User talk:JzG/Archive 17

Calling editors cult victims

Hi JzG. I would like a sincere answer in defense of you labelling wikipedians as cult victims. In asking you a single legimate question in an appropriate forum.

Your edit here takes an strong view of the article topic and indicates proponents of the article are cult victims. I find this is quite insensitive and I think at worst it comes across as trolling. What was your goal in responding to an editorial dispute by labelling one side of the argument as a cult? I'd like to know your thoughts. 58.178.195.26 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading far more into it than is warranted. NLP is a cultic system (per numerous sources), but that does not imply that anyone who is involved with it is a cultist or cult victim. The entire nest of NLP articles exists primarily to promote the cult of NLP, and that is a pressing problem. Several involved editors have a vested interest in promoting it, that is a pressing problem, too. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Much appreciated. Can you point me to a reliable source that says NLP is a cult? It's government accredited field in my country. Several independent editors have identified falsified references about NLP being a cult in the wikipedia article. I hope you aren't using a wikipedia as a source for your opinion. On the second point. Let's be equal-minded. The incredible amount of NLP forks happened because of the editor that created 10 or more sockpuppets and refused to write anything in the parent article other than "NLP is a cult" in every possible grammatical permutation. A handful of independent editors forked the main article. Nonetheless, over half the editors involved in the Arbcom case are all that one single sockpuppet controller, who has quite possibly returned to run ammok again. He wasted many people's time over many months with his various useraccounts, personalities and theatrics, and was ultimately banned. I hope we can learn from history and this time include all consensus viewpoints in the parent article without dogmatism. I implore you to not take things at face value on the NLP article. Take care. 58.178.157.33 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people identify elements of the cult about it. Talk space is not mainspace, so citations are not necessary. NLP is not a mainstream scientific discipline, it is a heavily promoted commercial field and one which is often used to prey on the vulnerable. The whole thing makes me profoundly uneasy. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think if NLP worked so well, its promoters would be more convincing... Argyriou (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I like that thought :o) Guy (Help!) 10:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I too wouldn't consider being uneasy as an ideal starting point for giving advice. I note that you sought a third opinion on Arbcom. Thanks for sharing. 58.179.175.12 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tree Mall

Hi JzG, you deleted this about a month ago... it was written by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville and I assure you at not created for advertising purposes, they were trying to create articles on all major regional malls at the time. At any rate, unless you're willing to undelete the article as it was, I'd like your permission to userfy it so I can add some references and hopefully get it back into the main namespace at some point. Thanks for your time. --W.marsh 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that at all, of course. The real problem was a mass of articles apparently created by an employee of General Growth Properties, but it seems to have opened a minor debate about what constitutes a directory entry for a mall. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this particular one makes some claims to importance, perhaps not the most important mall in the world but it's important at a regional level, it gets 117 article results in a search of the last 7 years of the Courier-Journal. I have userfied it to User:W.marsh/Green Tree Mall, we're going to look at adding some sources to support notability. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buttocks

Sorry about the misunderstanding about the buttocks article. You removed a contiguous block of over 8K, which appeared at first glance to be partial page blanking. Because I thought it was vandalism, I interpreted the summary as confirmation.

After you reverted my reversion, I re-read the entire section that you removed. I'm undecided on whether I agree with your decision to remove it entirely but I respect your decision and we'll leave it at that. :) --AliceJMarkham 05:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem, I was a bit tetchy (kids, Christmas eve, you know the score). I'm not opposed to a pop culture section, but listing every single mention not only of the word but of the part of the anatomy is really a recipe for disaster. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err. I think that the comments at Talk:Buttocks#Cruft purge were also aimed at you... --AliceJMarkham 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Hexvoodoo

Hexvoodoo, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He hadn't advertised Boobpedia since November, and has done other things since then. Therefore, the block for something he did almost two months ago seems punitive rather than preventative. I don't want to wheel war, but I do think he should be unblocked. Perhaps warned strongly that we really would prefer contributions to our project rather than merely advertising another one, but not blocked, unless he insists on keeping it to the exclusion of other work. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to unblock if you think he will be productive, but his sole mainspace edits were adding links to boobpedia (and all but one of those articles are now deleted anyway). Guy (Help!) 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Corley

Would you mind sending me a copy of the deleted article Mike Corley? —ptk✰fgs 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ptkfgs/Mike Corley. Not a very good article, given the author... Guy (Help!) 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just ran across this dude for the first time yesterday. —ptk✰fgs 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy. I can tell you more about him than you probably want to know. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A694523 and all that. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School

Seasons greetings and all that, and a favour to ask. Appreciate your input as to how best to present information in an article. It boils down to how to present the fact that a school newspaper is placed upon the school website, and what importance we should place on the choice of the particular edition so displayed. Thanks. Steve block Talk 09:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-19 Zoe and badlydrawnjeff

gaa. I hate it when people are reasonable. :) You do know that I hold you in the highest regard among all people on this project, right? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh! You'll ruin my rep as an evil rouge admin! Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist

Hi, can you please take a look on my white-list request:

http://www.cslegie.wz.cz/AJ/indexAJ.htm I would like to ask for whitelisting the page above. It contains nice work about Czechoslovak Legions already added in external sources, but with brackets to avoid spam filter. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That page appears to be dead or off-the-way, Gurch proposed to write you a message directly. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Done. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work on DRVs and AFDs which does not go unnoticed and never fails to impress. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD comments on Ghost ramp

Hello Guy. I hope you won't find my comments here confrontational; I felt I should approach you regarding some of your comments on the AfD discussion for Ghost ramp.

My first comment is simply a suggestion: when you make a statement to the effect that you'll disregard comments from other AfD editors and demand certain changes to an article, it comes off as heavy-handed and will tend to create an adversarial relationship with other editors. I would suggest a role that is closer to a "coach" than a "magistrate."

My second point of discussion is with regards to WP policy. I'm somewhat concerned by your statement because it suggests that AfD is not so much a means of reaching consensus amongst editors as it is a means of editors presenting evidence before a judge. If it is the latter, I believe that's a major departure from WP's historical position that "By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanc" (see: WP:GAFD). I am aware that AfD is not a vote, and therefore it is not the sheer volume of opinions regarding an issue that determines consensus. However, my understanding is that AfD is also not an "administrative hearing" in the sense that it is not merely an opportunity for an admin to listen to different points of view prior to making their own independent decision. If in fact it is becoming the latter, I think this is an important policy change that should be reflected in WP:GAFD.

I look forward to your thoughts. Regards, Tarinth 13:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD, in my mind, is to give more input than you'd get from a single admin looking at a thing and saying "this fails policy" and deleting it. It allows us to chew the fat for a bit and decide if a subject is salvageable and which side of the notability border it sits. The problem is that a large group of people who like a particular article can almost always outnumber those who find problems with it. That is why AfD is not a vote. A deletion debate where one person credibly argues that an article fails WP:NOR and a hundred argue that they like the article, but without ever rebutting the proof of original research, can and should be deleted. A couple of months back we kept ghost ramp because several people seemed motivated to fix it, and we have no deadline to meet soa bit of good faith is fine. Now, two months later, the fundamental flaws are unremedied. It is an article whose name is a neologism, whose premise lacks sources, and whose elements are almost invariably original research (i.e. reliant entirely on interpretation of primary sources). Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, but we appear to eb the number one source of information on this topic on the Internet. Where are the reliable secondary sources? Guy (Help!) 13:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to say I feel much the same way as Tarinth does about your comments. There is a degree of coercion and intimindation in them that I find highly troubling. They could be much better done without saying "Since no sources have been provided after two months I give advance notice that I will personally close this as delete unless sources are provided by the end of the five days" or "Which is why, if these deficiancies are not remedied, I will delete it, because WP:INTERESTING does not trump WP:V and WP:NOR." as the primary problem is the use of the "I" which indicates a personal involvement in the situation, rather than a more neutrally worded reference to policy. Every concern you express is valid. How you've chosen to express it is not. Your third comment lower on the thread is much better, as it doesn't do that sort of thing. At this point, I do have to seriously recommend you do not choose to close this discussion yourself, but leave it to another admin. That would be less likely to hurt anybody's feelings, and help increase my confidence that the decision whatever it may be was a proper one. If for whatever reason, you end up disagreeing with the results of the discussion, you can always take it to Deletion Review. FrozenPurpleCube 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you know, I do agree that the list has some problems. I mostly think it should be a subsection of ghost town for now, with a possible retitling to something else. FrozenPurpleCube 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is not at all personal. The article has been up for deletion before, we have given the interested parties time to fix it, but they don't seem to have done so. As it stands, it violates core policies. I want to concentrate people's minds on that. It needs fixing now or deleting. It really is that simple. I want every editor interested in that subject to go out and do their best work to source it and fix it up, because if they don't they are going to lose a lot of hard work. This is not some piece of shit porncruft article, it's a realistic attempt to produce an encyclopaedic article on a topic which several people think is worthwhile, but unsourceable articles get deleted and that's what's going to happen to this one unless it is fixed. I can't find any credible sources for it either. I will not enjoy deleting it. But I will if I have to. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it is personal or not, and if that were my concern, I'd have expressed things much more strongly. But I don't believe that and I am assuming good faith that you mean well. However, I think your choice of words has created a problem. My concern is the appearance of your words, which instead of focusing on the policies, places what I consider an intimidating emphasis on the power of deletion by one person. That takes the concentration away from improving the article, and puts it on you as a person. Accordingly, I really advise you refrain from deleting it yourself. Leave that up to another administrator, it will probably cause less ill-feeling about the decision whatever it is, than if you do it after the words you have provided. Even if it is kept, you can always go to deletion review, or wait a few months and nominate it again. There's no need for precipitous action, and I'd rather avoid a situation that could cause unrest. FrozenPurpleCube 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And next time, concentrate on the policy, and leave out the parts where you say you will do something. It just doesn't look right. FrozenPurpleCube 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it only fair to give warning that arm-waving is not going to save the article, since the !votes to that point were all arm-waving Keeps. I don't want people to be unpleasantly surprised, I want them to be spurred to action. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's fair. I think it's intimindation. You may have had good intentions, but I think you had bad practices. You may spur them to action, but I think it's quite possible that action will be against you. IOW, you used too much of a big stick. FrozenPurpleCube 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: All entirely possible, but rather assumes bad faith on my part. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing my best to assume good intentions, but given that you made such statements multiple times in the same AfD, I think it's a valid concern. Your words given an unfortunately intimidating impression, and I'd rather avoid giving that impression. If I weren't AGF, I'd not be bothering talking to you, I'd be elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know

Take a look on User talk:SandyDancer - seems our old friend GLF has emerged in person, calling people 'scum' and being generally abusive in a tone which suggests to me that he is trying to goad a litigous response and intimidate other users into not meddling with his 'pet' articles on the Monday Club and the Conservative Democratic Alliance. Given his habit of firing off solicitors letters at every opportunity I'd say that this is potentially very dangerous. I'm concerned that a user might refer to certain details of his personal life when editing either of these two articles. What to do then??--Edchilvers 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that account is a sock of you, me and Homey :-) Guy (Help!) 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for JzG

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your work on WP:DRV, have this barnstar, Guy! Continue your excellent work on DRV. SunStar Net^talk 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost ramp (second nomination)

Can you please comment on whether a phrase like unused highway has the same neologistic problems as ghost ramp? Thank you. --NE2 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question, replied there. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now in my attempt to remove the neologism "ghost ramp" from list of unused highways, I'm being reverted by someone who claims a personal website (AARoads) is a reliable source. --NE2 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for a Free Britain

If you have a spare moment, would you mind taking a look at my overhaul of this article here and let me know if you have any comments - I'd like to check I haven't missed anything / gone too far. --SandyDancer 01:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads as acceptably neutral, but there only seems to be one source independent of the group (City Limits) and that only covers one event. This may not meet notability requirements. Better this than what we had before, though. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

Hi, Guy - seeing posts here and there, I'm reminded that, once, an editor I don't know inquired if I am SandyDancer, because apparently s/he also speaks Spanish. I didn't understand why the editor was inquiring. Just clarifying that I don't know him/her, don't share his/her opinions about the best countries for beer :-), and I've only spent one week of my life in the UK. Just wanted that on record. Best, Sandy (Talk) 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS - I don't dance either - not even salsa. Sandy (Talk) 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I noticed it was a different person - but hello! Long time no see :-) Guy (Help!) 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Help / Re-review of Moondance Magazine AfD

Hi Guy, Thanks for taking a look at the article for Moondance magazine. I have just added a large number of sources (embedded citations [1]) for the magazine and its use in the public eye(spec. w/academia). The info added is a list of universities inside the U.S. and one in Spain that currently does use the quarterly in their their class cirriculum(s). When you said the article needed more "sources" not sure you had a chance to see this. If it's alright could you detail more comment info (in the AfD discussion [2]) about your needs that makes you want to delete this article? After I know more I can then adjust the material accordingly. Working now to closely meet all Wik standards. Thanks.--Lysanzia 23:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project

Hello ... Would you please take a look at the talk page and history for this article? The author has thrice reverted a {{notability}} tag. This article is also tied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-islam.org (second nomination) by the same author, and Rafed.net, which just survived an AfD that is currently under review ... the systemic problem is lack of WP:RS to meet WP:WEB notability. Thnx! --72.75.72.174 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chelsea Tory

Hi there. I see you have brushed up against this user before. I am beginning to feel somewhat harassed by him. He is attempting to demonise me and cast me as a biased editor, which I am not. As far as I can see, an admin called SlimVirgin is now cooperating with him via email, and I think it is unfair that someone who simply wants to harass another user can do so with impunity. SlimVirgin has not contacted me about this. Is there anything I can do? --SandyDancer 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a she, but whatever. If the user is harassing you, then you need to go to WP:DR - or you could post idffs to the admin noticeboard with a polite request for help. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for adding that explanation to the ED talk page. I hope it will help prevent further flare-ups. I'm also glad you did it before I had a chance to; what you wrote is spot-on, and I'd rather it come from someone other than myself, seeing as my motives have been called into question on that mattter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The quicker we can agree and move on the better, with ED. Too many bad vibes. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)

Apparently your well-written message to Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) did not work. -- tariqabjotu 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. I tried. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Plains Historical Society

White Plains Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I disagree with your deletion of the White Plains Historical Society page. To be fair, you should also delete all of the other historical society pages from Wikipedia, links found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Society

Please reinstate WPHS or give reason why it should be deleted and the others not.

Thanks.

Lou.

The existence of other articles is not a precedent or an indicator for inclusion. You need to provide evidence that it has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject (see the notability guideline). Guy (Help!) 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New year!!!

Wish you and your family a very happy new year from Sushant gupta 16:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mia and Tia Twins Cars

I just recently put that up for AfD... should I remove it? -WarthogDemon 19:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for the apparently unnecessary AfD . . . though I am unsure how I should've reported the "fair use" issue. What should I have done? Oo -WarthogDemon 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem - it worked, so it doesn't matter. You could have tagged the images for speedy deletion as having invalid sourcing, or taken the gallery to the admin incident noticeboard WP:ANI, but the end result is what matters. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. :) I've warned the original creator of the article (who was the one who uploaded all the images) about it. Thanks again. -WarthogDemon 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF

Would you please do something at NCAHF. Curtis Bledsoe has ignored the input of every single editor without exception, and continues to revert. He has been belligerent, abusive and sarcastic, and freely reverts despite not only the consensus but what 100% of the editors on that page have said. I mean editors who have a range of personal opinions from supporting Barrett to disliking Barrett. If this continues, and he is allowed to continue, then I really know that Wikipedia has no standards. Jance 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no edit war at that location... Guy (Help!) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! --Ronz 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! --Hughgr 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make that three? Jance 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! As many as you like. If it really is only Curtis then I could block him, but we'll see if he can contribute productively to Talk first. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to add another thank you for page protection. --Wildnox (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I forgot to protect the wrong version... Guy (Help!) 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can be desysoped for not protecting the "wrong version", it's a requirement. ;) --Wildnox (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis is now disrupting 3 articles. Two of those have been protected. The third article he just recently reverted. I changed it, then decided against it, because I am quite sure I would be accused of reverting, if I did.Jance 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Motor News

I recreated this article with the copyvio issues corrected. Please let me know if you see any problems with it. Tubezone 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I recommend you merge the others and check the contribs of User:Hmnuser for the covers, which should be fair-use (I didn't speedy them as I was pretty confident you'd make an article). Guy (Help!) 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't these AfD's:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemmings Classic Car

be closed, too? The nominator, User:Rugbyball, has been blocked for repeatedly trying to disrupt AfD's. Tubezone 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stopping you from doing that, but I still recommend a merge. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an admin, I don't think I can close an AfD. Can I? Tubezone 23:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ,if it's uncontroversial and doesn't require the admin tools. Admins are just editors with delete buttons in that respect. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to object, even though I participated in the discussion? Tubezone 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have thought so. Point them here if they do. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got the templates right on the close, finally! Enough of this, time to go get a beer and watch some Chicago Bears football.... Tubezone 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

You know the answer is '42' (to life, the universe and everything). By the way, you might take a look at Barrett v. Rosenthal. The talk page is getting heated, but no edit warring at this time. This is an article about a case of first impression in the CA Supreme Court. It is the first in the US to interpret a federal statute Communications Decency Act as to defamation by a "user" of internet 'services'. The parties to the appeal both appeared on the talk page. And Curtis, who had changed the article (after it was agreed on by a concensus, as NPVO and sticking to the facts of the case). This is related to the same people that were discussing or editing NCAHF. Only on NCAHF, Barrett appeared. Here, Polnevoy appeared. Both after Curtis' comments.Jance 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has Polevoy made an appearance here at Wikipedia? What's his user name? -- Fyslee 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drpolevoy, I think. He is a 'new' user, who first showed up today at this article, it appears - if that is indeed he.Jance 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT warning over editing the WP:EL guidelines to support your argument without consensus support.

