User talk:JzG/Archive 19

Request For Help

I'm looking to reinstate two articles, one that was deleted previously by you and one that was not. I think both of the articles about online web comics, Secret of Mana Theater and 9th Elsewhere are notable, but I need a little bit of help as I'm still a little new to this. You had previously deleted Secret of Mana Theater for being A7, and I think I can correct that if you would be willing to reinstate the article, or at least, help me get to a point where I could recreate it. You also deleted it for spam, something else I can easily fix, but as I don't have the source material, I can't fix it at the moment without starting from scratch, which I just don't have the skills to do. :_(

Also, if you could help me with the other article I mentioned, 9th Elsewhere, I would greatly appreciate it. You seem like a very nice guy from your web page, and I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer me. Thanks for your time. :)

MegaLegoChai 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I would appreciate it if you could at least give me a yay or nay, please. Thank you. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MegaLegoChai (talk • contribs) 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC).MegaLegoChai 00:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too happy about this as both were at AfD as well, but I have userfied at [[User:MegaLegoChai/Secret of Mana Theater] and User:MegaLegoChai/9th Elsewhere. You need to cite multiple non-trivial sources of which they have been primary subject, speedy deletion A7 means "no assertion of notability" and neither of these did assert notability. When you've fixed them up, please take to deletion review. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your hesitation, but appreciate your assistance in spite of that. :) Thank you very much for moving the articles to my user page. I agree with the A7 deletion that took place when it did for both of these articles. I think the articles were written at a time when the criteria were more loosely defined and enforced, or people wrote these articles as unexperienced Wikipedians without knowing the criteria, quite possibly both. I think that means the articles need to be written correctly, not deleted, as they are notable in their own right. If I may ask one more request of you, would you be willing to review the articles when I have finished editing them before taking them over to deletion review? Thank you again for your help! :DMegaLegoChai 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled threats

Hi Guy,

I feel I am being harassed by user 216.125.49.252 at Talk:Plasma_cosmology where I have just been warned that since I "was banned from editing this article once before, so he should tread lightly."
This has nothing to do with content, and Wiki policy on Civility gives specific examples relating to bans.[1]
I also suspect that 216.125.49.252 is User:ScienceApologist (I would bet my Wikipedia account on it).
I note that you have previous been in discussion with ScienceApologist about this.[2]
For the record, my non-logged in IP address is 84.9.191.165, which appears in the Article history. --Iantresman 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect violation of 3RR by 216.125.49.252:

19:22, 20 February 2007
21:32, 20 February 2007
14:38, 21 February 2007.[3]

Plus falsely claiming that "still no response in talk." (which I had), and another threat in the history summary. --Iantresman 15:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I am not in the least comfortable with your editing of those articles, since in my experience you have shown a consistent failure to compromise when others register concerns, but neither am I happy about the anon's edits and summaries. I have left a comment on the talk page. As to whether the anon is SA, I would not speculate on that, SA is active and not blocked so even if it were him it would not actually matter, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have edited Plasma cosmology inappropriately, you are welcome to highlight the edits, and take the necessary action. My edits are independent of those of other editors, and do not nullify, nor justify the action of other editors.
If 3RR has been violated, the necessary action needs to be taken. You have access to Admin tools to check whether 216.125.49.252 is indeed ScienceApologist, and action would apply to both accounts. --Iantresman 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could always try what I suggested and come to an agreement on Talk before making any edits. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited, and provided explanations in Edit history, and also in talk. That 216.125.49.252 appears to have violated 3RR, which would seem to indicate that your suggesting is not working.
I have no doubt that given the consequences of 3RR and you suggestion to now discuss matters in Talk, that 216.125.49.252 will take the latter.
But it shouldn't have come to this in the first place. As everyone seems to remind me, "I should tread lightly" and "be a bit more careful." Except that I have done nothing wrong.
Yet it seems that other editors can stomp through the editing process with no consequences whatsoever, despite an apparent violation of 3RR, harassment and allegations that I have not responded, when I clearly have.
I am quite sure that if I had violated any of these policies, I would be banned by now. --Iantresman 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Georgewilliamherbert (2)

Why did you readd Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Georgewilliamherbert (2) to the main page? Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. The candidate himself/herself should add the nomination after accepting AND answering the questions. He hasn't answered the questions yet, which presumably means he is still working on them and will add the nomination when he is ready. --BigDT 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am a bear of very little brain. I saw "stuff" being added and wondered why it was not on the page. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diabeetus and Diabeetis redirects

Hello JzG, thanks for deleting the one (there's still the other)... I did list them both on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_21 so you might want to update those listings with speedy closed due to disparagement. Thanks. (→Netscott) 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given their histories if you haven't already done so you may want to salt them as well. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:PT. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB196 back

He seems to be editing from 192.204.106.2 this time, and the typical edits are bring made like targetting non-US based wrestlers [4], which a JB196 sockpuppet (Histogramunited) has previously tried deleting [5]. There's also the typical wrestler finishing moves edits [6] [7] [8] [9] which are trademark JB196 edits. I've already placed an open proxy report [10], but was wondering if it would be possible to block sooner rather than later, so too many edits don't have to be reverted? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One Night In Hackney 21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Looks like he's hosting his "book" on geocities now [11], care to wield the banhammer? One Night In Hackney 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)~~ Already taken care of, 3 IPs temp blocked and listed for proxy checking, and the geocities site is blacklisted. I'm learning! One Night In Hackney 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your block

Your email must be down ;-)

Could you please address this?

I now think you made an honest error. I suspect that you thought this edit summary was inflamatory commentary "removed OR speculation about intentional hyberbole 'Hyperbolic? Well, maybe.' is not an admission of 'intentional' + neoconservative"

If you had studied the diffs you would have discovered by reading the cited article that "Hyperbolic? Well, maybe." was a quote from the article not me.

Hindraker wrote in a paen to bush, "It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance...." and as a coda he wrote "Hyperbolic? Well, maybe."

