Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

W00t!

Or something.

Your Recent Deletion from My Talk Page

[edit]

Hi, This is to thank you for what I believe was a well-meaning deletion from my talk page. Whilst I'm very sympathetic to the need to keep this business as narrowly dispersed as possible, and I see that you have placed the deleted comments in the discussion page of the AfD debate, I'm not completely sure that deleting comments before I'd even had a chance to see them is the ideal way to go. There is, I think, a risk of being perceived as censoring discussion, although I'm actually quite confident that this wasn't what you had in mind. I think you were right to put copies of all the participants' comments in one place, but I'm not sure about the deletion. I guess this is just a small quibble in the great scheme of things, though. I'm looking forward to seeing how this AfD debate turns out.

WMMartin 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

[edit]

Please vote at the AfDs for:

Thanks. -- Ssilvers

What do you think of the Cornell Savoyards article? -- Ssilvers 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing on Factiva, a few hundred unique Googles, none of which appear to be reliable sources. Tag as unreferenced and if not fixed in a month nominate for deletion. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Hi JzG just thought I should say that there are plenty of articles with only one source and sometimes none so why haven't you deleted them? And if it's because of the fanfiction in Electrosphere if you havn't noticed I remove all of that and have kept all the reliable information and some of this info can be found in the game by using the aitcraft. So what exacally is the problem?Sam ov the blue sand 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: how do you eat an elephant? Answer: one slice at a time. Unsourced articles are nominated for deletion one by one as they are found. The source you cite does not look reliable, and that is the sole source - plus the vast majority of the article is plainly written from direct observation (we call this original research and it's not allowed). Sorry, them's the breaks. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I said I get rid of the fanfiction and other such things if you can piont out some of the problems that would be helpful to prove my piont.Sam ov the blue sand 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem one: total absence of substantial reliable secondary sources. First, find your sources, then clean up the article. No sources, no article. Did I mention sources? Guy (Help!) 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the only thing wrong with it? But like I said before I can't find any other sources all the other ones have things like "This aircraft is believed to be able to fly in outer space" or "This aircraft is believed to run on an atomic generator", and I can't use crap like that so Electrosphere is the only place I can find anything but I'm guessing that you don't care about what I'm saying and will just say what you said before like other admins (no offense to admins, they have stressful jobs). So there is absolutly no way to have an article with only one source? Not one way?Sam ov the blue sand 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the only thing, but it is the first and worst, because without sources we cannot have an article at all, so without sources it is simply not worth expending any effort rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. No sources, no article, no exceptions. So: first, find good sources. If you can't, then you've chosen the wrong subject, bad luck, pick another one. Multiple, non-trivial, independent sources is what's required, and your one source fails that test, so in fact you have no independent non-trivial sources. In point of fact there is precedent for deleting articles which have one reasonably good source, but your source is not reasonably good. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever thanks for the help.Sam ov the blue sand 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

That AFD

[edit]

Huntress and Lee are sockpuppets, as established by checkuser, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lee_Nysted I just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll-B-Gon

[edit]

Guy, excuse my ignorance but this new reversion tool seems to be a little inflammatory at worst and spam at best. The summary edit currently reads "Comment removed using Troll-B-Gon Professional v 1.0". i have noticed a few people using it today. Is there a way to turn off the troll-B-gon tag line? David D. (Talk) 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a joke? I'm confused now. David D. (Talk) 22:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A joke it is. Satire on Popups and the like. Nysted is a vanity spammer. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, hook, line and sinker ! Seeing two troll-b-gon edits by different users in the space of a few minutes really fooled me. Where did it originate? David D. (Talk) 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I buy one of these? -- Steel 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG GPL PLZ. —xyzzyn 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with normal practice in user scripts, I have created a page for it at User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon, with download instructions. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:You spat in my soup!

[edit]

Very good. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

It's much harder to find your contibutions now your sig is an English word. And that's a shame because they are always interesting. Stephen B Streater 09:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kidman

[edit]

Thanks for protecting Nicole Kidman. I was alsointerested in whether the IPs were related, and why it seemed to be a coordinated attack? --Steve (Slf67) talk 10:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

[edit]

Guy, you restored histories for Bought Science and Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) while they are on deletion review. I've now cited the sources that they are copyright violations of there, so WP:CSD#G4 definitely applies, but I don't want to reverse another administrators actions. GRBerry 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete away, I was just ensuring that nobody could possibly filibuster the thing, one look at the content is more than enough to satisfy any rational person that this has no place here, copyvio or not. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture assistance

[edit]

Hi Guy ! Earlier, I had written to the University of Heidelberg for permission to use the picture of Gerhard von Rad but did not get any reply - I had matter-of-factly stated that I wish to upload it onto Wikipedia. After waiting for a while, I had uploaded the picture. As an Administrator, may I request you to suggest me possible ways to get back the picture. I've seen your edits on Victor Premasagar - thanks for the same.Pradeep 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are asking. Have you lost the original, or are you trying to get an image with unknown copyright reinstated? If the former I can mail it to you, if the latter then I am not too comfortable with that. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World

[edit]

Why did you delete it man? I want to learn about it.Pendo 4 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4 [reply]

New Image for WP:NCR

[edit]

I've made a new, free and more formal image for WP:NCR. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads

[edit]

Jeffrey Gustafson recreated Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC proposal

[edit]

FYI, this proposal is actually getting a bit of comment now, after a few days of gathering dust; however, the comments thus far seem to be indicating that I may have misread the desire for something to actually be done with RfC/User to make it work a bit more smoothly. (And one person called it added bureaucracy despite the numerous indications that it's not supposed to be one, of course; I should have expected that.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Deletion Review

[edit]

Hi Guy! You deleted the article for Dupobs on the grounds that it did not assert Notability. The band includes a member of A Spectre Is Haunting Europe (which was noted in the article), which meets Notability guidelines. I think it should be restored because of crossover in band membership (Notability Criterion 6 - "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"). Could you please restore it?--jeandjinni talk

  • That criterion is badly worded. These are not criteria for notability, they are indicators that notability criteria might be met. Notability criteria are, as for all articles, multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to jump in here, but the criterion has also been included in WP:MUSIC for quite a while with minimal complaint and no efforts to change it. Maybe there weren't sources, but that's not a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff, I know you reverted the guideline back to allowing all these as criteria which on their own establish notability, but the previous version was correct, because without sources it doesn't matter how many records are sold, we can't have an article without violating fundamental policy. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you're talking about two different things. Apples and oranges. Things can have the requisite sources without being "notable." Besides, I'm not even sure why WP:N is a guideline - it directs people to the specific guidelines for different subjects - and the way you changed it back - again without discussion - weakens the whole thing. And your speedy was still improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that it wasn't without discussion. Can you come up with an example of something which has multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources but is not notable? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that the WP:N page asserts that the N guideline "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", a reasonable and prudent editor would defer to the more specific guidelines about Notability for music as indicated on WP:MUSIC, where any one of a number of criteria are acceptable as evidence of being notable. If the criterion is "badly worded", explain why, and make the argument to change it. As it stands the article was speedily deleted because you didn't agree with the wording on WP:MUSIC, not because the article was inconsistent with the guidelines. The article should be restored.--jeandjinni talk
  • Guy, please restore the article. First of all, dupobs contains a member of a group that meets notability guidelines. Second, I suspect the deletion was instigated by unfamiliarity with what concerns dupobs (i.e., their conceptual art take on the marketing of pop music), and their uniqueness. I think this is the case because a past contribution I wrote, on "man-made trance" was deleted: I didn't protest the deletion because the article was merely a stub, but the deletion of man-made trance was clearly a case of someone not being familiar with the concept, and the fact that there is little English language information on this topic: the term "man-made trance" was coined by the Japanese band Rovo. I believe something similar has happened with the dupobs article. In any case, please trust that many contributors to Wikipedia do have specialized areas of knowledge and that their contributions are made with good reason. I hope to see the dupobs article back up sometime soon.

Alientrap

[edit]

You deleted the Alientrap article for lack of nobility, But it linked to this: www.alientrap.org/verm/nexuiz.jpg How is that not enough? Revert the deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.168.4 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Score (magazine)

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Score (magazine). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Additional) - I am requesting that recreation protection be removed. Although the previous version of the article was little more than a stub, this has been a major magazine for the last 12 years or so and is also a video producer. I could find no indication (via the history) that this went through AFD. I attempted to restore the page but it appears the protection must be removed by the admin who protected it. 23skidoo 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura

[edit]

Hey there, I just read the page you have on Laura, and I must say, I feel your loss, and for what little it may be worth, I am sorry. I won't say I wished it turned out differently, or somesuch, because I know how empty those words seem when you've lost someone, but what I will say, is having lost many myself, I know how it feels. People say over time it fades, and maybe it does, but it never gets any easier to deal with. I'm not going to be around Wikipedia much any more due to personal problems, but I'll be keeping an eye on my talk page. Drop me a note if you ever need anything. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RfArb regarding Lucky 6.9 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I have completely revised my statement in regards to this RfArb I started regarding administrator User:Lucky 6.9. In particular, given a couple days to reflect on others' comments, I make a substantially different point, completely unrelated to furthering accusations toward the administrator. I would appreciate if you'd take a quick glance. Link Reswobslc 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate of Serampore College (University)

[edit]

You deleted this article as the pushing of a diploma mill - as the place is 200 years old and does appear to kosher this seems rather harsh! The author is re-working and tidying it as a sub page and them plans to re-introduce it - this sounds okay to me. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem was that the senate of serampore university was being represented as an accreditation body. I'm sure Serampore University is valid, I am not sure that the senamte of that body is a separate entity and I am sure that the senate article was being used to Gastroturf unaccredited institutions. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User bazzajf vandalsim

[edit]

Please, I am enquiring as to whether you can do anything with this user. The Research PC available to myself and my university colleagues for afterhours research is often used by this user bazzajf also. For whatever reason, whenever he uses this PC on Wikipedia for his editing, the whole IP address gets blocked once he has logged in as himself on this IP and my colleagues and I are unable to have editing privilege because of this, is there anything that can be done? 62.77.181.16 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:172.161.68.238

[edit]

Removing his comments from my talk page will not prevent me from reading them, you know. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I believe that, considering Dino claims to be a member of Free Republic/Jim Robinson's legal team, these two posts from today (especially the second) constitute 'vieled' implicated threats. LINK Please look at my latest edits to the Free Republic article. I've been a 'good boy'. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a redirect?

[edit]

I'd imagine this would be largely uncontroversial. JB196's unpublished "book" currently has a redirect to the Xtreme Pro Wrestling article. The original article was deleted via Afd, yet a version of the article is in the page history. I can't see a relevant speedy category, but I'm sure one must apply? Thanks One Night In Hackney 21:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure why it was created to start with, as the original article hadn't been deleted at that point anyway. One Night In Hackney 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undo

[edit]

Hi. I'm catching up a bit. What's with this undo option on diffs? Sometimes it appears and sometimes it doesn't. And the only time I've pressed it it refused giving an edit conflict. Stephen B Streater 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite cool, it will undo a single edit provided there are no intervening edits which touch the same text. It doesn't work all the time, but sometimes it can save all sorts of effort. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is cool. For example, some vandalism which has been missed can still be undone easily :-) Stephen B Streater 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations

[edit]

Please take a look here and please comment.

I was acting in good faith when I requested you to delete the info as a part of my attempts to regain a bit of my privacy. Thanks for doing so. I wasn't aware you had done it until Ilena alerted me to it. I'll of course back her up about the fact that I have previously revealed personal info about myself. I have never denied that I have done so.

Since she has brought her Usenet wars here to Wikipedia, I have become more concerned about my own and my family's security and have begun deleting my uses of my own name, as well as other's use of it, as my edit history will reveal, starting about here. I searched Wikipedia and deleted several places where I have foolishly (in restrospect) used my real name.

It appears that the edit history of my user page has been deleted too far, so as to even delete the evidence of Ilena's vandalism of my user page!

That deletion has naturally removed her actions from her own edit history as well. Maybe the whole thing should be restored until the RfArb is over. Can that be done? My timing was apparently bad, so maybe we can wait and do this after it's all over. It won't remove her revealing of our (several other editors as well) identities, which she has done on her attack websites (I have been sent a long list of them), but at least it will make it more difficult for various trolls and weirdos to hassle me. -- Fyslee 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do want to have the deletion undone. Ilena should not be able to use my good faith attempts to protect my privacy as another excuse to exercise bad faith and accuse me of wrongdoing. -- Fyslee 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested

[edit]

Could you look at this from ANI? It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. Jeffpw 10:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

[edit]

Your comments are invited at the last thread, i.e. Cindery's block review. My LCD screen lies punctured at home, and I would not be able to connect to the internet as frequently as I did earlier, at least for this month. I need to pass all my exams. ^_^ Have a nice day! — Nearly Headless Nick 14:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cyber Nations under Cat 4

[edit]

This aticle should not of been "speedy deleted" as the notability and content of the artical has now significantly changed from the previous deletions.

  1. How do i appeal?
  2. The text for this article was created with some considerable time input, i would like a copy of the text to host off WP.

Bjrobinson 16:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time to delet this page, you shoudl have the time to reply to my simple request. The talk page was also of value, can this be resurrected?

Plases respond —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjrobinson (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Alright, perhaps the use of the word "crazed" was a little harsh, however I think you may have missed my point. The removal of the external links was not the problem - I agree that that page was a complete mess and in urgent need of rationalising. My objection was to Peter's careless attitude to deleting as fast as possible without checking beforehand for "collateral damage" as User:DavidD. has also pointed out on his talk page. I did in fact leave a (reasonably) polite comment for him at the time, but received a typically curt reply. Quite frankly, even if you regard him as "a respected editor", I find his behaviour quite alarming. His remarks are often officious, dismissive, and ignore others' well-founded opinions, as the contents of his his talk page demonstrates. Anyway, it's not my place to complain about another user on a page other than their own, so I'll stop now. I hope you'll agree that I had not, however, intended to be offensive. Cheers, DWaterson 22:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it was just an honest mistake, just like a typo or something. Honestly, it's amazingly easy to do if you've been editing subsections of the links and then hit the last subsection or the top section. Peter is not evil and not generally slap-dash, and his response was simply a factual one-liner - that it was not an automated edit. Maybe he was in a hurry or busy or something. I know it is distracting when the yellow bar comes up in the middle of a lengthy investigation or some such. Also, if you look in detail at Peter's talk page, you'll see that he gets trolled a fair bit, and also that he has some pretty terrible things going on in his personal life right now. Anyway, you've acknowledged it was harsh, and that's enough. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genius

[edit]

That is all. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I actually surprised myself with this idea.  :-) —David Levy 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But do they really need to go through TfD again? The suggestion was that (all 4 templates) could be speedied per G4...? --Quiddity 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

[edit]

User:Kdbuffalo/SavedStuff - I don't understand the issue. AFAIK, leeway is allowed to userpages, and often users use their usepages as a "sandbox" of sorts. How is this any different? - jc37 11:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to me that deleted articles which are being worked on are fine, deleted articles which are being kept despite being deleted and without anyone working on them are a violation of WP:NOT a free web host (and probably WP:CSD#G4). It was suggested on the admin noticeboard that we quietly prod them, rather than kick up a fuss, and some suggested we prod articles as we userfy them to make it clear that this is for workup, not for permanent hosting. That seems a bit harsh. This was, however, a personal essay masquerading as an article, a pretence that the scientific consensus is somehow under threat, and as such not really appropriate in userspace. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badly Done Stalking

[edit]

How much longer am I going to have to put up with Badlydrawnjeff's continual stalking of me? This is the second time he has alleged to have a brandspankingnew article that I have become involved in on his "Watchlist" - it's utter and complete nonsense. -> [1] [2]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, Jeff is actually OK. No, really. He has quite possibly the lowest inclusion threshold in the project, but his heart is in the right place. Do try talking to him, and not about contentious inclusions. My experience is that he is well aware that his views are away from the centre of gravity, but that he is sincere and genuine. He annoys all of us, but he is right often enough to repay the effort of learning to respect, if not like him. I.know that does not help. I am on the Blackberry now, so can't be as detailed as I might be. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's okay. But I moderate my dosages :-) ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

[edit]

JzG, can you have a look at Talk:World energy resources and consumption please? I've asked the editor four times now to stop removing and altering talk page entries - he persists. I'm trying to get {{ArticleHistory}} templates in place on failedfacs, and this one article has been quite a distraction. Talk page entries have now been removed for the fourth time, in spite of me asking him three times to refrain, and quoting to him the policy on removing and altering talk page entries of other editors. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Benfer. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Esn 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mexico

[edit]

I haven't seen any adminsitrator visiting or editing that particular article, and I think we need assistance, as some users have requested the article to be blocked to all editors, anonymous or registered, given the recent edit wars. User:Corticopia and User:Supaman89 have violated WP:3RR on numerous ocassions but have only been blocked once for doing so over a week ago. It seems no conensus have been reached in spite of thousands of bytes of discussion over what I, personally, consider a trivial issue, in Talk:Mexico, and the edit war continues between three users. Could you please review Mexico history, as well as Talk:Mexico? --the Dúnadan 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Rouge admin abuse

[edit]

Obviously, you have comitted Rouge admin abuse. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

[edit]

[3] Love it! Antandrus (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't laugh out loud, but I should have after reading this. Clearly those Youtube uploaders forgot to place a template with the words "fair use" on it, 'cause, you know, that makes everything okay... Jkelly 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP, COI, and possible solutions

[edit]

Hi Guy. It occurred to me to look into the NLP archives for some long term solutions. The problem seems to be long term promotional activities and incivility. The incivility is contained to some extent though on the main article so I believe can be easily managed as long as there are editors there willing to promote civility and get along.