Please do not edit guidelines that initially contradicted you argument, in order to make them support your argument. Such edits should only be made if you have a demonstrated and firm consensus show to support the change, and even then it would be better to ask another editor to do so. --Barberio 13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having given this the consideration it merits, fuck off. I quoted another policy rather than leaving a version which is being used by some editors to reverse engineer support for their agenda. WP:COPYRIGHT already has consensus (as well as the backing of the Foundation's legal advisors) and citing it to clarify a position absolutely is not disrupting anything to prove anything, other than that linking to offsite copyvios is a Bad Thing. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Barberio 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You now seem to be attempting to goad me into a 3RR or edit war by adding redundant statements on copyright to the guideline. Your recent addition of a new 'copyright' subsection replicates the 'restrictions on linking' section already in the article, and adds no new content simply restating the copyright policy linked to. Please stop. If you feel we misrepresent current copyright policy, please bring it up for discussion. --Barberio 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL did you just warn Guy for incivility and then 6 minutes launch a text book example of bad faith assumption? If this RfC ends up at ArbCom I'll be there to watch the ridiculing that will follow. MartinDK 14:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly like the assumption that I am pushing an agenda while those apparently attempting to obfuscate the problem of linking to offsite copyright violations are not...

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to goad anyone into anything, merely clarifying on our external links guideline the established consensus in our copyright policy, which recent edits to the links guideline seem to me more to obscure than to clarify. I have yet to see a credible rebuttal to the contributory infringement precedent, and I am not aware of any circumstances in law where a failure of diligence is found to excuse any infringement of intellectual property rights (feel free to cite such a precedent if it exists). We know there is a problem with some (many) YouTube links, therefore we know we have to verify the copyright status from authoritative sources. I've seen the same arguments rage over whether text copied and pasted from a non-commercial website is really a copyright infringement. The law on this does look to be pretty much binary both in intent and in application. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I misunderstand something here but as far as I know anything is implicitly covered by copyright unless otherwise stated. Copyright notices are posted to show who owns the material not to ensure that it is in fact copyright. You need to explicitly license it as GFDL etc. for it not to be copyright in the traditional sense. So it seems to me that this entire debate is pseudo-legal nonsense since anything not explicitly licensed as GFDL etc. is covered by normal copyright and hence our policies are very clear on that, especially when it comes to YouTube because we know that they have problems controlling the content being posted.

Also, if YouTube content is imlicitly assumed to be legal non-copyvio unless otherwise stated then the same would apply to Wikipedia... and I assume (in good faith he he) that anyone can see the problem with that assumption and the reason why Wikipedia spends time and money on legal assistance. Just my 2 cents on this. MartinDK 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual porperty law does not, in general, work on the assumption that a copyright is not being infringed unless someone says otherwise. The onus is on the user to verify copyright. The pro-YouTube camp appear to be arguing for a reversal of this practice, allowing links to be added unless one can conclusively prove that they violate copyright. That is unlikely to be the interpretation an IP lawyer would take. None of the links are, as far as I can see, of such pressing importance that they are worth risking putting the project in legal jeopardy, and in any case this is supposed to be the "free content" encyclopaedia, linking to offsite copyvios - or material where the copyright status is questionable - is against that ethos. It's not much different from the endless "fair use" arguments. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a simple policy for copyright violations within text and images. If a copyright violation is alleged for text, a huge infobox is added to the top of the page, it's listed for investigation by an administrator. Ditto for images, sound files, and other uploads. It seems the only thing exempted from this policy is external links. They are almost as much of a liability to Wikipedia and it's perhaps time we had some process for external links to be checked for copyright status. We don't go around removing pages and pages from Wikipedia when we suspect a copyvio and we don't leave them trying to claim policy permits it, so I fail to see why external links shouldn't be treated in the same manner as other suspected copyright problems.

It really might be time to get Brad Patrick to comment on whether he believes the existing policy is fine and if not, what he believes we need to do to satisfy the law so we can then tailor new policy around that. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much simpler than that. If an editor in good standing removes a link, citing a credible concern, then we should treat it the same as any other text removed in good faith: it should be debated and not put back in until the concern has been addressed. If I remove a link to a site which habitually infringes copyright, I don't expect to have to argue the toss, but if people come back and provide documentary evidence that the particular link does not infringe copyright, then it can go back in. External links are only ever the trimmings around the edge anyway, Wikipedia does not exist as a link farm or referral system. If the link cannot be unambiguously shown to be "clean" then of course it should stay out - copyright policy says we don't link ot material which infringes copyright, and states a perfectly good reason why not. I've yet to see a link that was so very special as to make it worth running the risk of a lawsuit. Why do people have such a problem with this? What is so wonderful about these YouTube links that we should throw caution to the winds and hang the potential legal consequences? Beats me. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for replying. I think there are at least 2 reasons. First of all YouTube makes it very easy to embed any video on their site on your blog etc. and that seems pretty popular so people assume that YouTube would be liable should there be any problems. Second, a lot of these YouTube videos are related to subjects outside the ordinary scope of an encyclopedia. And, without passing judgement on anybody, we all know that these articles are typically edited by people with a broader idea of what Wikipedia should be than those concentrating on the more traditional subjects. As for how to solve the interpretation problem I think Guy is right in saying that these links are not a central part of the articles. We already establioshed that YouTube is not a reliable source so really there should be no immediate need for them. The problem as I see it is that we have a very clear policy on pictures and copyviotext but people seem to be unaware of the legal status of these videos. Guy's edit to the guideline in question here may seem duplicate to some but it clarifies what many seem to misunderstand. As for Brad Patrick I think we should save him from the pain of reading through that RfC... :) I know a mine field when I see one by now which is why I asked here and not on the RfC. MartinDK 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

While I have dealt with a number of sockpuppets before and am more familiar with checkuser policy, one of my goals in my adminship was to help out on WP:SSP. I noticed you were one of the few admins doing something there and wondered if you can point me in direction of procedure, as I am very aware that a wrong move on that subject can cause endless problems, but inaction is equally problematic. -- Agathoclea 13:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly not too hard, actually - some people know the signs and give clear diffs to demonstrate, and others are pretty blatant. You might also want to subscribe to unblock-en-l. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just done so. Yes - some socks are pretty unimaginative making the same edits in all incarnations. Agathoclea 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Implant Protected page is the wrong version

Dear Guy,

I was away for 2 days, and during that time there was an edit war again on the breast implant article, and it seems that you protected the article. I am an epidemiologist, formerly on the faculty at Yale University and a researcher at Harvard, who has published several peer-reviewed articles and reports on breast implants. Droliver is a plastic surgeon who deletes information that suggests that implants have risks, prefering a POV that implants are available and therefore must be safe. (Of course, reality is more nuanced). The protected version of the article deleted language that had been carefully negotiated regarding widely-established complications. It also deleted a compromise intro paragraph in systemic diseases that had been proposed by Samir, an administrator.

I'm sure that was not your intent and I would welcome your help in protecting a compromise version ot hte article, rather than the current version, which is written by droliver strictly from a plastic surgeon's point of view. He doesn't seem to understand the epidemiological studies that have been published.

I don't know anything about the war between Jance and another new writer, but if you look scroll back on the discussion page you will see that a physician who treats implant patients, Dr Carter, agrees with my views (and vice versa), as do two other public health experts. Droliver has been alone on his POV, but somehow we always end up with his version of this article, which he has written almost single-handedly, deleting everyone else's revisions, despite considerable consensus against droliver's views.

Please help.Drzuckerman 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that Droliver did not even agree with some of the deletions by Curtis. The 'war' between Curtis and me has been a dispute between Curtis and virtually every other editor on several articles. Curtis has wikistalked me to this particular article. I do not know if he has done the same to others. I understand the purpose of protection, and that the admin does not protect a "right" or a "wrong" version. What the solution here is, though, I do not know. Jance 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All protections are at the wrong version. {{editprotected}} is your friend. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no hard feelings

hi guy, i've posted a response to my blocking/unblocking on my user page. please take a minute to read it, and let me know what you think, thanks. --Hexvoodoo 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL

Can you please discuss changes to WP:EL rather than unilateral editing of the guideline. --Barberio 16:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I agree with JZG, he's not acting unilaterally. Consensus does not trump copyright law, by the way. >Radiant< 16:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. I haven't spoken up yet, but your crusade against Dmcdevit and anyone else who removes a Youtube link is extremely tiresome. Consensus does not trump copyright law. Move on. Thatcher131 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tut tu, chaps - surely you know that this is one of those irregular verbs? I boldly improve, he edit wars, you make unilateral changes without discussion. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We block. Thatcher131 16:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, guess what? Cindery immediately reverted, because we admins are edit warring, whereas the YouTube link fans are simply improving the guideline in line with "consensus" (i.e. their view which is disputed by lots of other people). Since Barberio and Cindery are probably watching this, I'll comment here: Barberio unilaterally removed a section which I added and which he previously removed but it was re-inserted y two other people. I accepted that there was some redundancy and merged in some text which was not duplicated between the two sections. I still think we need to be more emphatic, to avoid confusion. Both Barberio and Cindery think that links should go in unless proven bad, I think that links should stay out unless proven good, which puts the onus on the person seeking to include, precisely as it is for all other content. I also think that we should not hedge about and distract from the core message which is do not link to material which infringes copyright. Why would you want to link to copyvios? What is good about doing that? Why be ambiguous about it? It is unambiguously bad, so we should not do it. It's really not very controversial. I note that uninvolved admin Steel has now protected it. Guy (Help!) 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I explicitly did not unilaterally remove the redundant copyright section. I posted three times to the talk page calling for anyone else to support having a redundant second section on copyright that was only a quoting the copyright policy. Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Copyright_section As you will note, my revert of your additional redundant section was then upheld by two editors.

If you feel so strongly about this, the way forward is not to edit war, but to take it to Dispute Resolution. --Barberio 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the EL guideline is in conflict with copyright law, surely you can make that argument on the talkpage, and everyone will agree with you, or the Foundation lawyer or Jimbo will say so. At the end of the You Tube/External Link discussion, I explicitly pointed out to you that Copyright policy does not state that licensing information must be provided for every link...and you chose not to respond/continue discussion--instead you began editing the guideline knowing that you were blowing off discussion/did not have consensus. That's edit warring: intentionally editing against consensus while intentionally refusing to engage in discussion. Reverting you and inviting you back to discussion was the appropriate response. Cindery 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EL guideline is currently in a state which explicitly supports copyright law. No problem currently exists. A few people seem to want to make it less explicitly clear that linking to copyright material is unacceptable. I do not know why they want to do this. I do not see the benefit in reducing clarity. It seems to me abundantly clear that the small group of people who want the guideline to implicitly support linking to copyvios as long as we don't look too hard, is outnumbered quite considerably by those who think that linking to copyvios is wrong and we simply should not do it. It seems to me that most people active on WP:EL have little interest in special pleading on behalf of linking to copyright violations and are quite content for the guideline to support the copyright policy, which says do not link to material that violates copyright. It looks to me as if that is why they forked the YT thread and almost to a man took no further interest in it. Most people do not seem to have a problem with the consept that linking to offsite copyright violations is wrong. I do not know why that is seen by some as hard to accept. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're inserting redundant and confusing text into the guideline, for which, understandably, you do not have consensus. Cease edit warring and make your arguments on the talkpage.

Cindery 17:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's not redundant. It makes it abundantly clear: do not link to material that infringes copyright. Why would we want to do that? Guy (Help!) 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, make your arguments on the EL talkpage instead of edit warring.

Cindery 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

For the record

My recent remark on ANI wasn't directed to you, but to a Certain Person who tends to show up everywhere to attack people who disagree with a Certain Other Person. Happy new year! >Radiant< 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, drama :o) Guy (Help!) 16:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep :) and of course I swiftly got a snarky response for making the above comment. Meta-drama, anyone? >Radiant< 10:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would both quit playing this little game. JzG, do you really want to revive that fight? I attacked nobody, and I think that both of you should quit the insinuations. ATren 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revive what fight? The fight between Fresheneesz and consensus shows no sign of ever having abated. He can shout until he's blue in the face, the consensus will remain that non-notable subjects do not get included, for reasons of policy as explained at User:Uncle G/On notability. As I have suggested before, anyone who thinks that they are an inclusionist should spend a few hours at Special:Newpages (a.k.a. "The Firehose Of Crap"). There are no deletionists, just different degrees of inclusionism. Nor is this an inclusionism issue anyway - Jeff Raymond has probably the lowest inclusion standards on the project and I have no great trouble getting along with him, because he works the Wiki way instead of the disruptive way. Disruptive behaviour is... disruptive. We don't need it. If someone loses a debate, they have to learn to get over it. MONGO is showing the way here, he has been amazingly philosophical about a case which went against him despite widespread support for him (much wider than Fresh ever managed to find). Guy (Help!) 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you should know by now what I'm talking about. Radiant insinuated I'm "attack(ing) people", when in fact I have attacked no one. Fresheneesz has nothing to do with this - my objection is to Radiant's insinuations about me. I object to the charge that I am attacking people just because I show up in a debate involving Fresheneesz. I suggest you both stop accusing me of attacks. You are both experienced admins and should know better. ATren 12:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both you and Fresh is that you are entirely unable or unwilling to see the other side of issues. Note that in this thread you accuse me and JZG of "playing this little game", fighting, and insinuating - all of which are attacks. >Radiant< 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So my quote that you are "playing this little game" or "insinuating" something is considered a "personal attack" - but your baseless accusation that I'm "attacking people" is not? Is this not a double standard, Radiant? Now I'm asking again, please stop. I attacked nobody. ATren 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, until you pitched in I didn't even know who the supposed parties were (although there were only a couple of possibilities, it's true). Fresh has been sanctioned by ArbCom for disrupting policy pages. That's a fact. ArbCom did this after an extensive review, with plenty of participation and input. Fresh put his side of the case, and lost the argument. He needs to put that behind him and move on. Supporting him in creating pages which make snide remarks about "deletionists" - a class of editor which objectively probably does not exist, since there are no cited examples of editors whose sole involvement with the project is deleting content rather than creating anything, is merely helping him to dig his own hole. There are legitimate Wikiphilosophical debates about the criteria for inclusion, but there is very substantial support for the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a directory, and the crucial difference between the two is notability, albeit that people disagree on what constitutes notability (and even that is settling towards the current definition proposed by Uncle G). "Destroying information" and "destroying content" are remarks almost exclusively used by tendentious editors. Fresh's reaction to being told this, by just about everybody of any standing in the project, was to create a page essentially equivalent to "why I was right all along despite the fact that nobody agreed with me". As ever, with Fresh, he creates a locus for perpetuating the dispute rather than acting to resolve it. It's how things work on Usenet, but not here. And yes, all of us get sucked into that mindset from time to time, which is why I userfied the thing instead of nuking it. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into the Fresheneesz debate here, because it's irrelevant to Radiant's original comment above. I don't know what you knew or didn't know about who he was talking about, but I knew, and you should know by now that I will respond whenever other editors spread lies about me. And the "attacking people" quote is a lie. I've attacked nobody. ATren 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really really need to stop calling every difference of interpretation a lie. It doesn't help in any way whatsoever, all it does is reduce the chances of anyone taking your concerns seriously. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond anymore to this. Radiant, I disagree with your calling my actions "attacks", let's leave it at that and agree to disagree. Guy, feel free to delete the whole thread. ATren 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is an important point here which I think you have failed to grasp. It was at the root of Husnock's problems which led to his RFAr. It is this: if a remark is perceived by its target as an attack, you should give serious thought to the possibility that it could legitimately be construed as such - however it was intended. Linguistic and circumstantial differences mean that a remark made in good faith may be taken amiss by another editor. To compound that by saying that such an interpretation is a lie is not in the least bit helpful. My experience has been that the vast majority of differences can be settled either by discussion or by agreeing to differ. You will be aware that you and I have failed to reach such an accommodation. Seems that the same applies with you and Radiant. Now, that may be down to Radiant and Me, but it may not. We interact with a lot of users - probably some orders of magnitude more than you do - and we seem to have long-running problems with only a few of them. I would be the very last person to suggest that I am perfect or anywhere close, but you really ought to give some consideration to the possibility that your style of interaction with others - and even more so Fresh's - may also be a cause of friction. That's all I meant. Doesn't mean anybody is right or wrong here, but it does mean that the style of interaction is not moving towards resolving the problem, more towards escalating it. I'm really glad to hear that you intend to let it drop. Hopefully that will be the end of it. You may depend on this: Radiant is here to build a great encyclopaedia. Radiant does an enormous amount of work to help that process along. Perfect? I don't think either of us would claim so, but at least worth listening to with at least an open mind. Fresh has a big lesson to learn, and it's this: sometimes when a lot of people tell you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. Anyway, as you say, enough of this crap. It's a new year, maybe a new start. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not Fresheneesz. I happen to agree with some of his sentiments, that's all, and I made some polite comments in response to people who were accusing him of attacks. I attacked nobody in this debate, and yet when I try to defend myself against the insinuation that I am "attacking people", I'm made to look like the argumentative one. It's quite simple: if you feel I've attacked someone, please assume that it wasn't my intent and point out the offending diff so that I may defend myself and/or correct the wording. What you shouldn't do is make sarcastic remarks about me "attacking everyone" without a shred of evidence to back the claim, which is exactly what Radiant did here. That's all. I don't care who Radiant is, or how much he's done for the project - in this particular case he is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what happened. If you can't accept that, Guy, then we will continue this pointless argument. ATren 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, as an outside observer who has never had contact with you, I can only observe that you appear to me to be belligerent and argumentative in your dealings with other Wikipedians. I urge you to step back and find a less confrontational manner in your comments. -- Donald Albury 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me specifically what edits are belligerent and argumentative. Really, I'd like to know what qualifies as "belligerence"? Did I accuse anybody of "attacking people"? Seriously, if you are going to make that sort of accusation, I'd appreciate specifics. ATren 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, I know you're not Fresheneesz. But you are being aggressive in support of behaviour by Fresheneesz of a kind that has already seen him sanctioned by ArbCom once. As for diffs, if your first reaction had been to go to the original complainant and ask them the same question (but not beliligerently), then we would not even be having this conversation. Fresh caused a problem, we fixed it after a brief debate, and the best thing to do would have been to go quietly about your business. If you really want to go around picking fights with anyone who opposes Fresh, on present evidence you are going to have a lot of discussions which are variants on this one. Probably not a good use of your time, all in all. If you genuinely can't see what in your recent behaviour is counted as belligerent, then you may have a much bigger problem. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Guy, I did confront Radiant, immediately and not belligerently, on his talk page. His response was to delete my comment as a personal attack (???) and then post a mocking message here. If Radiant had responded to my concern instead of deleting it, then yes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Furthermore, last time I checked, engaging in a debate in defense of an editor (or, more precisely, his essay) should not be grounds for charges of personal attacks. Fresheneesz has written much that I have not defended, but this essay did have some good points in my opinion and that's why I defended it. I was certainly not the only one - several other respected editors defended the essay and its author on the deletion page. ATren 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that was not belligerent, then one of use doesn't know what the word means. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from an editor who regularly tells others to fuck off. But whatever, I'm done with it. ATren 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not regularly, just occasionally. When I think they really ought to - well, fuck off. But you miss the point: I'm not the one claiming that I'm not being belligerent. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete!