The Wiki article claimed that this was 'INTENTIONAL HYPERBOLE'. THAT is OR and speculation, when what he wrote was "well maybe"

article

That's what the edit summary detailed (and that I changed one use of conservative to neoconservative.

IMHO you must have mistakingly thought that this edit summary was some kind of RANT, when it described the edit, NOTHING more!

Yes - or no? Thanks. - FaAfA 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering will not help. You followed another editor and applied your bias. Don't. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Star (band) page deletion

I am just wondering what your reasons for deleting the Binary Star (band) page are. The importance of this group in the hip-hop community is enormous, they are a staple in underground hip-hop and have made a great contribution to conscious hip hop. I could name more than a few hip-hop groups that are less deserving of a page (Optimus Rhyme, Blue Scholars etc.) than binary Star. One Be Lo (OneManArmy), a former member of Binary Star, has a page dedicated to him and his solo career is less notable than that of Binary Star as a group. I feel that there are absolutely no grounds for this deletion and if there is anything I can do to prove the importance of this group let me know. Thanks for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HiphopisNOTdead (talk • contribs) 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion criterion A7. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you really must not like this guy? Why do you say this is not notable, when you consider all hip hop not notable, be fair here, I have visited the One Be Lo and Binary Star numerous times. I like hip hop it is important to me and I think people who are actually interested should have access to this artist through the amazing thing that is Wikipedia, the notability of an underground artist is hard to prove because of the lack of promotion by their label and low record sales, but to people interested in this form of music (although you do not consider it music, other people do) it's very important. Your tastes are your tastes, but please do not bring that to Wikipedia. Anyways recumbent sucks, steel is real and track is where its at :) just kidding, recumbent is pretty fun, hard to go up hills though. --HiphopisNOTdead 17:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't care about him either way, but lack of non-trivial independent sources is a problem for any article. Yes, notability of an underground artist is hard to prove, because of lack of sources. Sorry, that means we can't have articles on underground artists with no sources. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In re: Lee Nysted

I am curious about three things in particular:

1.) Why did you revert The Rambling Man's edit of [Matt Walker] as it pertains to my SHOOT FROM THE HIP album? There is a clear reference to the AMG site, still there in [Walker]. You must know that Matt played on the entire album and is so credited in the AMG post. He is also credited in many other reliable sources. Should the album be listed in the "album listings?"

2.) My girlfriend, Huntress829, is still blocked as a puppet and her user page is protected. Please unblock her/unprotect her. In good faith, she has done nothing wrong here. She is a writer and a philanthropist. She has used my computer and we travel together.

3.) Re: All the "puppets" that have been credited to me: I can assure you, you have blocked people from several states that have nothing to do with me or my family, friends, or Huntress829. You blocked people while we were in Colorado, Aruba, and in Illinois. All along the way, we tried to tell you who we are.

Ergo; in conclusion, is this whole issue going to be in my rearview mirror soon, or is it something that must be taken further in the system here at Wikipedia?

I really have no want, or desire to cause problems with you, or anyone at Wikipedia. I am a willing student here, and I will try to help; not hinder the progress of this project.

Please advise and give me your best advice on how I should proceed from here.

Thank you and have a pleasant week-end. Lee Nysted 03:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) More spam; 2) Confirmed by CheckUser as editing from the same IP address as you - enough for us 3) meatpuppets are treated the same as sockpuppets. Your best bet is to move on and necver even think about creating, or getting your friends to create, content promoting you ever again. We really don't like that. And we don't like sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lee Nysted). Guy (Help!) 09:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world factual data, that is reliable, is not spam!

You are not helping this encyclopedia by deploying censorship, based on personal feelings and / or taste.

See above, all of the discussion.

1.) Matt Walker plays on the album in question. That is a fact. Matt Walker has an article. That is a fact. The album exists. That is a fact. The Rambling Man thought it to be useful and noteworthy. That is a fact. There ia an AMG link. That is a fact. Back-up reliable source that Matt plays on the album.

You call real life factual and reliable data, spam? That is not even close to the truth. It is not a fact. Your personal taste and lack of objectivity has overshadowed the truth, here.

2.) All checkuser can determine is an IP address. People using the same system at a hotel in Colorado can be perceived by checkuser as the same person. This is not a reliable source to "confirm" a sockpuppet. You are not using any good faith, at all. Huntress829 should be unblocked, as a matter of policy. This is the very issue that leads people in the direction, not rightly so, of creating new and different profiles.

3.) I have agreed to not self promote. I was unblocked. I will study here. I will also support a system that allows for checks and balances of it's own administrators. I think this issue will be resolved by third parties.

Thank you for your time; cheers! Lee Nysted 14:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nysted, 100% of your "contribution" to this project has been to promote your own interests. As far as I am concerned, your total lack of any contributions other than vanity and disruption, combined with proven sockpuppetry, mean that you should never have been unblocked. I am not interested in discussing this with you any further. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RobJ's comment on sockpuppetry on LMP8mgs AfD

Should this comment on sockpuppetry be struck out before the AfD closes? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 16:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

--GordonWatts 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious! Guy (Help!) 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Admin rouge night.jpg

Very nice, and extremely clever! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:GordonWatts

Thanks for closing this, but I don't think he gets it, still. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it will require the cluebat. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon's community ban result - which option did you select as the community decision?

