This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify) This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years. This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Free Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature. This user is one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a Rouge admin. This user has been on Wikipedia for 19 years, 7 months, and 20 days. This user has been an admin for 18 years, 2 months, and 23 days. This user resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans. This user believes WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

• In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Thanks, user:Stephan Schulz.
• My activity level is 53mKo (milli-Koavfs).
• Sad now. Special:Contributions/Geogre.
• My Last.fm profile
• vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter

You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.

— - Robert A. Heinlein

Obligatory disclaimer

I work for Dell Computer but nothing I say or do here is said or done on behalf of Dell. You knew that, right?

About me

I am in my early fifties, British, have been married for over quarter of a century to the world's most tolerant woman, and have two adult children. I am an amateur baritone and professional nerd. I do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry. I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to subdue dissent, actually it's just me as a middle aged parent of young adults saying "oh no, not this shit again". I am British, I have the British sense of humour (correctly spelled) and I absolutely do not have an accent, since I went to a thousand-year-old school. Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC and other closes

I am am making a good faith best efforts attempt to close backlogged RfCs and other debates from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. These are mainly backlogged because there is no obvious consensus, so any close will undoubtedly annoy someone. I invite review of any such close on WP:ANI, where there are many more watchers than my talk page. I am happy to provide clarification of anything either here or on ANI, please ping me if it's at ANI - that exempts you from the ANI notice, IMO, and I prefer a ping to a talk page notice as the latter tends to spread discussion to multiple venues, which is a nightmare. Feel free to use "email this user" if I am not responding to a request (but remember I live in UTC, soon to be UTC-1). Guy (Help!) 23:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was an ignorant comment made somewhat aggressively by an IP user, but none of those are reasons to immediately WP:REFACTOR a comment away, least of all by hatting it equally aggressively as "wibble" and then re-hatting and archiving it when another editor objected to you doing so. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely worthless to the improvement of the article. Some random IP wandering past and bitching that we still follow reality-based sources is a thing we can and should ignore. I have no idea why you would want to give any prominence to the ravings of cranks. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to someone like the "saucer nests" guy being hatted, but this IP was laying out a clear objection to the fact that the scientific consensus for hoaxing was sourced only to Skepdic. There was some wibbly posturing around it (which made me ignore it as the old "ahh, only 'most' scientists, so there is not a consensus!" thing at first glance), but it's a fair question. If we can swap in a stronger source, that improves the article, informs our readers and reduces the scope for future wibbling; if no stronger sources exist, we can explain WP:PARITY and have a useful archive thread to point at next time. --McGeddon (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, but specious, and non-actionable, and clearly stated from under a tinfoil hat. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and now you're repeatedly rehatting it with your "wibble" jibe in the archives despite WP:REFACTOR's clear "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." Even if you are genuinely baffled by me disagreeing with your refactoring, it should stay unrefactored. --McGeddon (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you want to preserve that tinfoil hattery? I find your attitude to this worthless trolling comment to be utterly inexplicable. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say above, despite being wrapped in tinfoil it suggested a reasonable and actionable question - why are we quoting Skepdic when mainstream sources presumably say the same thing? (I replaced it with a simple BBC source very easily.)

