User talk:JzG/Archive 10

Funny you ask! Doing good... you?

I'm writting to you from work. I just noticed my google pictures where deleted. And where removed from my article Garneau. The explanation was in the file that is now deleted. FUCK! So I'm even more pissed because now I got a re-explain. In short, there is a discrepency that exist in the google map vs another map. The rules clearly state that such a picture for territory dispute can remain under fair use. Plus it is a historical depictation of the error that existed at the time in the google map. Now the ass deleted the picture and removed it from the article. Try to delete another one. He hasn't giving me anywarning's on my page I figured it out later. He is also claiming that this is Original research and that the entire section called mapping and charting has nothing to do with the article ... FUCK! Next thing you know we won't be able to even say that the White House is located in Washington... here and here... but that another map says it is here and here. What kind of stupidity is this. Can you help me by saying this a little nicer to the user that is almost vandalizing wikipedia. (it can be found here) Thanks. (Deep breath breath out) Asides from that. Yah! Doing cool had lots of fun playing a couple tunes at the military base here in Ottawa. And having a blast with my new job! I hope all is well with you. Oh! I hope you had a good Easter... and perhaps your new experiences will lead you towards an exciting and reguvanating experience. Best wishes. Talk to you later my british friend. (sorry about the language but yah! I've learnt that if I don't let it out I will get sick and stressed... one reason I stayed away from wiki for a while. No matter the case... If worse come to worse we can alway re-upload the picture.) Cheers. Your honest opinion is greatly appreciated. I hope the familly and all is good, Oh! I've also been busy riding my power-assisted bicycle! --CyclePat 00:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a good collaborative relationship with the above user. I'd love it if you could take this one. Jkelly 22:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

There are three images in question. One Google Maps image was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 April 12, along with a bunch of other Google Maps images as part of a cleanup effort to remove Google Maps images not used in the article about Google Maps. I closed that day's IfD. CylcePat objected to the image's deletion, but the argument against deletion seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use, so I deleted the image along with the others. When I went to the article to remove the image syntax before deletion, I found a second unfree sattelite image there and an image from a school yearbook that claimed to be licensed under the GFDL, plus an entire section on the problems with online mapping software vis a vis getting the school's location right. I edited out the other images, orphaning them, and the section, which struck me as out of place. My understanding is that CyclePat disagrees strongly with my editing of that article (and probably my call on how to close the IfD nomination) and reverted me. I wouldn't have noticed that the images and section were replaced into the article if it hadn't been brought up at WP:AN/I. I reverted CyclePat's revert of me, and left some further explanation at Talk:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. I think that pretty much brings us to the present. I'm not particularly interested in that article, so if you're willing to work with CyclePat and other invovled editors, my suspicion is that you'll get further than any more repetition from me would. Jkelly 22:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to explain this to Pat in terms he can accept. Just zis Guy you know? 08:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
SteveBot (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

--Fasten 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

How can you be bad if you feel so good?

It's official now — you're corrupt

I've noticed you musing lately that your rogue admin status may be questioned, so I wanted to immortalize it in the edit history for time and eternity... you're out like Valerie Plume. Rollback abuse? Arbitrary blocking? POV inspired AfD closing? It's all in a day's work for you, at least according to the countless host of anon IP's and socks. Congratulations, Guy, you've received the Abusive Admin barnstar. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 10:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Johnson C. Philip

Please see: Talk:Johnson C. Philip Arbusto 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

and while you're humoring other people's requests, take a look at Special:Contributions/Howardjp, too - thanks much. Maybe I'm nuts but when someone changes the info in the Chuck Missler article to add an inaccuracy, I revert, and they revert with the edit summar "rv vandalism" I start getting a deja vu feeling, and it feels Gastrichy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

KC, there is no chance this is a Gastrich sock. This user has been very productive with the University of Maryland, College Park page. Why would Gastrich spend so much time doing that? David D. (Talk) 18:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, I'm just twitchy, sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I note this isn't the first time he's used that as an edit summary in a completely misleading way. He's also moved his talk page to User talk:Howardjp/Test Page, then blanked it, apparently in an attempt to hide the page history. SlimVirgin and Mel Etitis have both admonished him - Mel about the same "rv vandalism" summary he used on me. He blanks his talk page every other edit... all in all, I am not impressed with this editor's behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And then there is User talk:Howardjp/Page 1, in which he calls someone an "idiot". bah. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting since with my brief overlap with him a a year ago i never noticed problems. Just goes to show you can't know an editor based on one page for the good or bad. David D. (Talk) 21:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He seems knowledgable, but uncivil and hasty. The article deletion was completely out of process; his characterization of edits with which he disagrees as vandalism is problematic, to say the least, and he has a history of being arrogant and dismissive of others. I'm not saying he has not made valuable edits, but I see issues with his interactions with others (and not just me.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

More unaccredited and online school fun. Tooling University has many google hits. Worth keeping? Arbusto 01:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich socks

• Keith_Hernandez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) messing with the voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Christian Apologetics.
• Bickerstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first and only edit ever made done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepticwiki.
• May 4th Holy_Cows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skepticwiki.

It may make sense to checkuser the last two since the AfD for Skepticwiki looks like it is going to be close. JoshuaZ 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Antonella Gambotto-Burke

Hi, Thanks for the cleanup you're doing on this spam. Dlyons493 12:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not doing much, but it does seem to be a classic case of astroturfing. Just zis Guy you know? 12:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RfD

No problem. I hadn't done it before and it was too tempting not to have a go :-) —Whouk (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Protologism

JzG, might as well ask you the difference between a protologism and a neologism for my edification. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A neologism is a recently-coined term which is in widespread informal use; a protologism is a term someone has coined and is trying to make popular, for example by adding it to Wikipedia, often as a form of vanity. Or so I understand it, anyway. Just zis Guy you know? 14:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Webcomiccruft

I noticed you've been recommending to "Delete all webcomics not syndicated in non-trivial treeware" when they're nominated for deletion. I've generally agreed on the articles in question, since it's only the generally crappy webcomics that get nominated; but do you mean that literally? There are some webcomics which are demonstrably notable, yet for various reasons can't be picked up for regular print distribution, much less syndicated. Diesel Sweeties, for example, has been held up by the art world as a prime example of Reconstructivism, but its pixel-art nature makes it inappropriate for newsprint. Some popular webcomics have been collected into print books sold at mainstream bookstores, such as Toothpaste for Dinner. Others like PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi just aren't in a "gag-a-day" format and would be comic books or graphic novels if printed, rather than comic strips.

The biggest problem with depending on syndication is that the webcomics that do make the jump to print are often the least notable in the realm of webcomics, because they have to stick to the demands of printed comics. Even underground comix, unrestricted in content, must generally stick to three-panel format, simple monochrome line drawings.

Most webcomics are crap - they're webcomics because they're just not very good. But some are only webcomics because they appeal to a limited audience, or because they shun the limitations of print. It can be difficult to gauge their notability, just like any other work created by living artists, in particular because most webcomics are non-commercial. But measuring their notability on the same criteria as a print comic strip would be remarkably short-sighted for a web-based encyclopedia which prides itself on being not paper. AKADriver 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not literally - but pretty close, actually. It is trivially easy to geta webcomic published and quite hard to prove how genuinely popular it is. So if it has a top ten thousand Alexa rank, huge numbers of inbound links and multiple mentions in the mainstream press then for sure it's notable even if not syndicated. As you say, most webcomics would be published elsewhere if they had the chance. Just zis Guy you know? 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Shared space

Thanks for the message. I responded to it. -De Facto 11:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverend and The Makers

Please stop deleting this page. Reverend and the Makers are an up and coming British band, gaining quite some notoriety in the British music press and in online forums. Surely the very fact that the page has been recreated so many times is testement to their popularity?