Hello, Guy, I've just been looking at GordonWatts's talk page, the Requests for Arbitrtaion page, and the Community noticeboard. I hesitate to raise this, because I'm a bit tired of the whole thing, and since it has now been referred to the Arbitration Committee, there's probably no reason for you to do anything at this stage. But I'm puzzled at the outcome you declared. As far as I can tell, the two options that got the highest number of "votes" (if I'm allowed to call them that) were a limit to one post per day on Schaivo-related talk pages with no restrictions on editing the Schaivo articles, and a ban from Schaivo-related talk pages and articles. I haven't examined them to see which option "won", because it's so complicated, with first choice, second choice, etc., and I'm sure that Gordon shouldn't actually have voted. The option of a ban from the Schiavo articles and restriction on the Schaivo talk pages was not voted on at all, so I don't see how that can be the outcome. Someone said that his edits to the article were not a problem, as long as he stopped adding the links, which he had stopped even before Calton brought the case to the noticeboard, I think, though I doubt if anything will stop him from arguing that he's right and that everyone else is wrong. If he stops adding the links, I don't see that his edits to the articles are problematic. He sometimes corrects spellings or improves the wording. I'm just a bit concerned that you've declared that the outcome is that he's limited to one post a day on the talk pages, and that he can't edit the articles at all. Those two outcomes were not found together in any option. Could you take another look, please? If the Committee accepts the case, it will probably be out of your hands, but you might modify your statement, to bring that to their attention. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted to one edit or so per day on Talk, no edits to articles, no pressing for his links. More or less, anyway. That seemed to me to be the most supported view, but I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the whole community agreed that there's to be no pressing for his links. There might have been one dissenting voice (before the vote started), but I'm sure you'll understand if I don't feel like going back and re-reading the whole thing! But, I'm positive that there were a lot of people who supported "one post per day on Schiavo talk pages, and no restrictions on Schiavo articles", and there were a lot of people who supported "no edits to Schiavo articles or talk pages". There was no option for "no edits to Schiavo articles, and one post per day to Schiavo talk pages". Nor was there any case made that his edits to Schiavo articles were disruptive apart from his inserting of the links, which is not something that has been going on continuously, and it had stopped. Would you mind taking another look, and either modifying the outcome on his talk page or making some addition to your statement at the RfAr page. (I don't blame you for wanting to close it quickly: it was getting quite unpleasant!) Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find the middle ground. A lot of people simply want rid of him, I don't think we've got that far yet. Let's see what transpires. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of people just want to be rid of him, but I think that people would overwhelmingly agree that the disruption is in his talk page posts, not in his article editing, especially since he has stopped adding the links, and had stopped before Calton asked for a ban. But I can't help feeling it would have been more proper to have selected one of the options (obviously the one that people had supported most) rather than creating a new one and declaring that to be the result. However, if you were going to invent a middle ground that had not been discussed, the discussion results indicated (to me) that a full ban on talk page posts and a restriction on article editing would be closer to what the community decided than the other way round. (I don't think you should do that, by the way, just that it would be closer.) Since he has brought this to the arbitration committee, it may be out of your hands, but if they reject the case, perhaps you could take it back to the community to see what they actually want. As far as I can see, there was not one single person who felt that he should be completely banned from editing Schiavo articles AND that he should be allowed one Schiavo talk page post per day. Some people wanted something more severe; others wanted something more lenient. But this result completely overlooks the fact that the disruption is in his really, really lengthy arguments on the talk pages, and in the fact that he's not prepared to stop when he's told it's disruptive. His article edits aren't a problem, as long as he's not promoting his links. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's moot, per the ArbCom. Let's see what happens there. I'm not averse to reopening the debate if it is worth the effort (i.e. if ArbCom bounces this back to the community). We now have more active arbs, so I don't think that will happen. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World article?

While watching tv, a comercial appeared for a toy/product called Cube World. When looking for more information on something specific of which I already know the name, I now -- not too surprisingly -- come to WP rather than doing a Google search first. To my dismay and surprise, the article not only had no information, but had been blocked to prevent any further creation. Wiewing the log (How can I type that without making it an exteral link?), I notice it has been deleted several times due to Noteability and blatent advertizing. My question is this: given the fact that it was advertized on Court TV, a nation-wide popular channel, and the fact that enough people have cared to re-re-re-re-recreate the article, exactly how notable does a product have to be before it can be accepted? As I said to start off, I came here hoping to find information about it with no evail due to the deletion and block. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the product has now attracted sufficient external coverage for an article. Please try writing one in your user space and take it to deletion review. Previous versions lacked any reliable sources and some were undoubtedly spam. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I'm at my wits end here, could I please get some help with this situation? [12].--Crossmr 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only offer advice: leave them alone. They are obsessives. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel and the Toy Soldiers

Dear Sir,

I am curious as to why the many attempts at creating a page for the artist Dr. Steel and his growing fanbase have been deleted. I see no reason for such material to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safer Sephiroth19 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22. Wikipedia is not a venue for viral marketing. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signal article deleted?

Just curious, but if you don't mind me asking, why did you delete the article I wrote for Signal (subscription service)? Sure, it might of been an obscure service at the time, but I'm sure there were quite a few financial industry people/brokers/traders/etc. that used it, so much to the fact that Signal's data was carried on the VBI of three cable TV networks in its heyday (WGN, C-SPAN, and AMC). It was practically a Quotron or better yet, a predecessor of the Bloomberg Terminal, for the home or small office. There are other articles on Wikipedia that are probably more fitting of an A7 speedy deletion for far more lesser-known subjects, IMHO... misternuvistor 06:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the matter with you people?

From DeanHinnen

Allegations of off-Wiki harassment are alarming

1) Allegations of off-Wiki harassment and stalking are very alarming. Disclosures of personal information, particularly by an administrator in circumstances that can appear retaliatory, can enable this harassment and are also disturbing. Any involvement, enablement or encouragement of off-Wiki harassment will be subject to sanctions from the Arbitration Committee and all admins, up to and including a permanent ban. The matter may also be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation and law enforcement authorities for further action.