Shunting a tinfoil-phrased post to archives and mockingly hatting it as "wibble" might successfully scare off a lone, irredeemable troll who would otherwise have wasted our time by arguing the toss but taken it no further. But doing the same to anybody either side of that - a potentially productive editor who was arriving at Wikipedia in the wrong tone of voice, or a rabid loon who is even now writing a 5000-word blog post about their proof that the Wikipedia Skeptic Cabal shuts down and conceals legitimate questions - can only harm the project. --McGeddon (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was clear to delete there, so you should have deleted it rather than userfying. Because it is userfied, it now meets criteria U5 of speedy deletion, but because there was consensus to delete, it should have been normally deleted instead. --TL22 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recently blocked Psts1st as one of the likely sockpuppets that have descended on Frank Gaffney. Could you also review Recordstraightsetter who is also a brand new editor who only made that change [1]? The backlog at SPI has left a number of his other socks floating around indefinitely so I thought it might be easier to just make a direct request. (For the record, for reasons based on off-Wiki knowledge, I believe there will be a coming deluge of newly minted editors attempting to make this change.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take exception to this note. This user reverted a large amount of information by multiple editors made, apparently when the editor was on vacation. See these diffs: [diff1] [diff2] [diff3] [diff4] [diff5] These edits removed language that added balance to these pages that were discussed on the talk pages. I regret there was no effort made to discuss this editor's massive changes on the talk pages. After these reverts were reversed several times, this editor started filing false SPI, SPA, meat puppet and other charges against me. This editor also has been complaining about me on multiple Wikipedia pages. I have posted this note because I don't want this editor's false comments to go unchallenged. I have backed out of making any further changes to these pages since I am tired of the bickering and I don't want to be involved in an edit war. It is my hope that other editors and admins will fix these pages over time because they have such obvious POV and RS problems. Perhaps my extensive talk comments on the Gaffney page will help. I have nothing to do with these alleged sock puppets and I resent this person continually making false charges against me.Zeke1999 (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to block your sockpuppets, and if you continue then I will also block you. Bye. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 09:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do block any accounts you think are sockpuppets. I've tried to follow Wikipedia rules. Users who break the rules to create accounts to delete text from articles I have been disputing aren't doing me any favors. I value my Wikipedia account and I'm not going to jeopardize it by doing something stupid. Best wishes.Zeke1999 (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, the links in those articles were already cleared as RS, other editors were involved and aware of the self-cite and the links are useful. What exactly are you attempting to do? Do you really believe you're helping to improve the encyclopedia with what you're doing? Atsme^📞📧 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are self-published. So: yes. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 20:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir but you are mistaken. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alligator_gar/Archive_1 for the Gar article. Also see the TPs of the articles you're removing links to important information for no reason. Your motives are not made in GF and are certainly not helpful in improving the encyclopedia. Atsme^📞📧 21:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I checked the website. The page describing the editorial board? There isn't one. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the external links. In my view as an editor of animal behaviour content, they benefit the encyclopaedia. Guy, this really is not a good idea considering ArbCom.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And painting yourself as a neutral arbiter is a good idea? Feel free never to post here ever again. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, there was an editorial board when the documentaries were produced, and every bit of that information was reviewed by renowned biologists and academics. The credit roll on the programs confirm it. The programs were televised internationally, and in the US on PBS affiliates. The PBS documentaries also serve as WP:V the same way any information in a transcript from any other PBS program would be WP:V. The fact that the website has the informaiton available in text simply made more sense to cite the text. Your actions are unwarranted, and certainly not helpful to WP. Why don't you just go ahead and remove all the video footage from those articles, too. I really don't care anymore what you do. You've proven to me now who you really are and what your motives are, and that is a major heartbreak for me. Atsme^📞📧 21:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a closer look. Frankly, you need a new web designer. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bet they wouldn't turn down any friendly volunteers...(hint, hint). Atsme^📞📧 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, what do you think about creating a whole new media section in Wikipedia where we can upload free educational programs on encyclopedic topics? Do you think something like that would fly? Do you think it's worthy of me making a proposal to WMF? I can probably wrangle up some volunteer voice talent to read articles for us, too. It could be like a free version of Kindle, so to speak. You're the computer guy - what do you think? Would they go for it? Atsme^📞📧 22:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Wikiversity to me. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 07:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...thx for the Wikiversity info. When I said programs, I was thinking a/v media as in PBS programs, tv shows, video & DVD, not uploaded docs, pdf, and the like. Is the WP server(s) capable of streaming a lot of data, and if not, what would it require? Hopefully not a separate building. Those are some of the questions I need help with so I'll know what to include in my proposal, provided it sounds feasible. Atsme^📞📧 00:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea on that. I suspect it would be rejected as mission creep, but you'd have to ask. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably have more knowledge in these matters, but since the ArbCom case is open, do you think it would be better to mention at the case's talk page the recent spat of edit warring at glyphosate (as opposed to AN3)? I'm wondering if it's just better to lock down the page until the case is over. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Guy, I have done some major upgrading on the BLHandler. It is only difficult to test everything, so there may be some errors which may bork the system. Please do double check after using it. It should now work for both XLinkBot's revertlist as well as the Spam-blacklist, and as sources it uses WT:WPSPAM, XLinkBot revertlist requests, the Spam blacklist talk and the /Local reports generated by COIBot. Happy hunting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous! Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't saint be capitalized? Well...at least as it applies to your better half? (I hope it makes her smile when you tell her what I wrote, if you do.) While I appreciate your appreciation for humorous sarcasm, I actually do appreciate the giving of your time and steadfastness in your beliefs. Perhaps that tops the reasons for why I like you. I've always been a believer in,"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Happy editing! Atsme^📞📧 18:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a proper noun, so no. It is, however, capitalised when referring to my (very) old school. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This poll that you started is way out of process to the point of being disruptive, given that we are currently running a move request to determine if the article should be renamed. You also framed the question in a non-neutral manner. I am very concerned that you are acting in both the role of admin and editor on this topic, which is shocking considering that you are currently involved in an Arbcom case for the same inappropriate conduct (WP:INVOLVED).

Please close this new discussion that you started, and wait for the move request to conclude before start another overlapping discussion. Please don't continue to use your admin privileges on this, or any of the related articles. Thank you.- MrX 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]