User talk:JzG/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just saying hello. I see you've had your user page removed, and I know Wiki can wear anybody out. Just wanted to say I always appreciated your work --BenBurch (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize you are retired, but in this edit you blanked an entire Reliable sources noticeboard archive on account of an OTRS ticket. There were 39 different discussions in that archive, and I suspect that the OTRS ticket pertained to only one of them. If the Powers That Be at the Wikimedia Foundation think we really need to blank the entire archive to avoid calling attention to the particular discussion in question (whatever it was -- nothing stands out as being problematic there to me), then I can live with that. But I would appreciate it if you would confirm whether it was necessary to blank the whole thing rather than just the problematic discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was reading your userpage (I'm not sure why) and I noticed your mention that your father has passed away. So I just wanted to offer my condolences. I don't know you and you don't know me, but the loss of a father crosses all boundaries. All the best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here. My belated but heartfelt condolences.

I've been away from WP because my GAF factor is about zero; seems you're in the same boat. But like you said, this is just a hobby, so Illegitimi wikii non carborundumat or some such. Take care. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Likewise here. The tribute page to your father is really well done. He would no doubt be pleased. My father is 80+ and in poor health. I hope we can do something for him the way you did for your dad. Thanks for sharing it. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Howdy, a while back you deleted this article but were kind enough to userfy it for me so I could work on it. To be honest, I forgot about it for a bit. I've removed all the unsourced content and added a few news stories. Mind if I throw it back into the mix now? - Schrandit (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dorftrottel has suggested here that the parties might like to make a fresh statement now that the evidence has been thrown in, and the community is trying to decide what proposed remedies are appropriate. I have created a new area for this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Reflection by the parties. Please consider adding a statement there. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion might benefit from your input. David in DC (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work against fringe lunacy on Wikipedia. I'm glad someone does it. Just wanted to say that. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm wondering how can a major metropolitan newspaper like the Houston Chronicle not be allowed as a reference source? It was removed from Ivan Dixon.--69.22.254.108 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm wondering how can a major metropolitan newspaper like the Houston Chronicle not be allowed as a reference source? It was removed from Ivan Dixon.--69.22.254.108 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The link removed was not to the Houston Chronicle (the official site of which is not blacklisted), but, instead, to postchronicle.com, an unrelated site that, as User:JzG/unreliable sources sets out, seems to aggregate (copyrighted) news and opinion content published by other sources, sometimes without attribution. (My adduction of User:JzG/unreliable sources should not (not that anyone's interested) be understood as reflective of my adopting anything more than Guy's factual findings; I am not at all sure that I concur in Guy's analysis of the appropriateness of the site's being linked to (or used as a source) in mainspace, and I was not certain that I thought his listing the site at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to have been fully consistent with the policies, both substantive and procedural, that should guide our use of the blacklist, but I did not, having concluded that at least two of the three purposes for blacklisting were persuasive, undertake to dispute the issue at the blacklist talk page, and readily confess that I don't know [and, having abandoned the issue, don't really need to know] whether anyone else raised there any objections to the listing.) Joe 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Like most news stories on that day, the Houston Chronicle's March 20, 2008 story on Dixon ("IVAN DIXON , 1931-2008 / Actor, director praised for highlighting black life") essentially was a reprint from the associated press.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebestbe (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy http://en.technocracynet.euDISABLE/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=358 Network of European Technocrats - Jure Sah . He is this guy here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89.212.75.6 DustWolfUser talk:89.212.75.6 .

He showed up out of the blue and put a spam sticker on the Technocracy movement article and also my user page... I feel like he is stalking me or harassing me. Could you look into this? Maybe ask him to leave me alone ? I explained to him that it was not me that put the NET site up for deletion. Thanks.

Follow up... I think he will stop now. A couple of editors explained why not to do that. skip sievert (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

there is a note for you here [2]--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article FLAB, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?Cretog8 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to rescue it, based on the comments of another editor. DGG (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

How should I deal with this sort of thing: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]? That's just June 2008 and just me. Similar kinds of personal attacks can be found about others (Jkp, AniMate, Jamesbeat) in this editor's contribution history. I took a wikibreak for a refreshing vacation and have come back determined to get these personal attacks and incivility stopped. Can you help? David in DC (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is defined as "deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor" [[10]] which is exactly what the above editor is doing. I am not the only one who is disgusted by this editor's repeated interpreting of BLP rules to require removal of well-sourced facts and then unilateraly claiming that his own deletions create a "consensus" justifying other deletions. Even though other editors have strongly rebuked both his bizzare interpetations of BLP and his repeatedly false cries of "consensus". See [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] for just a handfull among many rebukes to this editor. Finally, we have this apt description of the user from nearly a year ago- "It's not appropriate for you to comment in such a manner on a deletion discussion. In future, please comment on the subject at hand and do not engage in petty trolling at every opportunity. You can and will be blocked for such behaviour." [[14]].John celona (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The editor from the Western Slope Anglers is back at work on Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, now that your recent sprotect has expired. The article and talk need another sprotect, and will continue to need it, I'm sure. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)