He's a goshdarned lawyer and he's making one legal threat after another and you people aren't doing jack. He's edit warring and violating WP POINT and insulting admins at Peter Roskam, but I got a 24 hour for 2 edits? It's clear that threats from a lawyer, and accusing others of 'Wikistalking' DO help you 'get over' on Wiki. Refactored with less vitriol. My new project helps. Who can give me a hand with formatting? Do ya' know? FaAfA

If he wants to dig an elephant trap and then jump up and down on top of it, that's his business. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any chance

you can fix this? pretty much no one seems to care enough to respond. i finally managed to get mel etitis to look, but he said there's no block. i can assure you that there is. as i understand it, no one will at ANU will be able to create (or possibly use) an account until User:Mcderg's block status is changed somehow. i can route around the proxy as a privileged user, but many people here cannot. Derex 11:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That block should not affect registered users. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it does. Because that's how I know about it. Just re-checked it too. Thanks for looking into it though. Derex 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey can you give me some info on why the "fat beats" page was deleted? Dan 12:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Lee's Comment:

The issue is now cleared up and JzG reverted the sock tags. Yamla explained what I must do and I am fine with that. I have done nothing wrong since my unblocking.

There is no question, to me, that Checkuser can be destructive toward (collateral damage) users with common IP addresses. It has changed the way I will work here. I have places to go, all over the world and that means I will be at different IP addresses. I have 4 places in Illinois, alone. I use Comcast wireless, quite frequently. I use Starbucks WiFi. I am also looking at the policy in SOCK about editors using multiple accounts.

Thank you for your concern; cheers!Lee Nysted 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

badlydrawnjeff

Do you have any remaining influence with badlydrawnjeff? I find myself in agreement with his philosophy more often than you do and would miss his voice around here, in spite of exasperating events of the past week or so. At this point, he seems to have finished climbing the Reichstag and is about to jump off the roof, and I don't know what if anything to say or do about it. Newyorkbrad 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you all to do lot for me, and the least I can do is try to help out in my small way; I ~~will~~ have put in a good word [13] (hey! I won't be around forever, so I will do what little bit of good whilst I can), but let me tell you that sometimes I myself am too busy to contribute, so if Jeff is too busy (he may be), it is simply self-preservation that motivates him to take "time off" in all likelihood -not harsh feelings on his part (my guess). (In spite of the hard stances I sometimes take, when I take time off to help my job search, etc., I hope to not make enemies.)--GordonWatts 16:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had two choices, brad - just leave semi-quietly and not get involved and irritated anymore, coming back on my own terms when I'm good and ready (if that day ever comes), or try to take down as many of the worst offenders as possible, since my reputation can't get any worse than it already is. I figured the former is better off, so I'll just stick with that. If you want to do something for me, get Peter Benchley to featured status, some guy at the talk page was looking for some help and it was going to be my next project. Thanks for your concern, but it's a little too late - the problems were pervasive before it was early enough for me to notice. Just bad timing on my part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenwood

Dear Guy, I have sworn a (fairly) solemn oath to keep off my wiki habit, and I am breaking it by even writing to you, but I wondered if you could please consider having a quick look at Kenwood House. (The article, not the place, though the latter is very nice too.) Feelings are running high because of the loss of the concert series, and I have some sympathy, but what is currently in there isn't really OK for an encyclopaedia, I feel, no matter how it's sliced and diced. Up to you of course and please feel free to tell me to Just Bog Right Off if it is of no interest to you. Thanks and best wishes, some long-dead Old Git 82.45.248.177 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment

Bowsy and Henchman aren't sockpuppets, that was proven. But nothing was ever proven against meatpuppetry. Them saying "I'm not a meatpuppet" and other things doesn't seem like enough, when they share the same opinions on a few things... and seem to try to make AFD and RFCs go in their favor. RobJ1981 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or they might just be friends. You know, people who hang out together. And go to the same school. Remember that? Lighten up! Guy (Help!) 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: User:Lee Nysted continues to removed a talk page post I added to his talk page. Isn't that a form of vandalism? He doesn't agree with what I posted: so he removed it. Erasing comments solves nothing. RobJ1981 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he's gone around and removed the sock tags from the socks confirmed by CheckUser; he's asking them all to identify themselves and saying they're innocent victims, or somesuch. He's also saying he's "investigating" the CheckUser (or, as he refers to it, Checkloser) system. *head asplode* Tony Fox (arf!) 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I think it is time for drastic action because it appears that RobJ is not going to put this behind him anytime soon. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic action? Get over it already, I have. RobJ1981 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Guy, you wouldn't believe what I found...

Uh, Guy, you wouldn't believe what I found... I am not notifying everybody and their brother of this new truth I found, but since you were the poor admin stuck with "doing something," I feel I owe it to you to let you in on the latest:

Even though I don't see how you could honestly claim that I have violated any identifiable policy (just stubbornly insisted that I have a right to voice my opinion), I will not reargue the case here -out of respect.

However, since we last "spoke," I have noticed that no actual WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, only a minority of the votes went against me -and a minority is NOT a "consensus." Observe:

There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.

The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by you, User:JzG, here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.

Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.

In conclusion, the fact I have not actually done anything against the policy (did not edit war, did not vandalize, usually did not post excessive long posts, accepted consensus even when it was against me, etc.), if no consensus exists against me (not even a slim majority, mind you), this is the sort of thing that would prompt an email to Jimbo: After all, isn't it against policy (and also quite wrong) to pretend a consensus exists when it, in fact, doesn't?