Regarding Wikipedia's WP:NMG page - it states that; "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" - Reverend and the Makers have achieved the following criteria:

"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country[1], reported in notable and verifiable sources." - they have toured nationally for years, and have recently been touring with Arctic Monkeys.

"Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...)." - a number of interviews with the band can be found online and in music publications.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - the band are a major proponent of what the NME call the 'New Yorkshire' scene - indeed, Wikipedia even has a New Yorkshire page, on which the Makers are already listed.

"Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show." - Their track, 'Heavyweight Champion of the World', is used by Sky TV's Soccer AM program when highlights of previous matches are shown.

Do you not think this is justifiable enough? They meet not 1, but 4 of Wikipedia's own criteria for inclusion.

Captmonkey

First of all, "up and coming" equals "not there yet" - i.e. non-notable per WP:NMG. Secondly, there was no evidence supporting WP:NMG in the article. It has been identified as non-notable by two editors and deleted, after review, by three separate admins. But you can take it to deletion review if you feel that the band meets the guidelines. Just zis Guy you know? 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please visit WP:DRV, where I copied the above request for undeletion. --Rob 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Itiva

How do I nominate this for deletion? Stephen B Streater 18:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you go to WP:AFD you'll see a section "how to list articles for deletion". Follow the steps one by one. Top Tips: cite the policies and guidelines which are violated (I have removed the more blatant spam; see WP:CORP and see if they meet the guidelines). Non-notable companies are unverifiable (WP:V) from neutral reliable sources (WP:RS). I think you're familiar enough with these. Let me know if you need more info. Just zis Guy you know? 10:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater 11:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they said they had a show coming up this weekend. I'll give them a chance to get some press. Stephen B Streater 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've listed this for deletion. Stephen B Streater 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

new french horn and related entries from australia

hi

thanks for your note re removing a couple of my entries. i understand, but was trying to cover the three players who are performing with barry tuckwell this year - it's a big thing here is oz, for barry hasn't been on concert stage since 1997 and he has never, as we heard after the concert last sunday afternoon, performed works for horn ensembles - only solos!

i'd love to speak to you on your talk page if you can just tell me how i do so - sorry!

best wishes,

gary (melbourne; nawlins@bigpond.com)

I think he might have performed ensemble pieces with the IHS or BHS, but don't know for sure. Yes, it's a big deal. But these guys are still students, and if you look at the Gold Medal board at the Guildhall you'll see that past winners include the glitterati (Terfel, Du Pre etc.) and many who I have never heard of at all, despite being an avid CD buyer and listening almost exclusively to classical music radio (BBC Radio 3). Barry Tuckwell is a really nice guy, I hope you all had a chance to chat with him :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow you met Barry Tuckwell? No crap! I was a french horn player at Dreyfoos School of the Arts...I was really good too, I got a full scholarship to Oberlin conservatory, I'd done concerts with the Florida Phil, and the Israeli Chamber Orchestra, was conducted in a solo piece by Michael Kamen etc....then I got in a freakin car wreck my senior year of high school, while wearing braces, and sliced my upper lip muscles to shreds. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed, I even offered to lend him a hat when his went missing temporarily :-) Also Peter Damm, Frank Lloyd and many other horn players, at the British Horn Sopciety's festivals. It is my experience that the horn world has no prima donnas, a view solidly reinforced by Tuckwell's correction of the English pronunciation of Neighbours... And I've also met one or two other notable musicians (Yehudi Menuhin, Evelyn Glennie, Ton Koopman, Peter Hurford, Richard Stilgoe, Jake Thackray, Thomas Trotter, Claudio Arrau and dozens of others) - I used to help out at a music festival. Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just zis RFA thanks

Just zis RFA thanks for your words of encouragement and support. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam to multiple users (13 of them)

Hi. From comments on Sam Spade's RfC, I got the impression that quite a few users, including you, were in favor of an RFAr on Sam, though no one liked, or perhaps had the time, to be the one to post it. If I were to start a request on the RFAr page, would you be interested in signing as an involved party, and/or write a short statement there? I'm asking because if people have lost interest, there's obviously not much point in my doing it; it would merely distress and aggravate Sam unproductively, which I've certainly no wish to do. I wouldn't supply any examples of my own, as I haven't edited any of "Sam's articles" for a long time (couldn't stand it, that's why I stopped), but would basically simply refer to the RfC. It seems to me that anybody who wanted to endorse such an RFAr could more or less do the same, as the RfC is so complete. It's full of evidence, and its talkpage gives a view of Sam's attitude. I believe that it's important for the encyclopedia and the community that the old dog should learn new tricks, but please don't think I want to put the least pressure on you or anybody else to take part in an RFAr if you'd rather not. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

Hi

I saw you on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/FloNight |RfA]] page of FloNight and felt like saying you a big and nice hello. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 16:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Hello JUSTZISGUYYOU,KNOW?!!!!! AS YOU CAN TELL, I AM IN LOVE WITH YOUR USER NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyway, I'm sorry about my edits to the Falkland Islands article--I just read the discussion page and realized the angst that went into just getting that one sentence, and now that I know the page's "history", I am a little more inclined to leave it as is. As you can probably tell from my user name, I have a bit of an interest in that region of the world, but somehow managed to escape coming across the article until now--from my personal experience, "Falkland" is far more common than Malvinas, but then again, I think that fact is evident in the title of the article itself! Once again, I am sorry for my silly edit and I look forward to getting to be friends with you on wikipedia! Enjoy the lovely spring day! Stanley011 20:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry too much, it's not the first time someone has waded in to try to help and ended up poking a hornet's nest :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles and copyrights

Please visit the talk and through in your two cents. User is claiming copyright violation to get criticism removed. He does not assert to be the copyright owner nor does he have proof that it is a copyright violation. Arbusto 03:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[1] Arbusto 04:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The MP3 files discussed should not be linked per WP:EL. A TV report which is atributed is perfectly valid, whether or not it is hosted in violation of copyright; it's the fact of its being said which makes it valid. Just zis Guy you know? 08:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA nomination

The Agapetos arbitration just closed, so if you want to do a joint nom with Ikiroid go ahead (assuming its ok with Ikiroid, since he got first dibs). Thanks. JoshuaZ 18:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, how do you want to go about this co-nom? Should I create the nomination, and then you can add your own below it, or would you like me to copy one that you wrote into the nomination next to mine?--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 20:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You create it and let me know here, I'll be along to endorse. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's done.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cosmic Link

Hey JzG! Not sure what the link is between Kent Hovind & Cycling but I look forward to working with you on both topics :) Thanks for your comments on the Hovind Talk Page. Have joined WikiProject Cyling as well. Cheers PappaG 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Game

Please read the meme article. Calling The Game a meme is completely redundant. If your still not clear, read my last comment to the The name of "The Game" section on the talk page. As for The Game being a game, this seems clear to me, but before you explain to us why you think its not a game, please read the archived discussions where I have spent hours discounting a number of supposed reasons. The strategy section is based on sourced information. Kernow 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Caveat: The meme article is in terrible shape, and I intend to do a massive clean up of it soon, but it should give the basic idea of what Kernow is talking about. JoshuaZ 23:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So which verifiable, reliable, secondary sources is the Strategy section taken from? Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

An article in De Morgan, a major Belgian newspaper. Kernow 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I know De Morgen well enough (I've read it, in my halting Flemish) but I don't recall the references to strategy from the extract of the article I saw. Just zis Guy you know? 12:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Page: David Quinn ( concept artist)

I just recently had a page I created be deleted, for David Quinn does not have significance, and it was moved to my user page. I wasnt trying to do that at all, I was wanting to showcase David, and what he has done so far. I noticed under this David Quinn, there is a bird artist, which doesnt have significance any more then the concept artist, yet he has a full page up. So, is there a way you can make it a stub so it will be a real page, and not my user page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raverunner (talk • contribs) 10:52, May 2, 2006.

