Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 198

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195Archive 196Archive 197Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200→Archive 205

Hi

This is Jenhawk777 from Persecution of Christians. I just wanted to let you know that even if I misunderstood and was totally wrong in what I thought, my motives and offer were sincere, regardless of what others may say. I do hope we can be friends in spite of disagreement. Why shouldn't we be? If we choose not to harbor bad feelings over a disagreement, that's our choice. I do hope that's the choice you make. It's mine. One way or the other I'm sure I'll be seeing you around. Good luck. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, harbouring bad feelings is not my style, don't worry. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Good, mine either! See you around! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting guidance

looks like admin shopping to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi Guy (JzG), and possible page stalkers,

I'm currently writing a report against a user, pointing out their participation in multiple edit wars, defamation against other user, apparent WP:Overzealous deletion, rudeness towards new users, experienced users and even administrators, and possible sockpuppetry. All of this with just 471 mainspace edits.

As can be seen in my edit stats, I'm not very experienced around here.
That's why I come to ask guidance from you, as to which noticeboard I should publish this report, and whatever other advice your experience with administrative causes can give.
Would also appreciate a second opinion on whether this case warrants a noticeboard post at all.

Could you (or a page stalker) take a look in this case?
I'll send the report to you by email, if you accept; it has too many pings to post here on wikipedia.

Respectfully, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 05:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP. Walwal20 appears to be talking about Addicted4517 or possibly JayBeeEll.
He also appears to be attempting to round up a lynch mob.
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC), edited 14:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
While I appreciate the ping, this is pretty clearly not about me as I have a few more than 471 mainspace edits. (Also I think Walwal20 and I ended the earlier dispute on reasonable terms.) --JBL (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I struck your name from the above. -Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I think a look at Talk:Hartley Jackson will show you that the report is very much as case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the sense that he doesn't like policy being pointed out, and using irrelevant policy and not being interesting in discussion and consensus. The matter at hand - as you may see on said talk page - was resolved without Walwa's involvement. Walwa is simply trying to attack me with this and not seeking to be part of the project as such, certainly within the pro wrestling realm. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Guy, what typically happens when an indef t-ban is imminent but the editor decides to retire before a decision is announced? Atsme 💬 📧 13:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, normally the tban is implemented anyway, as far as I recall. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Tooth fairy science" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tooth fairy science. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3#Tooth fairy science until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I saw the discussion and commented before I saw this. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Re1ny.Dev

Now at administrators' noticeboard.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re1ny.Dev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have gone back to labeling people's sexuality with dubious sources or no sources. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"On Lauren and Bryana, I should've added citations. But on Cavetown all I did was add a word that someone left out when it should've been there in the first place because thats what they said on that same citation. And on Firefox, I literally cited it and she came out as pansexual. The fact that you're trying to take down all of these edits kinda makes it seem like you're one of those historians who think someone isn't LGBT when there is so much proof that they are. Also how do you know i made these edits? Does it notify you or something? --Re1ny.Dev (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're taking down everything I wrote. Everything, except for Lauren and Bryana, have sources and they should be reliable. Honestly I just think you don't want people's sexualities labeled for some dumb reason. Like they already came out, I'm not outing them. You do realize it's important to show these right? Why are you trying to censor it. --Re1ny.Dev (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's look at Cavetown: To assign a sexual preference or sexual identity to Cavetown, you need a direct quote where they self-identify. Not hitc.com claiming they did. Not Gay News claiming they did. It has to be either a high-quality secondary source quoting them directly or a primary source such as a twitter, facebook, or tmublr account that we know they control.
Wikipedia has had a lot of problems with some editors who want to label someone as LGBT when they don't wish to be labeled as such. And when editors do that, we keeps seeing sources such as gay news, pink news, etc. If the New York Times quotes Cavetown self-identifying as transgender, you can put it in the article. If you can link to a place where Cavetown tweeted that he is transgender -- and it also passes the test of WP:WEIGHT, you can include it. but you can't use The New Your Times as a source if they say that Cavetown is transgender -- they have to self-identify. And you can't use a dodgy source that claims that they said something on Tumblr. Either find a reliable source (The New York Times quoting something they wrote on Tumblr) or find the place on Tumblr where they self-identified.
So let's look at why we don't accept hitc.com as a source. In "https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/09/09/twitter-cavetown-responds-to-being-cancelled-with-apology-video/" hitc claims that cavetown wrote
“I considered it an inside joke in the fan base which was wrong of me and instead I was just being anti semitic because I’m not Jewish and I don’t have the right to decide whether it’s okay for me to make a joke about a culture I am not part of.”
And then gives us a link to Twitter.[6]
But when I checked the twitter link it says that they apologize for making a joke about religion, says it "came form no place of antisemitism", and promises the Jewish community that it won't happen again. The word "transgender" is not found in the linked twitter thread. In fact I can't find that quote anywhere except on hitc.com.
So, no, you do not have a good source for claiming that Cavetown is transgender. Look at the personal like section to see properly-sourced material about Cavetown's sexualtity. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Now at the administrators' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Joe Biden series

Thanks for protecting that. But is it a good idea to set the expiry just before a time when Joe Biden will likely be getting millions of views. About the worst possible time for vandalism to slip in, I would think. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, good point. Will extend. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You have probably seen this...

Sovereign Citizen doesn't consent to lockdown fines... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, nothing surprises me with that lot. Idiots misled by charlatans. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

1RR

Hey, thanks for being reasonable at the Antifa scwabble. I just want to point out that I didn't pass 1RR as Wikieditor claims and if you check the diffs you'll see I'm not lying. That being said I accept that I've played my part in the argy bargy, but I don't want to be stained by a false claim - I did not go past 1RR. Thanks again. Bacondrum (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, you are technically correct - the best kind of correct! Except on Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 02:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Lol, fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Bacondrum (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Throwback Thursday

Hi JzG! Sad to see you taking a break from sysoping, but seeing you at BN reminded me of a fun easter egg I found a couple days ago. I stumbled on the essay Wikipedia:Spam event horizon and found it interesting. As I usually do, I check the history to see who's been thinking cool thoughts and saw the author was "Just zis Guy, you know?", who I'd never seen around or in page histories before. The essay was authored in 2006, and I wondered what the old-timer was up to now, so I clicked the link to their userpage and was surprised when I wound up here. Took me a few minutes to figure out why U:Just zis Guy, you know? redirects to UT:JzG, but it was a nice aha! moment when I finally figured out what JzG meant. Thanks for the essay and the surprise, and enjoy your break from janitorial duties! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

November

Another of your "stalkers", joining the choir with today's DYK: to be sung "happily" - music is better than mopping, and thank you for much enlightenment on the Dutch masters! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_198&oldid=992230728"