case when you didn't have to. Realist2 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Nice to be able to help someone, in fact. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
God on earth, they are still talking about me at ANI, ill be famous in days at this rate, my talk page has seen more traffic this week than in an entire year. Realist2 (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Believe me, mate, when we set out to examine our navels, we get the microscopes out. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha sounds like a pain stacking job, i will leave you in peace, we might cross paths again, hope under better circumstances, this is a wierd way to spend my 9001th edit at wiki. Realist2 (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Lerner
Please see my comment here. Even if you disagree with me, it does absolutely no harm to refactor your comment so I hope you will do so. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
State terrorism and the US
Can you check the start of this edit:
You've reverted the content of the first three paragraphs in a way that removed useful links and typo fixes. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I'll fix it now. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, in total 10 million civilians died in Japan from firebombing 70 cities and the two nuclear bombs with many radiation deaths after the event. User_talk:Igorberger#Pic You do not consider this as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States Igor Berger (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not in the context of the time and a state of total war then existing, not I don't. I consider the Nagasaki bomb an atrocity (Hiroshima was enough) but I do not apply 21st century rationales and hindsight to what was beyond question an act of of war. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Greif article
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're doing. These are references directly linked to the article and are not spam. They are not 'selling' anything. These references, upon re-write, will be incorporated into the body of the article via citations. A Sniper (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- It has been spammed across multiple projects and is going on the blacklist. It is not appropriate as a source anyway, per WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Technocracy movement
An editor put back the links you took out in external links and put this statement in the Technocracy movement ( In addition, the Network of European Technocrats aims for the creation of a European Technate, although the group has not yet finalised the area of this entity (most likely, other areas then just Europe would be needed ). Would you mind editing this article again to perhaps get rid of the extraneous links again and delete the NET material ? skip sievert (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I just went ahead and changed it. skip sievert (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Well the same editor put the NET stuff back in and also the extraneous links that you took out.. back in again. Technocracy movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technocracy_movement&diff=205662793&oldid=205657424 Technocracy movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia He is telling me not to edit because he is going to just put the NET stuff back in and the multiple links to the same site. skip sievert (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your modification in de:Impaled Nazerene
Sorry, I don't know why this metal-magazine is on the spam-list now. The link is used as a reference. So, please, unless you got a better link, leave the reference there. --Gripweed-de (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- It has been spammed across multiple projects, is not a reliable source, and is now in the blacklist. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Remote viewing
This is to inform you that I have filed a request for informal mediation on the article Remote viewing, and named you as a party. Best, ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Guy
Hi there! I was contemplating usurping the username "Guy" after I found that it had no contributions. Upon investigating further, I found that you redirected the Talk Page here. Can I ask why? Thanks! -- JTHolla! 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because it's my name, and how I sign my posts (and have done for ages). Guy (Help!) 16:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why not use that as your username, then? -- JTHolla! 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Because I was originally user:Just zis Guy, you know? and I don't think usurpation was allowed when I changed to JzG. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. Alright, rock on. -- JTHolla! 16:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Why not use that as your username, then? -- JTHolla! 16:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)