The COI issues are becoming more clear. The anonymous editor (58.178.141.147) seems to be the most argumentative and uncivil at present – calling for blocks on the article and in edit summaries – and restoring argumentative phrasing and debate into the article. There seems to be 2 possibilities. It could be that 58.178.141.147 is the previous editor [4]. The approach is the same according to a brief search: [5]. The user is editing by presenting lists of non-conclusive articles, obscuring science views, and adding or restoring very argumentative phrasing into the article. Alternatively a brief Google IP check (giving an Australian IP (can’t be sure)) shows it may instead be a meatupppet of Comaze [6] who was editing previously and has an obvious COI. They work in the same town and are part of the same organization as I presented before on ANI.

I understand that there will probably always be at least some meatpuppeting from the pro side and its easy to hide so there’s nothing much we can do about it apart from keep tabs on dominating groups and verbally discourage it.

COI issues will also be pretty hard to deal with as its even easier to hide.

The ANI notices seem to have helped to some extent. The basic fact (NLP is sci unsupported) has become easier to present now and the proponent group are presently not pushing to add argumentative information to it – though they are resisting to present the finding in summarized form. The basic criticism is still being denied though (that NLP is pseudoscientific/misleading and is inappropriate for clinical psych – HRM – self development…..). ANI seems to be a good place to present information for scrutiny – though I’m looking for other useful venues.

Presently the group seems to be quite dismissive of both ANI and non-promoters alike. For now though - I’ll continue to calmly point out the need to clearly present most relevant critical science views - and cycle the appeals to civility and the need to get along on Wikipedia. AlanBarnet 09:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are signs of agreement in some areas now (especially clearly distinguishing critical views). I have also had some helpful encouragement from Woohookitty [7] with respect to summarizing the article. This is clearly summarizing with NPOV suppression of information taken into account. From what I have seen of Woohookitty's prior suggestions on the article - obscuring key critical views through promotion was a problem. User 58 (probably user FT2 I believe) is continuing to be dismissive of ANI assessments and those who hold a non promotional view [8] - using slightly uncivil statements in edit summary also [9]. AlanBarnet 06:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy. I am still getting messages that show a strong and dismissive refusal to accept good faith or to get along [10]. I believe its worth persuing the long term civility/collaboration approach though. I'll redouble the civility messages and re-post the goals of NPOV and Cleanuptaskforce so that the current pressing problems can be dealt with. AlanBarnet 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

hi again guy. i noticed that you removed two links i put up to boobpedia articles. i appreciate that you gave reasons, and would like to discuss this with you. we might as well clarify what is acceptable to both of us, instead of having you waste valuable time trying to check me up every few days :)

first the link to www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Serena_Grandi that i put in the Serena Grandi article. you commented that "Link appears to serve no purpose other than to promote the site". if i actually take the time to migrate some of the information from the boobpedia article to improve wikipedia's entry, and reference boobpedia instead of just linking to it, would this be satisfactory to you?

second the link to www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Karma that i put in the Karma Rosenberg article, because it contained euro filmography not found in IAFD and IMDB. your comment was "Spam link, not a relaible source". this i must respectfully disagree. the boobpedia article contains extensive links to actual DVD covers and screenshots, where you can not only verify her by name, but by visual. if anything, this is even more reliable than IAFD and IMDB, which only lists by name, and in rare occurences two porn stars with the same name get mixed up on those sites.

btw: if you have the fear that if you ever allowed one boobpedia link on wikipedia, i'd go around and spam hundreds of articles, that is not going to happen. thanks for reading and i look forward to resolving this issue with you. regards. --Hexvoodoo 19:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of external links is to provide for further research and to give additional detail. Linking to unreliable sources is not what external links are for. There are several websites that have been spammed to multiple Wikipedia entries inna "me too" stylee, I remove them. It's just another fansite, just a generic tit fan site rather than a fansite for an individual, there is no discernible encyclopaedic merit in linking to it. If we allowed that, before you know where we are every bit of sexcruft would have links to arsepedia, clitpedia, footpedia and a hundred other generic pedias. If we don';t have enough information from good sources, the solution is to delete as non-notable not to add bad ones. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think the key is that you consider boobpedia to be one of the "unreliable sources". while i don't know what the other websites that you referred to are, i can safely say boobpedia is not "just a generic tit fan site", but a reference site where rules similar to wikipedia are applied. just a couple of examples off the top of my head. a visitor started adding POV comments to several pages such as "she is considered one of the top 10 models of all time". another changed the weight of one model from 157 lbs to 170 lbs without any source. in both cases the changes were quickly reverted, just like they would be on wikipedia. in fact, the same user (same IP) changed the weight of Kerry Marie from 157 to 170 on wikipedia, and also got reverted. if you read articles on boobpedia, you'll find neutral language, sources, and even original interviews with models. for example, we recently interviewed www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Sofia_Rose sofia rose. you will find no glowing praise or fan infactuation in the article, only point of fact and neutral language. this is certainly different from generic fan sites, wouldn't you agree?
i agree that arsepedia may be silly. but if, for example, arsepedia is edited under similar rules as wikipedia, and has an article containing well-written and sourced information not found in wikipedia, then i really don't see why wikipedia shouldn't reference it. we should deal with the substance of the linked page itself, not how silly the name of the site is. we go back to the karma rosenberg link. if a site called "karma rosenberg resource" listed her complete filmography, including many not found in IAFD and IMDB, and linked to DVD covers and screenshots that proved she was in those films, it certainly would have been a good link for the wikipedia article. objectively, it would have been an even better reference page than IAFD or IMDB. on boobpedia we are trying to achieve that kind of reliability, and i hope you won't dismiss it out of hand. even though i admit our first interaction may have tainted your view of boobpedia ;), i think you are a rational guy who can see past that and give boobpedia an objective second look. i'm not asking you to accept it completely, just the two articles i mentioned earlier, and the reasoning i've put forth. thanks --Hexvoodoo 21:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name the editorial board, detail their peer-review process, and in particular describe the means they use to verify that the measurements and other bio data cited are not (as is usual in the porn industry) as inflated as some of the subjects' mammaries. A reliable source is not one that you think has "good" information (for some value of good), it is one that has processes and a reputation which ensure that it is actually reliable. IMDB is not particularly reliable, IAFD is markedly worse. And the knockout punch here is "we". See WP:COI. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, most external links on wikipedia don't have editorial boards. in fact most external links have far fewer editors than boobpedia (most of the time just the one webmaster). boobpedia has a meeting place that editors post todo lists www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Current_events, but most of the discussion between editors takes place on user talk pages. you can take a look at my user page on boobpedia www.boobpedia.com/boobs/User_talk:Hexvoodoo and see the discussion that took place. if you want you can also look at the user page of another administrator www.boobpedia.com/boobs/User_talk:The_Honorable.
for the peer-review process, i had earlier given two examples. but here's another one. one user recently created an article for www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Zena_Fulsom Zena Fulsom, and claimed she had ZZZ cup breasts, with a photo showing her extremely large boobs. suspicious, i went to the source of the photo (scoreland.com, watermarked on the uploaded photo), and confirmed the photo had not been digitally manipulated. i then got info from an adult photographer that the photo was done with a latex prosthetics. subsequently i put in the "myth of ZZZ cup breasts" section.
to be realistic, short of walking up to the model with a measuring tape, one has to use published measurements, knowing that sometimes they are inflated. if a model has a homepage, or has done an interview with boobpedia, measurements are given by her. if a model appears on a particular site, measurements are sometimes obtained from the people who photographed her. in other times, measurements have to come from sources such as IMDB or IAFD. unfortunately i don't think there is a better way to do this. even IMDB has to use published measurements most of the time
i hope this has adequately discribed the process boobpedia uses. keep in mind that i started this by talking about two specific articles, and asked for your input on them. i'm not asking you for blanket acceptance of boobpedia, as you seem to be requiring me to prove :). as for the word "we", it simply meant all the boobpedia editors. just like you might use "we do this at wikipedia" to someone unfamiliar with wikipedia. --Hexvoodoo 22:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're digging a deeper hole here. We don't do original research, and the fact that your site does makes it worse, not better. Snopes shows you how real investigation of fakes is done; they are considered pretty reliable. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i know wikipedia doesn't do original research. it doesn't mean it makes sense for boobpedia to not do its own research. you are conflicting yourself here. first you mentioned exaggerated measurement claims (which is a shortcoming of the porn industry) as a bad thing, then you said actually trying to find out the information is bad. yes snopes is a great site. it also has a wealth of sources for its many subjects. the only absolute way to get a 100% accurate measurement of a model is to actually measure her. (btw, you also used the word "we" ;)
i still hope you'll address the two articles i mentioned originally. and why you considered a well referenced and complete filmography as a spam link. regards. --Hexvoodoo 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable source. Conflict of interest. Enough said. Guy (Help!) 08:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
guy, i have addressed every issue you've raised. i'm afraid you have decided not to directly respond to any particular argument i've made, but instead gave blanket judgement without attempting to deal with the substance of the links (ie. why is a well referenced and complete filmography, not found anywhere else on the web, considered a spam link by you). as for conflict of interest, you latched on to my use of the word "we", while you used "we" in the very next response. it's certainly not conflict of interest if you were to reference wikipedia somewhere else. i'm disappointed by this attitude. hopefully you'll give this another thought at a later time. --Hexvoodoo 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be confusing not responding with not giving the response you wanted to hear. There is a difference. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let's review this one step at a time. your first response had "The purpose of external links is to provide for further research and to give additional detail". much additional details are in fact given in the boobpedia karma rosenberg filmography, details not found anywhere else on the web. you next questioned the reliability of boobpedia, and asked many questions such as naming the editorial board, peer-review process, fact-finding method etc. these questions are not asked for the majority of wikipedia external links, but i understood your general skepticism regarding all adult sources, so i answered them one by one nevertheless. you only responded with, original research was bad. when i pointed out that if traditional adult sources were sometimes unreliable (as we both agree), thus requiring research, you did not respond to that either.
your argument appears to be to question the reliability of boobpedia as a whole. you brought up numerous questions (or tests), and i answered them for you. my point was not to establish boobpedia as the big boob equivalent of IMDB in your mind; my original post was about the actual substance of the two links. this is what i hope you will respond to directly - if the boobpedia karma rosenberg article contains well referenced (filmography by name and visually through dvd covers and screenshots) and unique information not found anywhere else on the web, why do you think such information should not be referenced from wikipedia? i thank you for taking time to talk about this. --Hexvoodoo 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

[edit]

I would like to call your attention to http://peppersreturns.yt*nd.com/. (replace asterisk with an 'm'). I'm thinking you're under the impression that the Peppers article needs to be deleted post-haste should it return. Thunderbunny 08:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe, maybe not. Recent results have been pretty unequivocal: without multiple non-trivial sources, no article, especially where WP:BLP is concerned. We seem to have a reasonable accommodation going with YTMNDers at present, maybe it will be a shitstorm in a teacup. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but this isn't a YTMND thing, really. We didn't struggle to reach standards then, and I don't think we'll be having a problem with that part of it now. That's why it's going to be interesting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually we did struggle to reach standards, because the only reliable information about the guy pertained to a single event in his life, and any other living individual whose notability was based solely on a conviction for a technical offence where the victim is totally unknown, and which offence gained pretty much no coverage whatsoever even in the local press, would be an immediate and unequivocal delete. So the fact is that this article existed only because some puerile jerks laughed at Peppers' appearance, but any attempt to note this was strongly resisted by the puerile jerks because they don't want people to know that only a puerile jerk would laugh at someone because of a congenital deformity. Merrick he ain't. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In WP:BLP cases, we have done in the past and probably should more often. Mind, as I think I may have made clear before, I have great contempt for those who have so little respect for simple human decency. As far as I can tell (and there really are no decent sources I can find, on Factiva or anywhere else) the guy is disabled, has a congenital deformity, has intellectual impairment, lives in a nursing home. Of that the only thing we can formally verify is that he lives in a nursing home, and that only through original research. So I say: leave the poor bastard alone. Actually it should probably be a link to the Manchester businessman Brian Pepper, who has at least been the subject of a few stories in major newspapers due to raids and seizure of property over alleged links with the IRA. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support what Guy is saying here. If the article is to survive recreation it must have better sourcing than previously. If the motivation of the editors who want it is to gawk at someone who has a congenital deformity (and there appears to be no better reason than that), then the appropriate alternative is to write biographies of circus side show performers. Those people chose to make a livelihood by putting their appearance on display; this man did not. DurovaCharge! 01:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My distaste for the idea of further exploiting this man is also palpable, but it can be buried under enough WP:BLP and WP:V assertions to keep that earth salted (not Peppered?) until it crashes into the sun. Has another internet meme whose only claim to fame was being a meme made it into WP and stayed there? Ghyslain Raza had a lot of press due to his memedom and became notable retroactively, lonelygirl15 is the work of professionals... ? Flakeloaf 09:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World

[edit]

Why did you delete it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pendo 4 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Oh... Cube World was spammed so much you deleted it?

Please pass on this polite request?

[edit]

Hi! See the bottom of [11] where Dean is acting as proxy for Bryan and trying to get in the middle of a debate VOR and I are setting up. I'd really rather he just left me alone, and I'd really, really rather he didn't proxy for Bryan, but I will not post on his User Talk page nor engage him on mine. Thanks. --BenBurch 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy? I didn't reply to Dean OR go to the Free Republic page. That was the point in asking you to be the intermediary here. Or did I miss something here. I am trying *hard* to stay clear of this. --BenBurch 06:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you were getting drawn in again. Just ignore him. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK! --BenBurch 09:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An early look

[edit]

Since you had a hand in the Piotrus-Ghirla matter, would you like an early look at my draft proposal? User:Durova/Community enforced mediation DurovaCharge! 23:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]



St Chris

[edit]

Is the requested change regarding "Oregon" on the St Christopher talkpage an appropriate change? Should the request be responded to, or not? Are you the right person to be asked these questions? Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mop action needed

[edit]

I've never wanted to be an admin, but there are times ...

On the issue above, I'm wondering if you have time to mop up the mess?

On the original FAC, Mierlo deleted my Objection, which was rather bold ... I've never actually seen that before at WP:FAC.[12] I gave him the benefit of the doubt, since I hadn't signed. Next he deleted me asking him not to delete comments from the FAC.[13] Then, he moved the FAC to a non-standard name [14] [15], so sorting it all out was fun. I had to re-create the original FAC file via a cut-and-paste; the whole mess really should be undone and re-created correctly.