Sorry to bug you, but a while back, about everything I did (creating pages and adding images relating to Trainz) got deleted. This was my fault, because I indeed did things on purpose, such as blanking the TRS2006 page and adding a delete template, and adding things like "i stole this from auran without permission" on the image pages just to get them deleted. Well, I was very upset about something at the time, and I was wondering if you could undelete the images and articles I made? I'm sorry, I'll make sure not to let stuff get to me that bad again. Check my contribs to see all the pages. --Red Pooka 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles don't appear in contributions history. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to WP:EL while protected.

Please revert your change to WP:EL, the page is currently protected. The change proposed has only been discussed for an hour, and there had been voiced opposition by an editor. There was no reason to break protection to make the edit. --Barberio 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Please explain why you will not? --Barberio 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the change was very small and replaced a loaded word open to misinterpretation (as evidence credible concerns raised on Talk) with a value-neutral one. This is entirely reasonable in the lead of a high-profile guideline page. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, some reasonable backing for the original wording. And this was not an urgent change requiring immediate admin action, and could have done with some more discussion. --Barberio 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which just reinforces the ambiguity. The value-neutral term lacks the ambiguity. Move along now, nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is however a discussion you should have had on the talk page before editing the protected page. --Barberio 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing trivialities is never a big deal. Loaded word replaced with value-neutral one, world continues to turn on axis. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for the support... the objections are becoming objections for the sake of objecting. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are working backwards from a conclusion. We've seen the same in many policy discussions; in the end, no amount of "but I like that shit!" will ever overwhelm a credible argument based on policy (in this case the copyright policy). I do not think that looking the other way and whistling innocently has ever worked as a defence in law. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm inclined to err on the side of caution. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected use of Wikipedia to garner notability for others

Hello ... please have a look at User_talk:72.75.72.174#Suspected use of Wikipedia to garner notability for others ... I suspect Striver (talk · contribs) has been creating a web of articles about NN books and authors to promote an agenda associated with the websites al-islam.org, rafed.net, al-shia.com, and others ... this is all linked back to Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project and The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center, really two sides of the same coin, so why two articles?

Striver has been arguing for recognition of PageRanks for satisfying WP:N criteria in WP:WEB AfDs, but the more suspicious behaviour is the creation of articles about NN books and their authors published by them, then seeding Wikipedia articles with external links to "read it online" at al-islam.org or al-shia.com ... he placed 15 of them in one article alone.

Then I stumbled across what led to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 January 2#Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet and its author, Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi (my {{prod}} was removed) ... two more questionable stubs created by Striver ... this led to other books and authors whose only "notability" was that Wikipedia had articles about them that show up in a Google or Yahoo! search ... please see the talk pages and edit history for my comments, and note Striver's lack of comments in their edits.

My concern is that I am becoming a stalker, although it began as curiosity. I put a {{notability}} tag on an article, and Striver deletes it without comment ... I put a {{prod}} on it, and some other editor puts a WP:CSD on it, that also gets removed by the author, or changed to an AfD by another editor ... now it goes from CSD straight to WP:DRV so that it can get argued as an AfD, as in the case of the Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet.

But I am also afraid that the kinds of external links being added, coupled with the number of articles being affected, is an attempt to PageRank values in Web directories, and that is tied to pre-establishing the "notability" of some other enterprise ... and that strikes me as being paranoid, which makes me question my own motivation in even following this trail of bread crumbs.

Now my IP address has changed again, and I don't really want to get dragged into repeats of the same old arguments about WP:V for WP:N as applied to WP:WEB, WP:ORG, WP:BIO, and WP:BK. I'd rather just do the research and turn this over to an administrator. Can I just sit in the background, following links, leaving coments on talk pages (and the occassional prod), but just stay out of the discussions? Is there some way that a whole bunch of these can be brought together at once for deletion (assuming I do the legwork), or used as a kind of "class action" to firm up some of the guidelines and policies so that this kind of armchair wiki-lawyering doesn't keep cropping up and wasting everyone's time?

Thanks for any help in this matter, even if it's just to remind me that I need to get more of a life than Wikipedia. —72.75.84.93 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between wikistalking and working your way through a walled garden. Striver has some history of strong opinions, so as long as you are open about what you are doing I see no pressing problem with it. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Guy!

Bad Guy! Bad! Fix lack of references, not delete! Bad! No donut! Georgewilliamherbert 07:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only works at first nom - still unreferenced at second nom means that (a) no references exist or (b) nobody can be arsed to add them (and why should I care?). Plus I am a heartless deletionist and would see all vanispamcruftisement excised from the project :-) Guy (Help!) 09:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus I am a heartless deletionist - Naww, you just play one on TV. There are an infinite cloud of references-needing but still notable articles out there. Nobody bothered to {{cite}} tag that one or I'd have fixed it. Haven't got an infinite amount of monkey time to type on all the things needing fixing... Georgewilliamherbert 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely believe you. My problem is with people who !vote "keep and improve" or assert refs in deleiton debates, and then odn't actually fix the article. If an article is AfDed and the people who want it kept can't be arsed to fix the reason it got nominated, then I rather stop caring. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now has references to a print book, the New York Times, a Somali newspaper, a US local newspaper, and several websites. Satisfactory? Georgewilliamherbert 10:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The print book is just a directory of ~~ego trips~~ micronations, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 10:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion and guidance

I'm having trouble with the Speed bump article, I would appreciate your opinion. Alex Sims 11:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can reason with De Facto, although he seems to have an agenda against any kind of road enforcement (I'm guessing he's an ABD member) he is well versed in policy and not given to removing cited text. The solution is to find a good source. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only agenda is to promote the neutral POV in articles. There is legitimate criticism of speed humps, as there is of many other measures introduced in the name of road safety, it needs to be included - not swept away. -- de Facto (talk). 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your scepticism is generally greater than mine, and I'm pretty sceptical about road "safety" interventions. My major problem with the current opposition to road enforcement is that it appears to be founded on the idea that drivers can be left to make valid judgements - actually the fact is that they can't, if they could there would be no interventions. Most drivers overestimate their own skill. Most rabid opposition to enforcement seems to come from middle aged male company car drivers, whose collision rate (surprise surprise) is considerably greater per mile than the average - but bad driving is always presented as a problem with other drivers, never our own driving. This would be less of a problem if it were not for the fact that negligently driven motor vehicles are one of the biggest killers of children in this country despite our having some of the most restricted children in the world in terms of personal independent mobility. Motor vehicle collisions are at least one and possibly two orders of magnitude more likely to be fatal than other sources of avoidable injury. Why are there speed bumps? Because people drive too fast. If they didn't drive too fast, there would be no need for speed bumps. But that's a philosophical argument. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If criticism has been made it needs to be faithfully relayed, not censored. We musn't be tempted to apply our own moral filters or POV and attempt to eliminate arguments that we don't understand or agree with. -- de Facto (talk). 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, as an admin of some experience, I know that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mine or yours. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. If you had a moment can you review my comments on the talk page? I was sort of hoping for a WP:RFC-lite. Alex Sims 12:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More kids to use Wikipedia as a discussion forum

This one apparently led by the teacher, who thinks a WP user page would make a great bulletin board. I left a note suggesting otherwise. [3] -- Fan-1967 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to Lose (but an article)

Hey, I noticed you deleted Nothing to Lose. Thing is...I kind of need this article to...uh...exist. Is there anything I can do to remedy this? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always try making some assertion of notability, but that only works long term if it's credible per WP:N. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World

Cube World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What's your problem?! Why the heck did you delete my cool new article about Cube World?!!! Next time, at least just put a warning that the article's under vandalism before you go along and just delete it! Drewdy 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Drewdy[reply]

Same reason as the other five deletions. Why the heck did you keep re-creating it? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What reason?? Was it spammy?? Jexerg

Spam #7 (gator flavour)

A deletion review in which you participated has been relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net (2nd nomination).
brenneman 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges at Mint Hill

Bridges at Mint Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do not nominate this page for speedy deletion again, with a reason of spam or advertising. This page is no different from any other page that is in Wikipedia for a mall. Wikipedianinthehouse 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, demands always do the trick. Especially in respect on directory entries for places that don't even exist yet. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for watching my talkpage while I was gone. JoshuaZ 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was quiet :-) Guy (Help!) 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters.com

I was just wondering, out of curiosity more than anything else, why "fisheaters.com" is blacklisted under spam. I suppose I can imagine some content on the site being incendiary or something, but it had some pretty good information on customs for Saint Catherine of Alexandria's feast day, so I was going to add it as an external link on that article.

Oh well.

Trusting in your good judgment, --Alekjds 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:JzG/Fisheaters for the whole sorry tale. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at RfC

I have responded at my RfC. Could you point out anything that should be improved upon or removed? Thanks in advance. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pitonpro

With regard to your recent message on his talk page, I take it that the image in question was speedily deleted; is that right? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It came up blue on my deletion log. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder you for the price of a coffee, New York

I am so tempted to create that article :-) Gwernol 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! WP:BEANS strikes again... Guy (Help!) 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Server Clan on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Our Server Clan. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I was told by the instructions to put this on your page. That was my first article attempt. I'm trying to learn how to contribute to wikipedia and I didn't realize everything was so complicated. I would appreciate it if you'd give me another chance to prove validity or whatever my error was. 0SC's Just John 00:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DekiWiki Page Deletion

DekiWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would you please justify why an article that has had several contributors was deleted? It was clearly not spam. It was clearly of significance. The traffic alone would surely validate this. Google DekiWiki or MindTouch. Now consider the project only launched at the end of July (2006) and in that short time has garnered more than 50,000 installs. I provided several other notable assertions in the article and on the talk page. It's surely significantly more notable than 99% of other wiki projects that have articles on them. Moreover, the deletion process was not adhered to when it was initially deleted because the page was not spam or vandalism. You cite that no assertion of notability were provided. That's incorrect there were several assertions to this affect. I can only assume you did not read the article or it's corresponding talk page if you think it's not-notable or an advertisement. It is, without a doubt, not either. I urge you to read the article and you will undoubtedly realize this. This is at least as notable as any of those listed here: List_of_wiki_software.

Finally, I did not notice you had deleted it (I noted two deletions in 20 minutes after the page was locked) b/c I was, at the time, editing. Had I noticed the deletion I would have immediately posted here prior to recreating so as to prevent lock. I recreated the page in the first place because the deletion process was not adhered to in it's initial deletion. I'm also very surprised that you wouldn't have had the courtesy to post a message on my talk page.

I can only assume, as I've previously surmised, this is motivated by monetary or political motivations. It's becoming clearer daily that Wikipedia is not free.

~ AaronF 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Knowledge.

22:35, January 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement))
20:15, January 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement))
14:14, January 2, 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (Spam: near-orphan, non-notable Mediawiki fork)

So that's three deletions by two admins. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. The difference between the two is notability. This article did not assert it. As to your conclusions about Wikipedia, I would suggets they are skewed by your evident involvement in the DekiWiki - a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an admin says it's so doesn't make it so. Did you personally read the article? A conflict of interest is Wikia and Socialtext employees or those garnering any monetary benefit from said companies making decisions on an article like DekiWiki. Moreover, of the several people who contributed to the article only ONE was a MindTouch employee (me). It's obvious Wikipedia is being used as a weapon against a competitor of companies that are involved with Wikipedia. With this, it's also clear(er): Wikipedia is not free. ~ AaronF 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DekiWiki on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DekiWiki. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~ AaronF 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Fly

This argument

“

SlamDiego, thank you for bringing to our attention the fact that you have accused Jimfbleak of libel. This could be construed as a legal threat and if repeated could indeed see you indefinitely banned from the project. Since you chose to self-report I am hopeful that you have realised the error of your ways and will not repeat this personal attack.

”

will not fly. Identifying libel as such is not even a claim that it should ever be legally actionable. (For example, hard-core proponents of freedom of speech such as Nat Hentoff and Murray Rothbard use the term, yet have bluntly said that libel should be decriminalized and that existing laws should not be invoked even as they remain on the books.) Please understand that no amount of cleverness is going to mystically transform the mere act of identifying a false and derogatory statement about oneself as such into itself a violation of present Wikipedia policy. —SlamDiego 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about which you were bitching wasn't libel, and using pseudo legalese is widely interpreted as a legal threat under Wikipedia policy. Now stop being a dick. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any false and derogatory claim is libel, and accusing me of holding other nations in contempt merely for not being “mighty America” is false and derogatory. The word “libel” is certainly neither legalese nor chosen to seem like legalese — it is just a single short word which will stand for “false and derogatory claim”. And calling me a dick is a personal attack, but presumably you'll get away with it. —SlamDiego 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you did mean it as a legal threat. Cheerio, then. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh.

Someone brought up the Wikipedia revival userbox on WP:ANI in connection with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. I speedied the user subpages, but left the userbox for "some other cold-hearted bitch admin". I should have guessed that title would go to you. -- Merope 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want cold-hearted? You gottit :o) Guy (Help!) 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that's not half as nice as some of the things I've seen said about you (or Merope, either, for that matter). Fan-1967 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't poke pissed off people.

Yes, he was obviously over the line. However, when pissed off good users snap, it is appropriate (I know from exeperience as a pissed off good user) to take them somewhat seriously. You can think what you want of his motives for the report, but can we all just kiss and make up re the PAIN report? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi. Is publisher notable by your standards? Thanks. --Striver - talk 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? How many twelvers are there in the world? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

come on just leave tenorically on for a day

Thanks

Thanks, Jimfbleak.talk.06:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Olde English Bulldogge

The article Winston Olde English Bulldogge was at wikipedia yesterday because I worked on it and now it is deleted without a vote, can you explain to me where it went? Did you delete it without a vote? This is a breed a dog and should be in Wikipedia. Thank you. Headphonos 10:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion criterion A7 (no asseriton of notability). We are partway through debating a much laregr article on a one-breeder breed, that's headed for delete as well. Maybe a list of minor breeds or varieties would be in order, but these one-owner breed articles look proomotional and lack independent critical review of the subject. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afrika paprika's alleged sock army

These anons (arguing how they're not meatpuppets of Afrika paprika's army) have just mass-vandalized numerous pages about famous Serbs, spreading xenophobic racist (anti-Serb and anti-black) vandalistic edits, many of them including posts of Ustaša war songs. I'm sorry, but I will cease all future negotiations with this troll, am going to revert all of his edits from edits from now on and don't think I'm acting in bad faith at all.