Wonks

"05:19, 2 May 2006 JzG (→Comparing and reconciling the two - Good changes, I'm guessing by Rob.)" Oh, that cut to the quick. All you had to do was look at the history, or the talk, where I said I did them. You were trying to get a rise out of me, weren't you! Well you won't... I'm used to your abuse and on to your plans... Just you wait till I'm an admin, I think you'll be in my first wheel war. Snicker. ++Lar: t/c 13:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, sorry (shuffles feet) Just zis Guy you know? 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

ScientologY

You probably did this already, but you might want to check the history of ScientologY. The nominator seemed to think that it existed for the benefit of accidental miscapitalizers, but I think it's much more likely to be the original title of the Scientology article from way, way back when all article titles had to be CamelCase. As such, it might potentially have important history that has to be kept in order to comply with the GFDL. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are only two ancient versions there. They may be significant, but I don't really think so. Thanks, though, I will check more carefully in future. Just zis Guy you know? 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

SNICKER CHORTLE!

Hi guy..... Thought I would toss you a funny.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dominick

I am a linkspammer now, talk about sour grapes. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Canbourne University: Deceit and the AfD

The nominator Dinossauro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) purposely changed the spelling of this degree mill from Canbourne University to Cambourme University[2]. Arbusto 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The moved talkpage was meanwhile speedy-tagged by someone as a talkpage without an article (which in itself is not a good reason to delete something, in my view). Guy, maybe you could use your awesome admin powers to restore the talkpage or merge the history. And please block the vandal in question; he will never do anything useful here. Uppland 06:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sbekele

Why did you remove the speedy tag? Whether or not it is in user space, it is "a blatant copyright infringement from the website of a commercial content provider". --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 11:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It looked like a userfied copy of his own copy-paste of his own website; I see no evidence that his company are engaged in making money from their biography of their CEO. It's vanity, but it's not a CSD copyvio, especially since it's in user space. Just zis Guy you know? 11:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What is SPAM and what not?

I would like to know the criterion for considering a contribution in the list of commercial applications in List of collaborative software as SPAM. Maybe anonymous contributions are systematically treated as SPAM and deleted? Thanks a lot. Javier Herrero —18:46, May 3, 2006 (CET).

Any application which does not have its own article in Wikipedia should not be added to the list. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of external links. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

But just writing a stub article about the software won't suffice either--the software needs to be genuinely notable to have an article here; see, I guess, WP:WEB and WP:CORP? (Guy, hope you don't mind my weighing in on your page.) · rodii · 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And don't try writing an article about your own software. Wait for someone else to. WP is about patience and impartiality rather than news. There's plenty to fix up while you wait. Stephen B Streater 22:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jack Hyles

The note that Hyles-Anderson is unaccredited keeps getting removed. The seeing eye dog article keeps getting removed. And an argument over books cited has led to certain books getting removed. Someone cited by major newspapers who wrote a book is getting removed. Some very unfriendly words have been writen ("If you are really are stupid or lack common sense in then I am deeply sorry."[3] and others). Arbusto 08:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Accreditation status of HAC belongs at HAC, seeing-eye dog belongs at FBC, but the publishd criticisms belong in Hyles and should stay there. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the story on this[4]? Arbusto 08:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing[5] removing entire descriptive quotes in newspapers made by the article's subject. Arbusto 09:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you or another adminstrator step in and do something about the gross POV. Please see my comments/evidence of voting recruiting at Talk:First Baptist Church of Hammond and my comments/evidence on massive uncommented deletions at Talk:Jack Hyles. Arbusto 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing unaccredited on a separate article here[6]. Arbusto 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User removed "an unaccredited institution" and replaced it with "a bible college" and didn't mention it on the summary.[7] Arbusto 18:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Unaccredited removed by an anon.[8]. Arbusto 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess Vivaldi's promise to stop removing unaccredited was false. Unaccredited removed by Vivaldi[9] Arbusto 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

After I reverted the last deletion the user removed it again.[10] Also this user is quoting full paragraphs of Hyle's POV for each mention[11] for the allegation, while downplaying others, such as the request for a church member to drink poison, and bolding Hyles' POV parts that contradict other news articles(see: open ended investigation).Arbusto 04:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed again[12]. Arbusto 03:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Teacup template on Traditionalist Catholic

Perhaps not everyone likes tea! How divisive, you either have authority or you don't. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point - but the image says it's a coffee cup :o) Just zis Guy you know? 14:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wearing it proudly

I am delighted to wear that cat. It's much better with my rouge than the pleather I had worn. Geogre 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wear it with pride: the eponymous Geogre's Law qualifies you immediately even if you hadn't uploaded the cabal's banner :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I now have seven laws. My favorite is "Anyone who thinks that advertising on Wikipedia is a good idea is already failing at business, art, and life." Geogre 18:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Article

I was just wondering why you deleted the article Tuatafu Hori. I saw that you believe that it is a hoax, however the original author offered The Changing Cultures of the Oceanic Peoples in the Nineteenth Century as a source, which is a book which is catalogued on WorldCat, something which the author of the article couldn't have faked. Unfortunately since the book is in only a couple libraries I can't verify what's in it, but it seems likely that this is simply an obscure figure from an obscure place, which doesn't have much of an internet presence yet. However, in the interests of fighting systemic bias, since we seem to have an article on tons of very minor nobility, and there seems to be consensus to keep these, it seems only fair that the article stay. To sum up, it has a source, the AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuatafa Hori) was withdrawn (by myself), and yes it's obscure, but probably not actually a hoax. I just want to say that I respect you a lot as an editor on this site, and just don't know if you were aware of the AfD, or have other reasons to believe this is a hoax. Cheers, Mak (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigave National Association, Aimo Fontenot and Tuatafa Hori (and I think some others) all emanated from a GeoCities site; some detective work by RasputinAXP found proof that it was a hoax. All were deleted, Tutafa Hori after a trip to WP:DRV which is where the hoax evidence was presented, see this version: [13]. Tutafa Hori was reposted today, so I deleted it. Just zis Guy you know? 23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you. I've been away for a bit, so I wasn't keeping up on it. Mak (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, just to be clear, I was taking the actual book as a source, not the Geocities page. I was attempting to AGF, especially since I actually use book sources which most people would be unable to get. Cheers, Mak (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Neighbourly spam

After seeing that you are signed up at the Spam project, I was wondering if you could give me a second opinion on the edits of BexTech. The removal of the links to the game show site are cut-and-dried by WP:EL, but I've provoked a reaction by removing the articles to the community site they own [14] (I guess its their own by the contacts page. It's a nice little non-commercial site, but there is a thousand more like it, and I find these tend to be fairly ill-maintained and ultimately add little to the content - any thoughts?