Sorry for the mess - now I know why they call it a mop ! Appreciate it if you can help restore everything correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, ok, give me a minute to lay it out ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh, what a job - if someone wanted to hide an FAC, this would be the way to do it ...I really don't get how he did all of this, which is why I just did a cut and paste to put it back together:
  1. Looking at the article history here, we find the final FAC (before he moved it) three edits back, oldid=103766144 - here.
  2. However he got there, that has to be rolled back to where it came from, at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/World_energy_resources_and_consumption (Never mind that he deleted my object - no longer relevant, not worth worrying about, will be in the edit history.
  3. Then, once the original fac is back in place, it gets moved to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/World_energy_resources_and_consumption/archive1 (which means the current archive 1 has to be deleted.
  4. Then, I think, Wikipedia:Previous Featured article candidates/World energy resources and consumption gets deleted.
  5. Then the redirect left at the original FAC after the move, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/World_energy_resources_and_consumption, gets replaced with former fac so that the next person who comes along to submit a fac via the standard template will find a fresh file, with a link to the old fac.

Normally this is straightforward FAC archival stuff - I've not encountered a mess this big before. Clear as mud? I can actually do steps 3 and 5 myself, if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm missing something obvious. What needs to be moved to Archive1? It looks as if the archive is already at archive1? Or do I need to merge some history? Sorry to be dense. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL - not dense. What's at the archive file was my cut and paste, in other words, no edit history. The idea is to rollback to avoid my cut and paste fix, and do it right. Maybe it's not worth the effort? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

FYI, I just you an email. JoshuaZ 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

[edit]

"More power to his elbow" ??? --Ideogram 23:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divided by a common language, we are. --Ideogram 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon - geekspeak! Guy 1s S0 l33t! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wittertainment

[edit]

Do you think you could put this out of its misery now, before Mayo and Kermode have the chance to read Wittertainment on their show again this week? --Calton | Talk 07:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for trying to help with Jonathan Corrigan Wells. The article still has a long ways to go I'm afraid. Steve Dufour 14:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tall women, List of tall men

[edit]

Please see new combined deletion debate. ~ trialsanderrors 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal-b-gon

[edit]

I just reverted an anon here; it looked like they'd reverted to a previous version and added a bit of sneaky vandalism in. Might want to check and make sure I didn't bugger anything up. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe [16]. —xyzzyn 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I suspect the drama queens. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Nysted

[edit]

After many emailed conversations with Lee Nysted (talk · contribs), he has agreed to refrain from any further conflicts of interest, advertising, sockpuppetry, and spam. As such, I have unblocked this user. I'm letting you know because you were involved in the initial block and (iirc) I reviewed your block on unblock-en-l. The block was perfectly valid, I'm extending good faith to this user and will monitor this user's contributions. You are welcome to do the same, of course, and to reblock if you feel it appropriate. I hope you do not feel I am wheel warring or exceeding my authority here. Please yell and scream if you think my actions inappropriate. --Yamla 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You know, I have a really hard time believing he will honour that. 100% of the edits he made under that account and its various pupppets were vanity and spam and arguing over the deletion of the vanity and spam. But let's wait and see. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

[edit]

Dear editor, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 6, where I nominated a redirect created by you for deletion. Your input is appreciated. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Fensteren

[edit]

Can you explain your block of this user? How was this user self-evidently a sockpuppet? Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See this thread - he was invited by one of the warring parties on the Free Republic article to participate in an RfC and other processes based on his sage input before he made his first edit to that article or its talk page, which makes him either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, I don't care which. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was based on his "sage input" to a related meatpuppet investigation. It's unfortunate that your misunderstanding of what I was referring to has led to the permablocking of an intelligent contributor who never edited the Free Republic article, and was not in the slightest way disruptive. Anyway, your efforts to delegitimize the RfC have failed, and you are again cordially invited to comment there regarding the conduct of BenBurch. In light of your expressed concerns about WP:COI and his founding of a [virulent anti-Bush website] trying to prove the Bush Administration is fascist, BenBurch's editing of an article about an organization he describes as "a rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" raises a legitimate WP:COI concern, wouldn't you agree? Dino 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Fensteren (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). A couple of edits to Panther tank, one to M1 Garand rifle, nothing for a week, reply to a welcome message, and his sixth edit was to the vexatious BenBurch sockpuppet investivgation started by User:BryanFromPalatine using his block-evading sockpuppet User:ClemsonTiger and pursued by you. Actually that's not the whole story - on Jan 24, Fensteren created BenBurch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using the RFCU boilerplate - in other words we have an account created, makes a couple of trivial edits and can then create a new page, in this case an RFCU request. You're asking me to believe that this is an independent user who just happens to know lots about Wikiprocess and pursue precisely the same vendetta as BryanFromPalatine? Seriously? Ask ArbCom to review that one, I'm not unblocking it. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's already explained why there was "nothing for a week." He went looking for conflicts behind the scenes at Wikipedia: "I looked at the Protest Warrior, Free Republic, and Democratic Underground articles since I suspected that they would be flashpoints for conflict and this was immediately confirmed." Then he figured out Wikiprocess: "I quickly learned about diffs, talk pages, archives and about contribution histories." It's user-friendly. There are little blue links everywhere. Then he correctly identified the source of the conflict: "I looked for the cause of this fight in the archives of the fighters."
But if you're comfortable with your decision, that's fine.
Do you have anything at all to say about BenBurch's conduct? Will you ever have anything to say about that topic? Or are you just going to avoid any mention of that topic forever? Dino 20:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The incidence of genuinely new users who pitch straight into long-running disputes with evident knowledge of Wikiprocess is vastly lower than the incidence of sockpuppets and meatpuppets doing the same. So much so that the latter is the default assumption, especially we are talking about a user who has a dozen or so confirmed or suspected sockpuppets already. And when they are congratulated for their perceptive input before they've made it, the obvious becomes the farcical. You want to argue this case? Take it to ArbCom.
As for the rest, I've said before that you should think twice before coming to a parent with "look what he did! he started it!" - it's not like I don't get that every day at home. The phrase "a plague on both your houses" sums it up just nicely. I do not give a toss about those articles and never did, I do give a toss about Mr. Hat wasting people's time and harrassing other editors. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my Cabal! Remind me to teach you the passwords and secret handshake!  :-)--BenBurch 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just am not convinced that this is not a casual new user who took a look around before editing and somehow got involved in this mess. I am going to assume good faith about Fensteren, unblock him, and watch him like a hawk just to be sure. I would hate to turn away an editor with good intentions without any real evidence. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bad idea. There is no doubt in my mind that Hinnen nd his "brother" are gaming the system and laughing up their sleeves at our naivete. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a SSP case on this

[edit]

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DeanHinnen which seemed necessary since Dean is representing to en-unblock-l that this was some sort of revenge block. --BenBurch 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog at speedy

[edit]

Guy, there's a big backlog at speedy - can you look at Talk:Tourettes guy‎? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinetoscope

[edit]

I'd like to ask if you could please undo your edit - the link is indeed blacklisted, but I no clue why. It is a legitimate link for the article in question, was added by the primary author, and passed muster with FAC. And it's in the references. I'd like to see this restored to its previous status, as its unfortunate association with a blacklisted site in no way should be seen to reflect its importance to the article in question, nor its legitimacy. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is blacklisted because it was spammed to many articles across four languages by its owner. The site contains a mix of scraped content (of dubious copyright status) and original research of no proven authority. It was embedded in a reference to an apparently authoritative printed source. It is unnecessary in that context as it was not a source for the statement referenced, only a "me too" link. Sorry but I see no reason why we should insert a blacklisted link in this instance. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mothercare

[edit]

I would like to object to your speedy closing of this AfD. I take a break, come back and find that the article had been sent to Afd and closed as keep before I got a chance to voice my opinion on it. Now I will have to live forever with the shame of not being able to type "Keep because even frozen Canadians have heard of Mothercare.", just because you were a bit quick on the draw. Oh yeah, and I get to clean up after you. I can't believe that article has had 6 edits today. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the tag, I got called away. Thanks for fixing. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman

[edit]

Something to keep an eye on. May be a User:Filmnews2007 sock. Tijuana Brass 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably not a sock, but undoubtedly under the same misapprehension, that the event confers inherent notability on the (as yet unreleased) film about the event. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinfo AfD

[edit]

You might want to look at this, which is coming up for close. Although I've been arguing for keep, this is mostly on more strategic grounds. It is not clear cut, and Trebor has been very consistent in his argument. It's currently roughly 8:3 for keep. You are one of the few Admins who I trust to ignore the count and do what must be done (whatever that is!). Stephen B Streater 09:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity no one has come up with any articles. I did ask over at Wikinfo and they didn't find any either, so it's sadly (as I dislike monopolies) conclusive. Stephen B Streater 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. A pity, it's a good site. Sadly WP:ITSGOOD does not trump WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Rome Burns discussion

[edit]

Thanks for the information. I will study the guidelines further, and although the band in question aren't on a major label, or known to the general populous, their contibution to gothic_rock i feel is justifiable, and several other bands of equal standing are presnt in the List_of_Gothic_rock_bands, hence my ongoing hope that a full article can be posted soon.

  • Once the band has been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources then that can happen. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool. Well, the article will be similar to that of The_Way_Of_All_Flesh_(band) as they tend to support one another on tour and have been reviewd by similar press.

FYI, you seem to have a fan club

[edit]

Please see the deleted article Guy Chapman the Angry Nintendo Nerd. On both the article talk page and the user's userpage, he claims to be a Jason Gastrich sock, so taking him at his word, I have indefblocked him. Please review this action and feel free to modify it as you deem appropriate. Thanks. --BigDT 13:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's all my own fault for nto realising that in the case of subjects as important as Angry Nintendo Nerd we should make an exception to all our policies and have an article even if it is non-neutral and unverifiable, otherwise we must delete all articles on Wikipedia. Or something. Thanks for wielding the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

[edit]

Guy,

I appreciate your spending time on this dispute. Below is the note I wrote to Sandy on her Talk page.

Sandy,
I do believe you are being particularly hostile to my efforts to create a world class write up. So far all have gotten from you is negative criticism. Not one comment that was helpful and regretfully not a single edit that improved the article at hand.
Now I don't want to be in some personal tit for tat. I will continue to delete your personal attacks because I find them distracting, I believe they de-motivate other editors and they not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia.
I want to complete this article and make it a succinct source of high quality information supported by understandable and readable graphics. I think Energy is one of the most important issues of our time and it helps the discussion if everyone can have access to the facts.
So in summary, if you edit and help to make this a good article you presence is appreciated. If you just want to throw the rule book around and have no tangible input please go elsewhere.
PS I think you are probably a decent person. You are certainly a prolific Wikipedian.:)

I am trying to create a world class page. All criticisme of the article is welcome and I am certainly open to new ideas. Sandy seems like a genuinly productive Wikipedian most of the time. In this particular case her behaviour has been very demotivating and couter productive. I think it would be best if she leaves this article alone. I am getting al lot of great help from Beagel, Gralo and Carson. A quick look at the talk page will show that I not only accept suggestions I welcome and encourage them and I have repeately solicited other editors to join in writing the article. To accuse me of vandalisme is a bit unfair given the effort the enormous effort to make this a superb article.


  • I think you are exhibiting all the classic symptoms of WP:OWNing that article, and you are being hostile to Sandy with no obvious justification. One of the things you need to ear in mind when working towards a "world class article" is that your vision of what constitutes a world class article on this topic may well differ from that of other people. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there are different opinions on what is world class. One of the reasons that Wikipedia is such a cool place is that it shows that people can really work out their differences. Please review the talk page, it shows that I have taken on board many suggestions of other people. Yes I do care about this article, that is why I am working on it. Please check the page history to have a look at Sandy's contributions, there are none!
This is not about Sandy not being welcome to edit the article, she is. This is about not accepting negative criticism when a group of people are working to create something great. You, Sandy and I should be writing good articles and stay away from these personal attacks.
PS I admire you for taking on the thankless task of reviewing these cases.
No, actually, it's about removing comments made in good faith by a long-standing contributor from a talk page. Sandy finds that insulting. I'm not surprised. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I can understand that point of view. Now can you understand it is insulting to be called a vandal when you have spent over a hundred hours creating a synthesis of a very complex subject? Can you understand it is insulting to have failed FAC in large font the talk page when in fact it was a voluntary withdrawal while we further improve the article. And lastly can you understand it becomes annoying if people just critique by quoting rules rather than making specific proposals or edits to improve the article?
PS.PS. I still admire you for taking on the thankless task of reviewing these cases.

I did look at the rules (for the first time) and found the following: If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. I think that applies in this case. 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems to me like a case of megaphone diplomacy. You are showing signs of WP:OWNing that talk page, which is not good, and really I would say that to call it a failed nomination is only insulting if you have extended that WP:OWNership to the article itself. Who cares, actually? The point of the failed nomination template is to give a link to the debate, which is informative. It also says a lot about an article that it's been proposed and discussed. Leave it on there, I would say, until the next nomination. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I still, respectfully, disagree. The link to the FAC discussion is on the talk page. In fact it is in there twice, once in my comments and once in Sandy's. Sandy's complaint is not about having a link, it is there. She is using the system to throw her weight around. This is about her getting revenge because she like all other human beings did not like criticism. (My comments on her talk page were deleted in little less than a nano second) I understand why you might think that I exhibit signs of WP:OWNing however, I have welcomed all constructive criticism. Xyzzy_n, Carson, Gralo and Beagel are all helping to make this a better article and if you check their talk pages you can see that I made and effort to appreciate their help.

In the end you and Sandy will win if you can call it that. I will simply withdraw from Wikipedia. Since you placed the vandalism template on my talk page my contribution has dropped dramatically and I am seriously considering pulling out altogether. This is simply too painful.

I understand how this happens, a person like Sandy is trying to look at an enormous amount of articles and she quickly types her comments on a FAC discussion. I realize this is not malice. That said, her unsigned edit on the FAC discussion was as follows:

Object and refer to peer review - not even close. For starters, what is the source of the data in the graphs? Image placement and size is a problem, resulting in large white spaces.]

Although I understand the drive for quality, and I do not dispute Sandy's good intentions, please note the following:
1. In her hurry to give her opinion she forgot to sign the comment making it harder to accept the criticism.

2. This type of feedback really hurts Wikipedia; it de-motivates good editors and drives people away. Did you know that the number of productive editors in Wikipedia is actually declining at the moment?

3. Careful reading of the article would have revealed that the data was actually referenced. There is a layout problem with this article and so far it has not been solved. The discussion is in the FAC and the Talk page and the current layout is not mine.

So in summary the feedback is too negative and not careful enough. That is OK if it is an isolated case; it becomes a real problem if you have a very prolific Wikipedian doing this to lots of people. I am not asking you to reprimand Sandy I believe she has good intentions. I would just like it if she would leave us alone. Unless of course if she want to help edit the article in which case I will be grateful for all positive contributions.

In the end this discussion is maybe worth your time. Like you I really do believe Wikipedia is a cool place. I also know that you have to dole out two parts praise for every part of criticism to get people to listen to you. Sandy's behavior, despite all her good intentions (and I really believe the latter), is destructive. I admire people like you who are willing to do the admin job and so far all your comments have been fair. The challenge that is on your plate is to decide how you can create a welcoming culture that appreciated the large army of volunteers. How do you harness the enthusiasm of people like Sandy that want to improve quality and channel it so it does not become a stream of negative feedback.

Good Luck with all of that. I hope you succeed.
[

Frank, can you just drop this issue? You were wrong to remove Sandy’s comments on the article’s talk page, especially after being asked not to do that. I don’t see any vandalism templates on your talk page, but Guy’s comment there was well within the norm, given your persistence. I won’t bother citing the policy/guideline pages, so take this as an opinion: you were wrong, accept it, stop wasting time on this issue.
Also please consider Sandy’s comments on the article in the context of WP:WIAFA. It’s really not even close. There was no point in making detailed comments and the problems (which are real; I’m not seeing the references either) are too complex to be fixed during the FAC discussion. The feedback was negative because the article is not yet ready for FAC.
After everything, I doubt Sandy will be interested in further participating on the article’s talk page. I will, however, tag the talk page appropriately anyway. This is about the article and letting future editors know where and when it was reviewed, not about you. —xyzzyn 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know this discussion was still going on. First, we're not talking about a template; it was only a small, insignificant talk page entry. Second, Mierlo is moving things from a number of places that really make things hard on other editors who try to keep up with various FA categories, templates, etc. The move of the FAC to a non-standard archive, followed by blanking it, requires a lot of other editor work to undo, particularly when several of us are hard at work on moving old FACs to archives in order to install the new {{ArticleHistory}} template. Third, Mierlo, I asked you no less than four times to pls stop altering other people's talk comments; you deleted or altered all of them. That you added my signature to your own comments concerns me. I was fortunate to see it because I was working on syncing the FAC category, and came back to the talk page. Fourth, in spite of having been in charge of the long-term plan for one of the Seven Sisters (I think I may know a thing or two about the subject?), there is no chance I will work on improving an article in this kind of editing environment, so you've lost at least one potential helper. I'm most relieved to see the article is being helped out by the very competent xyzzy_n; now I have a lot of work to do on the conversion to {{ArticleHistory}}. Thanks for the sage advice, JzG, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye and Goodluck to all.