Considering that You got involved in this mess, I thought I should report to You pronto. --PaxEquilibrium 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addresses? Guy (Help!) 13:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me this was a typo

Guy, you did meant to type twit didn't you? One vowel can make all the difference in the world.[4] Durova^Charge 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned that someone followed up with this.[5] You're probably on GMT0 and asleep right now so I'll wait until you return: please strikethrough the uncivil posts or at least pledge to clean up the language because otherwise, so help me, I'll have to block you. I respect you both as an editor and as an admin and I'll hate to do it - but I'd propagate a double standard if I overlooked this evidence. Sincerely, Durova^Charge 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, concurring with your edit summary, I can't believe a block warning for this editor is a topic of discussion either. I don't mean to preempt Guy's response but if you seriously think anything of that kind is warranted after Guy replies I would certainly urge that you take the matter back to ANI rather than do anything on your own in this instance. After all, concern about a comment made on the noticeboard could certainly bear discussion there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I not only took it back there but gave the topic its own subsection. I was composing it while you posted. Durova^Charge 03:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, thanks. Newyorkbrad 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Durova's use of threats and ultimatums against one of out hardest working admins and editors totally unacceptable. Guettarda 04:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps calling SanDiego a dick was not the best choice of words... but then again I may just be being a twat. Who knows? I'll stop bitching now. KazakhPol 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, it's probably better not to let a twat wind you up so much that you lose it. That way lies perdition. Keep cool and let the distinction between twats and nontwats be clear. Regards. Grace Note 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I trust you've seen Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hell_freezes_over? In short, there's not a lot of support for a punative block, but no support for incivility either. Cheers, Ben Aveling 06:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a twat was a kind of bird? Like a female version of Woody Wood pecker? brenneman 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had lot of twats way back in my school days. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 10:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you :o) Guy (Help!) 10:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, thank you for obviating the need for this thread. I'll probably need to keep wearing a heat shield until firestorm subsides, but I'm grateful that none of the harsh words have come from you. If you just haven't gotten around to telling me to...scram...then by all means do so now. You're one popular guy. Regards, Durova^Charge 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. I passed my personal idiot threshold, is all. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

Latest title: GeneralMayhem Website. BTW, I noticed that GeneralMayhem itself is unprotected, which might not be a good idea. Fan-1967 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorted now. Guy (Help!) 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, after a few months you think it's OK to unprotect the thing, but they always come back. Just make sure you don't call the author anything that starts with "tw" ;-) -- Fan-1967 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is twunt OK? Guy (Help!) 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I believe tweag is also allowable. Fan-1967 15:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just looked up twunt. Might want to use that one sparingly. Fan-1967 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn these Wiki-based dictionaries, it was absent from dictionaries befoire so we could use it freely. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys

How rude of them to use the "guy" word :-) I see you've had a hand in a lot of these DRVs, which for some reason, never come to my attention. Posted at AN/I: [6]. No WP:BEANS, but maybe I'm next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy. I've got to watch the beans, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection?

Hi Guy, you protected the NCAHF article. User:Curtis Bledsoe doesn't seem to be around. I left a message on his talk,diff but he hasn't responded. Perhaps you could unblock the page now, and we'll see how it goes. Thanks.--Hughgr 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good to go now. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was nothing

Happy to help. You may wish to review my userspace draft of something that would get more people to do what I did - stand up for (and to, because I did start out by telling you to walk away) decent folks who need standing up for in times of troubles - User:Hipocrite/Cool Patrol. I suck at naming things, so definetly help there, as evidenced by WP:TEMPLAR. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Decree.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Decree.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — MECU≈talk 22:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore them

It's working for me...haven't been trolled in a week now to any degree worth worrying about. Your brother from another mother.--MONGO 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barberio

Yes, sorry, I think maybe you misunderstood slightly. I don't think Barberio was being at all helpful. You might note that I suggested on his talkpage (twice) that he not carry on with whatever it is he thinks he's doing. I meant only to suggest that you should not think that you have a private quarrel with someone. There's a community willing to help settle differences without the need of anyone's getting too worked up. Not to put to fine a point on it, constructive contributors can be trolled into bad behaviour if they're not careful and do something silly. It's happened.

FWIW, I totally agree with your line over YouTube. If you can point me to the discussion, I'll gladly weigh in with a view. YouTube is one huge copyright ripoff and there's no way we should link to anything that is not clearly the copyright of the person who posted it. Clearly would probably mean "comes with a written declaration of ownership of rights" at the very least.Grace Note 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I've been seeing your good work around alot lately and I thought it deserved some recognition.

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Thanks for all the hard work and not letting the wikistress build up no matter how many annoying twits you have to deal with. Eluchil404 09:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trainer (games)

Hi Guy, just wanted to let you know that User:Apache-'s block has ended and he's re-added the offending external links to Trainer (games). Thanks for your attention. Marasmusine 14:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, JzG/Archive 17, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

--Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maye I can be like the Queen and have two birthdays - one as JzG and one as User:Just zis Guy, you know? :o) Guy (Help!) 09:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I met a Frenchman yesterday, he's a steward. It was all zis and zat for him. :) — Nearly Headless Nick 10:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Happy First Edit Day! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bean queen & rice queen AfDs

Although we're not of the same opinion when it comes to deletionism, I was hoping to provide some background on this subject. Within the gay community, phrases like rice queen and bean queen have as much currency as phrases with more mainstream adoption, like drag queen. I'll be happy to take a swing through the articles and add what refs I can, but I wanted to assure you that the term is no neologism. I've been hearing & seeing it used for at least ten years. I was hoping, if I approached you outside the pressure cooker that seems to be developing in AfD, that you might be willing to reconsider your vote based on the provenance of the terms. Please consider a review of the book Rice Queen Diaries or the book's entry at Amazon.com, or a ship named the SS Rice Queen. Thanks for your consideration. -- just zis Ssbohio 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So make an article on gay slang. We don't do dictionary definitions, that is what Wiktionary is for, and we don't use blogs as sources either. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask that you give the benefit of the doubt to me as to my assertion that the phrase is not a neologism, your stated rationale for favoring deletion. Deletion policy holds that poor sourcing is not cause for deletion as a first resort. The review I referenced above is not being cited as a source for the article, and assertion otherwise is disingenuous in light of the facts in context. The establishment of notability lies in that there has been a book published that refereces, in title and text, the topic of this article. The review at that link does a good job of explaining the contents of the book in question, as neither of us (presumably) has a copy handy, and is included here (on your talk page) to provide you with information about the book, the existence of which is independently verifiable. At no point, either here or in the article is the travelblog article asserted to be a source. I believe that the cultural concept is notable and worthy of an (improved) article. However, if you think the article should be merged to gay slang, perhaps your delete opinion should be amended to reflect that. I'd support a merge with redirect as an alternative to the deletion. --Ssbohio 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a nelologism, but last time I looke Wikipedia was not a slang or idiom guide. An article on gay subcultuyre slang and the way words and phrases get incorporated with some examples tracing the import and spread of a particular term, yes, that's undoubtedly our kind of thing, but a slang dictionary we are not. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was going by your comments at the AfD. I thought you were describing it as a minor neologism at best. We both want what's best for the project, so I find your insertion of phrases like last time I looked or asserting I was using a blog as a source hard to understand. I'd like to think I generally adhere to policy and don't think I gave you cause to think I was uninformed about sources, neologisms, or what Wikipedia is not. As indicated above, I ask that you give the benefit of the doubt. --Ssbohio 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, careless use of language. Subculture slang tyerms and neologisms are pretty much synonymous in my mind. I am far form convinced that the popularity of a slang term ever makes a description of it anything other than a slang dicdef plus padding. Like I say, it would be good to have an article on how this kind of slang arises, tracing some of the terms form their inception. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Including that in the gay slang article sounds good to me. Now that I understand, the language thing is not a problem... However, if us Wikipedians take to explaining what we mean to each other, there's no chance we'll be able to have a really good war. :-) Thanks for being cool about this, and, while I still hope you'll reconsider your vote, I understand much better where you're coming from. --Ssbohio 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bugger, have I stopped another fight before its begun? I must stop doing that, it's soooo undramatic. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, we'll need to expand the discussion. I'm not sure I can tolerate your anti-drama queen attitude. Drama queens need drama to survive, like flowers need rain. We can't just deny them their drama or they'll wither & die! No one enjoys dying drama queens (except on telenovelas and in Italian opera), so we both need to be a lot more careful. --Ssbohio 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 comments

I apologize if my shrubbery comment or Wikien comment on the Principality of Freedonia AFD were taken harshly. I have been rereading the mailing lists and my recent on-wiki contributions and I've concluded that I wasn't as nice to a couple of people as I should have been.
Reviewing ANI, you seem to have become a or the focus of a couple of increasingly nasty arguments. I don't think you fundamentally did anything wrong, but looking at them, I would advise you that I think the only way to end them is if people (and you in particular) just walk away and stop participating in those arguments. People are acting all wound up this last week, for no particularly good reason, and continuing to engage at any level will probably just keep the argument going.

I hope you have a good weekend. Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I made {{shrubbery}} so I can hardly object to being slapped with it myself :-) I think it's the annual holiday drama season. Once school's back in and we have the usual WP:NFT crap to clean up again, all will be calm and nice. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube

It seems to be a fuss over nothing much, as usual. There's always some (kof, t-word) who thinks that he can loophole in his favourite thing because it's not actually illegal to do it, without any understanding that most of us are quite happy to do something a bit more than what's strictly legal. It's pretty straightforward to figure out which YouTube videos are promos that you can link to and which are just video'd off the telly. It's not as though music companies or news networks hide their ownership. Grace Note 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Is this guy anybody?

This article looks questionable, but what would I know of British television presenters? Has been some vandalism in its brief existence, which makes me wonder. Claims are that he's a screenwriter on what look like non-notable short films, and presenter on a TV show. Don't know if the show makes him notable. Fan-1967 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About three people watched "Whatever", two of them were his mum (she recorded it and watched it twice). The "presenters" were about one third as good-looking and one fifth as funny as they thought they were. It was not aimed at me... Guy (Help!) 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just popping in - if the show isn't notable enough to have a page here (as it doesn't appear to have), then I doubt that someone who came to fame through this show can be considered notable. FWIW - I've never heard of it (maybe before my time - and on the "other" channel) Mart inp23 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was recent - late last year I think. Lots of trailers, all of which looked utterly dire, so I didn't watch it at all. I think it was trying to be a more edgy version of TFI Friday and failing badly. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - it must have jsut been the picture in the article which gave me that idea (though i could have bothered to read it...). OOps - but still, never heard of the show. Mart inp23 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page problem

An anon seems to enjoy making "witty" alterations to the warning I left on his page [7]. I'm not really sure which template to add next, any suggestions please? One Night In Hackney 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours for childish vandalism. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The vandal seems to have a dynamic IP anyway, normally with a 58.84 prefix. Craig Charles seems to be a frequent target of his for comments about rape, and I have it watchlisted. Normally I'd have checked for any further contributions and reverted them, but got sidetracked with the template situation. One Night In Hackney 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of DXRAW

You blocked this user for being User:Dick Witham. However, that account was blocked only for an inappropriate username. By the way, there's something fishy going on between this guy and User: The Mob Rules (each accusing the other of being socks). Cheers! yandman 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact DXRAW isn't Dick Witham. Dick Witham was one of Chadbryant's main antagonisers, and a disruptive influence at that. DXRAW is Australian I think, and has plenty of good edits. One Night In Hackney 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed further at ANI. yandman 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inshaneee

Guy, we've had the dispute resolution stuff and Inshanee has not altered his behaviour (hes mentioned on AN/I again this last week). Talk to Inshanee if you want to resolve this dispute as i have nothing to do with how he chooses to act. If you think that gathering evidence of Inshaneee's constant (more than 6 months now) incivility, abuse of admin powers and software, wheel warring and refusing to be accountable for his action is "trying to recruit a mob" then thats your faith (what ever sort it is).Hypnosadist 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, posting to multiple past disputants' talk page that you are putting together evidence to get InShaneee desysopped is considered spamming and vote-stacking, and is extremely likely to get you in hot water, so I have reverted the posts. It is of particular concern that you did not make any obvious attempt to include those whose disputes appear to have been satisfactorily resolved. So: please don't go around trying to rustle up a lynch mob, if anything it will weaken your case. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass link additions

Could you take a look at Special:Contributions/HowardWiki. Is Jerusalem Post Radio so significant that every interview they ever did should be added as a link in the article on the interviewee? The links are all specific to the subjects, but, without actually listening to each one, no way to know if they're actually significant interviews, or how much value they add. Fan-1967 14:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garden variety link spamming. Note that the user is HowardWiki and the webmaster of the station is named Howard. No contributions other than to the station's article and adding linked content, as far as I can see, and once those were rolled back there were virtually no links to the site left, so clearly nobody else is adding them in any numbers. I have blocked the user. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP

Don't know if you've been watching BBC news today, but they've been running an item about a RAF museum at Cosford in Shropshire to open shortly, and having read of your interest in HP I thought this might interest you. By the way, glad to see you've got your heads well screwed on.. ..dave souza, talk 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

woot! My dad has an oil painting of a Victor, he used to work on them. Thanks for that, Guy (Help!) 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. Here's a pic to view and destroy in case you've missed the news, apparently the exhibit opens Feb 8 - news item with Lightning pic. Never let it be said I'm not obsessive.... dave souza, talk 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Suz Andreasen

I would like to talk about why you nominated the new entry I posted for deletion. I have re-drafted it to include primary sources via the suggestion of an admin in the Jewellery Designer category which needs filling in. If you can point me to the edits that need to be made, I can correct them. Thanks, Archie MArtin 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiemartin (talk • contribs)

Archie, it was tagged for speedy deletion but I disputed the tag so sent it to Articles for Deletion instead, that was the limit of my involvement. Please feel free to contribute to the debate. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Archie

Archiemartin 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was a bit cryptic

Perhaps if you could be more specific, that would be helpful. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, an example or two would be most helpful. --ScienceApologist 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But when you say I need to be "more circumspect", I'd like to know what in my contributions over the last week or so gave the appearance of me being abusive or "less than circumspect". --ScienceApologist 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubenuts RfA on me

Sorry I ve only just seen your comment on my talk (Ive been out). I have now apologised for my mistake both on my talk and on the RfA page.I didnt realise the previous admission was not sufficient. I wonder, in the light of this whether you would consider cahnging your vote? ThankS 8-)--Light current 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Horn Players

Hi,

It's kind of curious that you've replaced the two American and the one German hornist with more Brits and an 18th century Italian. Are you sure Pyatt is as notable (outside of the UK) as Hermann Baumann? I'd never heard of him! --Rschmertz 04:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the list should be there at all. Baumann? Maybe. I don't know. I was going by who the horn players I know think were especially influential - the only two for whom I can provide a reference of pre-eminence are Punto (who was more famous than Beethoven in his day) and Brain. Lists in top-level articles are inclined to be arbitrary so maybe we should just take it out. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whale to

G'day, I see that you were involved in some early discussions about the website whale to. Someone has suggested that WP neither links to Whale to sites nor quotes from them. Is this true? An editor is busy adding material that seems to come from Whale to to several articles and if there is some WP policy about Whale to I'd like to quote it before I delete it. Thanks! Maustrauser 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links are forbidden (it's blacklisted) and if it's on a subject like vaccination then nothing should e sourced fomr there because it's terribly, terribly biased. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - are you aware of any WP policy that I can cite? Much obliged. Maustrauser 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS should do. It's not a reliable source. He does host a lot of copyvios; if the content comes from one of those then it can be cited to the original source (as long as it's from the source, not John's editorialising, which he has a tendency to add). Guy (Help!) 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Maustrauser 07:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khani

In reference to you recommendation to delete this article, I think a search under Google for Aga Khani will confirm the facts on this article. Further, the article is clearly sourced from other articles on Wikipedia such as Ismaili and Aga Khan. Clearly the term Aga Khani is a common term used in India and Pakistan for followers of this Islamic sect and this can be confirmed see below links:

http://www.islamawareness.net/Deviant/Ismailis/ http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=39226 http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/communitydetails.php?archives=1&commid=18

Thus from the above it is clear that the term Aga Khani clearly belongs in Wikipedia.