There is a wider issue here - most of the external links I have seen added recently are to similar non-official "community sites" with a small irregular news feed, a list of parish council phone numbers, a sparsely populated forum and pages of advertisements for local companies. Although vaguely useful, I think their inclusion in the links section is more important to the websites themselves than to the Wikipedia article. Do you think it's worth having an explicit mention of these in either WP:EL or WP:SPAM? Aquilina 11:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. BexTech clearly owns these sites, and therefore should not be adding them anywhere. The "south east Birmingham network" looks like a one-man band, has no evident status as a community website, appears to be mainly designed for advertising (numerous contact details on the home page etc.) and in any case adds nothing to the articles - the Yardley community forum linked on Yardley is so mcuh better that it pretty much makes that case on its own. I havew warned BexTech (talk · contribs), please let me know if you see repeat behaviour anywhere else. Just zis Guy you know? 13:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your action on the first case. The other set of link-spamming which I find the most prevalent is links to photo and image directories for towns. Generally I have left these in place according to the guidline that the material they contain could not be added into the article. However, contributions like this Devon spam seem to run well against the spirit of the maxim that Wikipedia is not a link-farm. I would revert these changes myself, but it's a borderline case, and should you think it necessary your admin-mop would do the job in about a twelfth of the time it would take me. Thanks for your time, Aquilina 17:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A pound says that's the webmaster of the site. I have removed them; if they are his pictures he can upload them to Commons, WP:NOT for boosting your search ranking. Just zis Guy you know? 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I raise you two pounds! Again, thanks for the quick action. I'll bear that in mind next time I see something similar. I've been a bit more cautious recently after a few webmasters have complained to me after I removed their links, but it looks like I'm acting with consensus. I think I'll start seeing if i can lend a hand over at the wikiproject... Aquilina 17:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Webmasters should never add their own sites, in my view. Especially not to multiple articles. My opinion of linkspammers is slightly lower than my opinion of sock-farming POV pushers - somewhere between white supremacists and used car salesmen. Just zis Guy you know? 17:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde new RfC

Your wrote there "213.140.56.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for repeated vandalism and sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry I'd have to look into, but the vandalism was persistent and undoubtedly warranted a block. I found no good-faith edits in a sample review of this user's contributions. 213.140.56.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has an identical edit pattern including the same articles and may safely be treated as the same vandal." Was the second vandal supposed to be a different one? The two you listed have the same IP address. JoshuaZ 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Should be *.4, fixed now. Just zis Guy you know? 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley

I am curious as to your opinion of his efforts to delete 16 of the pages I have made. A few times may be excusable but 16 or so? Surely he is assuming bad faith on my part? john 17:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Which ones? I have seen a few, such as Alan Cantwell, which were definitely dubious - pretty much his entire work, apart from some apparently run-of-the-mill papers early in his career, is self-published or published in a magazine specialising in crackpot theories. He's a crackpot, right enough, but it's debatable whether he's a notable one. Were they all of the same character? Just zis Guy you know? 18:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV on him, which is similar to Midgley's. john 21:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that is the appropriate view - WP:NPOV requires that, on balance, we reflect the dominant informed view. The fact that most of his stuff is self-published or published in a crank magazine is not POV at all, of course, it's documented fact. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Horatio Huxham

Hi,

I have formally apologized for the bad grammar and content of the Horatio Huxham "super hero page" :( - That really suck!!

Could I please lean on your experience and expertise in changing this site? I do not want to be seen as a hacker or someone that is a glory hound. I am a security architect and have devoted my every waking moment to making a difference in the information security industry.

I will owe you one ...

Horatio

Camberwell High Liberal Club

Thanks for closing the debate as was and userfying the content. I had hoped that the relevant editors of the page would not abuse this privilege. It appears that I was wrong. Another major editor to the page recreated the content using the userfied page. It is now up for speedy deletion again. Ansell 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuked again. Just zis Guy you know? 14:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your nomination of my RfA

Thanks for co-noming my RfA. Apparently people respect your opinions a lot and I doubt that the RfA would have been as succesful without your nomination. Again, thanks. JoshuaZ 14:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

De nada. I'm not sure my opinons are influential, but I'm happy to support you, I think you will be a good admin. Your patience with the POV pushers is impressive. Just zis Guy you know? 14:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Circle hand game. Since you've commented extensively on issues such as The Game (game) and List of school pranks, I thought you may be interested in watching this for similar problems. Brian G. Crawford 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Powell

I'm no expert in this field, but is this guy notable. He seems similar to some of the Gastrich-cruft that was deleted in January/Frebruary. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont mean to interupt, I just happened to be watching this page due to a comment yesterday... But if he really is the author of 36 books, and has held the positions at Baylor, a prominent christian university... then he seems to be notable enough for WP. Just my $0.02 Ansell 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll never get rid of tat article anyway, the fact that the bar to publishing a Christian text is much lower than for, say, a novel, is not widely appreciated, so being published (even in some cases self-published) is taken as equating to notability. I found it hard to verify some of the content; it woudl be better to work away at pruning out the original research. Just zis Guy you know? 10:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He's notable enough. He made headlines for expelling a gay student from his conservative college. Arbusto 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate abuse

Hi Guy! I have closed this debate as a "delete and redirect". Just want to know if a redirect there is OK with you. My "official" reason for placing the redirect can be that it might be a useful search term and that it will be much more useful than a {{deletedpage}} box. The "unofficial" reason is that I have better things to spend my time on than run through and unlink everything which linked to that page... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good call. Just zis Guy you know? 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic

JzG, you violated the results of your own RFC by ignoring the results that went against what you wanted. Now you are trying to change something in the Traditionalist Catholic article that was the approved status quo before the current discussion. You have the nerve to say I am breaking a rule by reverting YOUR violation?? (Diligens 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

False. There is no "result" yet, and the only people supporting small-t traditional (as opposed to capital T Traditional and traditionalist) are you and a "brand new user", who apparently used to be anonymous. Just zis Guy you know? 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ON the contrary. YOU have violated the rule that what is status quo and approved BEFORE a controversy, stays. You violated that repetedly after I reverted your violation. I didn't say there was a final result to the controversy. But there is a final result to the one RFC you sent in. No, I never used to be anyone else on WP. No one has addressed loads of my arguments. My arguments stand unless addressed and refuted. I mere "I don't want it" is not good enough. (Diligens 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

You are suffering from a bad case of MPOV, as evidence the statement that, in effect, "what I say goes unless you can refute it to my satisfaction" - with your satisfaction being measured, according to the evidence, by agreeing with you. Just zis Guy you know? 20:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts on Traditionalist Catholic

Do you intend to file a 3RR report? Dominick ^(TALK) 18:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Diligens. Five reverts plus talk page whitewasing. Reported at WP:AN/I. Just zis Guy you know? 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

IP

Check my IP adress i am from the netherlands, i doubt i would fly all the way to the states to use on of the local net adresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cro..Scream (talk • contribs)

Return of User:Irate

Hi. Today we have had a number of incidents on UK articles, most likely caused by socks of User:Irate - I've left a notice at AN/I, and as you have previous contact with this user you may wish to leave a comment there. Thanks for your time, Aquilina 14:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Aaron Donahue

Good morning. You recently struck through some votes cast by suspiciously new users. I have reversed the strike-through. We have learned the hard way that actually marking up the comment just earns us a raft of unwarranted and pointless accusations of "censorship". It is perceived as a very hostile action. Your comments about the users' contribution histories are sufficient. When we close that particular debate, I am confident that those opinions will be weighted appropriately.