Guy - Are you interested in suggestions/feedback??

  • Truthfully? I'm afraid not. This was, in my view, a pretty low-level dispute; it could easily have been solved by simply being a bit more polite to Sandy, who is a decent enough sort. That it escalated looks to me to be evidence of a problem with your attitude to the article, not with Wikipedia or Sandy or anyone else. Edit warring over tags on talk pages is astonishingly lame. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles on Cable Companies

[edit]

You recently deleted several articles by User:Bill Clark at his request. You should note that he was involved in a content dispute with another editor and nominated all of his articles for deletion in response. Some of the articles are going through AfD and are tending toward keep. I suggest you undelete these, or at least put them through AfD. Dhaluza 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These articles had an infobox and a short para, they had two edits, one creating and one tagging for deletion, they are valid {{db-author}}, but you are welcome to make proper articles on those subjects if you have reliable sources attesting to their significance. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were not created by accident, but were part of a series of articles. Also, if you checked what links here, you would see that they are part of a template, whose links are now broken. If you think they should be deleted, why do you object to AfD? Dhaluza 11:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make the effort to understand what I wrote. They were created and then tagged for deletion, this is valid per WP:CSD criterion G7. If he wants to waste his time, fair enough. If you want to create new articles with sources, fair enough. You don't need the negligible information he posted in order to do so, there were no references anyway. You have now written more words asking for these articles back, than was contained in the articles themselves. Seriously. Nobody's going to delete them just because there was once a {{db-author}} at that title. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, Dhaluza is making a reasonable request in order to help a frustrated user. If it's not too much trouble please help him as he requests. This episode has come up as a "poster-child" example of poor AfD nominations and I became involved as it is an example for rewriting the notability guidelines. Any assitance will be kindly appreciated. Sincerely, Kevin --Kevin Murray 00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters

[edit]

You may wish to look in at Talk:Traditionalist Catholic. Lima 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Machado

[edit]

You speedy deleted this yesterday, but a message has since been placed on the talk page, claiming that the text has been released into the public domain. I am not fully certain they understand what they are saying, nor can I remember the nature of the page, so undeletion may not be the best option. Just thought I would let you know. J Milburn 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on.

[edit]

Are you going to do anything to get Badlydrawnjeff to leave me well enough alone? [17]. I mean, come on now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAZT/SVRTV

[edit]

What's wrong with my site as a reference? - SVRTVDude 22:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, fair enough. Would it help, though, that I got that information directly from WAZT in the form of a press release? If not, I will actively look for a reference outside of SVRTV, just in case. - SVRTVDude 02:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://ekimmell2.tripod.com/old.html ....you have to scroll down to the Virginia section, but it is there. WAZT didn't have much of a following in the news department, but they stuck with it. So, when it went, no one really noticed. It is on cable channel 99 here, so most people think WAZT is no more, when it is just REALLY high on the dial. If that won't work, please let me know and I will look some more. Stay warm....SVRTVDude 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the original source if you want but remember not to link your own site (WP:EL, links to avoid). Guy (Help!) 07:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the problem....I can't cite the press release, as it was an emailed press release. There was nothing on the WAZT.com site about the news being dropped. Actually, the news pages and anchor bios (only 2) remained almost 3 months after WAZT dropped the newscast. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it was not a reliable email then. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was realiable, cause it was directly from someone at WAZT....I later got an email from the then owner of WAZT as well confirming it. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 09:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, this is your own research. If you can't cite it from a reliable secondary source, best to leave it out. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should explain the delay on the WAZT website. WAZT was, at that time, going through a transfer of ownership, so the delay on the website was understandable. Also, the news anchor and the weather/sports reporter were running public affairs programming for those three months, but after the ownership change, those programs were dropped. Also, being a small christian station in a small town in Virginia, their website is the last thing on their mind. Their main viewership are senior citizens who, of course, aren't big internet users. This link (given above as well) is not owned by me, but shows that WAZT's newscast was cancelled in 2006. http://ekimmell2.tripod.com/old.html - SVRTVDude (Yell - Work) 09:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand: I do not give a toss about this station. But I do give a toss about sourcing. You can include detail as long as it has a reliable secondary source (i.e. not personal pages and other such things); stuff taken from emails you received, or from your own research, is not on. If you are recognised as an authority, publish a book with a mainstream publisher, and some other editor chooses to cite it, then that's fine per Wiki policy, but you appear to be working from what you know to be true, not what can be verified from reliable sources. Verifiability, not truth, is what we need. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Yo, what up? Cheerz, 210.8.54.36 02:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wiberly

[edit]

Guy, regarding the POW Mr. Wimberly of LA: look through other POWs already on Wikipedia, and see if his story is as good as some of the others. Most are not known outside their immediate areas, that's the nature of POWS and decorated veterans as well.

Billy Hathorn 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic I know you love

[edit]

Hi! I am gonna recuse myself from the Peter Roskam article because I can no longer deal with Hinnen's threats. He now is threatening to charge FAAFA and myself with Wikistalking, and has posted dire warnings on both of our user talk pages. Which is ridiculous, but fine he wins. I cannot take his disruption and personal attacks any more. I show an interest in the page about a man who is congressman in a district 8 miles from here, and I have to put up with abuse? It's not worth it. Let hom whitewash this page until it reads like a Roskam campaign flyer. Sorry, I had to vent. I'll try not to bug you with this again. --BenBurch 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pithfork media is a reliable secondary source.

[edit]

Pithfork media is a reliable secondary source.......? I'll probably lose this article won't I? Arnesh 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to the now deleted Glacial Pace article. Actually, I have thought it over, and it should not be its own article. It should simply be a part of the Isaac Brock (musician) article, because it is in fact not notable enough to have its own. I guess this is cleared up then. I'll write the Glacial Pace section of the Isaac Brock article sometime in the next day or two. Arnesh 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, I'll make a redirect. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlamDiego again

[edit]

Hi Guy, I don't know what to respond to SlamDiego that are accusing me of vandalism here and at my talk page, where he as his first action against me has put up a Last Warning message... I noticed that his general attitude on wikipedia has gotten many experienced editors upset in the recent past, and that you have blocked him not long ago. But nothing seems to help. I try to ignore his false allegations right now, and I hope he eventually cools down. iNic 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 9 February 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tsendze" (WP:CSD criteria A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertorial))

[edit]

Eh.... I was going to add and correct information on Kruger and it´s camps, but if it´s deleted while I work...

(no assertion of notability) Ok, let me introduce myself. I am called Duco Quanjer, live in The Netherlands, and am a moderator on the SANParks forums (http://www.sanparks.org/forums). In case you doubt that, just look up the user under the same alias (DuQues) and send me a mail or PM.

G11 (advertorial)) Not really, at least not according to me. I was giving the area it´s in, how to get there, some sightings, and wanted now to add that there is no electricity etc, just what people looking for need.

Would you mind reconsider? I can add quite a bit as you can probably imagine from my function as moderator, and from personal experience. I also have in excess of 6000 photos from Kruger, some of which I would be handy for Wikipedia..

Have a nice weekend, Duco DuQues 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Chosen etc.

[edit]

Oke first of all it is never ment for it to be an offical thing or whatever that would become a Charmed spin-off. It was a project created by my acting school. The task was to write your own play/episode/movie etc. And a lot of friends of mine (who have been acting 4 years aswell) but they were never listed in imdb .. I mean DUH were not famous or anything.

This whole project was entirely fan-based and we wanted a temporarily space to put our new progresses on because the website is still offline. I was wondering if whatever was deleted can be retrieved so I can store it on my pc and to use it for the official website and not on wikipedia ??? Is there any chance ?

Thanx,

Blessed Be ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarthYotho (talk • contribs) 14:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Troll-B-Gon?

[edit]

Too funny! LOL (→Netscott) 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

DRV pattern?

[edit]

We've had three DRV cases from admins reversing other admins this week. I can't recall the prior case. (Though I know there have been prior deletion wheel wars, including during the userbox wars.) Is my memory failing? Is this something that happens periodically, an admonishment goes out, and then things settle down for a while? Or is this unusual? And what if anything should be done? GRBerry 22:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mmmmm. Nothing sinister, I think. Rebecca has been a long-standing advocate of articles on malls, although few of them rise above the level of directory entries to my mind. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, only the most recent case involved her, if I remember correctly. Concern was more the pattern than the specifics. Oh well, you have a longer memory than I do, which is why I asked you. If it isn't outside the normal statistical fluctuations, I won't worry about it. GRBerry 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, only one involves Rebecca. All three are different, which is why I don't see a problem. I think the cause is largely the size of recent CSD backlogs, which have been in the hundreds for days at a time; this can lead to less diligence than might otherwise be the case. We need to look out for more likely admin candidates. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Carroll page moves

[edit]

Would you mind helping to clean up the mess at David Carroll? I saw that you had been involved in deleting some of the related redirects and whatnot. It seems that David Carroll was moved to David Carroll (arranger, conductor, musical director), which was then copy and pasted back to David Carroll, and then David Carroll (arranger, conductor, musical director) was deleted by another administrator. Can you delete David Carroll, undelete and move David Carroll (arranger, conductor, musical director) back to David Carroll, and then delete David Carroll (arranger, conductor, musical director)? I guess the talk pages need the same treatment. Thanks in advance. --- RockMFR 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on my user page

[edit]

If I was able, I would have removed it myself, thanks. I didn't know that userpages did not qualify as a non-commercial use and therefore understandibly did not agree with their removal. So before you lash out in revulsion, please take the time to try and understand what is going on. I didn't do it because I like hurting other people's feelings, I did it because I was offended by what I saw as wanton removal. Call me any derogotory term you want, but this is the truth. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 20:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. Well maybe I want you to get sued. How about that? ;D -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 20:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB196 back again...

[edit]

www.anonymouscamp.org is his choice of proxy this time, and he's editing from IP 83.133.111.24 [18]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 23:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add www.firewalldown.com to the list as well [19]. IP has been blocked for 100 hours and added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, so it's just the links that need blacklisting. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a subtle hint for me to report them there in future? One Night In Hackney 08:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not especially, although there's no reason why not. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one

[edit]

Danny (Tourettes Guy) - thought you might want to add it to that category thingie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well close this now

[edit]

Notability not asserted at all, WP:SNOW must apply. One Night In Hackney 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for axing my sandbox...

[edit]

... without even notifying me. [20] Care to point me to the policy that states that you can't work on deleted articles in your userspace? – Lantoka (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NOT a free web host. Deleted articles being worked up, no problem. Deleted articles not being worked on, sometimes an end-run around deletion policy and always fair game for deletion under WP:CSD#G4. Especially when it's been deleted, deleted, deleted again, deleted some more, deleted some more again, reviewed and endorsed, deleted and reviewed again... well, you get the picture. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"G4: Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. This clause does not apply in user space, to content undeleted per undeletion policy, or if the prior deletions were proposed or speedy deletions, although in this last case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply."
From WP:USER: "What can I not have on my user page? Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia." Uhm... I don't think you get any more related to Wikipedia than a Wikipedia article. Do you honestly think I kept that article in my user page so I could link real life friends to it or something? I really don't see the WP:NOT a webhost violation here.
People were working on that article man. It overwent a major overhaul as recently as a month and a half ago (by User:Indolences), and several people were involved in source citing and the rewrite. In addition, I had the support of admins involved in both the article's deletion and deletion review (mainly User:Saxifrage, take a look at the deleted article's talk page if you doubt this).
Was the article sitting in my sandbox really all that disruptive? – Lantoka (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a userfied copy of the deleted content. Nobody had touched it since December last, and actually there were only two edits since mid-November, so nobody was working on it. And even if they were, they were probably wasting their time since the primary issue - lack of sources - was not being addressed. And.... yes. How many times do we have to delete something before re-creating it becomes a problem? Fewer than we deleted General Mayhem, under numerous different titles. I trust that answers all your questions. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Policy pretty clearly sides with me on this, but you don't seem to care. Anyway, I'm not at all happy with how you've comported yourself during this incident. If I were an admin, I sure wouldn't go into other people's userspaces and speedy delete stuff that I didn't like, especially when no Wikipedia policy supports the action. The least you could have done if you wanted it gone that bad was an MFD, but apparently you don't have any respect for my userspace, my contributions, or the contributions of any other person that worked on that article and tried to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I'll let this redlink speak for itself: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lantoka/Sandbox2 – Lantoka (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think you'll find that policy and consensus are pretty firmly against holding copies of multiply-deleted content in your user space, especially when they are not being actively worked on. The fact that you would not go and delete copies of multiply-deleted articles from places around the project while I will, may explain why you are not an admin and I am :-) Guy (Help!) 20:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that succinct observation. You seem to be full of wit today. – Lantoka (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, situation normal. I've been watching the kids build snowmen :o) http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Snow Guy (Help!) 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Alleged GDFL Violations

[edit]
  • Ignore Fys, I blocked him a while ago for a WP:3RR violation on a WP:BLP article, and he's still sore about it. I told you what the problem was with your GenMay page, and actually since it was apparently copied from a cache or mirror the article also violated GFDL. You can take it to WP:DRV if you like, though, I have no problem with reviews of any of my deletions. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Friday undeleted the article for me and moved it to User:Lantoka/gm so that I could work on developing a sourced copy that would stand up to another deletion review. I took the text directly from the last good version of the article and threw it into my sandbox. I have no idea how on earth this could possibly violate GFDL. I am working on a Wikipedia article on Wikipedia. A quick search of the full text of the GDFL for the words "cache" and "mirror" don't turn up any results, either. What on earth are you talking about? – Lantoka (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have to preserve the history. Copying a cached version violates that. It's better to apply the amnesia test if working up a new article. I have no problem with working up a new article, but that one was not being worked on, and we've deleted that subject at about half a dozen different titles, each time the consensus has been that it's not notable. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not following. The history of the old article is at User:Lantoka/gm, and I assume that if I ever got the green light for remaking the article that my sandbox would have to be merged with that, then the whole thing moved back to General Mayhem. Yes, it's a mess and yes, it's probably because I did it wrong, but how does the license tie into all this? I'm not understanding where the GFDL prohibits modifying free text, especially considering that this is all taking place on Wikipedia, with the purpose of improving the article. This Wikilawyering is really giving me a headache.
As far as I'm aware, General Mayhem was prodded once, undeleted by User:Essjay at my request, then nominated for WP:AFD. The AFD (which I did not participate in) was closed as delete by User:w.marsh despite a majority favoring keep. I objected to this and opened a WP:DRV, which was pretty much a total disaster and ended as endorse deletion. After this, I teamed up with several editors who thought the article could be properly sourced in time and obtained a working copy for my sandbox. And that's how things stood when you speedied my sandbox, undoing a lot of hard work. If you take a look at the sandbox talk page, you'll see a ton of sources that we were able to acquire and were working into the article.
Do you still not understand why I am upset? 1) Deleting my working copy of that article was needless and undid a lot of hard work. 2) Many people involved in thos whole GenMay thing supported the idea of sourcing the article so that it could win a deletion review at a later date. 3) I did this with the support of User:Saxifrage and other admins involved in the GenMay deletion process. 4) Policy protects user pages from speedy deletions, requiring a WP:MFD before deleting.
You speedying my sandbox, without leaving me a note, was rude, offensive, undid a lot of hard work, and violated policy. I am pissed. I've fought incredibly hard to keep this article afloat, and you undid all of that needlessly. Need I say more? – Lantoka (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted at General Mayhem, General mayhem, Genmay, GenMay, General mayhem forums, we have Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genmay, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 November). I'm sure that's not half of it. Seems to me that we've thought long and hard about this one and decided against. I know you've fought hard to keep the article afloat, that's one reason why having it hanging around unedited in your user space was a problem. Policy absolutely allows for removal of deleted content in that situation. As for undoing work, (a) no work was ongoing and had not been for some time and (b) there were only seventeen edits including the original repost. But like I say, you can take the deletion of the user space copy to WP:DRV if you like. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a peek at...