By the way, in spite of the fact we had some disagreements hither and yon, thank you for your weak support for ArbCom to take this case -and actually look into ALL the facts.--GordonWatts 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, I did look into *ALL* the facts. The consensus is that you should be actively restricted from your disruption. You want to email Jimbo? Go right ahead, but as with the ArbCom case you raised do not be too surprised if it has the opposite of the desired result. Jimbo knows my name, at least. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, I did look into *ALL* the facts. The consensus is that you should be actively restricted from your disruption. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I initially posted, I had said there were 32 participants, and I was wrong (there were 33!) -yes, I make mistakes, and I own up to them (I am sorry about that), but notwithstanding this, how can 14 (out of 32 or 33) be a "consensus," Guy? That is not even a majority -not even a "slim" majority. What now? A "Minority" of votes can somehow translate into a "consensus" (and, BTW, even a "super majority" is not always a consensus -look at WP:Consensus to get the actual facts.
- Things like this make me want to call up Jimbo and tell him his project sucks -and that either he bites you -or you bite the other users, or I will tell the project to "bite off" because of this utter foolishness.
- Let me point out, I am not trying to be a dick or anything -but if the actual consensus went against you, why not just say "hey, I was wrong." -- Guy, did you know: I, myself, accept consensus when it goes against me (sometimes it does) -even were this consensus-supported, no actual violations occurred by me, but you are in violation of WP:Consensus. your move, but remember: I'm not trying to be a dick, as you would call it.--GordonWatts 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That statement makes absolutely no sense. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, more than half (17) supported NO sanctions stiffer than limitations on the amount of talk page discussion. So, less than half supported ANY type of article-related editing restrictions. I am just letting you know that, since the action against me is closed, no "new" votes can come in, and, by the numbers, there exists no consensus against me, (BTW, my patience has fully expired) so you are in violation of WP:Consensus. Figuring out that less than half does not constitute a concensus is not a harsh task.--GordonWatts 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, Gordon, it will make sense to everybody else. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Trust me, Gordon, it will make sense to everybody else" From your dictionary: "Everybody" - noun - Less than half. --- Another entry: "Less than half" - noun - Consensus. ... uh... right. - All snipes aside, I appreciate the difficulty of your task -and do not envy it. However, "life isn't fair" is well exemplified by this debacle.--GordonWatts 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "everybody else" means, as usual in discussions involving you, everybody other than you. Now drop the stick and step away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GordonWatts, please get a clue - most people didn't want you here PERIOD. You should be thanking JzG that he even let you stay around. My interpretation of the consensus was "banninate with fire". ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were careful to put in the small tilde in your edit correction, but you missed the "big picture." I am fed up with people like you (learn to count already) who don't even realise that less than half is NOT consensus -not even close. Yes, it was close, but close only counts in hose shoes and hand grenades. -and even then, Consensus never trumps policy -even imagining it did somehow exist here. Now, be off, and I wish you well in your retirement.--GordonWatts 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guess what? We are fed up with you! Specifically, we are fed up with your endless argumentation and assertions that it's everybody else who is the problem. It's not everybody else, it's you. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "assertions that it's everybody else who is the problem" no - it is a minority who are the problem -a minority who have the support of a rouge admin.--GordonWatts 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it's been awhile since I've seen "rouge admin" where the misspelling really was unintentional. You've made my day, Gordon. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel stupid -that was a BAD "rogue" misspelling on my part...--GordonWatts 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have offended you -I guess we're even now (all sides are fed up at each other), but I stand by my statement: At least I know how to count, and you do not. The only thing for which consensus MAY have existed (and even this is tenuous at best) is some type of restrictions regarding talk pages. If you don't agree here, then obviously I can count, and you can't, so being fed up does not alter the facts: You have NO consensus for MOST (or all) of the illegal actions you sanctioned. You remind me of a bad police officer: You think that authority (admin or police bobby) allows you to violate rules -and in this case, you violated the WP:Consensus rules -and maybe some others. Be fed up -or don't -but you must comply with the rules.--GordonWatts 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been repeatedly editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration I am sure you have seem this analysis of why you are wrong about the consensus. You really have an outstanding ability to ignore anything that might be inconvenient for you. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ObiterD, I think that maybe some slim consensus existed in regards to one of the 4 "sanctions," but no matter how you spin it, no consensus existed on all four -at all. (That's even when I went looking for extra "oppose" voters -who may have opined -but failed to sign on the poll.--GordonWatts 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Regan (talk · contribs)

...is probably a sockpuppet of a banned spamming user, especially based on this edit. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and is probably indef-blocked :-) Guy (Help!) 09:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about image on Aerosan page: Ant4_1.gif

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly as I am fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, but it looks like someone deleted an image from of a early 1900's Russian Aerosan snowcat/snowplane. The image file is/was: Ant4_1.gif I did not contribute this image, I am just questioning why it vanished? Melensdad 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

I brought you this tasty and shiny apple

May I have permission to edit the Zombietime article, and talk page? If so please fill out a hallpass so no one complains to the principal. I don't want to get suspended again. I'll be back before math class. - FaAfA (yap) 04:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content at Zombietime comes from user Zombiefan (talk · contribs), who admires 'zombie' a lot (could you guess?) and is very new to Wikipedia. As a result, the article was far too positive. Thanks to FaAFA,[14] some more experienced editors have stepped in to start fixing the article, and Zombiefan is now learning about NPOV. I would not like to see FaAFA scare Zombiefan away from Wikipedia. CWC(talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Power Line talk page CWC. You know WP. The Zombietime article is a self-sourced hagiography, and The Red Cross ambulance incident has been refuted so thoroughly by so many sources (including Israel itself) that his clinging to that debunked Conspiracy Theory reminds some of the 9/11 truthers. If you don't want me there, I ask that you do some work on the article. A LOT of work - FaAfA (yap) 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a constructive way of putting it. But the article clearly has POV issues, so why don't the two of you see if you can work on it in harmony? Guy (Help!) 09:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I thought I was turning on the charm! Thanks for the OK! I'll try to be extra nice. I've been taking lessons from some of the Wiki Illuminaries. (did you see my work on the Rouge Admin page?) - FaAfA (yap) 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list jargon

What does "I think he was responsible for all new subscribers going on mod" mean? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at least one permanently blocked user, I think it was him, trolled the mailing list under several names, so the moderators changed the settings so that new subscribers are on moderation by default, and only taken off moderation once we are sure they are not trolls. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image copyrights

We have been contacted by the rights owner of a number of images you uploaded. He is, to put it mildly, not happy. Please do not upload more pictures unless you yourself are the rights owner (i.e. do not upload images you find on the web, only those you take yourself). Guy (Help!) 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which one was it? I get permission from everybody beforehand.--sonicKAI 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing from the pictures that have been removed, it was Adam Murray who wasn't happy. I have written permission to use pictures from his site. He even uploaded some of them here himself.--sonicKAI 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all these images, including those uploaded by him, are gone, he has withdrawn whatever permission he may have given. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Unblock_of_Thekohser.3F --Calton | Talk 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I note that Watts is being deliberately contrarian again. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished myself, it being so out of character for him. --Calton | Talk 08:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheater.com

Hi, if you have time, please help me out here: Talk:Circle of stars. The article Circle of stars report that fisheater.com is blacklisted, but it does not exist in the article. I'm a newbee Wikipedian so this is new fo me. --Roberth Edberg 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reexamine.info

Guy, I just left this note:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Removing 279 reexamine.info links for copyright reasons

These links are both sensitive and urgent so I want to make sure the right message is conveyed. If you have time, feel free to look at it and correct or clarify my comments as you feel may be appropriate.