Thanks

trueblood 06:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was take it from a speedy deletion request to AfD, citing the tagger's rationale. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Ballistic

How do you think this article asserts the notability of its subject? I'm not trying to be a dick about this, I'm just curious if I'm misunderstanding what it means to "assert notability." As far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't have a real definition of that concept anywhere. Thanks. -P4k 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists a lot of releases, which is an assertion of notability. Just not a credible one in this case. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

Thanks, I appreciate the...um...cucumber. :) I think, though, since no everyone's letting Link and Hypnosadist do as they please in regards to me, the best thing I can do at this point is take a little wikibreak (I haven't had one in two years, so I'm probably due, anyway). BTW, I love your archive system, and may be forced to steal it. :) --InShaneee 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(peeks) Except for you, I see. Thanks for trying to keep things by-the-book here. It honestly does mean a lot to me. --InShaneee 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)

You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (Second nomination). This was closed as speedy keep under criterion for speedy deletion G5 as a page created by a banned user, and its content deleted. You may or may not want to contribute to the new discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). This message is being given to all users - except proven sockpuppets - who contributed in the original discussion. --Robdurbar 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

AMA Request

Hello Guy, I understand your involved in Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf. I would appreciate your comments and insight to help resolve this case either on mine, Rfwoolf's or the case's talk page. Thankyou. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a response waiting for you at: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf. Regards, Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose that:

The article is recreated (using any means and material) in user space.
Guy and my self will review the article, and make recommendations to the quality and correct content.
Upon being approved the article is re-instated (with new article) and the page is unlocked.
The case is closed.

Would this be acceptable to both parties? Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told Rfwoolf right at the beginning that he needed to recreate afresh in user space, I'm glad he finally listened. Then it goes to WP:DRV. I am not much interested in helping with content since not only did he abuse by good faith in the first place, but he has since been quite obnoxious and also needlessly personalised the dispute despite its being reviewed at WP:DRV and all actions fully endorsed. Plus I am really not that keen to get involved with an editor who has so little other mainspace contribution in relation to the amount of meta discussion he has generated, and who seems so obsessed with this sub-trivial sexcruft. As far as I am concerned there are about three zillion missing topics more important and encyclopaedic than anal stretching. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block

you blocked me. you thought i was a sock puppet. i fail to see how you reached this conclusion. i have not edited wiki since june, and i have not edited joan of arc since may (2006). can you please release the block. i don't edit very often anymore because of all the shit that goes on but i still want the block removed. i find it annoying that you don't seem to need any justification to block me.

username cwiki

you don't seem inclined to respond?? 150.101.184.35 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it be a good idea if administrators had to justify their blocks in some small way? and then respond to their blockees' objections?? or even be held accountable for ill-conceived blocks??? cwiki 150.101.184.35 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitor

Hi JzG. Last month you speedy-deleted Intuitor with the summary "WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). Fewer than 600 ghits, and the top ones are for a completely different site!" However, an archived version of the article does assert that Intuitor's "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" feature "has been cited on popular websites such as Fark and Slashdot, on radio programs throughout the U.S. and Canada, and in major print media." I get 38,000 Google hits for "intuitor", and 8 of the top 10 relate to the site. It doesn't seem to meet A7; could you take another look, and consider undeleting it? Thanks, Tim Smith 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review, second on your left down the corridor :-) Guy (Help!) 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Started. Tim Smith 15:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

This was not one of AMA's stellar moments

Have they had any? Thatcher131 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'll have you know that out of several advocacies, I've had at least one success -- I counseled a new user on why his page was speedied, helped him confirm that he couldn't get proof of notability, asked JzG to give him temp access to the page content for his off-Wiki use, and passed on his concerns to the deleting admin. He . . . um . . . thanked me nicely and left Wikipedia, never to be seen again. (Seriously, there are a lot of things AMA should improve, but the biggest problem is almost unsolveable - 25% of the people who show up are looking for advice about policies and options, and are helpable, but 75% are headed straight for a wikicliff, and it's very hard to talk them out of it in time). TheronJ 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. However, I will not provide you with a second shrubbery and definitely not beside the other shubbery to produce a lovely two-level effect!--Nilf anion (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water fuel cell

Hello, I believe Water Fuel Cell violates WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:OR etc... After more than three times that the template requesting more sources has been placed and removed (over a period of several weeks), I am RfCing (Jan 9th 2007). A poll is being held on the talk page. --CyclePat 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are not a good idea (polarising not resolving the dispute) but what is the problem, precisely? Guy (Help!) 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meuh! Go figure... I alway pick the hard way! B.t.w. I think you where right on the cplot thing. Sorry and thank you! To the problem, I think the problem is that we have an article that has sources (patents) but doesn't have much more references than that. Furthermore, because of the discussion on the talk page, it appears like there may be original research adding to that the lack of referencing directly in the article and it feels like we have a violation of everything! The poll was just to see what users though... if they see a lack of sourcing or not? (The contreversy being that the sources are there but we don't specifically elaborate which sentences are linked to which documents and on which page?) So the problem isn't really citing, but it is, but it is the verifiability. Thank you for listening. Sometimes that's all it takes. --CyclePat 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your Vandalism

They are not your talk pages, i'm reverting and if you delete again your off to AN/IHypnosadist 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already posted there before I began. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete material from my talk page? Not a big deal, but I'm very curious. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you had at least left a note. Also, I'm trying to follow and understand Wikipedia policies in general, so please give me a link to the policy on this issue. Thanks. KP Botany 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is WP:SPAM#Canvassing currently being discussed in mroe detail at Wikipedia:Canvassing, see also the WP:ANI thread. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, had I been uninvolved. However, I am one of the leading people in the RfAr against him and was planning the RfAr before he even mentioned me.

After you going on the offensive in favor of InShaneee in the RfC, look me straight in the eyes and tell me that this is not for the sake of stifling the RfAr. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking sides at all. You appear to be assuming bad faith. I have no opinion at all on whether there should be an RFAr in respect of inShaneee (I have seen my fair share of conflicts go to arbitration, I trust the process well enough), but RfCs are not against anyone, they are about them. Viewing them as an adversarial process is a common mistake, of course, but they are designed to fix a problem not escalate it, and you don't fix a problem by inviting only one side to participate in the process, or by begging the question in your invitations. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I was in charge of the RFAR against him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In charge of it, eh? But whatever. I was referring to the RfC, which exists, whereas the RFAr does not at this point. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? We weren't talking about it. It doesn't matter which exists. Does a game not exist when it's in development? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back off, ALttP. You are assuming bad faith. Further disruption might result in a block. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If assuming bad faith is a blockable offense, I have a feeling InShaneee would see the next decade before he'd be allowed back on Wikipedia. Not only that, but I don't see you telling JzG not to edit war over the contents of someone else's user talk page with the owner of that talk page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice more threats if we don't stop this, my talk to the 7 other people was about this up coming Afc. I checked wp:Canvas and nothing in it coveres evidence gathering. Just like the spam charge it is completely bogus, show the line in wp:canvasss that covers this incident.Hypnosadist 09:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been pointed to WP:SPAM, which describes why what you did was wrong. Several other experienced users and admins have told you the same thing. At what point do you start accepting consensus? Above all, nobody was blocked. All I did was point out a problem and undo it before someone more trigger-happy decided to do something about it. As admin actions go, it was not an especially controversial one. Guy (Help!) 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALttP: I never intended to make a block at all, but from my knowledge of your editing, where there is ample evidence of stalking and harassment of the concerned administrator. In the end, don't twist my words, my reason for blocking would be disruption and not simply assuming bad faith. Wikipedia does not exist so that you can push your political motives or have revenge against an administrator. Use email instead of exhausting Wikipedia's resources. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Cwiki

Cwiki, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 09:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to the admin noticeboard yesterday. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I just responded to that posting on the noticeboard. --Philosophus ^T 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the inaccuracy in the "Pagania" article?

Hallo JzG. According to your advice, I found reliable and neutral sources from various historians against the Serbian origin of the Narentine people in my "Arguements against Serbian origin of Narentines" discussion. Nobody tried to dispute it (only Pax sustained that I'm Africa guy). What is the next step to change this inaccuracy in the article to match the Wiki standards? I'm sure that if I follow the "be bold" advice of the Wiki, I will start the edit war, and I don't want to do that. So, what am I to do? Thank you in advance.89.172.6.250 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the subject area, you need to propose a change on the Talk page and discuss it with the other editors. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to do that. But, whose consent do I need to get in order to do the change? Is it the authors? Because I'm sure I will not get it. And what if he never replyes? What's the procedure?89.172.6.250 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't achieve consensus, then maybe you've not got it right yet. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, again. It happened just what I thought it would. I came up with the reliable sources from the serious and neutral scientists, discuss it on the boars, and than wht happened see for yourself: Talk:Pagania (look at the history and the deletion of the "Arguements against Serbian origin of Narentines" section). Now, you know what I new before: Pax-guy doesn't care about the facts, he dooesn't care about the encyclopedia - the guy is fighting his private war over the Wiki. This should be an open encyclopedia; this is the idea, I hope. But Pax was trying to push me out of it with all the means he's got. He's been harassing me ever since I came on the Wiki. Just look at my homepage discussion board: User talk:194.152.217.129 Look at the contributions and see if you can find any vulgarities or obscenities Special:Contributions/194.152.217.129 (two of the oldest contrib. are not even mine, and even those two are harmless). The Pax-guy and some Laughing-guy have been putting tags on my homepage like it's their private property (are they admins or something?) This I think has gone too far. I can not talk to Pax (I've tryed that too, but it was a surreal event) cause his only goal is to push me out and nothing else. Now, what are my options? What are you going to do about it: do you care for Wiki to be a better encyclopedia or just somebodys playground for some nasty games? Now, I don't care about Pax and his war with Paprika-army as he calls anyone (with good or bad intentions - without difference) that opose his views: for the Pagania article you have the facts well sourced, from serious historians on one side, and a guy trying to push his on "truth" on the other. What's it going to be?
83.131.36.177 12:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to either accept that your arguments are unpersuasive to other editors of that article, or go to dispute resolution. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject area to be of any practical assistance here. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: I'm not asking for your help concerning the subject metter, but the ways and the spirit of the free encyclopedia. I don't deserve to be pushed and harassed. You were fast to remove my coments when they hurt Pax's feelings (even though there were no obsceneties inthere) but you're not so fast to put back my deleted coments that are well argumented and sourced. Thanks JzG. :)
  89.172.219.143 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax is a long-standing editor who has been attacked by someone pushing very similar ideas to those you propose, and I don't know you from Adam. Whether or not you are AP, you are arguing for far-reaching changes from your interpretation of a single source disputed by others. The only way to fix that is through dispute resolution. You'd also be best advised to register an account. I am unable to help you any further. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I will register as soon as my fixed IP is unblocked. And if this Pax guy continues to put tags on IPs, all Croatian IPs are going to be Afrika Paprika suspected sock puppets. It'a ridiculous praxis, and I'm a proof that this "check user" thing doesnt function well... Well, only if you don't realy care for some "collateral damage" thing :) I understand completely that you want out of this mess, and I will not contact you any more - but don't be so fast to dive into it nex time if you're not ready to do the right thing, and let the arguments win.
89.172.20.31 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can register right now using this dynamic IP. Alternatively you can go to WP:AMA and ask for help getting your other IP unblocked. But I can't help you with your content dispute. Guy (Help!)

According to this, the anon you're talking to is Afrika paprika... Khoi khoi 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's Pax's view, yes. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the anon wrote on his talk page ..by the way, I indeed am Afrika paprika - and Factanista, Zrinski, Pygmalion .. and vowed never to let "dumb-ass idiotish Americans and British" rule Wikipedia, promising to always return. :) I guess I was right all along. --PaxEquilibrium 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I contribute from time to time to mentioned page. I don't want to take anybody's side, but it is a fact that Pax deleted part of talk page with his, anon and your discussion. Whether this anon is from Afrika paprika army or not, he gave suggestion for fair and documented contribution.Plantago 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know I said I won't be bothering you any more, but I just can not stand aside and look how Pax-guy throws mud at me. Once again, I am not the Afrika-guy, nor I have ever said I am (I would realy like to see that, maybe I am a split personality); I never used obscenities or vulgarities here on Wiki (especially would never do it as an adjective for any nation). The way Pax and his pall Laughing-guy behave is so low, and so mean; it's a disgrace for the Wiki. They already showed that they don't care about the encyclopedia objectivity, they just throw mud and push aside anyone that disagrees with them. If you want to see a real conflicing personality, just follow the Pax's posts on his and other people's talk pages.
PS. The IP I currently own is a public one, and as soon as I leave the net, sombody else can have it. How on Earth can you conclude who posted what by tracing these ever changing IP-s. Pax-guy and Laughing-guy keep on putting tags on every IP I was assigned; pretty soon every IP on the server will be AP puppet, and everybody using it will be the target for thair harassment. I never acted as a sock puppet and always admit it's me using the specific IP. I have no reason to be perfidious.
PPS. This "dumb-ass idiotish Americans and British" rule Wikipedia thing was the ultimate meanness, so despicable.
Sorry once again, for everybody who read all this mess; especially sorry for you JzG it's happening on your talk page.
83.131.54.234 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - as 89.172.226.252 and 89.172.230.208 you openly self-declared & signed as Afrika paprika. And those are the exact 89 & 83 IPs which continually edit this talk page, among others - I will quite know a a wise user sad: If Users behave like trolls, treat them that way. One of the most recent things was posting that I suck someone's dick for a dozen times on my user page. --PaxEquilibrium 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Guy, do you have any information about this? If not, you should probably be aware of it. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my friend Newyorkbrad got to it before me... I though I should tell you that after reading through one of your postes,[8] my CyclePat Senses™ started tingling... I sudenly wondered; is there a flaw in the way we post at AN/I board? What would happen if someone create another account or posted annonymously purposelly impersonating an administrator? For example, let's take my friend JzG. If I user:CyclePat decided to start a new thread called User is Sockpuppeteering and needs block but impersonated my friend by signing at the end his name. I decided to test the theory by doing the first step and starting a new tread.[9]

The rest of the comments on this subject can be found on my User talk page. --CyclePat 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, this is not actually news - it's always been possible to copy-paste another user's sig, but anyone who did it would be in deep doo-doo. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah! I know. But, you know what they say. Sometimes you just want to make sure. Why else would we be building here in Canada Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. To confirm the simplest of things! Thanks guy! Sorry if I caused a small ruckuss --CyclePat 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing image

An GFDL image used by several pages has disappeared. Stem cell diagram File:StemCellsDia.png that was created by User:Adenosine. Was linked to by Stem cell. Any help appreciated. TimVickers 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC) sorted. TimVickers 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)

I was just reading this and feel you should take a look at the AfD again as the two most recent comments look like socks of User: Dick Witham or reverse psychology socks of User:Chadbryant. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me! By the way for some humour have a look at [10] DXRAW 11:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links.

This will be my last attempt to bring you to regular dispute resolution.

I understand that you feel your changes to the external links guidelines are important, and you believe they would protect Wikimedia from imminent threat of litigation. However, legal issues are best handled by the Foundation, not individual editor actions, and they have a lawyer on retainer. I find it hard to imagine he has not reviewed the current state of things for any potential liability, and would have commented had he found an urgent risk. Especially considering the amount of publicity this issue has had.

I do not want to link to copyvio, and wish you would stop saying I did. I have made it clear to you that I do not several times, and not only do I not want to link to copyvio but I *wrote the section of the guideline making linking to copyvio a non-negotiable restriction*.

My objections have been that your proposed changes have either muddled an already complex guideline, added redundancy to what was already there, or introduced new 'legalistic' sounding text that actually offered *less* protection and guidance. And that you did so without making a good faith effort to gain consensus support for your changes.

I conclude with a request to please take this to dispute resolution. --Barberio 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the dispute is you and Cindery, the rest of us are quite happy with the status quo. Feel free to take yourselves to dispute resolution. Don't forget to mention that you've ended up getting the guideline protected twice and the talk page forked to improve the signal to noise ratio on WT:EL. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP COI notifications

Hi Guy. I'm still not sure about what should be done about COI issues on the NLP article. I seem to be very much on my own on that article and its very hard to edit there without feeling that straight reporting is being resisted very strongly by an NLP provider company plus associates. They (especially Comaze) are now trying to make it look like I'm close to or actually throwing personal attacks. I don't see how they can claim such a thing. I looked at the personal attack policy and I see to be nowhere near attack. They seem to be presenting most of the critical facts - but now the work is towards reframing NLP as some kind of "soft science". The only excuse they find for doing so is their own unsourced OR. They are completely against any succinct statement of what NLP does in reality - and they don't want to clearly present the actual reasons for why scientists and others are concerned about NLP's promotion as a science. They are all fighting against me and even user Fainties supports the rather OR frames of Comaze and the IP numbers there. I heard mediation is an option but mediating just myself against a group of them seems a little strange. Comaze seems to be agianst clearly presenting his known COI on the ANI page and of course is refusing to leave the NLP articles alone. If I'm doing anything out of line please specify the error. Thanks - Ding dong merrily etc... AlanBarnet 05:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Guy. Just a bit more on developments on the NLP article. A new editor (Doc pato) has turned up and you may want to assess a possible COI there. I actually feel things can be handled there relatively easily there now. Comaze and certain numbers are accusing me of attacking them (on my talkpage) because I reiterated your message. I calmed things down by simply posting the link and referring to the right policy. Again - if you think I have edited or handled other editors wrongly then point me to the relevant policy. I'm happy to work alone on the opening to present it as balanced as possible according to Wikipedia Lead Section recommendations - though I have also made it known on my edit summary that non-COI collaboration is desirable. I imagine as before - key issues will be deleted from the lead on a fairly regular basis - but I'll keep calmly and flexibly trying to sort the problem if it occurs. Apart from that I'll also keep an eye out for OR and selective editing. Who knows - maybe the article will be clear and balanced one day. AlanBarnet 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not be fooled by yet another sock of Headleydown. His edits are the same, his language is the same, and his arguements are the same, if not politer. Doc Pato 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politer, yes, which is why I have not yet blocked as a Headley sock. Reasonableness was never Headley's strong point, as I recall. Which means either he's learned (in which case is there still a problem?) or this is not Headley. I recommend "trust but verify" here for a while anyway. NLP promotion is a problem. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politeness would be the secondary issue. The primary issue is POV warrioring, distortion of authors meanings, and deleting bona fide cited information.