(It's also a pet peeve of mine when it disrupts the bulletted indentation pattern that we are supposed to be using in deletion discussions. Trivial, I know, but something that irks me enough that I have to fix it when I see it. I really should get a life someday.) Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

These four users are indef-blocked as socks. I see no reason not to note that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tooling University cleanup

What do you think needs cleanup on Tooling University? You marked it for cleanup, but didn't put any reason for doing so on the talk page. It seems to have all the basics. The advertising has been removed. The info box and categories are in. What's the problem? --John Nagle 19:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it in a decent-sized browser window, the images overlap the section breaks for a start. It';s also written like an advert. And somebody had forgotten to note that it was unaccredited. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's been noted as unaccredited since 5 May. It's far less like an ad than it used to be; look at the history. The image placement problem is annoying, but someone else has tried to fix that. We're getting there. --John Nagle 02:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It was missing from the lead when I came to it - I used {{unaccredited}} (which has an agreed form of words). Yes it is improving; I tagged it cleanup not NPOV :-) Just zis Guy you know? 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Closing withdrawn AFD

I did not know that a non-admin could close a withdrawn nomination. Thanks for the heads-up! -Hit bull, win steak 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A non-admin can close any AfD. If a deletion is required, they can ttag the article {{delete}} citing the AfD. It's only convention that an admin closes AfDs. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Donahue spam

Hi Guy--Not sure what to think about this so I thought I'd pass it by you. An anon, User:68.60.86.204 has been adding links to Aaron Donahue at lots of pages--see his contribs. The IP is in Michigan (as am I) and I suspect it's one of the Donahues at work. But that's OK--it's the amount of linkage on unrelated pages like Hopi or Genius, either to Aaron Donahue or external links to his essays that concerns me. What do you think? · rodii · 00:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Cro..Scream forgot to log in :-) Just zis Guy you know? 06:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Cro..Scream is inthe Netherlands and James Donahue, at least, is in Michigan, so I think it's James anonymously spamming WP about his "prophet" son. This whole thing is so wild--to think that people take it seriously. · rodii · 14:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Several proven socks per WP:RFCU. I am getting a bit sick of sock-farming POV pushers. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Blümchen YTMND section

i saw you removed the YTMND section from the Blümchen article, i reverted that. this section has been added and removed a few times in the past and i made a remark about it on the talk page with the request to please state a reason why it should be removed or added if one feels such. my opinion is that as it is a fact the song is used on several of such pages on YTMND and i saw people state they knew the song from there it feels like it should be part of the Blümchen article. Boneyard 14:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

id like to add to say that this has nothing to do with me personal, i don't have an YTMND sites or such. i just saw the section getting added and removed several times in the past and figured it would be wise to come to an agreement on it. i still feel the fact that the song is used on a group of similar pages there and the fact people have stated they know blumchen from there seems a valid reason to have that mentioned on the article on her. Boneyard 14:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

YTMNDers get kudos for the number of hits they receive, with the result that they routinely spam Wikipedia articles. YTMND is notable, individual YTMNDs are not - and WP:NOT their playground. I freely admit that they piss me off quite a bit, though... Just zis Guy you know? 14:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

but why not then keep the section and remove the link the individual one. i didn't notice someone slipped one in again. my part was the global one describing a group of such YTMND pages. again the thing im trying to add to the article is the fact her song heut ist mein tag is used in a group of YTMND pages, this can be done without causing extra hits for certain people in my opinion. Boneyard 15:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

School Prank

Check out the edits on the school prank page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=School_prank&diff=52758941&oldid=52754239 - someone added in all the 'old', unsourced etc. pranks. You'll probably want to remove this, I'd guess. Andymc 17:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Place names considered unusual

I was really surprised to see that you reverted the link. (I've since corrected it to the version given at the discussion page.) I agree that Wikipedia has rules about sources and references which should be kept, but it's also out of question that valuable content must not be lost. If you add the template "citation needed" to a text where citation is needed, that's correct, but if you delete a text (without a trace!) under the pretext that citation is needed – it's unjustified, unreasonable and highly unusual. I've been around Wikipedia for more than two years, I presently have about 1400 articles on my watchlist and I've read thousands more but I've never ever seen anything like that – or if I did, it was soon discovered and restored as a kind of vandalism. Needless to say: please don't do that. Thank you. Adam78 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It places a load on the servers to display content which was considered unencyclopaedic. Why include it? Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see the two problems:

• "It places a load on the servers": I accept it, but deletion is not the usual solution for that, see Wikipedia:Article size. I wonder if it even hints at deletion as a solution, instead of splitting the article.
• "It was considered unencyclopaedic": Are you sure that all the hundreds of articles listed among Unusual articles are more encyclopaedic? On the other hand: can you refer to an exact place at the page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which would exclude this specific article?

It's so easy to get rid of the bath water (as the saying has it) but I'm not convinced that the baby is saved.

Adam78 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the consensus which you referred to in your revert? [15] I've looked through the discussion page but I only found contradicting opinions, instead of consensus. Adam78 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Two levels of consensus: first, per policy, all content must be verifiable from reliable sources - to point to a prior version precisely because it has content which was not. Second, this specific case it has been debated at length (there are related deletion debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names considered unusual) and consensus was reached that we should include only cited and verifiable content, not names which one person once thought was unusual, or which is not considered unusual unless you are a sophomore speaking another language. So the link to the uncited version amounts to a POV fork against consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. OK, in that case you could have deleted the names which are not verifiable – but apparently far more could have been verified than was eventually left in the article. Its content could have been sorted out by the criteria which make them "unusual". The reasons why people find something unusual could have been sections of the article or separate articles. This could have also solved the problem of length, eg creating articles like "Place names with offensive or embarrassing content", "Place names referring to contradicting concepts", "Place names recalling household items", "Place names consisting of numbers", "Place names longer than thirty letters" (cf List of places with fewer than ten residents) etc. There is plenty of room for them in Wikipedia. But deletion of them still seems to me like a short-sighted decision. There are thousands of articles which need more work (doing cleanup, adding references or whatever) but people don't normally delete them because they need more work. It's not how things are usually settled in Wikipedia. – And as a matter of fact, the page of the latest discussion says its result was "no consensus", rather than consensus. Adam78 20:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete the article, but a definite expression that it should be kept only if cited and verifiable (which is hardly a surprise, since WP:V is a core policy). So to link to a version which violates policy is simply wrong. If there are additional names which can be shown from reliable sources as being considered objectively unusual by linguistic and geographical authorities (i.e. not just inducing sniggers in the Beavis and Butthead fraternity) then you can add them, with appropriate citations. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And what about this part of my message:

Its content could have been sorted out by the criteria which make them "unusual". The reasons why people find something unusual could have been sections of the article or separate articles. This could have also solved the problem of length, eg creating articles like "Place names with offensive or embarrassing content", "Place names referring to contradicting concepts", "Place names recalling household items", "Place names consisting of numbers", "Place names longer than thirty letters" (cf List of places with fewer than ten residents) etc. There is plenty of room for them in Wikipedia.