[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy, please? It's been sitting with only one certifier for well over the 48-hour period, so I delisted it and marked it for speedy last night (as I was advised to do when I brought a couple to WP:AN recently); the fellow who certified it is saying on my talk page, and the talk page of the RFC, that some admins understand the certification involves the person starting the RFC and one person endorsing it. I still don't see the two people he's talking about, so it'd be nice to have another person take a look. Much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not more personal attacks ...

[edit]

What's the deal here? Yuser31415 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't. Fys is consistently aggressive and rude, he needs to chill. The fact that a British party leader is in the news for smoking cannabis was simply too good to miss :-) Guy (Help!) 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little question re:RfC

[edit]

Hi JzG, I was wondering if you can explain your thinking to me. You recently deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chairboy for not passing the 48 hour certification requirement. Much as I personally don't think it was a very valid grievance, as I recall (not being an admin I can't check) it had been certified by a user other than the person bringing the RfC. However, a couple of day ago you removed my speedy deletion tag from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay (see [21]). Your edit summary said "This was the work of two editors, so is certified even if not formally signed at the time". I'm having difficulty working out how strictly the certification requirement should be followed... Would appreciate your thoughts. WjBscribe 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the Request, a little help needed for Concordia College and University. That user who keeps removing the citations started Concordia College & University with the same information claiming its accredited in Liberia and it is a univerity in Indonesia. All kinds of bogus and questionable links added. FGT2 03:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National academy of higher education was started by the same user and looks bogus. Credential watch lists that as bogus. FGT2 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Broadly, the Chairboy one was sour grapes in respect of a single incident, whereas the JJay one is the result of a long-standing pattern of behaviour, !voting keep almost as if he is just being contrary. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PT Platinum Ceramics Industry

[edit]

The page has been recreated for the 4th time. Any chance you can permanently prevent it from being recreated? (Caniago 05:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Milton

[edit]

As far as I'm aware you were the only one arguing for the removal of the Ireland blog link. I think we need a bit of colour in our MP articles, god knows we have enough dry mundane ones already. Catchpole 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bradles 01#Blocked

[edit]

I think the {{unblock-auto}} seals the deal, and provides the confirmation you requested. Daniel.Bryant 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Anderson AFD

[edit]

See my comments at the end for a good enough reasoning of why this should be deleted. --sunstar nettalk 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Effective deconflagration

[edit]

When trying to extinguish a fire, Guy, applying water is sometimes effective, applying CO2 is sometimes effective, applying halon gas is sometimes effective, but applying petrol almost never helps. Rather, it tends to exacerbate the problem. Please try to have a calming influence on disputes, rather than rolling up your sleeves and joining in. Please. -- Ben 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

[edit]

Hi, an entry you just put on DRV seems to have been malformed. I have tried fixing it up to what I think you wanted, but I think you should take a look at it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports trainer

[edit]

I had just deleted all those silly entries from my talk page, but only 'cause I didn't see anything changing. What about the pictures told you they were just messing with me and wikipedia? I thought they were pretty realistically stupid. Sfahey 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Photoshopping the word "Sports Trainer" onto an image is one thing, adding it using Windows Paint, with the text square and not aligned wiht the image, is quite another! Guy (Help!) 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dear Hunter

[edit]

I spotted this on DRV. It's protected from recreation, but wouldn't it be a bit more useful for it to be a protected redirect to The Deer Hunter? - hahnchen 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BWAH! Killer tag!

[edit]

<span id="coordinates"> ... Friggin' AWESOME! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's clever! Guy (Help!) 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

peekvid

[edit]

i am requesting a revert of the deletion and protection of the article on peekvid. it was deleted because it "wasnt notable". this site receives many hundred millions of page views per day, as shown here on its alexa page. please re activate this page. thanks Gamersedge 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Concordia College and University:

[edit]

You recently protected[22] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of National academy of higher education:

[edit]

You recently protected[23] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another favour to ask...

[edit]

...and feel free to tell me to get lost if I'm bothering you too often. I reverted a change a user made to Notse a few days ago; it was previously a redirect to Notsé, but User:Yyttu changed it to a page about a backup forum to TOTSE. The user has apparently reverted again, due to some interesting logic on his/her talk page. Would you mind taking a look when you get a moment? I'm not sure the backup forum is that exciting (not that the page being redirected to is terribly exciting either, but still). Thanks again. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports carnival

[edit]

You might like to take another look at the AfD if you haven't recently, all the votes have been in favour of keeping it. Would you consider withdrawing your nomination of it? Mathmo Talk 14:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

[edit]

Any chance you could get Jeff off my back? He seems to listen to you sometimes, and his persistent personal attacks against me are getting annoying. >Radiant< 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, JzG. He doesn't want mediation or informal arbitration, so we'll go through it the hard way and the problem will be solved in a way no one wants. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You both sound so funny when you fight like this. Yuser31415 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) You know, Guy, if you have the time, you might make the ideal mediator for Radiant! and Jeff. They both respect you, and your direct style and willingness to call a spade a, well, you know what, might help resolve the current dispute. (Or not, of course). TheronJ 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Theron has it right. For the record I would be happy with mediation iff Jeff would simply quit making personal attacks against me; however he has so far refused to do so. >Radiant< 09:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what consolation are you willing to make? That's part of this issue - you don't get to dictate terms here, so that's why we're where we're at. If you were happy with mediation, you would have taken it without strings attached. I didn't demand you stop editing policy pages while mediation went on, after all, something I definitely could have requested. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NPA is a non-negotiable behavioral policy. It is not a "string" attached to anything, and it is not a bargaining chip. You do not get to demand concessions in return for an agreement to follow policy, because you should not be making personal attacks in the first place. >Radiant< 14:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thus the disagreement - accurately describing your practices is not a personal attack. You disagree, and you use that as your force in not accepting mediation, so off to Arbcom we go. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except that you haven't been accurate at all in describing me or the dispute. Your opinion is not fact, and giving a biased opinion is by definition not an "accurate description of practices". As several people have recently pointed out to you, yes, you have been making personal attacks. >Radiant< 15:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. So the next step is: do we want to start by making a Wiki page to discuss the dispute, or should we start by emailing me the basis of the dispute? I don't mind. What I want to do is to get from each of you your view on where the problem started, and what caused it to escalate. It would also be really helpful if you could make (privately if you prefer) a list of the things you think are good and bad about the way each of you has acted here. Also, a comment on why you believe the result of the underlying dispute is important to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice/help

[edit]

The article Jeronymite seems to me to be clearly just a work of fiction. Just read it. Besides, I have found no confirmation whatever elsewhere of the existence of "a religious and ethnic minority originally from the Adriatic Basin" who included such illustrious figures as Marco Polo and the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo, and who are also presented as Traditionalist Catholics that date from even before the Council of Trent, and who, though consisting of only about 500 people, are making their presence felt as far afield as Chile. The Bibliography attached to the fictional article looks impressive, but none of the books in it mention the so-called Jeronymites. I could change the page back to what it was originally, a redirect to the article on the once important religious order of the Hieronymites, who really did exist. But I think much more than that should be done. The articles into which links to the fictional one have been inserted should also be corrected. How should I go about dealing with this problem? Or can you, will you please, deal with it yourself? Lima 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removing the links requires specialist knowledge (would Hieronymite be equally appropriate?) so it's best if a Catholic editor does that. I am happy to make the Jeronymite article into a protected redirect. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regretfully, I must concur with Lima. The Jeronymites/Hieronymites were and are a religious order, monastic and sometimes hermitic, once very influential and now almost vanished, which is not at all the same thing as a "religious and ethnic minority originally from the Adriatic Basin". Where the basic thesis of Jeronymite (before you reverted to the redirect) diverges from that of Hieronymites, I could find no support for it elsewhere. Having gone through the contribution history of "London321", the only edits I could completely trust were his saying "Hello" on his userpage and his adding his own username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Participants. Though much of his Korzulot is verifiable (if badly spelled), the two sentences of the second paragraph are both dubious and (as he admits) "heavily disputed"; as phrased, and uncited, they don't belong in an article. In his defense is the possibility that sometimes he may be telling history the way he learned it: Croatians, and particularly those on the island of Korčula, do claim Marco Polo as one of their own by birth -- though, as Polo himself said, he was born in Venice. But London321's cited reference in the Catholic Encyclopedia (the same article each time, "Latin Church") nowhere supports anything for which he cites it. I am struggling not to flatly say "hoaxer" -- due to the possibility he's relaying what he was taught, the possibility that somehow all this escaped being recorded anywhere else on the Web that Google can find, and the certainty of my own non-omniscience -- but it's still taking every ounce of AGF and APBB I can summon up. By all means, please ask those more knowledgeable to review the record and offer their own conclusions. They needn't be Catholic; a good grasp of southeastern European history should suffice. I've left London321's material unedited, only for the sake of such a review; otherwise I'd have urged rolling back everything he wrote and demanding verifiable sources before allowing anything back on. -- Ben 11:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the statements about "Jeronymites" (in the peculiar sense that the article in question gave to the word) from the articles that I found linked with it. (I have left "Jeronymites" in the very few articles in which it was used in its correct sense as another form of "Hieronymites".) The biographies of supposed "Jeronymite" artists and scientists were translated into very defective English from Italian texts given as sources. These texts make no mention whatever of "Jeronymites". The English badly needs improving: I retouched only one or two short phrases, since at this moment I did not have time to do more. Lima 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London321 17:45, 26 February 2007

Ok,.. I finally figured out where you people all hang out. Firstly, I would like to appologees for any wrong doing (or mis-spelling) I may have caused on Wikipedia. I am aware of the difficult possition you moderators are faced with on day to day basis in regards to vandals. As a result, I understand why my article about Jeronymites was deleted. However, this is not to say that I agree with your actions.

I myself am (at least trying to be) a (Jeronymite) Roman Catholic. The name it self, simply refers to traditional Catholics, who take their religion slightly more piesly. Its true that, me pointing it out, in a seperate article, highlighting it as a word for it self, could be interpreted as misleading, however, one must point out that, in the vecinity of the adriatic basin there isn't really a single word to describe the traditional and cultural simularities, more accuratly then to simply call it all Jeronymite. Furthermore, being a very open minded individual, I felt that linking any particulat nation to the ethnic complexion (of what can only be described as "Jeronymite"), would only undermine the sensitivity involved. For example; only recently, Croatia and Italy had some bad memories poping up to the surface in regards to ww2. This is execly the sort of stuff we, the members of the Wikipedia should stay well clear of. On this note, I end this message. I hope my future articles will not be seen with suspision. Again I truely am sorry for any mis-understanding.

P.S. I shall write 2 very controversial articles in the near future concearning "Falange Di Vegliot" (Pronounced; Falanje Di Velyot), and Dalmatian Action Party (Dalmatinska Akcija). This could make some Croatians and Serbians very unconfortable. Plz advise me on whether Wikipedia is interested, or whether (like my previous article) it will be outrightly deleted (to appise the masses).

Kind regards

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

[edit]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

911ct

[edit]

And I'd suggest that you go through previous discussions before making any such claims. 911ct template cannot be expanded without looking silly, as it looks now. Lovelight 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, you;re right, we have far too many articles on nonsensical 9/11 conspiracy theories, especially given that they have zero support from credible sources. We're long overdue a purge of this crap. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown people

[edit]

You locked this article. Any idea when you are going to unlock it? I wont be editing it in a contentious way I give you my word on that but I do think the article needs time to grow and it wont do that in its current permafrost state, SqueakBox 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Trainer

[edit]

I didnt see this article before it was deleted, so I was just wondering if it failed notabilty? Thanks, --Ali K 06:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Advice needed

[edit]

There is an editor, User:SFTVLGUY2 , who adds a lot of new articles to Wikipedia, but he deletes the plot summaries and info boxes out of lots of articles. He won't yield to the consensus of editors. Any advice? See for example our current article at Cactus Flower's talk page -- Ssilvers 20:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in my talk page

[edit]

Consensus was, IIRC, that the template should be re-created in some form after being deleted. Messianic Judaism is an established religion with its own Wikiproject, so a permanent deletion was never on the table in the first place. Noogster 21:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic Arbcom case

[edit]

Wow, man, you didn't have to take up my case like that. I really, really appreciate it. I thought I was on my own. --BenBurch 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe organ WikiProject

[edit]

Hi.

You recently expressed an interest in joining a WikiProject for Pipe organ related articles. I have proposed one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Pipe Organ. It looks like a few others are interested, so it'd be good to get something off the ground.

Best wishes, Mdcollins1984 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I say recently, it was December 2005 (not 2006 as I first thought)!. Anyway, if you're still interested, have a look. Mdcollins1984 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I wish my late friend Bill Milligan had lived long enough for this. He was a pipe organ player and restorer second to none. --BenBurch 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, when it comes to "second to none", I used to know Noel Mander :-) Guy (Help!) 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cardreader

[edit]

I think its highly unlikely he's a sock of Primetime. Is there an RFCU I can look at? Cardreader speaks fairly proficient Hindi and only edited india related pages.Bakaman 00:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


User:GordonWatts

[edit]

Gordon Watts (talk · contribs) -- a prime POV pusher if there ever was one -- is going to ridiculous -- even disruptive -- lengths to justify the return of links to his personal Geocities/AOL Homepage sites at Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case. The insanely long Wikilawyering comparison of his site and the New York Times as somehow being equivalent -- just the latest in a series of convoluted and tireless rationalizations can be found at the Talk page) and has to be read to be believed. He seems incapable of taking a hint from literally everyone who's commented (with the exception of Patsw (talk · contribs), who briefly resurfaced after a long absence from the Terri Schiavo pages but doesn't seem to have re-returned after his initial foray).

Given Gordon's complete inability to understand basic guidelines, policies, or consensus, and his unflagging persistence, I have NO idea what would work, but perhaps you can take a shot at it.

P.S.: I'm going to leave this message on a few other admins' pages, and maybe they can try figuring something out, too. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've had enough of him: your input is requested at Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts --Calton | Talk 13:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyberNations

[edit]

You said you would get me the text of the Cybernations article which you so disgracefully and unreasonably speedy deleted. As i said, a number of wikipedians wish to appeal this decision (once someone figures out how to navigate the complexities of the anarchic beurocracy that is WP), but we want to do some work on the text before submitting it. Can I please have the text back? My original request has now been 'archived' in your vast rubbish bin, funny how WP has space for milions of kilobytes of your junk and not a couple of thousand for a notable article huh :P Bjrobinson 17:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was going to, but since you are so pleasant about it maybe I won't bother. Did you see the note at the top about connectivity issues? Guy (Help!) 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, yeah wiki winds me up sometimes. Didn't you see the ':p'emoticon? That makes it all right, cos its automatically sarcastic / 'tongue in cheek' :P (see there it is again). I check your user page to see if you have replied quite regualarily and i see alot of other people in the same boat, so yeah, i got annoyed. I did say please! Bjrobinson 00:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:$ London Apartments

[edit]

I recall some discussion about this user's page, and you were involved in some reverting on the talk page. User:96seven24 reverted you. With the edit summary s/he used, I am assuming this person is a troll and/or sockpuppet with no intention of being an editor. Hence I blocked this user indefinitely. Just wanted to give you a head's up. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark's Request for Adminship

[edit]
JzG/Archive 18

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 07:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Just a note per ANI....