Like here where he removes the cited quote indicating "the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated.", because it conflicts with his POV that it has been properly investigated and it had failed.
Here he moves the context of Einlich's statement regarding the popularity of NLP, so it only refers to an ambiguous "cult-status".
Editing technique descriptions to present them in the most cartoonish way as possible. (Same Headleydown style from ages back)
Here he removes information regarding mental health bodies that use NLP
Here he is altering the more accurate "Some reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed" (because some have not) to simply the definitive "Reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed psychobabble" (implicit all).
Here he does the same thing. Changing the balanced "NLP is considered by some scientists as fraudulent" to definitive "NLP is considered by scientists as fraudulent." (implicit all).
Here he removes the cited notion that NLP might be untestable, because it conflicts with the POV NLP has been tested and has failed.
Here He removes technique descriptions to replace them with his own cartoonish "imaginary magic circle" copy. (Same Headleydown copy from ages back).
ad infinitum

Regarding NLP promotion, I'm a little confused. As the article stands:

While there's abundance of quoted research reviews (to the point of bloating the entry) reporting the POV NLP is unvalidated and doesn't work, as of yet, there are no research reviews listed in the main article reporting that NLP techniques may have some merit (despite the fact there are many to list[11]).
And despite the fact there are a number of media sources and magazines praising NLP[12], as of yet in the article, none of these are listed and instead only journalists who are critical are included.

Therefore, I'm a bit curious as to how the article is somehow promotional? While I understand you may have had the view that the general unorganized loose body of techniques and operational presuppositions of NLP is somehow a some sort of a "cult", one might consider that if BBC allows it's founder's and trainers to use/demonstrate/promote it's methodologies on prime time television shows (Paul Mckenna/Bandler/Derren Brown), perhaps the whole NLP=CULT view might be somewhat of a fringe POV. Granted, this is a view to which you are perfectly entitled, but to present this as a "fact" which is being "obscured", is perhaps an overstatement of a particular POV, generally promoted by fundamentalists of other -isms.Doc Pato 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this insistance that the NLP article is promotional either. I agree that the parts on its principles have been afflicted by jargon, but the main thrust of the article is to make it abundantly clear that there is not a shred of scientific evidence in support of it. This is quoted ad nauseum, the editors having to take refuge in long and exact quotes as a defence against POV from AlanBarnet. If anything the article is biased in the other direction. If I knew how to create a link I could point to where AlanBarnet deliberately put in inaccurate citations in the manipulation section to the effect that 3 reputable scientists stated NLP was a cult in a matter where the true substance of the opinions of the scientists had already been fully discussed. AlanBarnet has been repeatedly asked to provide reputable sources to support his contention that NLP is a cult and was eventually, on his talk page, reduced to citing you as a source. Fainites 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. [13] The point is the fact that most of the previous citations for saying NLP was a cult had already been shown to be fake as was extensively discussed in Talk. (the only one of the total of 9 citations given which actually accused NLP of being a cult was Protopriest Novopashin.Fainites 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)) The opinions of the three scientists were extensively discussed in Talk. AlanBarnet refused to provide an exact quote and context for this claim and only provided the quote (Eisner/Elich which doesn't support it) long after someone else had already provided it. The point I'm making is that he's not editing seriously at all. He's just playing games which result in alot of extra work for everyone else and a distorted article. Fainites 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here Fainites - I think this may help [14]. Here is the statement that I used to present that information “Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult and may be nothing more than a psychological fad”. (Eisner 2000p158). I already explained that I deliberately kept the cult issue out of the lead section because I am as yet unsure of how to present it. [15]. It does seem to me that already some verifiable and reliable sources have been removed from the article on the basis that they don't contain the statement "NLP is a cult". There is a conference article that states NLP is a psychocult for example - written by a researcher and Russian archpriest for a cultic studies conference. Clearly there is a cultic issue. I have some solutions for the oversized article that I presented on the NLP talkpage under the title of "Cleanup taskforce issues". AlanBarnet 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [[16]] and [[17]]. Also this is AlanBarnet quoting you as a source having failed to provide any verified source/quote/literature or anything to say NLP was a cult (the EisnerElich quote has been in the article since 24.12.06). (Protopriest Novopashin was already in the article). "Hi Fainites. Yes I don't take any statement at face value either. I did look into Guys statements tho - and they do reflect exactly whats mentioned in the literature of scientists and the more reliable authors. He said cult - but then qualified it by stating nuances about cultic systems. So the view is incredibly well informed and balanced on examination of the literature. I can only imagine he has come across so many well sourced statements and has seen all the similar cultic articles that he knows pretty much what he's talking about. As I said though theres no need to take them at face value. The facts should speak for themselves as it says more or less in NPOV policies." This is all just too silly for words. Fainites 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Guy. Here is more Comaze NLP COI business. This time on the psychology article. Interesting use of edit summary. [18]. AlanBarnet 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not even 'akin to a cult' from Elich. It's "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". This is repeated exactly by Sharpley. Fainites 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Guy. Comaze is still showing up with COI related information [19]. Its fairly clear that the company Inspiritive is not only a strategic partner. Comaze.com is actually powering the security and financial intake of the site[20]. AlanBarnet 05:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful...

...of voting twice at AFDs! ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you expect? The bastards made me take the flag out of my sig. Anyway, I'd have deleted it twice. Guy (Help!) 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're up late

... in your time zone. Any thoughts on this? Not sure what you'd call it, besides pointless. Fan-1967 02:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 21:32 so in Philadelphia, waiting for BA0068 to be reprovisioned for the outward flight to LHR. Bars all closed, no food on offer, Philadelphia airport sucks by comparison with Heathrow. On the plus side, tailwinds over the Atlantic should mean the delay outbound is amde up en route. Oh, and I am listening to Leopold Mozart's Sinfonia da Caccia recorded by the New Zealand Chamber Orchestra, complete with dogs and guns. Not thinking too straight, though, thanks to a couple of pints of Yuengling. Guy (Help!) 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bose headphones

Hello. I have nominated Bose headphones for deletion. I noticed you started the original AFD and thought you might be interested in following the second one. —ptk✰fgs 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: I used such headphones a few years ago. They worked, but hissed a bit. In the meantime, many manufacturers sell headphones using the same principle, so the article should be called Acoustic cancellation headphones or something --Theosch 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This shows you have 7073 edits to main spaces. If you wish to have more information check out this link which gives you the chance to opt in for more details by adding a code. That same program indicates that you have 25496 edits. There is however a problem when I used Flcelloguys_Tool_5_00 from WP:COUNT, it only goes up to 15000 edits and max's out. Similarly this wannabe kate program says you have 27201. (and give everyone the chance to see what you edit). You appear to be avraging 2000 edits per month. With approx. 30 days a month and approx 24 hours in day - your work time (lets say 7 hours) - sleep time (7 hours) = 10 hours. Within one month you should have approx. 300 hours of leasure time. If we divide that by the amount of edits... 2000 edits/ 300 hours... = 6.66 edits/ per hour. Furthermore, your first edit was the 6th of January 06, at 6:16 p.m.... (spooky)... 666 is referred to as the Number of the Beast in the Book of the Revelation (see Revelation 13:17–18)... On your title page you have a comment that says "beware of tigers"! (a beast). That means your edits are somehow linked with this evil. Some perceive it as the "Devils Number". Given my Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, I think I've seen this in a movie once... everyone died. (Just kidding). But interesting to know, no? Maybe it's time we take a wiki break! Have a safe trip! --CyclePat 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked at most of them, the wannabe kate's tool takes a very long time to count all my edits. However, modern scholarship shows that the number of the beast in the original sources is actually 616. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow! That makes it all the more spookier and ironic given the time of registration. Humm... I just hope you're not flying on a Boeing 707 version 3... (that would be too weird given the amount of edits you have is 7073 to main spaces. If you're supperstitious I'dd stay away from wikipedia while on the flight! (turning into some Stephen King Thriller) Humm... anyway, (in a serious tone) keep up all the good work... (sarcastically) You little devil!! --CyclePat 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

The following was on my talk page. I figure you can probably help him/her more than I can. PatriotBible 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several bogus institutions from India have been using Wikipedia to promote themselves. None of them has government accreditation. However, their promoters are repeatedly reverting my edits and projecting these bogus institutions and diploma mills as genuine. These are:

Of these, the Serampore College is a bogus theological University and diploma mill. It has never been accredited by the University Grants Commission or other government accrediting agencies in India.

Noticing your stand against diploma mills and bogus institutions, I request your help in keeping an eye on them. The Hermes 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I am currently jetlagged and won't be able to tackle this until this afternoon (GMT) but I will look at it. Please also consider letting FeloniousMonk know about this. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOUP

Thanks. I needed that. —Cryptic 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I love it when someone puts there finger on a problem as precisely and as concisely as that. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized bicycle

I noticed you removed reference to Series Hybrid Cycle. Did you delete this page as well? That page appear to have been quite informative as this backup demonstrates... [21]. Can you please undelete the Series Hybrid Cycle. Thank you! --CyclePat 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it out twice, once when it first appeared and again now. The only reference for this term appears to be Andreas Fuchs [22], and the article was created by FuchsA (talk · contribs) who has no other contributions. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am no brainiack here, but given the backup version available here and my extensive research in "electric bicycles", it actually appears that this was the begining of an article that can be called electric bicycle. Given the many references that exist for electric bicycles, I would suggest that the information be dropped within the electric bicycle, the motorized bicycle talk page, or maybe a sub-user page user:CyclePat/hybrid serie cycles. I would be happy to find more sources for the article and include the information within motorized bicycle article or electric bicycle(or the book I'm writting). We know according to the backup that there where some good sources in that article concerning electric bicycle. Given the nature of our past conflicts concerning the merger of power-assisted bicycles, electric bicycles, or almost anything talking about electric bicycles having it's own article seperate from motorized bicycle, I think it would be a good idea to, if you did delete it, that perhaps you could undelete (in one of the afformentioned methodes). Again, though perhaps not notable (only 2 pages in google search) (and one page if searched in the singular form) the information on that page had some interest for the developement of electric bicycle article or at least the electric bicycle section of motorized bicycle. (I do agree that the term is however rare in my region, and that the article didn't have all citations!) Thank you! --CyclePat 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric bicycle is a redirect and that's just fine. That article was one man's name for one man's research. If I thought there were more sources I'd have done something other than nuke it! Guy (Help!) 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm a personal friend of the author Andreas Fuchs and know his projects. I think his work should be included somewhere in Wikipedia. I agree that his article was perhaps a bit too extensive for Wikipedia, considering the specialist nature and I think the name of the article was somewhat misleading, so I'm not unhappy at the deletion, Guy. However I'll try to work with Andreas to create a shorter version under a better name or put some of the infomation into chainless bicycle or hybrid-electric bicycle, which is still a stub. I also think there should perhaps be a separate article called Electric bicycle, which is not a redirect into Motorized bicycle, which has a lot of combustion-engine related stuff. Of course, we could call the new article Electric cycle, because many vehicles are actually tricycles. I've only joined Wikipedia recently, but I'm a specialist in lightweight electric vehicles and hope to find time to help out in this field. I notice that you and CyclePat above have had some edit wars together but seem reconciled, so please point out to me if any newbie blunders of mine threaten to cause a flare-up again. --Theosch 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In the meantime, I've pretty much rewritten Hybrid-electric bicycle, putting in some of the info from the previous Series hybrid cycles and added more references and links. Not perfect yet, but what do you think so far, Guy and CyclePat? --Theosch 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson

Hey, Guy, I'm sure you're as swamped as I am - do you have time to peek at Talk:Ernest Emerson? I may be missing something. I first encountered the (well-meaning, productive) main editor when I peer reviewed the article. I satisfied myself that notability was well met (read the sources), but he is having issues with another editor who is labeling the article as spam and deleting referenced text, after a lot of hard work. I've encouraged the other editor to come to the talk page, and I don't think referenced text about a notable person/company is necessarily spam, but since the main editor is hard at work, another set of eyes could really help here. Maybe I'm wrong. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress here on Jeffpw's page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good article, for sure. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy! I was wondering if you could take a look at it again when you have a spare moment. I ommitted non essential elements of the EKI article and moved the important stuff into the Ernest Emerson article. I think it's actually a bit better now thanks to this reccomendation. Hopefully it will calm down the guy who thinks it's spam...but I'm sure he'll be back with a new objection. --Mike Searson 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOI.net

Your removal of every single DOI.net link on Wikipedia constitutes nothing short of vandalism and will continue to be reverted on sight being that DOI.net meets WP:rS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.41.183 (talk • contribs)

Speaking of which...Anon IP adding the links to DOI that you removed [23], [24] and [25]. Regards. One Night In Hackney 16:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Indeed. It is User:JB196 again. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. GaryGoingggg also re-inserted the link on the Tommy Dreamer article immediately before the IP started editing, and GaryGoingggg is another suspected sock of JB196, further details here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust... Guy (Help!) 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for CR Mediation comment

Thanks so much for comment in the CR Paganism Mediation case. I was beginning to get a serious flash of Kafka or that my sense of communal reality was slipping badly. I just wish I had thought to decline this mediation until the end of the arbitration first rather than trying to explain things. I have this archaic notion that communicating clearly, honestly, and thoroughly helps resolve situations. It didn't occur to me that someone coming in cold to the situation might not understand or look carefully at the links provided. I might be stuck in an Arbitration state of mind around the issue, though, where everything needs to be presented as "evidence". Anyway, thanks again. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I think they are trying to tie you up in knots. One meta-case at a time is quite enough. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank you very much, Guy. I, too, was getting a serious dose of the surreal. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to comment. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

Several bogus institutions from India have been using Wikipedia to promote themselves. None of them has government accreditation. However, their promoters are repeatedly reverting my edits and projecting these bogus institutions and diploma mills as genuine. These are:

Of these, the Serampore College is a bogus theological University and diploma mill. It has never been accredited by the University Grants Commission or other government accrediting agencies in India. Noticing your stand against diploma mills and bogus institutions, I request your help in keeping an eye on them.

They are simply reverting my posts about this Fake University without furnishing proof. The Hermes 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

For dealing with the JB196 situation. Can I get some input here please? See my comments for the reasoning. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email, g.c@spamcop.net for subj: Ackoz / Azmoc aftermath --66.58.130.56 13:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied by mail. You need WP:OVERSIGHT, I would break more than you could imagine if I tried to fix that. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your unbiased opinion

I am asking your opinion because you and I usually disagree on the few articles to which we both contribute, and so I think others will trust your opinion if you happen to agree with me. There is a WP:BLP that I have contributed to and still watch on Sarah_Shahi. There have been many things done to the article which I feel do harm to the article's significance, so much so that I have given up contributing. I believe that the Talk was archived in bad faith to hide the previous discussions, and I want to know if you agree with that assessment.

In my opinion, the Talk was not unusually long and was not difficult to navigate. The person who archived the Talk has since been permanently blocked from editing WP. The user's own talk page has repeatedly been deleted or blanked by the user, also in my opinion to hide the previous discussions.

If you agree with my assessment of the bad faith archival, how should I go about reverting the archival? I think the same changes discussed in the recent past continue to take place without the possible benefit of past debates and concensus.

By the way, I know you're busy, and this is a particularly low priority article. I will not be offended in any way if you are never able to find the time to review the situation or comment. At least the archive is always available.