"So to link to a version which violates policy is simply wrong."

I agree, but I believe that deleting content instead of correcting it (or letting it get corrected) is even worse. It's certainly not a policy of Wikipedia.

The problem is the indiscriminate nature of the deletion that happened. Not all deleted place names were like "inducing sniggers in the Beavis and Butthead fraternity".

09:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So feel free to re-insert any for whihc you have verifiable evidence that they are considered unusual according to reliable secondary sources. The ones which were removed were removed because they were uncited - that is not indiscriminate at all. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you require criteria not for being "unusual" but for belonging in a category like those I mentioned ("Place names with offensive or embarrassing content", "Place names referring to contradicting concepts", "Place names recalling household items", "Place names consisting of numbers", "Place names longer than thirty letters" etc), it'll become much more obvious and you'll hardly need any sources. I suppose you wouldn't oppose if anyone were to create articles like those, would you? Adam78 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What's "offensive or embarrassing content" for you probably isn't for me - it's POV. Building up lists based on ideas like that is original research too. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia - references are essential/wangi 10:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at it now and you'll see what I mean. We need (a) a reason why it is interesting (rather than just smutty or perplexing to an Anglophone) and (b) a cited source which supports that interpretation, and asserts that the name itself is interesting. Fucking qualifies (just) because it has achieved local notoriety for theft of road signs by Anglophones; Llanfair and Zzyxz are clearly interesting for the reasons stated. This is an encyclopaedia, so let's have an article on the subject of curious place names and how they come about which is genuinely informative. If you are after a list of names which mean rude things in other languages perhaps Wikitravel would be a better venue, I don't think there's any reason the old list could not be taken there. Just zis Guy you know? 10:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• (a) a reason why it is interesting (rather than just smutty or perplexing to an Anglophone) – Exactly that's what I wrote above. (Please let me not copy it here for the fourth time.) I listed possible article names which explicitly define the reason (whether they are considered interesting or not by a certain POV).
• (b) a cited source which supports that interpretation, and asserts that the name itself is interesting. Let me emphasize: I don't speak about being "interesting" or "unusual" any more. I speak about other, more specific criteria which I mentioned above. And they don't need any source for the interpretation because if anyone doesn't believe that eg "Toaster" means a household thing (if it's listed in the article "Place names recalling household items") then they can feel free to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster. You can also look up OED or MW to check whether "f*cking" is offensive or not: you'll find an explicit label about the word. – Note that the scope of the article is considerably narrowed and the interpretation becomes unambiguous.

My question remains the same: I suppose you wouldn't oppose if anyone were to create articles like those, would you? (What you wrote actually seems to affirm that there would be no problem with them whatsoever.)

Adam78 11:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point a bit: whether they are considered unusual or not by a certain POV is remedied by introducing citations for them being authoritatively stated as unusual by some reliable source. As to articles on smutty names, ones suggesting household appliances and such, I would vote Delete as listcruft if they were brought to AfD because WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. An article on names considered offensive in other languages would for me be sophomoric and unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy you know? 11:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is the major difference between the above suggestions and the existing article List of places with fewer than ten residents? What makes the further ones "indiscriminate collections of information" while the latter article is a lawful part of Wikipedia? (I could mention hundreds of other ones which may be interesting for a minority of people, yet they are not considered "an indiscriminate collection of information".) Adam78 12:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Places which are listed in a national census but which now have a population of under ten people would seem to be of some objective merit, in a way that "list of place names which make children snigger" is not. But to apply a more general principal, the existence of one bad article does not serve as precedent or justification for the existence of others. Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Calling that article "bad" is nothing but your own POV. If it's indeed bad, go and make a discussion about its deletion. If it's eventually deleted with consensus, I'll believe it's not suitable. (But if you've browsed Wikipedia to an extent, you may have seen that it has thousands of other similar articles. Maybe it'd be worth reconsidering your views about the nature of Wikipedia.)
• Nobody speaks about articles that "make children snigger" but you. It another POV to ridicule articles that are not personally appealing for you.

I really wonder if you have any NPOV reason or we can close this discussion with your consent. Adam78 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason is as follows: the maximum which can encyclopaedically be said about place names which look like a rude word in other languages is, some place names look like a rude word in other languages. In the case of unusual names, there are a variety of reasons why they are unusual. So a list of examples of place names which exemplify the already-documented fact that some places have names which are rude in other languages, would be a list for the sake of having a list (i.e. listcruft). Whether you choose to interpret that as my POV or as my interpretation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, or indeed whether there is any difference between the two, is up to you really. All you'll ever get here is my opinion, I think I make that pretty clear at the top. If you want me to say what a great idea it would be to create those articles, then you may have a very long wait. none of this changes the fact that linking to a previous version which failed numerous policies is a Very Bad Idea Indeed. Just zis Guy you know? 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at your reasoning applied to another (existing and well-established) article and you'll see how tenable it is.

• Take Extreme points of the world. The maximum which can encyclopaedically be said about extreme points of the world is some places are extreme points of the world. In the case of places of the world, there are a variety of reasons why they are unusual. So a list of examples of places which exemplify the already-documented fact that some places are extreme points of the world, would be a list for the sake of having a list (i.e. listcruft). [...] If you want me to say what a great idea it is to have those articles, then you may have a very long wait.

Do you agree with yourself? If so, why don't you vote for the deletion of that article? If not – well, that would be a sensible idea indeed. Adam78 14:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A nice example of begging the question, in that you assume that I would vote to keep extreme points of the world. I have no particular view on that right now. However, as it happens, that article includes a lot of encyclopaedic information, it includes a great deal of contextual information on the concept and history of extreme points, many different types of extreme point, reasons why they are considered extreme and so on. So it's an exceptionally poor example. It is far more than just a list of place names at which immature Anglophones snigger (huh, dude, there's this place which, like, if you close one eye and squint a bit, looks a bit like fart - how cool is that?).

I invite you to read again the part where I say that if you want me to agree what a fine idea it would be to create those liscruft articles, you will have a very long wait. Just zis Guy you know? 15:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The example may not have been the best in general, though "many different types of extreme point" sound similar to "many different types of unusual place names", whose examples I proposed. – I could have mentioned the many sublists of Lists of films, most of them not having history or geography but only links. If you look into the list, you can see that their aspects are also rather varied and diverse and many of them could raise the question of listcrufts, yet one would have a hard time trying to have them deleted.

I don't want you to agree with any kind of article; I only wanted to find a compromise which you and others wouldn't actively oppose, considering the diversity of existing articles in Wikipedia and its actual practice of treating them, independently of one's tastes and interests. So, do you have anything particular against anyone creating articles like those mentioned? Adam78 16:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that we should have an article on place names considered unusual - well lookit that! We already have one. I see no need to have more, and I especially see no need to have lists of names which look like, sound like or even are profanities in English, because that serves no discernible encyclopaedic purpose beyond what is already served by the existing article, namely to point out that such exist. Let them look up penis or breast or some such, we have plenty of real articles at which they can snigger without making up more. You may wish to interpret that as an answer: yes, I would object to the addition of what I see as gratuitous sophomoric listcruft. That is what Myspace is for. And I would also object to the re-insertion of the old uncited POV stuff. But I have nothign against expanding the current article with Real Content^TM. Just zis Guy you know? 16:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly what I asked. I can't help your quasi-obsession with profanities and/or sniggers, which you're constantly trying to slip into the discussion, but I was not speaking about them. I was speaking about a bunch of articles which include maybe five, maybe ten, maybe twenty articles, covering place names that people may find unusual, classified by the source of being unusual. (Actually, whatever list of place names could be made, as a post office directory lists them in alphabetical order, which is probably the least interesting, the least relevant of all.)