[edit]

The 1992 category has been recreated at some point, as there's one user in it, and no history. MSJapan 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born-in-93 debacle over nothing

[edit]

Hello, JzG! Hope that bandwidth of your straightens up and flies right. Anyways, I'm here to talk about this comment, which doesn't seem to encourage straightening-up-and-flying-right, because as far as I know, you're an involved party as well. Would you like to enter private mediation? I'd be more than happy to bring this much ado about nothing to peace. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's all over the place. Ten, fifteen minutes of service, then it goes like a slug on Mogadon, then it goes off for anythign between minutes and hours. No fix before middle of next week, and the landline phone is down as well. Bah! BT are a bunch of dunces. Anyway, no, I'm not an involved party, other than endorsing the TfD result, which involved a debate with much thought behind it. Users refusing to accept consensus is bad, admins doing it and wheel-warring is very bad. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

[edit]

According to what policy was it legitimate to delete this? Worldtraveller 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:OWN apply to a redirect, exactly? WP:VAIN says Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to people it is applied to., so not a policy but a personal attack. What you think of the edit war is utterly irrelevant. Don't tell me to move on. Worldtraveller 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy -- I have great respect for you, but strongly disagree with deleting this page. It needs to be restored with a soft redirect to the essay in Worldtraveller's userspace. On del.icio.us, this page (in WP namespace) is bookmarked by 25 users. That's a fairly high number of bookmarks, especially considering how recently this page was created in the first place. I'm sure it's linked in scores of other places and bookmarked elsewhere by scores more. For the sake of the reader, please restore the WP page. Regards. --Aude (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have an essay whose author is unwilling to allow others to participate. I have written numerous essays, and seen them rewritten, often to the point of unrecognisability. I can sympathise with the frustration. But this is a Wiki, an essay in project space is liable to be edited because such essays exist to document perspectives on the project and how it works. Perspectives which are disputed invite edits to document the dispute. Worldtraveller is unwilling to accept such edits, so the content was moved to his user space, and that is fine. The remaining redirect gives the halo effect of project space to a userspace essay, which is not. Cross-namespace redirects are deprecated. The last thing we need is a load of visitors from Slashdot seeing us washing our laundry in public, so I... hastened the process a little (it's alreadsy spread to the admin noticeboard and RFAR, we really don't need this silliness). The end result is the same. We don't have redirects from project to user space. Either it's an essay in project space and gets edited mercilessly, or it's a user page and gets left pretty much alone. I don't mind much which, but you can't have it both ways. Note that WP:FAIL was deleted as WP:CSD#R2 by someone else. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects from articles space to others are valid targets for deletion. Others are not.
Why did you quote WP:VAIN? Were you setting out to be offensive?
Why shouldn't visitors from outside the site be able to find a critical essay?
A 'halo'? That's just nonsense.
Finally, again, please tell me which policy you are referring to to justify your deletion, or are you just making it up as you go along? Worldtraveller 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See how many redirects you can find form project space to user space. See how many of them are the result of users refusing to accept edits to opinionated content. Visitors can see a critical essay, as long as you're happy for it to be edited mercilessly (like it says in the edit box). If you don't want it edited mercilessly, it lives in user space. I don't see what problem you're asking me to fix. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, JzG, is that you've deleted a useful link quoting bogus policy, deliberately set out to be offensive in your replies to me, and deliberately mischaracterised the situation. You can fix that by unprotecting the redirect, so that people can find the essay. Why shouldn't people be able to find the essay? Worldtraveller 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of readers, we need to set aside wikilawyering and use common sense. Scores of people have the page bookmarked and linked, and will wonder what happened to the page. --Aude (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of readers, we fix up contested content. If people are unprepared for the content to be fixed up, we don't use hat as a reason to continue to mislead readers into thinking the opinions are uncontested. What you are asking for is ownership by stealth. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mislead? Come on, be serious. Did you never hear of a talk page? Did you not read any of the discussion that was going on? You credit people with very little intelligence if you think they would take the essay as anything other that a thesis to discuss. And how can anyone 'own' a redirect, for heaven's sake? I don't think you fully understand what you're saying. Worldtraveller 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete the redirect page. If anything, take this needs to be taken to AFD. This essay has been one of the most popular pages (#51 on this list) in February, even though it was created just a few days ago. (compared to other pages that have existed the whole month) People are clearly interested in the page and will wonder what happened to it. Let's not deny them the ability to find it. Wikilawyering needs to take a back seat. --Aude (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a matter of public interest and discussion, I for one would like to see the original essay kept accessible for view, shortcut/redirect links working and all, especially since those links are still being cited in discussions. Please, Guy. -- Ben 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, either we have a page in project space that ets edited mercilessly or we have a user page which gets more or less left alone. All I see here is an editor who wants to capitalise on the attention of Slashdot to make a point when numerous editors challenged the point he was making. This is a wiki. You don't get to make a page, get it on Slashdot and then take your ball away when people contest your arguments. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, so it's slashdot that's the problem is it? Not my fault they linked to it. Presumably you don't want anyone who's reading the slashdot article to be able to find the essay. And did you read the talk page? Disagreement is healthy and lively discussion was exactly what I was after. Productive discussion about a thesis is impossible when the thesis suddenly changes into completely the opposite thesis, wouldn't you say? You're the one 'taking the ball away' by desperately trying to conceal my (actually fairly innocuous) arguments. Worldtraveller 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the catalyst, not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that we either have essays in project space which get edited (I tought this was a good basis and the edited version was shaping up nicely), or user pages which we allow up to a point for users to say their piece, but we don't muddy the waters by allowing people to WP:OWN high-traffic pages. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't try to own the fucking essay, OK? I tried to stop it being changed to reflect the opposite point of view. Do you really not see that? Worldtraveller 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you're obviously so certain that you're right about deleted the link that you overturned the actions of another administrator to delete it again. That's pretty poor behaviour. Worldtraveller 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, Aude was so certain that they were right about having the link that they overturned the actions of another administrator. Cuts both ways. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down please! Both of you. While I have looked at the page in question, I am not offering a solution to the problem, I don't know enough about redirecting cross-space or the use of wiki essays etc. I would only suggest that this bickering is getting neither of you anywhere. Worldtraveller, I suggest that if you plan to keep fighting for the essay or the redirect, you ask another admin to take an objective look at your case, and bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. JzG, I would suggest that you didn't comment further, it doesn't seem to be doing you any favours mate. Mdcollins1984 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am calm. I am the admin who took an objective look at the case, and I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The fact that Worldtraveller is unprepared to accept anything other than his own version is a problem, and it's being discussed at the admin noticeboard right now. As far as I'm concerned we should ave the essay back in project space and edited, clarified and extended by others. As far as I can tell there's only one person who doesn't accept that, Worldtraveller. Like it says in the edit box, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I've had essays rewritten (to my eyes, butchered) but I don't own them so that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try to understand. One person took it upon themselves to rewrite the essay so that it came to the opposite conclusion. You keep on churning out this rubbish about how I wouldn't accept changes - I am really not sure if you've actually fully understood what the original essay said and what the revised version said. In any case, none of this offers any reason why there should not be a redirect to where the essay got moved to. Worldtraveller 13:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way this is being handled by you Guy is unacceptable. Please stop wiki-laywering over a redirect page. (Caniago 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It is indeed unacceptable. I don't know where the "opposing"/"rebuttal" links are either... can't find them. You are denying me (and outside readers coming in) those links, as well as the link to the essay by Worldtraveller. I don't agree with every detail in that essay, but appreciate the useful discussion at User talk:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing‎. I'm so disgusted at this point at this wikilawyering. --Aude (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there. Did I say I don't appreciate the attempt to critique current editing practice? I don't think so. I think much of what's in that essay needs to be said. And some of it is not really quite right, and needs a bit of tweaking. Hey, that's good, because this is a Wiki, right? Except that Worldtraveller won't allow anyone else to edit it, and that is a problem. It's not about Wikilawyering, it's about policy: WP:OWN. I would much rather see the original restored into project space and edited by those who want to edit it. I don't mind if Worldtraveller wants to keep it focused and not be an apologia, that's fine, but WP:OWN is unequivocally wrong, and what was being done with the redirects was [{WP:OWN]] by stealth. See the discussion on WP:AN right now, it's not a particularly controversial view I'm putting forward here. I want people to hear what Worldtraveller has to say, but not in a context where all dissent is excluded. We simply don't do things that way. It's the difference between a thoughtful critique (which we need) and a soapbox (which we don't). I'd rather have the thoughtful critique back, because by and large I completely agree with it, as a cursory investigation of my !voting record at WP:DRV and WP:AFD will readily show. I prefer to see quality articles, not millions of crap ones, and the failure to protect FAs from idiocy has been identified many times by many people. A lot get demoted due to clueless editing or vandalism. This is bad. I'd say that once an article is featured there should be an expectation that all edits be discussed first, but that also goes against the Wiki philosophy so it's a controversial view. It's a debate that needs having, either way, but not by asserting ownership over the debate. We simply can't work like that. All WT needs to do is accede to the editing of the thing (which he did anyway by submitting it under GFDL) and we can all geton with building that encyclopaedia, critiques and all. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether the essay is right or wrong, what matters is that it has sparked a very important discussion reflecting on how we can improve wikipedia. Please put aside any petty procedural issues you have for the sake of the ability of people to find the article, the rebuttal, and the associated discussion. (Caniago 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Controversial, eh? That's right, there was no consensus to delete the redirect page. What you did was unacceptable. The redirect page needs to remain, so that people can find the original essay by Worldtraveller and other versions. You are more than welcome to fork his essay, put a version in WP space, and link it from that redirect page. But please don't DENY people the ability to find the original essay. --Aude (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please just restore the page and get on to discussing broader issues. I left a suggestion on User talk:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing‎ that I would like more feedback on, to do an informal survey among my academic colleagues on their use of Wikipedia, why or why not they edit, etc. Given this whole debacle, I'm having doubts about bringing any of this up with my colleagues as this kind of petty wikilawyering may be one thing that turns them off. I think focusing on those issues is most important, rather than worrying about details like redirect pages. Please look beyond those details. --Aude (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you want is the original back in project space and being edited. Fine, that's what I want, too. All we need is to be sure that WT won't try to assert ownership or keep linking to "his" version (see WP:OWN, WP:SOAP, etc). The only thing I have a problem with - the only thing I ever had a problem with in this dispute - is the idea of linking back to some canonical "original" version which is not open to correction or critique. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not quite what we need. The version that had disambiguation/redirect links to different versions is what we need. I think it's better to have Worldtraveller's version -- in his user space, and links to responses or different takes on the topic on the WP page. Given all his featured article writing experience and all, I like to read his thoughts on Wikipedia. I would also like to read other people's thoughts. But mixing them all together in to a "consensus" version goes against the idea of "essay". --Aude (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think it's better, because this is a wiki and the whole point is that if something is wrong, or disputed, or nuanced slightly askew, we fix it. We don't keep pointing to out-of-date versions as if they have some kind of canonical validity. I respect WT's editing, and I think he is right in much of what he says, but we can get more benefit from a version that has wider input. When we deprecate POV forks, we do not distinguish between forks made by good editors and those made by bad editors, or forks made with good intentions versus those made with ill intent. We merge them back and carry on trying to come to a consensus view. Why this insistence on a single version? Is it that the edited version is somehow wrong where the other was right? If there is an error, it can and should be fixed by editing, not by pointing people to some mythical historically "perfect" version, and especially not by starting with an "oh, no, Slashdotters, you don't want this version, it's not nearly combative enough, you want an earlier version wikth editorial assertions unchallenged". That's plain silly. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

[edit]

I'm not sure what your dispute is with the other editor, but you reverted my changes too, even though I opened a thread on the talk page. Regardless of whatever history you may have with this other editor, you should still look at the content objectively before WP:reverting. Dhaluza 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The POV-warrior had removed a chunk of stuff relevant to WP:SOAP, your intervening edits appeared to be to a large extent cleaning up his clumsiness. Sorry if not, I have to be quick because my broadband keeps dropping. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I appreciate your sense of responsibility, but if your network problems are rushing your decisions, it might be better to let other admins (with good net-connection) take up the workload until your network gets fixed. Otherwise the potential for hurt or angry feelings is... non-trivial.... -- Ben 05:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not decisions, just edits. In this case one edit. And that was mainly reverting a bit of WP:POINT by a blocked editor. Oh, and Jossi just reverted the edits under discussion anyway. Turns out tat Daluza was the POV-pushing IP. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, you better take one giant step back. I think you have just jumped the WP:AGF shark and accused me of being a sock puppet. I have no idea who the IP editor is. I just looked at the edits objectively, saw they were an improvement, restored them, and finished cleaning them up. Dhaluza 13:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't, the edits were made by an anon, you repeated them with your account. That does not imply sockpuppetry at all. So it wasn't you? No problem. But either way the edits are resisted by several others, including Jossi, so attacking me for reverting them when they were clearly originally part of some kind of POV push is hardly assuming good faith yourself, is it? Not that I care overmuch, except that disruptive editing of policy to advance an agenda is a particular hot button for me. This belongs on WT:NPOV anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you take the time to review the edits and reverts in question again. You seem to be handling several controversies at once, and perhaps with the connection problems, you are having difficulty tracking them all. You said I "was the POV pushing IP" which is not correct, so I hope to see some strikeout text above in your next edit. Further, I see no POV pushing in the edits. They were just removing obfuscation per WP:BETTER#Use short sentences and lists. As far as I can tell, there was no change in meaning. I opened a thread on this at WT:NPOV and referenced it in my edit comments, but neither you nor Jossi have accepted the invitation to discuss it there. Dhaluza 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My brain has perfect connectivity, and handling several controversies at once is perfectly normal. Oh, and one of them just closed. Take it to WP:NPOV, where it belongs. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you won't take the time to review the edits, at least look back to the top of this thread, and see that it started with an invitation to take it to the talk page! Dhaluza 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, if you treat everybody who responds to a request for intervention as an involved party, you rapidly run out of uninvolved parties. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last comment, or where you are trying to go with this. Bottom line is you reverted my good faith edits in what appears to me to be a contradiction of the policy at WP:REVERT. You have not explained why a revert rather than a re-edit was appropriate. If you would like to explain it, the Bias thread at WT:NPOV is now active. Dhaluza 16:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bototm line is, I reverted edits that were being reverted by other people as a POV push, and which have been reverted again by other people since, presumably for the same reason. You are in the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

[edit]

JzG, thanks for at least trying to sort out that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing. Sure, it got a little confusing, but I see what you were trying to do. If some comments on the Wikipedia talk page from me seem a little harsh, sorry, as that's not what I'm feeling. I'm just thinking that things have gotten very confusing there :-) I appreciate you comments on User talk:Worldtraveller's page. I think you have summed it up very well for everyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm plea for reason

[edit]

Thank you for your note to NHN - I agree with your sentiments and perhaps he will listen to a respectfully framed suggestion. There is now an RfC on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) Regards --Golden Wattle talk 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doktor Who

[edit]

Doktor Who, not Doctor Who.--Doktor Who 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) :][reply]

Does that mean you're Rrrrussian? :D — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:D --Doktor Who 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent notice

[edit]

Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Wikipedia privacy policy. Dino 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a JH sock I think

[edit]

Look at the IP for this early sock: [24] verses the talk page entry [25]. I guess it could be a BfP sock, but the Roskam connection plus the quick IP response of a known JH sock IP seems to indicate a JH sock. I updated the userpage for Joehazelton. If you agree, please update the talk page as it is protected pending the checkuser I filed [26]. --Tbeatty 05:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you missed them, these personal attacks we reverted may have relevant info: [27] and [28] and [29] . They are both blocked now (24hrs. I think it should be longer). ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war over whose sock that is must be among the lamest I've seen. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is. It was pissing off Dean, though, for a silly reason. The remedy you have is acceptable. I decided just to change SP tag to JH and put in checkuser (Joehazelton is too old though) rather than argue on AN/I over a stupid thing since it doesn't really matter. Hope you understand. --Tbeatty 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I understand. I really am struggling to care which abusive sockpuppeteer created this sock. Dean's a lawyer, I'm a sysop - an abusive sock is an abusive sock to me and since neither putative puppetmaster is likely to be unbanned any time soon I didn't see much point fighting over it. Nor do I particularly care how Dean feels about things. An edit war between actual editors, though, we can do without, hence my cunning compromise wording :-) Guy (Help!) 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I collegially suggest to Tbeatty that he withdraw his charges of 'false accusations' and 'backtracking' from the RfAr. link That was truly a low blow. - FAAFA 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. I'll take your word on it. --Tbeatty 16:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's not feed the trolls, eh? Pistols at dawn is fine between gentlemen but no need to be drawn into a street brawl. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Taschner

[edit]

The person who re-created John C. Taschner, by the name of User:SockpuppetSamuelson, is not me. I did not solicit them or anyone else to re-create it.