If you need help with link cleanup, I'll be happy to help once I get better Internet access in a day or two. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. Posting the same message to 7 different admins to try and insert your preferred content is called 'spamming'. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] --Tbeatty 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it can wait, plus 200 people for a web forum RL meet is not bad. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJay RfC

Just wanted to let you know I posted at the RfC. Arbustoo 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How

Hello, JzG, how do you cope with depression? (Rather, is there a way you deal with it other than alcohol?) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dosulepin hydrochloride and cycling, for the most part. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Red Book

Just fyi, Image:Little rouge book.jpg is technically a copyvio in several ways. The book cover is (probably) copyrighted and non-free, the Wikipedia logo is certainly non-free and the photo’s copyright status is unclear. Since you’re an admin, I won’t bother looking for the right tag. —xyzzy_n 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of book cover? Feh. Photo is off Commons, license free. Wikimop has no recognisable logo (no degree of enhancement will give you anything other than a grey blob). Guy (Help!) 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls

Anon ≠ troll. 137.222.189.198 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Person who posts deliberately inflammatory remarks = troll. Happens that one was an anon, often they are not. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mandatory reading

What's all of this nonsense about conspiring with the forces of darkness? Doesn't anyone wear night vision goggles anymore?

Beyond Rouge, is Infra-Rouge... Georgewilliamherbert 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if the trolls get nasty, I get ultra-violent with the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for semi-protecting Patrick McCrory. I stumbled across this article yesterday and saw that it was likely to be a target for a while. Ironically, I had already decided that if it got vandalized one more time today (after my last revert), I would take it to RPP. So, you saved me the trouble.--Kubigula (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. OTRS complaint, as it happens. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking your opinion

In light of the Essjay firestorm I'll throw a question your way: this project has only 11 active bureaucrats. Do you think it would be beneficial to add one more? And what would you think if I requested it? Durova^Charge! 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with asking, but is there a backlog at all? Might be slapped down if there is not. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments on the Essjay affair suggest that a backlog might result if he stepped down. I'd appreciate your advice. Durova^Charge! 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I 've been having similar thoughts and my thought was to suggest that Guy run for cratship. JoshuaZ 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley you can't be serious? Every troll in Wikihistory would be along in a shot! Guy (Help!) 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was considering running but I think I might have the same problem. JoshuaZ 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, I think. Look through the WP:100 list, though, there might be a likely candidate or two. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Not you" mean that you don't think I'd have the troll problem or that you think I shouldn't run? I can't quite tell from context. In any event, other candidates might be Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Daniel.Bryant, Blnguyen, Bishonen, Sarah Ewart and Rama's Arrow. I might suggest SlimVirgin but she'll have a lot of objections and I dont think she wants the job. JoshuaZ 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd have the troll problem. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm a bit busy right now, I'll run sometime next week probably. JoshuaZ 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to wait until next week before nominating new 'crats while this firestorm rages. Otherwise some users might misinterpret the candidacy as a cynical bid for power. Durova^Charge! 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy would make a good bureaucrat. Someone who has good judgement and is prepared to use it. Stephen B Streater 10:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASR

BNver knew there was a specific self-referential policy, thanks... Can you explain when it will be tripped? Chivista 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that those who wish to delete the article on Daniel Brandt are guilty of censorship in the article on censorship is both self-referential and original research. In my case it's also wrong. I think the Brandt article should go because the sources are not about Brandt, they are about his enterprises. There is a degree of irony in Brandt, the fearless crusader for Internet privacy, apparently stalking a Wikipedia editor, but that is not widely discussed in the press. If it is, then that may lead to sources primarily about Brandt. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unaccredited

Your template creation, Template:Unaccredited is ungoing issues. I don't feel it needs to be changed as the material is available on the talk. Arbustoo 03:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RobJ1981

This user has blatantly ignored your warning on his talk page. Please do something about him before this gets us unfairly indef. blocked. Henchman 2000 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RF RFAr source

Note that there is a second source stating that Byan and Dino are one and the same - user Eschoir, contributions a real-life attorney and an admitted Free Republic provocateur. He is referrenced here : link His dealings with Bryan/Dino go back years. - FaAfA (yap) 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favor? I orginally made this page Chacala/AltaVistaPetroglyphs as a sub-page of Chacala (cause I'm an idiot) and have now moved it to a stand alone article at Altavista petroglyphs, and updated the links. Could you delete the chacala/AVP page? Much obliged. - FaAfA (yap) 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi - just to inform you, there's someone complaining about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_about_JzG, apparently in relation to an arbitration case. Best, Sandstein 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong

see there is no COI and Gordon's sites are fine and so on --Fredrick day 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better not to respond? That one little paragraph is probably going to trigger twenty in response. And I think he'll have a greater chance of being able to resume editing after a month without too much disruption if he hasn't had a lot of practice in responding to people during the month. And, frankly, I'd hate to see the block made permanent because of Gordon being provoked into a response that will lead to a block, especially since he really, really has been treated very rudely by some editors. (I don't mean you.) I'd say the best way to help him to be come a productive editor is not to respond to his arguments. ElinorD (talk)

Probably, but I live in hope that if it is said often enough he may one day understand. Triumph of hope over experience, I expect. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's still not wrong? [22] --Calton | Talk 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For supporting my right to prepare an RfC in userspace. The RfC is now filed, should you wish to look at it. I've got no use for this page any more, so could you delete it please? I would try db-author but Astrotrain decided he wanted to edit it, so I don't think it qualifies. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real life

JzG, I read your RfC comment about "Wikipedia is not real life. Nothing here actually matters that much." I was sympathetic to this until Essjay accused a reporter of unethical behavior. [23] It gives me no joy to point this out. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: And another

Thanks! Perhaps it's time we came up with a "doing the needful" barnstar :) – Qxz 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject PipeOrgan

Hi,

Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan has now been created. Feel free to assist in the creation of the project page, and then we can get started!