The reason why I mentioned Lists of films was that you can find lists there which can induce sniggers and you can find lists where sexuality or profanity appears but – wonder of wonders – these lists are still well and alive. Perhaps because sniggers are not the only possible objective or interpretation of these lists. And perhaps other editors are more aware that the task of a scientist (or an editor) is to collect and describe things as thoroughly as possible, independently of the matter, rather than judging them pro or contra. (By the way: did you know that there is a series of books named The History of Sexuality? You can believe it's not for sniggers, nor about profanity for its own sake. And actually it's MORE than stating that this or that existed.)

When I asked my question, I was expecting an answer reflecting NPOV, and an answer which is in accordance with the actual practice of Wikipedia. My question again: do you have anything particular (with regard to the above) against anyone creating articles like those mentioned? Adam78 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You got that the wrong way round: adolescents are obsessed with anything which sounds remotely smutty, I am obsessed with the idea that this is an encyclopaedia not a repository for things made up in school one day. As I have said before, I have never found the existence of one crap article a persuasive argument for keeping another. The nature of WP is that these things are dealt with piecemeal, and in this case an article has been reduced to what was verifiable from the cited sources. That is incontrovertibly good: uncited information is, by policy, not valid for inclusion. You got the answer I am prepared to give, namely that linking to an old and crap version of the article is a crap idea. You asked for more, and I told you that I think the suggestions for other crap articles are also crap. I think I can probably not make it any clearer than that. Just zis Guy you know? 23:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be absolutely convincing if "crap" were as clear and unambiguous for everyone as you treat it. But the fact is that other people have other ideas of "crap", and these other people may be a majority of Wikipedia, as proven by the fact that many of the "crap" articles you refer to were voted for being kept, rather than deleted, and several of those that you call "crap" weren't even put for discussion. I'm afraid that the Wikipedia community as such has a differing opinion of "crap" than you do. Remember that you're not editing your own website but you're participating in a community work.

Besides, it's not tenable to state "I have never found the existence of one crap article a persuasive argument for keeping another." I'm afraid it's nothing but ignoring the common judgement of the community and putting your own arbitrary preferences above those of the others. The existence of an article that you find crap shows that it may not be crap in the eyes of others – which means it may be a precedent for other similar articles, as opposed to what you wrote.

It's like legislation. If one person is allowed to do something, all people must be allowed to do that, and if one person is forbidden to do something, all people must be forbidden to do that. Simple, isn't it? If you don't like a law, it's not the individual cases of application where you can start the criticism, but the root, maintaining consistent treatment for all. Adam78 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

YOu want somebody else's view, go ask somebody else. You want mine, you already have it. Just zis Guy you know? 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Adam78 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Place names considered unusual

Spot on with that revert... Just imagine having a former version of the article as an external-link/reference - how daft! Thanks/wangi 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it would be a dangerous precedent, overriding consensus at some cost to the project. Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Socket puppet?

This is why you are having a flood of "socketpuppets" on the articles associated with remote viewing. I had nothing to do with that-simply notified them of the deletion. They took it from there. I'm not part of this campaign to delete everything that is against Luciferianism. However, I do not think Ed Dames is notable enough. The entry is filled with claims as was Aarons. That is not in any way, shape, or form a "grudge." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oublier (talk • contribs) 22:28, May 12, 2006.

Well someone in the Donahue camp clearly has a grudge. One important difference between the two is that the Dames article makes it plain that he is a crank, whereas the Donahue article left the reader with the misleading impression that what he claimed was in some way real or valid. Just zis Guy you know? 11:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Meta Wikimedia

All the Gastrich stuff we just went through ... well, it's about to start over. You see, he discovered he was only banned from Wikipedia, not Wikimedia. Check out His User Page. Be sure to look in the history, especially with regard to one possible sock puppet there. Look into his talk page too just for fun.

Oh, I did make a mention of this on his RfAr.Harvestdancer 01:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much harm he can do there, mind. Just zis Guy you know? 08:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

He can stump up votes for AFD on en.wiki, at least. For example, [16]. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes

I wonder if you'd consider not using symbols to label your comments on WP:AFD. It really isn't a vote, but your use of symbols might inadvertently emphasize the false impression that it is. --Tony Sidaway 23:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, that was added to jnothman's AfD helper script without notice. Several of us use it. Just zis Guy you know? 07:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Myg0t (second)

Good morning. I've reverted the strike-through you made here. We've learned the hard way that strike-throughs are perceived as extremely hostile and that they tend to earn us undeserved accusations of censorship. Better simply to note the abuse of the decision-making process in a sub-bullet (as Rory096 had already done). As you said above, it's entirely appropriate to note the abuse. It's simply a question of the mechanics of how to best note it. Thanks.

And thanks in particular for helping to keep this discussion on the straight-and-narrow. I'm afraid that it's only going to get uglier. We will need to watch the page history and the participants' contribution histories carefully. Rossami (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth. I don't much care about strikethroughs - I view them as sending the message that this kind of thing is unacceptable, especually in accounts which have already disrupted the process once before. But I don't care, really, as long as the trolls don't win. Sadly the likes of SPUI sometimes mean they do - I can't figure thatg one out. Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Remote viewing bruhaha

Revert war ahoy at Remote viewing. I would be happy to hear any suggestions you might have about how to calm this person down and get him to collaborate more. · rodii · 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Just zis Guy you know? 23:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Just zis. You wrote on my talk page: "Please note that WP:NPOV requires that we clearly identify pseudoscience as such." Ignoring the fact that the "identifying of pseudosciences" is the biggest psuedoscience that ever blighted the pursuit of knowledge, even ignoring the fact that the NPOV page says not a syllable about "identifying psuedosiences," the entire issue of pseudoscience vs. not pseudoscience is a straw man, since the pseudoscience discussion within the body of the RV article had not been altered at all by me. Not a syllable or punctuation mark. I had left it entirely intact--even though the way it was written violated NPOV. So if you have anything that's actually relevant to what has taken place over the past 24 at the Remote Viewing page, I'd welcome your input on it's discussion page. And as it stands, the "pseudoscience" reference that Rodii has repeatedly wedged into the lead for the article is an absolutely flagrant violation of NPOV, and cites not a single source. The lead I had written, and which he repeatedly has replaced, had no POV whatsoever, and merely gave a factual, fully referenced statement of the purpose and genesis of Remote Viewing. Since you clearly are of the rigid POV that you have "identified a pseudoscience," it isn't terribly surprising that you line up on the side of the pseudoscience POV lead written by Rodii, however much it violates the ruling policies of Wikipedia. Perhaps moderating itself has become a pseudoscience, but I don't have a degree in "identifying pseudosciences." Where did you get yours, by the way? Huntley Troth 01:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to cite a single person not already committed to the idea who has ever duplicated the results of the so-called experiments. Just zis Guy you know? 08:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable

Here you are, a cyclist, and probably totally unaware that nearly all competitive male cyclists shave their legs. So much for men who wear skirts, right? Never happens in your small sphere of the world, I'm sure. Take a short trip to Hawaii's North Shore, though, and you'll see plenty of men wearing sarongs. Tahiti? It's ubiquitous. Kuwait, it's a full-length dress. In Japan, the Kimono is making a comeback among both men an women. Dude, you just need to expand your understanding of fashion around the world before you slam down the DELETE! message on a topic that your might personally find unsettling. Life around the world doesn't conform to 1940's Hollywood standards, you know.

