User talk:JzG/Archive 66

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.

How did you do these? What tool? And what privileges are required? I've decided to create the next account the new way, whatever that is. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly all you need to do is visit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup while logged in. Sorry for the delay, been in the sun in France. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You helped me before with this, I had another user bring up the Husnock account from five years ago in a totally unrelated dispute [1] [2]. This is an administrator who also went on record with a pretty blatant personal attack [3] ("you are an outright liar"). This is not the type of behavior I would expect from an administrator and I must admit it made me a bit angry; for my part, to avoid any more trouble with this, I removed the image the admin is concerned about and contacted the original source in order to get better sourcing. Anyway, I could use your help since I'm not sure what this user is going to do next and am a bit afraid my account might be blocked in anger. -OberRanks (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Relevant or not, you are being careless with copyright (remember: just because something is mailed to you by X does not mean it is X's to give). Guy (Help!) 08:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, lesson learned. It was actually a very good point that the same image I was e-mailed showed up on a website. I think it would be best if that image were just deleted. I still think User:Prof should be advised it is inappropriate to call another user a liar. I didn't do anything to deserve that. -OberRanks (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated here as FP doesn't seem to want to let this go, even after this [4]. -OberRanks (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey JzG. You previously dealt with the issue of a disruptive editor on Abortion and Talk:Abortion so I thought you might be able to take a look at this. This is only part of a serious bit of disruption by DMSBel over the past few months, but especially the last few days. ArbCom seems to be taking its time, so I was hoping you could take a look at it. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this edit to Immigration to the United Kingdom since 1922, you may well be right about the reliability of the source, but it's not really a good idea to remove the reference but leave the material that it's supporting in the article text. We've now gone from a potentially unreliable source to none at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Aloha. Regarding your addition to the lead in the Stargate Project article,[5] would you have any objection to me moving it into a footnote or somewhere else in the body? Per WP:LEAD, that section should really be a condensed summary of the article that attempts to draw the reader in and hold their interest. Unfortunately, I don't believe a two paragraph quote does that. However, it might work even better if you could paraphrase the quote in one sentence in the lead and link to the full quote in the footnote or somewhere in the body. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that I was restoring information removed by one of the remote viewing True Believers at some point, but I can't remember. The termination merits mention in the lede, as does the fact that only a tiny few true believers consider this at all controversial. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, paraphrasing the termination would work perfectly. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Guy. I've been working over at WP:COIN lately and have been asked, as an uninvolved editor, to review a situation and pursue whatever resolution I find suitable. Some involved editors have suggested a topic ban. After reviewing the situation, it seems to me that the editor is unwilling to work with others regarding a strong POV and I'm trying to decide if I should pursue a topic ban or some sort of block but WP:BAN say that to receive a ban, there must be "very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors". The former is certainly true but there have been never been any sanctions. My question is, should I pursue sanctions (which I interpret to mean blocks) then pursue a topic ban if the blocks don't improve things?

The case in question is about a user named Jespah. Two admins and two or three other editors have been trying to work with her for over a year now to curb the POV pushing and article ownership that has been taking place. While it seems drastic to suggest any type of ban on an editor that has never been blocked, I can't help but think it's appropriate in this case. You can read my full report here if you'd like.

I'm not sure where to go from here. Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller^Talktome 15:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and proposed a topic ban at WP:AN. There's a lot of involved people so I'm sure a discussion will work things out. OlYeller^Talktome 18:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi JzG, I would like to offer the content for the page on Luxoft. Could you, please, help me with the best way to do it as the article is protected and I am not able to add the content directly. Actually, I would not like to go with deletion review - I just want to recreate the page with my content. Thank you Wikiuser2001 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Every version thus far has been blatant spam. It's highly unlikely that you'll be able to make it anything else, given that you, like all the other users who have expressed an interest, have no other apparent reason for being here other than to promote this company. In short, I think you're wasting your time. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)