--JJLatWiki 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a reasonable request and no kind of distraction. I don't think it's necessary to rehash the debate by de-archiving, sometimes a fresh start is good. If you have cited facts you should feel free to put them in and if a new sock pops up then I can play whack-a-mole with the best of them. Obviously rumour and trivia are questionable even if they are not defamatory, but the idea that trivia is defamatory unless sourced from IMDB is completely absurd - IMDB is not actually that reliable anyway. Interviews and profiles in magazines and books are the best source. What does Halliwell say, I wonder? Anyway, I would say you can safely ignore Technajunky and his hosiery drawer, and I removed the copyright comment from the image tag because it's complete bollocks, iff a credible argument can be made that a fair use image is not replaceable then it can go in. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good point about the "fresh start". I wish the purpose for the archival had been for that reason or to keep the talk page reasonably sized, but I will leave it as is and see what happens next. Unless it is outrageous, I don't pay close attention to actor articles. Beside, that article is among a group that I think are being monitored and protected by a particular cabal that I just don't have the time to fight for this article. I couldn't agree more about IMDB. Obviously I disagreed with Technajunky about what was too trivial for such an article, but his methods were extremely agressive. --JJLatWiki 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My offer to Ilena

My response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A small request...

I noticed you recently contributed to the article Derek Smart. I was wondering if you would be able to revert an edit that was done a very short time before the article was previously protected. The edit[26] was agreed by the majority of contributers to be from a non-neutral POV, and only serves to spread non-verified hearsay into the article in an effort to make the subject appear to be especially irrational. As this is a biography of a living person, I think that it would be best to comment it out to be on the safe side. I am contacting you because you seem to have taken the most recent interest in this article, and you are able to make edits on the level of an admin.

Thank you, in any case, for your consideration. Mael-Num 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. That discussion is so obscured by the strewings form Smart's hosiery drawer as to make any realistic attempt to assess consensus futile. You might have more luck with User:Phil Sandifer, who is better informed on gaming than I am (and, unlike me, actually cares about it). Guy (Help!) 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take an intimate understanding of gaming to see what's going on here. The question is, is it important to a biography of Derek Smart to reprint the claim by some that he beat up a Coke machine? I think it's kinda silly, a bunch of other people think it's kinda silly. I mean, it makes a great story, but do you put it in an encyclopedia? I'm just asking you put back in the comment tags. You seemed to think it was important to keep the language in the article neutral, so it seemed natural to appeal to you to keep the information in the article pertinent and fair. Mael-Num 00:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But according to the RFAR, you are either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Derek Smart, so why would I take your word for it, or that of any of the other single-purpose accounts for that matter. Like I said, take it to someone like Phil who actually cares. Me, I have very limited patience for usenet trolls trying to use Wikipedia to airbrush their public persona. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that the RFAR has found me to be a puppet of any kind of Derek Smart, then I'm afraid that the RFAR must be some of the worst detectives on the planet. Unless an IP check has been done on me, and proved that I resolve to the same (or nearly the same) IP as the others, there's no evidence of that claim. Also, if you check my edits, you'll see I'm no fan of Smart, or whitewashing the truth. I also don't write anything like those other fellows (fellow?). So, given that conclusion (that I'm a puppet) in the absence of any real evidence, I'd say there's more than reasonable doubt of my innocence.

All that aside, if you'd prefer not to make that edit, or you don't see my point about the reason the change, or you choose not to see relevance of the straw vote that agreed it was inappropriate, then that's your preference and your position, and I don't blame you for having it. Thank you all the same for your time and consideration. Cheers. Mael-Num 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, uh, now that you mention it...I can see where this whole Derek Smart puppet-thing is starting to make me look bad. I mean, you don't know me from Adam, and your first impression of me is that I'm a puppet. If I am, as I say, some completely different guy, you might see how that's a bummer. How would you suggest I go about clearing my name? Mael-Num 01:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having just noticed this discussion I think I should say that during the few weeks since the start of the RFAr, I've decided that Mael-Num probably isn't one of Derek Smart's accounts. At the time of writing my initial statement, the only time Mael-Num had edited was during a two week period while Supreme Cmdr was blocked (Supreme Cmdr evades blocks on his main account like mad, so I don't think this was an irrational assumption to make), but my opinion changed after reading sensible edits made by him (her?) on the RFAr (which is the opposite of what we get from Smart).
As for this coke machine bit in the Derek Smart article itself, I think our time would be better spent on the RFAr than re-starting the dispute over the article's content. There will be plenty of time (in relative peace and quiet) after the arbitration case has ended to discuss what bits have consensus and what bits don't. -- Steel 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for offering your input, as I know you're very familiar with what's going on. I also really appreciate your speaking up for the likelihood that I'm not someone else (and just FYI, I be a he). My only concern was that, in the time that this information stays up, anyone who casually stops by wondering "Who is this Derek Smart guy?" might read the article and conclude "He attacks soda machines, and therefore must be nuts". All in all, it's not like that story hasn't already gotten around, and I respect your position that it is best to wait until the RFAR is concluded.

Thanks again, to both of you, for addressing my concerns. I feel much better about the whole situation. Mael-Num 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,. Steel. The text is not defamatory, so there is no pressing need to change it, waiting until the dust settles first sounds like good advice. Mael-Num, the best way to clear your name is simply to improve the encyclopaedia - the more articles unrelated to Smart that you edit and improve, the more it will become apparent that you are your own man :-) Guy (Help!) 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDH

I thought It was probabaly going to diverge on the noticebaord, so I brought t here :)

The shortest article I can conceive of is "The following bunch of lamebrains and weirdos think the WTC buildings were brought down by a massive conspiracy rather than a handful of terrorists with aircraft.", but I suspect that is a little too POV ;)

It is getting shorter. It's way too long, but those who are working hard inside it seem to be cutting rather than adding. The only other solution would be to content fork the various sections, but imagine the bunting and frolics that would cause.

At least most of the tone is now NPOV, and pretty much all claims are cited. It shoudl certainly never say "thsi is right" or "this is wrong", but leave any reader able to make an educated decision.

I'm more, I think, of an interested bystander. I have peripheral expertise only and tend to stand back and criticise the article rather than write any of it. Fiddle Faddle 12:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:o) I think the suggestion was that the theory has been propounded by foo and bar (Jones and whoever) but lacks any mainstream support and has not been accepted for publication by any reputable peer-reviewed journal. It's not necessary to actually say that it is the work of deluded individuals clutching at straws to support a world-view that directly contradicts the available evidence and violates Occam's Razor into the bargain. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always struck me as rather odd that there are two armed camps. The one camp looks at the article and says "The article must go because nothing must interfere with my nation's judgement about terrorists" and the other says "You are deluded if you believe the government view. The article must show how wrong the government is". How fortunate that we have consensus politics here that recognise that an article should exist, and are simply trying to shape the one we have into the one that deserves its place :) Fiddle Faddle 13:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am certainly no supporter of Shrub, the idea that we must support him because he is a "war president" in a war he himself declared (and post-facto at that) has always struck me as contemptible, but when looking for explanations as to why the buildings went down, being hit by sixty tons of aircraft fully loaded with a few thousand gallons of kerosene which promptly caught fire does look, on the face of it, to be a plausible enough explanation that looking under the carpets for explosive residues is probably unnecessary. Even more than the Roswell business, I am struck by the fact that this conspiracy theory requires the involvement of very large numbers of people, none of whom have so much as whispered a word of it. Ask Richard Nixon about the real-world likelihood of a completely leak-free conspiracy, particularly where politics is involved. Add to that the fact that it would require an almost total absence of conscience to wilfully detonate explosives in a building full of people and you raise a very high burden of proof on those who propose the theory. Thus far the limit of their proof appears to be "well, you can't conclusively prove it didn't happen", and that assertion is itself based on the fact that any evidence or proof advanced by any agency that does not accept or support the hypothesis is rejected out of hand simply on that basis. It's rather like Kent Hovind rejecting any evidence for evolution on the basis that it contradicts his interpretation of the Bible, and then asserting that this in and of itself means that creationism is proven as literally true. We know these people are deluded, and we sure as hell should not be helping them to make their case, but that doesn't stop us documenting the phenomenon. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, the conditions which must apply for the CDH to eb true are, to my mind:

The Gubmint decides that it is worth killing thousands of US citizens to rpovoke a war
They decide that running airliners into the World Trade Center would be a more effective way of doing this than, say, a fake-terrorist bomb blast at the Superbowl (which would probably be a lot easier to arrange)
They find enough people with expertise in controlled demolition of extremely large buildings that they can build a big enough team without worrying that a single member will ever breathe a word
They manage to get the explosives into the building past the tenants' floor security (and remember, these are banks)
They find some people who are prepared to commit suicide in the cause of killing American citizens and provoking a war with Iraq, train them to fly and get them on the planes
They crash the planes into the buildings, detonate the explosives and then arrange for the President to appear to be completely callous by failing to take it seriously (lovely piece of rverse psychology there)
They manage to dupe every single structural engineer and demolition specialist who visited Ground Zero (or maybe they are all in on the conspiracy as well?)

The alternative, prosaic explanation is:

Terorrists decided to attack the States and hatched the plan of flying airliners into the towers
They managed just that
The plan succeeded better than they could have dreamed, because not only did the uildings get wiped off the face of the earth, a bunch of people actually started mad theories about how is was all the work of the Evil Gubmint.

It will be readily apparent which view I prefer. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is easy. Obviously you are 100% with the conspiracy theorists. Otherwise you would not argue against them. I claim Lady Macbeth Fiddle Faddle 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are Oolon Colluphid and I claim my five pounds :o) Guy (Help!) 14:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't that Lobby Lud? Look, here's sixpence! It's bright and shiny, and you can get six pennyworth of chips all wrapped in the Westmister Gazette Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Babel fish :-) Guy (Help!) 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I surrender. I looked. Either it is not there or I missed it Fiddle Faddle 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about proving that black is white and then getting killed on the next zebra crossing. You probably have to be in my head for it to make sense. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not at all strange, are you. It's good to meet another ordinary person. I am forced to say "Wibble". Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I'm completely hatstand, me. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintila RfC

Is this issue resolved? If so I will archive the RfC. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's resolved for me. Which is to say, all I wanted was a clear denial. Whether it is resolved for Dahn is up to him to say. - Jmabel | Talk 17:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, I guess that, since he denied it and did not object to the changes in text (although he failed to tell us where he had gotten the references from, leading to phrases being unreferenced), the issue could be closed. As far as I am concerned, if he has copied and this is evidenced, or if he will be caught copying, his recorded denial will be evidence of bad faith. So, yes. Dahn 20:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bootleg albums are by nature almost without exception undocumentable per policy"

Hi... I know noting about the specific albums you were talking about, but I must take exception to this general statement. This excellent book talks about several noteworthy, historic bootlegs, such as The Beatles' Get Back and Dylan's Royal Albert Hall. —Chowbok ☠ 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptions that prove the rule. The vast majority, almost all, are not formally verifiable. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB196's link spam blacklisted?

I saw that DOI had been blacklisted, but this diff suggests otherwise. Does it take a while to come into effect? He's also trying to link to a forum posting of his "book", see here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 00:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be back on a new IP [27]. Also he seems to be linking to the DOI site through a different domain name as well *link removed*. One Night In Hackney 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another sock. If you check the end of the edit on this diff he's adding the DOI link using proxy forwarding. One Night In Hackney 03:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, proxy taken to spam blacklist requests. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more cynical would suggest Slipup21 is a JB196 sock as well. I can't provide diffs due to the spam blacklist, but if you look at the history of Tommy Dreamer. Anon IP edits at 02:32, then Slipup21 edits at 02:36. Similarly with XPW. On the 16th anon IP edits at 03:40, then Slipup21 edits at 03:42. Same again on the 17th, anon IP edits at 02:34 then Slipup21 edits at 02:36. Apart from their user page, the only edits Slipup21 has made were to those two articles at the exact same time as the anon IPs. I'm also thinking Pipperskipper is a sock for similar reasons, only editing articles the anon IPs were inserting links to at the same time. Seems like he's using multiple throwaway accounts now. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His achievements to date include getting DOI, a favourite site of his, blacklisted, and identifying a couple of proixies which are now blacklisted as well, which might almost count as a service to the project :-) Guy (Help!) 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very nice of him :) I'm thinking www.clandrake.org might need to be blacklisted for similar reasons, he tried adding a link using it which didn't seem to work, but it does look like the type of site that needs blacklisting. One Night In Hackney 13:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BrickFlim.gif

File:BrickFlim.gif

Congratulations! You are in the credits of our movie. Good job Guy. Cheers, Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RFC discussion on WP:AN

Hey there. In response to your comment about my thoughts on the RfC system, I'm going to try and write up a vague outline of my idea tomorrow afternoon, and post it as a subpage when I've got it formed. I think that'd be a good starting point. Would you like me to let you know when it's up and ready for thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got a writeup placed on my sandbox page; feel free to take a blunt object to it if you like. I think I've got all the key bits I wanted to convey in there, anyhow. Basically, I think it's an opportunity to provide some needed closure as well as organization to the process. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas on your changes so far; the additional clerk duties are good additions. I like the second summary style as well; my sample was mostly to indicate how a summary could be done to ensure that all of the viewpoints involved were represented. I've removed all the references to the actual case, as well. Needs some polishing, still. What are your overall thoughts on the idea so far? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overall idea is sound, but we should not make the process legalistic. It's designed to cut the crap not increase it. Adding summaries of the views in the dispute shuld be optional, for use when the views themselves ramble (and actually clerks should be getting people to keep their statements to under 500 words anyweay, as per ArbCom). If agreement can't be reached in a week or two it's probably never going to be reached, arbitration or mediation comes next. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed completely. I've made a few more minor tweaks and clarified that it's not intended to be bureaucratic, but more of a secondary assistance. See if I've done anything to bugger it up, please, and if you feel there's anything else that should be adjusted, please feel free. After that, I'll move it to its own subpage and post a note on the Proposals page to get some discussion going with other people. (I think that's the right route to go, anyhow... first time I've done this, so it's a learning experience.) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you. I am commited not to disappoint the all those who have shown good faith and kindness to me. nobs 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DekiWiki

DekiWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please unprotect this page, you speedied it as non-notable, news stories have since been provided on the talk page to establish notability. Try using google sometime. 88.107.120.90 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is down the hall on your left, but it was endorsed less than a fortnight ago so you will have a bit of an uphill battle. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the wrestling fans

This Afd seems to be going south very quickly. One Night In Hackney 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRLWEAP

Guy - I understand your block of User:pdigrl, and your subsequent removal of the articles he created, but unless I'm mistaken, the GRLWEAP article had been cleaned up by myself and/or User:Basar to be somewhat non-spammy. Can you please restore that article (to User:Argyriou/GRLWEAP if necessary), at least back to the last edit by someone other than User:pdigrl? Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hendry

The Paul Hendry article has been recreated once again, and the author is removing the speedy tag I've placed. Could you have a look please? Readro 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theguywholikestoeditstuff

He just recreated the page again, I believe. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 00:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Help! Am I being threatened

Kindly come to my talk page [28] where it seems an editor seems to be threatening me for stating the facts. Wikipedia is known for exposing Diploma mills and bogus universities. This is exactly what I have done, and now I am being attacked for that. Please check the bottom section of the talk page The Hermes 07:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also could you look at Institute for Creation Research. A user is removing detailed history and messing with the criticism section that demonstrates their claims are based on premodern science. PatriotBible 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a sock puppet[29]? That user has only editted two articles? PatriotBible 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another admitted sock puppet. I worked with your edits. If you don't want anyone to touch anything you write, then you don't understand the concept of wikipedia. You, on the other hand, blatantly reverted all of my work without comment, even the areas that didn't touch on your additions. He wrote "his work" and "I worked with your edits." A look at user history shows that account didn't edit that article.

This user is trying to white wash this group's history and limit criticisms. PatriotBible 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earsed his talk pages. PatriotBible 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently at a loss on the best way to deal with this user. He seems to come to you with anything that bothers him, so perhaps you have insight that I lack. I felt that rather than be confused with being a separate user contributing to the ICR article, that it was appropriate for me to show I was already an anon IP poster on the article before using my actual login, and this is the course of action I took. Also, concensus editing from PatriotBible at this point seems to be not allowing any alterations to information he adds and doing complete reverts to all changes done by any user who touches his edits, even in areas where his edits were not affected. At least this has been my experience. As this is probably not the best way for wikipedia to operate, I have been at a bit of a loss on how to proceed. I am hoping that by writing this to you that it might work itself out. If that is the case, then thank you in advance for allowing me to express myself. Cheers Bbagot 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More again. So this person is using three accounts to make changes. Bbagot, show who a list of self-publications is notable. I did not remove it, but I agree with its removal. You (and your sock puppets) are the only one who wants to keep it. PatriotBible 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statements are not reality merely because you make them. Why don't you just say I'm 5 or 6 different people? It's equally as valid. I explained myself above. Bbagot 00:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember RFA?