Would you please restore the text at the time of deletion, because it had a couple more sources and another notable award, required to meet WP:BIO? Thank you. James S. 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct. That is a new article created from WP:RA after your version was deleted. You are banned from editing articles relating to DU, and the missing info seems to me to serve in part to inflate the DU element - leave it to someone else to decide whether it's significant. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the missing part was a fellowship award from the HPS, and note of his service on the Accident Response Group, neither of which have anything to do with DU. Would you at least post the deleted version to the talk page of the restored early version? James S. 10:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you called DeanHinnen a "Neo-Nazi"

[edit]

I posted to CWC's talk page earlier to ask him to document or retract his claim that you called DeanHinnen a "neo-Nazi". This was on the talk page of a formal Wiki proceeding, that may be read and referred to for YEARS. (or not)

He deleted my comment as 'trolling'. At least where I live, the term "neo-Nazi" is pretty damned strong language, and I would not use it, or accuse somone of using to describe someone else without great care. Words have weight and meaning. Words like "neo-Nazi' weigh a tonne. This is NOT a meaningless trifle in my book. (Old Testament - Leviticus) - FAAFA 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somone just put on their running shoes ;-) I can only surmise from his intransigence that for CWC, calling somone (or being called) a "neo-Nazi" is no big deal. - FAAFA 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/discussion of article Anne Milton

[edit]

Hello, JzG. As a prominent contributor to Anne Milton, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Anne Milton, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Catchpole 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Catchpole 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Nkras

[edit]

Nkras[30] is playing POINT again,[31] and threatening meatpuppetry,[32] (also not for the first time). — coelacan talk — 11:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy. I don't think he'll be back at that IP again though so the block should probably be shortened to a week. Somebody else in Minneapolis may need to use that IP someday. — coelacan talk — 19:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born-in-93 debacle over nothing

[edit]

Hello, JzG! Hope that bandwidth of your straightens up and flies right. Anyways, I'm here to talk about this comment, which doesn't seem to encourage straightening-up-and-flying-right, because as far as I know, you're an involved party as well. Would you like to enter private mediation? I'd be more than happy to bring this much ado about nothing to peace. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's all over the place. Ten, fifteen minutes of service, then it goes like a slug on Mogadon, then it goes off for anythign between minutes and hours. No fix before middle of next week, and the landline phone is down as well. Bah! BT are a bunch of dunces. Anyway, no, I'm not an involved party, other than endorsing the TfD result, which involved a debate with much thought behind it. Users refusing to accept consensus is bad, admins doing it and wheel-warring is very bad. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing

[edit]

According to what policy was it legitimate to delete this? Worldtraveller 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:OWN apply to a redirect, exactly? WP:VAIN says Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to people it is applied to., so not a policy but a personal attack. What you think of the edit war is utterly irrelevant. Don't tell me to move on. Worldtraveller 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy -- I have great respect for you, but strongly disagree with deleting this page. It needs to be restored with a soft redirect to the essay in Worldtraveller's userspace. On del.icio.us, this page (in WP namespace) is bookmarked by 25 users. That's a fairly high number of bookmarks, especially considering how recently this page was created in the first place. I'm sure it's linked in scores of other places and bookmarked elsewhere by scores more. For the sake of the reader, please restore the WP page. Regards. --Aude (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have an essay whose author is unwilling to allow others to participate. I have written numerous essays, and seen them rewritten, often to the point of unrecognisability. I can sympathise with the frustration. But this is a Wiki, an essay in project space is liable to be edited because such essays exist to document perspectives on the project and how it works. Perspectives which are disputed invite edits to document the dispute. Worldtraveller is unwilling to accept such edits, so the content was moved to his user space, and that is fine. The remaining redirect gives the halo effect of project space to a userspace essay, which is not. Cross-namespace redirects are deprecated. The last thing we need is a load of visitors from Slashdot seeing us washing our laundry in public, so I... hastened the process a little (it's alreadsy spread to the admin noticeboard and RFAR, we really don't need this silliness). The end result is the same. We don't have redirects from project to user space. Either it's an essay in project space and gets edited mercilessly, or it's a user page and gets left pretty much alone. I don't mind much which, but you can't have it both ways. Note that WP:FAIL was deleted as WP:CSD#R2 by someone else. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects from articles space to others are valid targets for deletion. Others are not.
Why did you quote WP:VAIN? Were you setting out to be offensive?
Why shouldn't visitors from outside the site be able to find a critical essay?
A 'halo'? That's just nonsense.
Finally, again, please tell me which policy you are referring to to justify your deletion, or are you just making it up as you go along? Worldtraveller 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See how many redirects you can find form project space to user space. See how many of them are the result of users refusing to accept edits to opinionated content. Visitors can see a critical essay, as long as you're happy for it to be edited mercilessly (like it says in the edit box). If you don't want it edited mercilessly, it lives in user space. I don't see what problem you're asking me to fix. Guy (Help!) 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, JzG, is that you've deleted a useful link quoting bogus policy, deliberately set out to be offensive in your replies to me, and deliberately mischaracterised the situation. You can fix that by unprotecting the redirect, so that people can find the essay. Why shouldn't people be able to find the essay? Worldtraveller 00:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of readers, we need to set aside wikilawyering and use common sense. Scores of people have the page bookmarked and linked, and will wonder what happened to the page. --Aude (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of readers, we fix up contested content. If people are unprepared for the content to be fixed up, we don't use hat as a reason to continue to mislead readers into thinking the opinions are uncontested. What you are asking for is ownership by stealth. No thanks. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mislead? Come on, be serious. Did you never hear of a talk page? Did you not read any of the discussion that was going on? You credit people with very little intelligence if you think they would take the essay as anything other that a thesis to discuss. And how can anyone 'own' a redirect, for heaven's sake? I don't think you fully understand what you're saying. Worldtraveller 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete the redirect page. If anything, take this needs to be taken to AFD. This essay has been one of the most popular pages (#51 on this list) in February, even though it was created just a few days ago. (compared to other pages that have existed the whole month) People are clearly interested in the page and will wonder what happened to it. Let's not deny them the ability to find it. Wikilawyering needs to take a back seat. --Aude (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a matter of public interest and discussion, I for one would like to see the original essay kept accessible for view, shortcut/redirect links working and all, especially since those links are still being cited in discussions. Please, Guy. -- Ben 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, either we have a page in project space that ets edited mercilessly or we have a user page which gets more or less left alone. All I see here is an editor who wants to capitalise on the attention of Slashdot to make a point when numerous editors challenged the point he was making. This is a wiki. You don't get to make a page, get it on Slashdot and then take your ball away when people contest your arguments. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, so it's slashdot that's the problem is it? Not my fault they linked to it. Presumably you don't want anyone who's reading the slashdot article to be able to find the essay. And did you read the talk page? Disagreement is healthy and lively discussion was exactly what I was after. Productive discussion about a thesis is impossible when the thesis suddenly changes into completely the opposite thesis, wouldn't you say? You're the one 'taking the ball away' by desperately trying to conceal my (actually fairly innocuous) arguments. Worldtraveller 10:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the catalyst, not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that we either have essays in project space which get edited (I tought this was a good basis and the edited version was shaping up nicely), or user pages which we allow up to a point for users to say their piece, but we don't muddy the waters by allowing people to WP:OWN high-traffic pages. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't try to own the fucking essay, OK? I tried to stop it being changed to reflect the opposite point of view. Do you really not see that? Worldtraveller 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you're obviously so certain that you're right about deleted the link that you overturned the actions of another administrator to delete it again. That's pretty poor behaviour. Worldtraveller 11:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, Aude was so certain that they were right about having the link that they overturned the actions of another administrator. Cuts both ways. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down please! Both of you. While I have looked at the page in question, I am not offering a solution to the problem, I don't know enough about redirecting cross-space or the use of wiki essays etc. I would only suggest that this bickering is getting neither of you anywhere. Worldtraveller, I suggest that if you plan to keep fighting for the essay or the redirect, you ask another admin to take an objective look at your case, and bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. JzG, I would suggest that you didn't comment further, it doesn't seem to be doing you any favours mate. Mdcollins1984 11:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am calm. I am the admin who took an objective look at the case, and I'm not the only one who thinks this way. The fact that Worldtraveller is unprepared to accept anything other than his own version is a problem, and it's being discussed at the admin noticeboard right now. As far as I'm concerned we should ave the essay back in project space and edited, clarified and extended by others. As far as I can tell there's only one person who doesn't accept that, Worldtraveller. Like it says in the edit box, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I've had essays rewritten (to my eyes, butchered) but I don't own them so that's an end of it. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try to understand. One person took it upon themselves to rewrite the essay so that it came to the opposite conclusion. You keep on churning out this rubbish about how I wouldn't accept changes - I am really not sure if you've actually fully understood what the original essay said and what the revised version said. In any case, none of this offers any reason why there should not be a redirect to where the essay got moved to. Worldtraveller 13:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way this is being handled by you Guy is unacceptable. Please stop wiki-laywering over a redirect page. (Caniago 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It is indeed unacceptable. I don't know where the "opposing"/"rebuttal" links are either... can't find them. You are denying me (and outside readers coming in) those links, as well as the link to the essay by Worldtraveller. I don't agree with every detail in that essay, but appreciate the useful discussion at User talk:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing‎. I'm so disgusted at this point at this wikilawyering. --Aude (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there. Did I say I don't appreciate the attempt to critique current editing practice? I don't think so. I think much of what's in that essay needs to be said. And some of it is not really quite right, and needs a bit of tweaking. Hey, that's good, because this is a Wiki, right? Except that Worldtraveller won't allow anyone else to edit it, and that is a problem. It's not about Wikilawyering, it's about policy: WP:OWN. I would much rather see the original restored into project space and edited by those who want to edit it. I don't mind if Worldtraveller wants to keep it focused and not be an apologia, that's fine, but WP:OWN is unequivocally wrong, and what was being done with the redirects was [{WP:OWN]] by stealth. See the discussion on WP:AN right now, it's not a particularly controversial view I'm putting forward here. I want people to hear what Worldtraveller has to say, but not in a context where all dissent is excluded. We simply don't do things that way. It's the difference between a thoughtful critique (which we need) and a soapbox (which we don't). I'd rather have the thoughtful critique back, because by and large I completely agree with it, as a cursory investigation of my !voting record at WP:DRV and WP:AFD will readily show. I prefer to see quality articles, not millions of crap ones, and the failure to protect FAs from idiocy has been identified many times by many people. A lot get demoted due to clueless editing or vandalism. This is bad. I'd say that once an article is featured there should be an expectation that all edits be discussed first, but that also goes against the Wiki philosophy so it's a controversial view. It's a debate that needs having, either way, but not by asserting ownership over the debate. We simply can't work like that. All WT needs to do is accede to the editing of the thing (which he did anyway by submitting it under GFDL) and we can all geton with building that encyclopaedia, critiques and all. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether the essay is right or wrong, what matters is that it has sparked a very important discussion reflecting on how we can improve wikipedia. Please put aside any petty procedural issues you have for the sake of the ability of people to find the article, the rebuttal, and the associated discussion. (Caniago 13:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Controversial, eh? That's right, there was no consensus to delete the redirect page. What you did was unacceptable. The redirect page needs to remain, so that people can find the original essay by Worldtraveller and other versions. You are more than welcome to fork his essay, put a version in WP space, and link it from that redirect page. But please don't DENY people the ability to find the original essay. --Aude (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please just restore the page and get on to discussing broader issues. I left a suggestion on User talk:Worldtraveller/Wikipedia is failing‎ that I would like more feedback on, to do an informal survey among my academic colleagues on their use of Wikipedia, why or why not they edit, etc. Given this whole debacle, I'm having doubts about bringing any of this up with my colleagues as this kind of petty wikilawyering may be one thing that turns them off. I think focusing on those issues is most important, rather than worrying about details like redirect pages. Please look beyond those details. --Aude (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you want is the original back in project space and being edited. Fine, that's what I want, too. All we need is to be sure that WT won't try to assert ownership or keep linking to "his" version (see WP:OWN, WP:SOAP, etc). The only thing I have a problem with - the only thing I ever had a problem with in this dispute - is the idea of linking back to some canonical "original" version which is not open to correction or critique. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not quite what we need. The version that had disambiguation/redirect links to different versions is what we need. I think it's better to have Worldtraveller's version -- in his user space, and links to responses or different takes on the topic on the WP page. Given all his featured article writing experience and all, I like to read his thoughts on Wikipedia. I would also like to read other people's thoughts. But mixing them all together in to a "consensus" version goes against the idea of "essay". --Aude (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think it's better, because this is a wiki and the whole point is that if something is wrong, or disputed, or nuanced slightly askew, we fix it. We don't keep pointing to out-of-date versions as if they have some kind of canonical validity. I respect WT's editing, and I think he is right in much of what he says, but we can get more benefit from a version that has wider input. When we deprecate POV forks, we do not distinguish between forks made by good editors and those made by bad editors, or forks made with good intentions versus those made with ill intent. We merge them back and carry on trying to come to a consensus view. Why this insistence on a single version? Is it that the edited version is somehow wrong where the other was right? If there is an error, it can and should be fixed by editing, not by pointing people to some mythical historically "perfect" version, and especially not by starting with an "oh, no, Slashdotters, you don't want this version, it's not nearly combative enough, you want an earlier version wikth editorial assertions unchallenged". That's plain silly. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

[edit]

I'm not sure what your dispute is with the other editor, but you reverted my changes too, even though I opened a thread on the talk page. Regardless of whatever history you may have with this other editor, you should still look at the content objectively before WP:reverting. Dhaluza 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The POV-warrior had removed a chunk of stuff relevant to WP:SOAP, your intervening edits appeared to be to a large extent cleaning up his clumsiness. Sorry if not, I have to be quick because my broadband keeps dropping. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I appreciate your sense of responsibility, but if your network problems are rushing your decisions, it might be better to let other admins (with good net-connection) take up the workload until your network gets fixed. Otherwise the potential for hurt or angry feelings is... non-trivial.... -- Ben 05:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not decisions, just edits. In this case one edit. And that was mainly reverting a bit of WP:POINT by a blocked editor. Oh, and Jossi just reverted the edits under discussion anyway. Turns out tat Daluza was the POV-pushing IP. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, you better take one giant step back. I think you have just jumped the WP:AGF shark and accused me of being a sock puppet. I have no idea who the IP editor is. I just looked at the edits objectively, saw they were an improvement, restored them, and finished cleaning them up. Dhaluza 13:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I haven't, the edits were made by an anon, you repeated them with your account. That does not imply sockpuppetry at all. So it wasn't you? No problem. But either way the edits are resisted by several others, including Jossi, so attacking me for reverting them when they were clearly originally part of some kind of POV push is hardly assuming good faith yourself, is it? Not that I care overmuch, except that disruptive editing of policy to advance an agenda is a particular hot button for me. This belongs on WT:NPOV anyway. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you take the time to review the edits and reverts in question again. You seem to be handling several controversies at once, and perhaps with the connection problems, you are having difficulty tracking them all. You said I "was the POV pushing IP" which is not correct, so I hope to see some strikeout text above in your next edit. Further, I see no POV pushing in the edits. They were just removing obfuscation per WP:BETTER#Use short sentences and lists. As far as I can tell, there was no change in meaning. I opened a thread on this at WT:NPOV and referenced it in my edit comments, but neither you nor Jossi have accepted the invitation to discuss it there. Dhaluza 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My brain has perfect connectivity, and handling several controversies at once is perfectly normal. Oh, and one of them just closed. Take it to WP:NPOV, where it belongs. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you won't take the time to review the edits, at least look back to the top of this thread, and see that it started with an invitation to take it to the talk page! Dhaluza 14:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, if you treat everybody who responds to a request for intervention as an involved party, you rapidly run out of uninvolved parties. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your last comment, or where you are trying to go with this. Bottom line is you reverted my good faith edits in what appears to me to be a contradiction of the policy at WP:REVERT. You have not explained why a revert rather than a re-edit was appropriate. If you would like to explain it, the Bias thread at WT:NPOV is now active. Dhaluza 16:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bototm line is, I reverted edits that were being reverted by other people as a POV push, and which have been reverted again by other people since, presumably for the same reason. You are in the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

[edit]

JzG, thanks for at least trying to sort out that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing. Sure, it got a little confusing, but I see what you were trying to do. If some comments on the Wikipedia talk page from me seem a little harsh, sorry, as that's not what I'm feeling. I'm just thinking that things have gotten very confusing there :-) I appreciate you comments on User talk:Worldtraveller's page. I think you have summed it up very well for everyone. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm plea for reason

[edit]

Thank you for your note to NHN - I agree with your sentiments and perhaps he will listen to a respectfully framed suggestion. There is now an RfC on the matter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (2nd RfC) Regards --Golden Wattle talk 23:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doktor Who

[edit]

Doktor Who, not Doctor Who.--Doktor Who 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC) :][reply]

Does that mean you're Rrrrussian? :D — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:D --Doktor Who 04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent notice

[edit]

Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Wikipedia privacy policy. Dino 02:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a JH sock I think

[edit]

Look at the IP for this early sock: [33] verses the talk page entry [34]. I guess it could be a BfP sock, but the Roskam connection plus the quick IP response of a known JH sock IP seems to indicate a JH sock. I updated the userpage for Joehazelton. If you agree, please update the talk page as it is protected pending the checkuser I filed [35]. --Tbeatty 05:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you missed them, these personal attacks we reverted may have relevant info: [36] and [37] and [38] . They are both blocked now (24hrs. I think it should be longer). ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war over whose sock that is must be among the lamest I've seen. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is. It was pissing off Dean, though, for a silly reason. The remedy you have is acceptable. I decided just to change SP tag to JH and put in checkuser (Joehazelton is too old though) rather than argue on AN/I over a stupid thing since it doesn't really matter. Hope you understand. --Tbeatty 16:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I understand. I really am struggling to care which abusive sockpuppeteer created this sock. Dean's a lawyer, I'm a sysop - an abusive sock is an abusive sock to me and since neither putative puppetmaster is likely to be unbanned any time soon I didn't see much point fighting over it. Nor do I particularly care how Dean feels about things. An edit war between actual editors, though, we can do without, hence my cunning compromise wording :-) Guy (Help!) 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I collegially suggest to Tbeatty that he withdraw his charges of 'false accusations' and 'backtracking' from the RfAr. link That was truly a low blow. - FAAFA 16:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. I'll take your word on it. --Tbeatty 16:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's not feed the trolls, eh? Pistols at dawn is fine between gentlemen but no need to be drawn into a street brawl. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Taschner

[edit]

The person who re-created John C. Taschner, by the name of User:SockpuppetSamuelson, is not me. I did not solicit them or anyone else to re-create it.