David Backham has been known to wear a skirt, too, but there is no reliable citation provided for the term "male unbifurcated garment" to describe it, wich makes it a neologism at best and quite possibly a protologism. Just zis Guy you know? 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List question

A few days ago I stumbled upon User:Mathbot, which among a few other things, appears to maintain list of mathematicians and list of mathematics articles, using the apparently especially created for that purpose list of mathematics categories. Since the lists are basically created from the categories this seems to make those lists nothing but a waste of space and effort. Before taking the drastic measure of just putting them up for Afd I wanted to ask your opinion and/or advice about this, since I've come to respect your opinion based on the comments I've seen from you on various Afds. (I'll watch this page for replies). -- Hirudo 04:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That does sound like a pointless waste of resources - you might want to ask User:Oleg Alexandrov why he does that! Just zis Guy you know? 08:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- Hirudo 14:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you speedy an uncontroversial page move?

• Hi, Guy, I saw you on the "user undeletion" willing-to-help list; I've got a different request for which I need a friendly admin's help. I meant to promote an article from a subpage of my user page into article space, but moved its discussion page instead. After moving it back and blanking the resulting redirect, the history kept me from moving the correct article there. I posted a notice Friday to the 12-May section of WP:RM, but it hasn't been touched. There is no opposition, and the only other editor who's been active wants it published ASAP. Could you help push this along so it doesn't sit there for two more days or longer? Thanks! Barno 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Just zis Guy you know? 17:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple

Could you let me know what part of the article at Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple you consider to be original research? I'm happy to trim it down to a stub and then rewrite if needed. I'm not sure when I'll get to the rewrite, but I do want to avoid a deletion. Sue Anne 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Its tone is unencyclopaedic, for a start - it reads like an essay. Do please feel free to reword it per WP:MOS and introduce the occasional source, that should be plenty enough to keep it. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading through Oklahoma, I also looked at the other temple articles written by the same editor and noticed the same problems regarding tone. Sue Anne 22:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me at all - LDS entries have a tendency to be rather effusive. A cleanup would be well worth the effort. Just zis Guy you know? 08:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ballydougan

I have rewritten this article based on What Links Here and a reference in the Northern Ireland Yearbook. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar. Just zis Guy you know? 08:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Remote Viewing Timeline

In response to your email on wikien-l, I have nominated Remote Viewing Timeline for deletion. --Philosophus ^T 22:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about Zeleny/Min Zhu controversy

Hi, I am a student researching the Min Zhu allegations (and also quite new to wikipedia and its inner workings) You mentioned in an earlier post on the subject that you might have some documents that has some record of the allegations and you would be willing to share those documents. Could you please let me know if you might be able to send them to me? I would greatly appreciate it as it would help my research immensely. (mariejomr@gmail.com) Thanks! - marie-jo

These were given to me in confidence by Michael Zeleny - knowing his determination to spread the gospel of Min Zhu's supposed transgressions I'm confident that if you visit his LiveJournal (username Larvatus) he'll be happy to give you everything. Look in particular for the sworn transcripts from Erin Zhu which say she lied to Zeleny about the alleged rape - if that's not in the colection, he hasn't sent you everything. Just zis Guy you know? 08:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I am not sure what you mean by the message onmy talk page!!!Please explain.I had mistakenly had two accounts VR and Vr but as soon as I discovered that I obliterated that months ago>I also do not see any contribution by VR in case someone had used this aon the institutional internet I use;Please explain(Vr 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC))

Withdraw magazine afds?

I imagined you'd be convinced Inc., and Fast Company magazines were notable after getting the circulation figures you wanted. Any reason you aren't withdrawing the AFDs? AnonEMouse 21:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I ran for the door to catch a train. Or something like that. Go and close it speedy keep if you like, I'll have to finishe a couple of threads before I can get there. Just zis Guy you know? 21:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

National Distance Learning Accreditation Council

Watch this article and the user who created the the article. He falsely claims that many legitmate schools, like the University of Notre Dame, are accredited by this group and removed this group from the unrecognized list. Arbusto 03:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When will these POV-pushers learn? Just zis Guy you know? 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Hi there. I'm utterly flabbergasted by your undeletion vote concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James R. Gillespie. The nominator has never proved that his "source" actually exists, nor has he ever quoted from it. We've been unable to prove that either the book, or the newspaper article, exist. I would ask you to reconsider. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess you know by now that this [17] is the reason. Drini has done the needful [18]. Just zis Guy you know? 10:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've apologized there and I do so. I suppose I'm too trusting–couldn't believe someone would alter votes like that. Again, my apologies. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No apology necessary. Astroturfing POV-pushing vandals are the bane of all our lives right now. Just zis Guy you know? 12:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please block User:137.224.252.10 for continued edit warring

The message (block) that wasn't sent has resulted in Revert 5. Netscott 08:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You might want to take the time to inform this editor how to go about harmonious editing. It is much easier to block a user when they persist in unreasonable behaviour after people have gone to the trouble to tell them what constitutes reasonable. It is also less likely to be necessary... Just zis Guy you know? 10:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete query

You speedied an article I listed in AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANDREW CAMPBELL – BRITISH CONTEMPORARY ARTIST. Good choice. I'm wondering why this was a speedy, as I initially thought it should be, but couldn't see a relevant criteria. Therefore, I listed it on AfD. My query - what's the relevant speedy delete criteria, so I can apply it next time and not faff about with AfD? Cheers, Colonel Tom 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no firm rule here other than WP:IAR and I guess WP:SNOW. If an article is a direct copy of another article, just slap a delete tag on it and explain the rationale, not every admin will do the needful but a fair number will; in the end we are allowed to use Clue in the absence of an applicable policy :-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Colonel Tom 12:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am all about the Clue.  RasputinAXP  c 12:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Free Library of Philadelphia

Your article was fine, it's just that there was already a longer, more detailed article with the same name. I will follow your advice next time.

Czolgolz 18:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my article, I was going through WP:CSD. A properly detailed nomination makes the sysop's job easier. Just zis Guy you know? 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft/songcruft

Hi, I noticed your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics and ask you to visit a new discussion I have started, User:DGX/listcruft, about similar articles. Thank you! DGX 22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in User:DGX/listcruft. The descision has been posted. Thanks again! DGX 13:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done

This was a simply excellent edit. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sub Wars

Thanks for moving it to my userpage. That wil keep people form deleting it. Why didn't any of the others do this. They just deleted it. What a bunch of queers. But anyway, thanks for your help.--07holsombd 17:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

More diploma millery

Could you please warn and block Dr John101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another diploma mill spammer. I don't think he will be doing anything useful here. (And BTW, you might also take a look at the last few edits by 07holsombd (talk · contribs) to this page.) Uppland 18:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This edit in particular. Stephen B Streater 19:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi

I just started a RfC for the user at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi. Is there anything else I should do to resolve this? Arbusto 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

He's back and he's calling himself a doctor

Gastrich's calling himself a doctor and posting again.[19] Arbusto 06:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help! You're right, I'm a total rookie, but learning. Thanks again my friend.