Hi Guy? Remember when I asked you some pretty tricky, biased and perhaps even compromisingly rude questions? I was wondering if you could return the favour here? Thank you! --CyclePat 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I failed miserably. --CyclePat 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart to withdraw before it becomes a bloodbath. Contact me via email if you want some critique. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pdigrl

I monitor the unblock list and Pdigrl (talk · contribs) is requesting an unblock. I left a message on that user's page indicating that she really needs to contact the blocking admin. I'm just giving you a heads-up. --Yamla 17:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Let's watch and see what transpires. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Western University and WP:OFFICE action

Hello; I just reverted your rewrite on this article, with explanation on that talk page. Nice job with the citations and all that, but you need to follow the rules for getting the changes cleared with WMF if you are under a WP:OFFICE banner. I spent a healthy chunk of time on the phone with counsel dealing with this today. I would have liked to have known this was going to be the case.--Brad Patrick 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I took this up with Jimbo and he told me to go right ahead. What more am I supposed to do? Guy (Help!) 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that any further discussion of this miscommunication occur off-Wiki. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. But there is a more serious problem here. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

offline

Until tomorrow at the earliest, ADSL outage in Reading. JzG 193.133.239.201 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Deletion question

I'm curious about this deletion. I don't see how this was a speedy candidate...is one of the leading Barbados-based manufacturers of solar hot water systems in the Caribbean region is certainly an assertion of notability. The article creator seems very disenchanted with process here (e.g., he filed and then removed a DRV request, and is concerned about systematic bias. He's a solid and dedicated editor and one of the top 3 contributers to articles about the English-speaking Caribbean. If nothing else, it might be nice to explain what went on and why you consider the article to really have been a speedy candidate. Thanks. Guettarda 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable call, I guess. I restored it, but I still think it looks spammy - namecheck for founder, no evidence of turnover etc. However, the prevalence of solar power in that region makes it more significant than I thought at the time. I'd AfD it as failing WP:CORP but I'm guessing that the creator could do with some Wikilove right now, so I'll leave it to you to decide what, if anything, to do. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy - I appreciate it. Guettarda 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I'd appreciate a third opinion at Talk:Brown people. You might like to swing past the AfD discussion page, too. Uncle G 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to have lost their cool there. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help.

Dear JZG (GUY),

thank you for your reply in regard to the deletion of Matt Norman. I am a journalist who has taken a big interest in the story of this film-maker and also the subject matter of the film that he has made. Its a time in history that finally gets to be revealed to the World because the subject matter is the uncle of this film-maker. As you can see by doing a goodle/yahoo and Wikipedia search, there is a lot of information about the 1968 Games, Black Power Salute, Peter Norman etc. I think it's crucial to have the name of the film-maker who is about to change history in the way that this event actually happened. I have spoken with the film-maker about this and let him know that I would be putting information about this on Wikipedia. He and his company have agreed that I can look after that for me so I do have a connection with this story. I was hoping that finally I could get an administrator like yourself to help edit my last article so that at least people have a place to go? Is it possible for your help making sure that the right thing is written so that it doesn't keep getting deleted? I ask for your help. Filmnews2007 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salute - The Peter Norman Story(film) -- you have to be kidding me.?

JzG,

C'mon you have to be kidding me. I ask that you please undelete this article that I spent hours doing. To say that it has no notability is wrong. Please search the web and tell me if you truly think that this is not a part of history that documents the truth of what happened during one of the most dramatic moments in history. The person that made this film is actually the nephew of Peter Norman. I am getting sick of re-writing these articles knowing that they are being added to Wikipedia purely for Historic study. I suggest you actually look over the links and do a little searching of your own to find the notability of this film. Hate to say this but if LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times, Fox Sports etc etc etc think that this is the most important sporting and history story of the past decade then why is it that you have deleted it??????? Enough is enough. Please re-instate this! I feel like i'm editing these pages full time because there are a few people as administrators that know nothing about this part of history and the importance it has on our world. Filmnews2007 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the external sources? The story we already have, it's the film that's the issue - it does not even seem to have been released yet. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to Peter

Guy, I don't think time ever heals some wounds, like the death of someone you love. The pain can lessen with time. I am sorry about your loss. Jance 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD "vote"

Hi Guy, I just wanted to double check whether this is your edit. Bucketsofg 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for checking. My broadband went down and I was using my Blackberry, which is Teh Suck. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

Thanks for the kind words. Always glad to bump into you around Wikipedia. Tijuana Brass 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you have a look at Google SketchUp 6

Can you have a look at Google SketchUp 6 external links, really close to Spam Event Horizon. 131.111.8.104 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject West Yorkshire

JzG, you're from Yorkshire aren't you?? I've set up the Wikipedia:WikiProject West Yorkshire, feel free to help me expand on it. I'm trying to get new members for this wikiproject, all help is much appreciated. --SunStar Net^talk 11:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, lad, ah'm from down South. Born in Hertfordshire and live in Berkshire. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist Deletions

I noticed that you have nominated a number of my articles for deletion that relate to Seventh-day Adventists. Could you please keep them? I am working on trying to expand them and it is taking time to track down all the necessary sources and several others I have noticed have done some work on them, too. William Paul Bradley, Francis M. Wilcox, and Kenneth H. Wood. I noticed that you stated that the editor of the "Watchtower" would be significant, but not the main periodical by Seventh-day Adventists, the "Review and Herald" (or today the "Adventist Review"). While there are hundreds of Adventist periodicals (I am the chair of a Seventh-day Adventist archive located at Loma Linda University), this is the most important periodical published by Adventists, a group that totals approximately 15 million members with an attendance of around 25 million each Sabbath. The editor of this church paper is usually a very influential person, someone who relates to other religious leaders, and I think merits inclusion on Wikipedia (although I also recognize the articles need expansion and sources)--which is happening to many of my other articles that I have started. In addition, the prophetic voice of Ellen G. White is a significant component of understanding Adventism, and hence I think the chair of the board of the Ellen G. White Estate is also worthy of including. I responded to each of your requests for deletion. Would you please not just delete them but give them some due consideration? thewalkingstick 22 January 2007

A small number, yes, because they don't appear to meet our criteria for biographies, the primary notability criterion is that they have been the subject of multiple on-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, and there is no evidence in the articles that they have been. The fact that White is notable is not disputed but that certainly does not make every administrator of the trust notable by extension. I'm pretty sure that most editors of the Catholic Herald or Watchtower wouldn't qualify for an article, and we don't even have ana rticle on the Sikh Messenger although for example Indarjit Singh would undoubtedly qualify, because of his many appearances on the highly influential Today programme (Redlink! Scandalous. Not for long). But I am not going to delete them, I have submitted them to the community for debate. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your comment -

Regarding [30]. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tyag

Why did you remove the NPOV tag at brown poeple while you were protecting it. This is a clear case of admin abuse as you have edited the article yourself and while in a protected state. I willr eport you if this isnt fixed pretty quick, SqueakBox 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no substantive complaint about the neutrality of the article, which is written by one of our most respected, and in this case disinterested, editors. You are disputing how the term is used in the real world, whereas this article accurately reflects how the real world uses the term. If you feel that there is a substantive problem with the accuracy or neutrality of the article, based on reliable sources you can cite, then feel free to propose changes on Talk, but the only issues you've raised thus far are based on sources we simply can't use. Uncle G really is an honest broker here, and entirely open to changes based on credible sourcing. "I think this subject sucks" is not a valid basis for an article tag, though. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vexatious

Nice use of that word. :) David D. (Talk) 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Case

Hello Guy, there are a few responses and a proposal for resolution in regards to the ongoing AMA case in which you are involved. However, the contents of the discussion are located on my talk page, on Rfwoolf's talk page and on the AMA case page. Your input at this time would be appreciated. Cheers, Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Robbers

My son wrote the article for "The Three Robbers" by Tomi Ungerer. His grammar is not always clear. Could you please undelete the article for "The Three Robbers" and I will be happy to clean it up.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CameronPG (talk • contribs) 06:12, January 23, 2007

It says, in its entirety: A book by Tomi Ungerer. The three robbers is a summary with a blunderbuss, a pepper blower, and a huge red axe. They blew pepper in the horse's faces. They chopped the wheels with an axe. And threatened the passengers with a blunderbuss.

Not much there you can use, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#For_your_entertainment

Is it just me, or does this guy seem like a net negative for WP? Note his history and that of his (clear to me) previous incarnations as MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) and Thekohser (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal question

Hi, just soliciting an opinion, I promise not to argue/reply at all. I saw your comment at ANI - "Meh, what is this crap? There are ED trolls, Jeff is not one of them." - the heading involved me as well, so I was wondering if you were lumping me into the "ED trolls". Milto LOL pia 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Hipocrite&diff=1996981633&oldid=1996980772
www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Template%3AWikipedos&diff=1997061923&oldid=1997060160
www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Netscott&diff=1996974615&oldid=1996974614
Other than that, I plead the Fifth. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFI stuck

Could you please take a look at this RFI mess and either handle it or delete it if you agree with me that this is all silly.

IMO, this whole board should follow straight the WP:PAIN's path into history 'cause those who used PAIN as the substitute for Wikipedia:Request to block my opponent now turned to RFI as the means to settle scores. Durova was investigating this "report" but she seems to be having hardware problems and this leaves the user under the threat of an "investigation" of an uncertain length. If you have time, please handle this issue to the best of your judgment. Once it is settled, I will submit this board for XfD. No need for shortcuts to win content disputes. --Irpen 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a great time to drop it. Please discontinue the argument at WP:RFI or I will drag the warring parties apart while adopting a policy of actively not caring who, if anyone, is right. Same goes for Piotrus. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did you actually read what I was saying? Shutting it down was what I was actually calling for all along! Thank you. --Irpen 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. My view was that there is an issue with Dr Dan's behaviour which needs to be addressed. Unfortunately the whole thing is so messy and so bound up in the fight between you and Piotrus that I could not actually get to grips with it (I am a bear of very little brain). Durova's block of Dan was amply justified, and if that does not lead to a change in behaviour from that quarter then he can expect more trouble, but the real problem there was you and Piotrus going at it hammer and tongs. Please don't do that. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I will be happy to leave Piotrus alone. Moreover, what I would like to see is everyone leaves everyone else alone and goes back to editing. I have a big problem with Piotrus' going to all sorts of boards seeking for the blocks of his content opponents. That was the only issue I raised. Now we have Ghirla gone, thanks to the campaign of perpetual frivolous complaints Piotrus was running for at least a year. We need less of such boards and more admins like you who clean them up from nonsense. That's why I voted for you for ArbCom, btw.

Anyway, I hope Ghirla will come back at some point and Piotrus will stop bringing his complaints against everyone to all sorts of boards and stop inciting his friends to do the same.

At the side note, I am going to submit RFI for XfD. We do not need the kangaroo courts that will just attract all sorts of the individuals to act as judges and juries to provide their uninformed opinions on the long conflicts and inflame matters further. There is ANI and ArbCom. That's more than enough. --Irpen 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Anal Stretching

Thank-you for your feedback and work on my rewrite on Anal stretching on my userpage. I was not prepared for any changes to the article because I need to set aside some time to work on the entire page -- which is obviously still in an early draft stage (very early!). I have read all of your comments thus far on that page and it seems to be quite constructive, although like I say -- I will need to set aside some time to work/read it all properly.
If you have any suggestions on where I can get some good sources/references for the article rewrite, please let me know, because Google is apparently not the most effective.
When I do get round to working on the article some more, I'll possibly call on you again if you're available for feedback.
Cheers Rfwoolf 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to avoid you going down yet more blind alleys. I care slightly less than not at all for the subject itself. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rfwoolf

Hi Guy. What's the deal with this user's page protection? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was using it as a soapbox to tell us how evil and biased we all are (especially me) in suppressing the vital information on anal stretching for which the world is clamouring. Unprotect it if you like, but if he ocntinues to use it as a soapbox and attack then I shall ask an uninvolved admin for a block, because I have completely lost patience with him. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved admin, Guy. I don't like neither his attitude, nor the content of his page, but I am not sure that we should be censoring him. Let him dig his own hole, as they say. Anyone reading his "anal streching" diatribe, can reach their own conclusions, don't you think? I will not unblock unless you agree with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, unlock of you like. It's not censorship, though, but removal of outright bloody rudeness. Anyway, he seems to be calming down at the moment and finally understanding that when we said work on it in user space we meant work on it in user space. His idea of what constitutes sourcing and supporting content needs work, though. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Lee_Nysted_Experience

I've been considering moving or refactoring the aggressive racketeering from the three odd editors that keep mucking up the place whenever anyone votes. Think I should? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good idea. I nearly did it myself, but last time I tried it blew up in my face. Shout if you need backup. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Closure -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$

I just want to say I think you did an excellent job of closing the debate, summarizing the positions, and justifying your decision. I had started a batch delete of all the similar stub-class and totally unreferenced webcomics articles, however another admin convinced me to allow a rollback due to the difficulty of large batch AfD's.

There are dozens of webcomic articles that need to go, based strictly upon the merits of and precident set by this AfD. Do we have to go through a lengthy debate for each article, even when noncompliance is obvious and the opposition is not concerned with applying proper policies and/or are generally largely SPAs? /Blaxthos

Not really related to the above comment, but didn't want to start a new thread. I saw the storm building up at that page, a few days ago, and wondered what poor soul is going to close this, and how are they going to do it? That was an excellent closing statement -- shows both a familiarity with the discussion and a reasonable analysis of the points raised by a number of editors. Hopefully that softens the blow to those who are surely disappointed by the decision. Either way, I appreciate it. Luna Santin 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand what you mean...

On ANI. In any case, advice, as always, appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do now. Please, please, just leave Irpen alone (and he you). If you need help with Dan, ask Durova or someone. It's bad enough with you and Ghirla, we can only fight so many fires at once. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, I asked others for help on the RFI, Durova replied and then Irpen tried to steer the discussion from Dr. Dan's behaviour to unrelated greviances about me. I don't need to leave Irpen alone as I do leave him alone - I did nothing to pull him into this discussion, he came into it on his own and instead of discussing Dr. Dan's actions he started to revive old RfC accusations against me. You will also note that unlike Irpen, with his plethora of accusations against me unsupported by diffs, I did not make any similar claims about him and only asked for an apology. As for the problem with Ghirla, as he has agreed to the civility parole (which was what I asked from the beginning) this fire is mostly out. PS. I find your threat of blocking us quite worrying: it would certainly be an abuse of admin's powers, and quite uncalled for. I don't think I have done anything wrong, and I don't think Irpen's actions in this discussion are blockable, neither - he is a usually reasonable editor and I although I feel offended by his accusations against me, and his actons on WP:RFI seem pointless, I would not ask anybody to block an editor whose only recent fault was offending me (I have thick skin, and can live through such torrents of slander occasionaly).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, Irpen trolled and you took the bait. Which goes straight to the "oh no, not again" department. Please, please just walk away sometimes. People were tryng to look into the Dan situation, and then you and Irpen started a fistfight - bingo, trainwreck. You don't need any more battles. Solution: both stop it, or I make you both stop it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. I suspect not. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do pledge guilty to forgetting about WP:DFTT, you are right there. Unfortunatly I have the mentality 'if I don't defend myself, I admit by silence they are right'. Is your advice that in such cases I should not reply to such posts? Again, my mentality is 'make them apologize and ensure they learn the lesson and don't do that again'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You get the idea. Not that Irpen is a troll, anything but, but Irpen did bait you, and you took the bait. Trust me, I know how hard it is to avoid getting sucked in, sometimes it's best to let others fight the battles and you watch from the sidelines. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trolled? I baited? Listen, JzG. Please read the discussion. If the thread is too sick for you to read, do not at least resort to uninformed name calling. Piotrus has been using various boards as a tool in edit conflicts. I am sick of it and I called him to order. I stand by my every word I said there. I did offer diffs and this was not trolling. If you want to start another ArbCom called "Piotrus/Irpen" as you did for Piotrus/Ghirla, go for it. The Piotrus/Ghirla was the last straw and Ghirla is gone. Now, Piotrus can do more editing like what he did with the Russian Enlightenment article.

I will not leave if you submit an ArbCom because I have a thicker skin than Ghirla. So go for it if you feel it warranted. I will present the evidence there and let ArbCom decide. Or, better yet, reconsider calling my activity trolling and baiting because it was none of that sort. I am fine working with Piotrus on the articles. It is just when he resorts to Admin boards as a workaround, that's where I have a problem with him.

The bottom line is that Piotrus uses all sorts of boards to shut down and eject his opponents. I am tired of it. If you don't see it that way, it is only because you edit articles in other fields of interest. --Irpen 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know he does, and that was part of the stalled RFAR now in mediation. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my reasons for my actions at the ANI discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My editor review

Thankyou Guy, for your kind words on my editor review. I am ready to truly put behind me the mistakes I've made in the past. Can you believe that WP:NCR is still around? I'm happy that I have made peace with both you and Tijuana Brass. Thanks again for your input, it means a whole lot more than two cents to me. Regards, Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Experience

Thank you for the advice, in re: The Lee Nysted Experience article. If you would be so kind, as "someone that has been around," maybe you could help to edit the article so it doesn't have too many links? I found that the vast majority of other articles here did not require what I have had to put in here. Most do not have any verification or back-up. My company likes the music area and we will be helping to clarify some other articles about other artists that we feature in our rotations. Be well, C.H.Huntress829 15:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]