Best,

MDCollins (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for realising the purpose of the sock case. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:RobJ1981#Bowsy & Henchman 2

An RFC about Henchman has started. However, I do not think my behaviour was "over-enthusiastic." Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, however, does. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Sock Case

What is the code for a diff for Henchman's second sock case's creation? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 13:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one, I deleted it. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)

Can you specify the copyright violation that got this page deleted? I am sure it can be removed so that the page can be reinstated. It was an huge and significant article about a fairly important concept in psychology? Thanks --Zeraeph 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The checklist was asserted to be copyright by the copyright owner. A prose article covering the subject should be fine. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. I suppose it isn't possible to put the article history in my userspace under the copyvio circumstances, so I can work it up? I do have a copy from a cache at "answers.com"...I'll be exceptionally careful, and watchlist it. At present there is only the most basic stub. Hope it offends no-one. --Zeraeph 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for RobJ

Could you post here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981. I've noticed you've had some problems with him as well. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

Hello,

I created an article titled "Rosati-Kain High School" a few weeks ago, and it was flagged as potential copyright infringement. I contacted Wikipedia and explained that I have the rights to this article under GNU, since I am the original author and I maintain the site that the original info was found. That was a few weeks ago. Today, I went to the site to check to see if the flag has been removed, and I found that my entire page was removed. I received an email from an administrator that instructed me what to do to get the page republished, and I did all that I was told to do.

I have followed all of the rules and policies set by Wikipedia and I have sent my permissions to all of the necessary contacts, yet my article was deleted anyway. What else can I do in order to have the article republished?

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Annie Hafner ahafner@rosati-kain.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annie Hafner (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have checked the OTRS queue. Please send an email to that list, using the existing ticket number, explicitly stating that you release the text under GFDL, that will be fine. Note that this is a big step form simply saying that you have the right to the text; releasing under GFDL means you release all rights and control over the text, and it may be, as the edit box so aptly puts it, "edited mercilessly". Once I have your release under GFDL I will undelete. The email trail shows that you are who you say you are, so the only remaining problem is assessing whether the school's own website content is sufficiently neutral to meet our policies. You may wish to tag it as requiring checking for neutrality, as a sign of good faith. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I do appreciate it. I will do as you have instructed, including the tag for neutrality checking. I just have one more question: How do I check the OTRS queue? I am new to this.

You can't check OTRS, but OTRS volunteers can. You can mail OTRS, it's the address to which you sent the previous emails. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Taschner for RFC

Would you please place the version of John C. Taschner you deleted on 15 February in to John C. Taschner/15Feb07 so that respondents to the RFC User:TheronJ has requested will be able to comment on both versions? I am reluctant to bother you about this again, but the question I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Is an expert posting to a moderated mailing list reliable? is inconclusive. James S. 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Another admin restored the page history. James S. 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware...

Please be aware that interfering with a homicide investigation, concealing material evidence and threatening a law enforcement office are felonies. Nocternal 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the above is completely irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating your position for the record. Nocternal 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it was a legal threat. I have just the tool to deal with that. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what that was all about?? Seems pretty random and bizarre... Georgewilliamherbert 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thread on ANI where all is explained, at least to the extent that it is explicable. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bircham International University

You seem to be good at sorting at complaints. There is an official complaint at Bircham International University. Arbustoo 07:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of RfC that was speedy deleted

I request the restoration of the page indicated at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+comment%2FDominick 75.46.74.131 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you are wrong.

Please refrain from making assumptions about me, my businesses, and my family. Further, please do not use the checkuser system to try to back up your vexatious vitriolic behavior. Please refrain from communicating with me, if you cannot be civil and abide by the policies here. Checkuser is a system with multiple flaws. That is my opinion. Lee Nysted 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous ArbCom rulings, we don't actually care whether multiple accounts editing the same content with the same bias from the same address are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, it is irrelevant. Thank you for playing the troll-the-admin game, you get no points this round. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop.

I did not even know I had an article here until an employee came to me and told me your "CLEAR CHANNEL article was deleted." You can delete Matt Walker and Todd Sucherman and all of my players. You can delete the world for all I care. I have a band. Notable people play in it. I have an investment business. I am accountable to over 20,000 employees. Use Google and AMG and any other source you find to be reliable. I have businesses and addresses all over the world, Guy. Checkuser has blocked people in every corner of the world. It isn't right and it is not an accurate system. A Steak house in Vail /Beaver Creek? You come on. End it, please? You can Google: Lee Nysted 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounddogs

Based upon your prejudice in deleting Audiosparx, I ask that you review Sounddogs and at least weigh in on the page? Autocracy 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prejudice I clearly share with others, since I'm not the only one who deleted it as spam :-) Guy (Help!) 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman 2000

You might want to tell him that isn't the best thing to do. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Remember World energy resources and consumption and the convoluted FAC? has moved, archived and redirected his user page and talk pages so often I can't find the pieces (similar to the FAC). The article was just listed GA by Mitgeek (talk · contribs), whose only edits to Wiki hvae been to pass the GA. I seem to recall that Mierlo's older talk or user entries also indicated he attended MIT and Stanford—two institutions I have reason to remember. Anyway, just a heads up re: ongoing article ownership issues. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitgeek is self-evidently a sockpuppet. I have left a warning. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Something tells me that won't be the end of that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is one of these. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I hope not ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as User:Arcticdawg