Would you please restore the text at the time of deletion, because it had a couple more sources and another notable award, required to meet WP:BIO? Thank you. James S. 06:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct. That is a new article created from WP:RA after your version was deleted. You are banned from editing articles relating to DU, and the missing info seems to me to serve in part to inflate the DU element - leave it to someone else to decide whether it's significant. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the missing part was a fellowship award from the HPS, and note of his service on the Accident Response Group, neither of which have anything to do with DU. Would you at least post the deleted version to the talk page of the restored early version? James S. 10:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. far right

[edit]

To call User:DeanHinnen "far right" reveals basic ignorance of the U.S. far right, hostility to Dean Hinnen, or both. Perhaps you should take a quick look at material about the far right available at a website in this immediate vicinity, and consider apologising? (Warning: some of the material is unsettling, and the WAR website is actively unpleasant.)

One of the reasons that so few Britons or Australians know so little about the U.S. far right is that reading about people this repugnant is unpleasant. Another reason is that their beliefs, like their numerous feuds and schisms, are complex, confusing and largely pointless. While Free Republic is far to the right of the mainstream parties in Britain or here in Australia, they're still mainstream when compared the real far right in the U.S. and (this may suprise you) Canada. I think these people are dangerous, and wish that more people understood the danger. So I tend to overreact when people understate the far-outness of the far right by grouping relatively sane groups like FR with them. Also, I don't think labelling Dean Hinnen as a neo-Nazi or worse is helpful.

Feel free to not reply to this. Best wishes, CWC(talk) 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic is far right, and outside the 'mainstream'. Here are comments from just one recent thread (that had me in stitches) about Hillary Clinton. "Wouldn't surprise me to learn that Hitlery (sic) gave the order for the 911 attacks." and "Is Hillary a card carrying communist?" and "ask her about Vince Foster's death" "Don't stop with Vince!!!!" (Freeper then recommends site of the totally debunked Conspiracy Theory which argues that the Clintons had dozens of people murdered. link) and " She is not a centrist or even a socialist.There is no nice way to say it. She is a fellow-traveling Marxist." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782577/posts Thread] They also call for the abolishment of federal income tax and the IRS, the expulsion of the UN from U.S. soil, have a continuously running topic called 'homosexual agenda' and endorse many other non-mainstream views They have moderated their views a little since the early days though. Free for all at FR - FAAFA 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should also note that from a European perspective the two wings of American politics look like far right and extreme right :-) Guy (Help!) 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly know that! But you'd be amazed at how hard it is to get anybody in the USA to realize this. --BenBurch 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily we still have Kucinich! ;-) I was pleasantly surprised by one aspect of CWC's comments, and want to thank him for his honesty. He admitted that Nazis and neo-Nazis were/are part of the far-right, instead of embracing the not uncommon dishonest revisionism of trying to paint them as far-left. Kudos, CWC! (Guy, did you really call DeanHinnen a "neo-Nazi", as alleged? ) - FAAFA 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From where Ben and FAAFA sit, Hillary Clinton is part of the far right! Seriously, the tendency to see or depict U.S. conservatives as part of the far right is silly and dangerous, because it has resulted in too many people (eg., Ben and FAAFA) thinking that the far right is no worse than hard-line conservatives. Ben points to some stupidity at FR. That's a vicarage tea party compared to what the real far right say, and what they do is worse still. (In case anyone hasn't noticed, I have a bee in my bonnet about this.) Regards, CWC(talk) 03:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know NOTHING about my politics, so I respectfully suggest that you ____ ___. I am a multiple handgun owner, a fiscal conservative, and an admirer of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. I would share my own thoughts about an Aussie who spends so much time editing the articles of American conservative politicians and pundits, but I better not ;-) Don't the One_Nation_Party, the Australia_First_Party, or the Family_First_Party articles need your help ? Pauline_Hanson ? ;-) - FAAFA 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of this shows a basic misunderstanding of what conservative means in the U.S. and trying to label it far-right or right wing. For example, the Iraq war is the policy of Labor party in both Australia and U.K. The U.S. left often criticizes Iraq as a "neocon policy". Characterizing Blair or Howard as "neocons" is laughable however. The extreme right, as to what's alluded to above, is not a bigger problem in the U.S. than it is in Europe. In fact, anti-semitism, as one example, is most likely less of an issue in the U.S. than Europe. The biggest difference in politics between the U.S. and Europe is the level of adoption of socialsim (not the pejorative term as it is used in the U.S.). After WWII, Europe adopted a much more socialist stance than the U.S. For example, the U.K. nationalised it's train and telephones. Returning war vets threw out Churchill in favor of farther left candidates. The U.S. did most of it's socialisation prior to the war and it did not gain the foothold that it did Europe. In that sense, the U.S. has retained a much larger Laissez faire economy. The difference in economic models in the U.S. vs. Europe is the largest difference in politics. The majority of conservatives in the U.S. as well as the majority of opinion on free Republic believe in expanding laissez faire economic policy. That means opposing nationalisation of industries or lowering taxes or supporting the elimination of tarriffs or lowering the barrier to doing business is the main goal and is the main objective of conservatives.

  • The second major difference is the definition of secular as it relates to laws regarding religious expression. In India, there is a concept of "personal laws" in which Muslims have a separate set of laws than Hindu's. It is an anethema to American politics to contemplate having laws enforced by the state apply differently to different people. Mostly this is from the Jim Crow laws prior to the Civil rights act. At the other end, France has laws that oppose the personal expression of religion. For example, Muslim girls are not allowed to wear a veil at public school as it is against the law. Both of those stances are an anethema to U.S. views on religion (both left and right). I don't think this difference between American secularists and European secularists is well understood. One of the basic beliefs in the U.S. is that rights do not flow from government or society and are not subject to the whim of the majority.
  • The third difference that I see is the difference in rural population between Europe and the U.S. Europe is considerably denser than the U.S. Density is directly correlated to left/right in the U.S. In denser areas, social systems such as mass transit, health care, and utilities, have made their way into laws and become part of the government. These systems rarely benefit the rural populations so it stands to reason that more rural popualations would support less social systems. The rural population opposes burdens placed on it by the majority (mandatory helmet law for one :) ).
  • Free Republic is not 'extreme right' although certain extreme right elements are undoubtedley present. They are simply a spectrum of views across the conservative political spectrum. This includes isolationists as well as "neocons". It includes those that oppose free trade as well as support it. It includes those that support immigration amnesty as well as those that oppose it. The same goes for democratic underground. As for labeling Nazi's far right is meaningless in the current political context. Nazis are opposed by both left and right, as are communists. While it may be accurate to label Joseph Stalin an extreme leftist, what's the point? Would anyone advocate for Stalinist policies whether left or right? Does anybody. left or right, really think that Hugo Chavez's passage of theenabling act is a good thing regardless of his politics? Nazi's are to the right what anarchists are to the left. Throw in the history of rural, farming southern Democrats and industrial northern Republicans and their complete flip-flop on positions and you end up with a very convoluted spectrum of politics. In fact, both parties comprise the full spectrum of political views and because of that, single issue special interests have arisen (such as abortion, guns, and religion). --Tbeatty 04:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…Conveniently bringing us to the good old ‘US definition of socialism and communism vs. European definition of socialism and communism’ and ‘is it enough to have a left-right spectrum or should we look at functors between sets of complex Hilbert space morphisms?’ debates. F’up to talk.politics? —xyzzyn 05:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of that I care to address,Tbeatty, is your CONTINUING mischaracterization of Free Republic. Just do a name search on ANY of the Republicans who voted against bush's Neocon war in the last few weeks - or who even dare to question bush's war - like James Baker. You will find NOTHING but contempt for these Repubs, many of who are REAL conservatives - social conservatives to the right of bush, like Sam Brownback - or actual small-gov conservative libertarian Republicans - like Ron Paul. Do the search. Then get back to me. Another REAL conservative (Paleoconservative Sean Scallon) described FR so succinctly that I quote his sage words often:
"With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, [Christian] Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders..."
Just one more thing, TBeatty - please explain this > LINK Yet another example of one of your BLP 'tactics', eh ?- FAAFA 05:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick search of Pat Buchanan and it has a lot of hits. Human Events is represented widely, apparently. --Tbeatty 15:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Free Republic is on the right wing oif a right wing party. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely! They play 'follow the (GOP) leader'. When Clinton bombed Sudan, he was a 'terrorist' attacking a soveriegn nation - and they opposed our involvement in Kosovo too. (parroting Tom Delay's views of course) If we ever have another GOP president (ain't gonna happen anytime soon after how badly bush has damaged the GOP - well.... to be honest - MAYBE Rudy has a chance) this new GOP prez could argue that we need to invade the UK to free the Brits from the despotic evil monarchy who possess WMD's hidden under Buckingham Palace, and the Freepers would be completely onboard, and even paint their fingers purple to show their unwavering support for the 'war effort'. LOL ! - FAAFA 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Free Republic is the spectrum of right wing views of the entire U.S. The same is true for Democratic Underground. As a thought experiment, I would propose that you think of Bill Clinton being as "left" of the U.S. center as George Bush is "right" of it. Depending on where you sit, you might scream "No way, Bush is way more right wing than Clinton is left wing" or you might say "No way, Clinton is far more left wing than Bush is right wing." The truth is that neither have strayed too far from the center of the U.S. and the only difference is where your particularly seat is. --Tbeatty 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - for the sake of ending this silliness - I agree to agree with you that "Free Republic is the spectrum of right wing views of the entire U.S" Its spectrum consists of 90% "neoconservatives, [Christian] Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders..." 10% other. Happy now? - FaAfA 05:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that you called DeanHinnen a "Neo-Nazi"

[edit]

I posted to CWC's talk page earlier to ask him to document or retract his claim that you called DeanHinnen a "neo-Nazi". This was on the talk page of a formal Wiki proceeding, that may be read and referred to for YEARS. (or not)

He deleted my comment as 'trolling'. At least where I live, the term "neo-Nazi" is pretty damned strong language, and I would not use it, or accuse somone of using to describe someone else without great care. Words have weight and meaning. Words like "neo-Nazi' weigh a tonne. This is NOT a meaningless trifle in my book. (Old Testament - Leviticus) - FAAFA 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somone just put on their running shoes ;-) I can only surmise from his intransigence that for CWC, calling somone (or being called) a "neo-Nazi" is no big deal. - FAAFA 10:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/discussion of article Anne Milton

[edit]

Hello, JzG. As a prominent contributor to Anne Milton, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Anne Milton, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Catchpole 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Catchpole 09:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO

[edit]

MONGO is being harassed regarding the ED speculation regarding his employer is again. The offending edit is here. The request that the edit be retracted is here. The hostage-holding (deny where you work or I will not remove my speculation about where you work) is here. The offending user is under arbcom sanction, as I suspect you already know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JJay

[edit]

I believe JJay is upset that I signed the RfC and is now editing to be disruptive. In created two new articles and within a day, Jjay has removed material and added ugly tags dispruting the article. He added a source tag when the article had sources, and incorrectly said "our article on Nostradamus says he's not Jewish" and removed the fact.[39] Contrary to JJay's claim, the Nostradamus article says his "family had originally been Jewish." What should I do? FGT2 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go to the mediation cabal or one of the other WP:DR processes, or just take it to talk and ignore any foolishness. People lash out sometimes, it's human, and it will stop if everybody shows patience and good faith. And if it doesn't stop despite patience and good faith, we use the WP:TROUT. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's definitely lashing out, he contributes no content, and has behavior issues. Its clear that from his RfC no one else feels this way. I can spend my time elsewhere without having my material removed for petty, childish reasons. I'm done with wikipedia. FGT2 06:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Nerd Boy

[edit]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerd Boy (2nd nomination) you expressed the opinion that the subject had no reliable sources and was unverifiable. This content has since been re-created at ASCII comic (AfD discussion) by Grue, who, after some encouragement, has now pointed to a source and asserted that the article "is verifiable through the primary source (official website)". Please visit the discussion to see whether these address your concerns of a month ago. Uncle G 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rap song"

[edit]

Guy, I'm sure you meant oxymoron (or more precisely contradiction in terms) rather than tautology. (CC of comment posted at the DRV.) -- Ben 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about GordonWatts discussion

[edit]

Because everyone else was calling for it, I changed the "Community ban on articles relating to Terri Schiavo" heading to "Community ban on articles and talk pages relating to Terri Schiavo". You were the only one who hadn't specifically asked for talk pages to be included so I de-numbered your comment in case you disagreed. Just thought you'd want to know so you could update your opinion if necessary. Mangojuicetalk 02:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA wikistalking again

[edit]

Hi. FAAFA has just edited two related articles, John H. Hinderaker and Power Line, for the first time. He also edited Talk:Power Line. I am a frequent editor of all these articles. I am 99.9% sure he's wikistalking me. (I also strongly suspect that the main purpose of the majority of the edits I have seen by FAAFA/NBGPW is to bait people he regards as political enemies.) Would you mind taking a look at the situation?

I picked you because mostly because I think FAAFA will take more notice of you than anyone else just now. If you would prefer not to deal with this (or me!), just say so, and I'll look for another administrator. Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 13:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dean

[edit]

Hey Guy,

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I trust your experiences with and instincts about Dean, and don't mean to step on your toes too much. I take it for granted that his primary (possibly only) interest is in seeing the Free Republic portrayed in as good a light as is possible, and that he's been a serious pain in the *ss (or *rse if you prefer). I suspect that the enterprise version of BLP will have to wait for a more experienced advocate, but its always a shame to lose an editor. TheronJ 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, I am by now so pissed off with his relentless POV-pushing that I find it hard to assume good faith in respect of anything he does so I have no problem with guidance and input from trusted third parties such as yourself. I am certainly open to the possibility that we might want to revisit that page once the dust has settled, but actually I don't see it a pressing need given that we already have WP:NPOV. WP:BLP is and always was a special case to do with having respect for fellow human beings. Your average company is big and ugly enough to look after itself, and if anything we have more of a problem with them pushing their POV than with detractors pushing theirs - we're generally pretty good at nuking the more egregious activism. In any case I don't count self-consciously provocative political websites and forums in the same class as actual companies - if you go around poking vicious dogs with a stick, you're going to get bitten every now and then, it goes with the territory. But they can have the fight on their own turf, not our servers, thanks all the same. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_18&oldid=1147988620"