All the signs:

baiting

baiting

Nazis stuff

Baiting again

English bulldog

accounting stuff

Canada stuff

False utilization of WP:AIV here against User:Chacor (formerly NSLE) -this is a classic SirIsaacBrock ploy to get those he's in a content dispute with blocked-

Would you indef. this latest sockpuppet Arcticdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Guy, you might like to review what's written in SirIsaacBrock's sockpuppet category to help refresh your memory about this guy. (→Netscott) 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you could nab his other sockpuppet Headphonos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Check the contributions, same pattern. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist. (→Netscott) 14:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters page

Guy, I took the liberty of removing an uncivil and somewhat abusive sentence from your page on the fisheaters spam issue. It was originally added by an anonymous IP, probably the owner of that site, as some sort of rebuttal to your page. I am alerting you to this because I know that editing others userpages is generally frowned upon. Apologies if you would rather have it stayed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, better to fix. I don't WP:OWN anything around here :o) Guy (Help!) 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/Laura Man, first the completely illogical "defense" on the Spam Blacklist page (I mean, just read it! She can't even write in complete sentences, and everything she said was obviously untrue because -- well, just because!), and now this. What an unreasonable, vicious person going about breaking hidden rules about writing on userpages! If she had an account, she should be banned just for that! She should know that it isn't "abusive" to call a site "spam" or to publicly mischaracterize a Roman Catholic site as one that rejects Roman Catholic authority, but it is abusive to feign to "defend" oneself against it. I think she should be called a dick and told to fuck off, myself.

That was not the Fisheaters woman, that was User:ParalelUni. And we did tell that one to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was the "Fisheaters woman." See the bottom of the contact page.

Which contact page? Guy (Help!) 09:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contact.html#patrons (note the date mentioned in that sub-section). That page is the same page that indicates very clearly the site's stance on Vatican II, and that stance is quite different from what you write on the User:JzG/FishEaters page, Talk Pages, spam pages, etc. That's all.

A heads-up

Just thought you should know, Jeff is trying to resurrect Emmalina again. Wondering what your take is, since you protected it the last time. WarpstarRider 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I brought it to RFPP after discussing it with a few people as to how to handle it. As the reprotection was against the DRV closure, it appeared that was the best route to go. AfD/DRV is always an option, although it does meet the standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I know you have a deep and abiding love of crap off teh internets, but I still don't think this is the place for it.I read te article, which at least has the merit of being a serious attempt at an encyclopaedia article this time, but for the life of me I still can't see what is significant about this subject. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What measure of importance are you using in this case, then? This has ntohing to do with any "deep or abiding love of crap off teh internets," I haven't been involved with web memes in over a year. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The measure of importance I attack to any subject, specifically, after I've read the article I am still wondering why I bothered. This individual's claim to fame seems even more tenuous than that of Paris Hilton. Famous for what, exactly? Guy (Help!) 13:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What now, brown cow?

'B R Y N O' hath R E T I R E D

Does the RFAr proceed ? FaAfA (yap) 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. DeanHinnenFromPalatine is not the only party. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous computing

I strongly suggest you withdraw this and spare us all the time on the AfD debate. This is a very major area in human computer interaction. The article is messy now, but there are hundreds of thousands of reliable sources for this which could be added in time. The article needs a clean up, maybe a re-write, but not a delete.--Konstable 11:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, would a decent article contain any of the text from this one. I did not think so. And it is absolutely riddled with spammy links. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find too many spammy links. In fact I found just 1, everything is is relevant. The writing itself is not too bad either, and it is referenced (though the referencing was a mess, I juts cleaned it up).--Konstable 12:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you would help?

I had to switch archiving bots. Someone else did the switching for me and I do not understand the code. I noticed you are using the same bot, but I like the message at the top of your page so much better than the one that is transcluded on mine. I tried to copy yours unsuccessfully. Would you be willing to take a look at the top of my talk page and see if my bot message can look like yours? (If you don't have time, that's O.K.) Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll have a look. It took me a couple of goes to get it right, so you'll need to watch and make sure it's working. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't know why I can't figure out these things -- dumb I guess. Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's a bit like looking at the railway track and trying to work out which way the train went :-) Guy (Help!) 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my account

I was trying to make a real contribution, all my edit on wikipedia have always been in good faith. I certainly have not used multiple accounts and the awards of the World Energy articles by the energy portal etc were genuine, some people did appreciate the contributions....... I don't understand why you could not assume good faith. However at this point please delete my account as per Wikipedia's policy. 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all very well, but you haven't vanished, have you? Guy (Help!) 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will vanish - There is little point in contributing free labor if it is not appreciated. So please delete all my user pages and history. I should have used an alias, like most editors, I guess I was a little too optimistic when I joined the project.

It's not that it isn't appreciated, just that you display a lack of willingness to collaborate and to let go of what you have done. You also have very passionate views about the subject, which clearly colours your judgment about the article. To be blunt, you come across as obsessive. When gathering research data that is good, when assembling it with other people into a collaborative and dispassionate encyclopaedia article it is not so good. There is nothing broken about that article right now, and it may well be best to just leave it alone for a bit, to see what happens and how the state of the art moves on. Why not click Special:Random and find a neglected article in need of your attention to detail? Guy (Help!) 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable suggestion. By the way, although I am an MIT geek, I am not MITgeek, nor am I Gralo, and deleting the GA passing is not right. If you can revert the talk page I will follow your advice. 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, MITgeek is a single purpose account so the views of that user are not a likely reflection of the community view. GA status is worthless anyway, having pretty much no quality control. I'd forget about it. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The frustrating thing about these continuing antics is the time it takes away from other editors, "just trying to do their job". I work on updating articlehistory templates; three days ago, there was clearly a peer review at Talk:World energy resources and consumption and it clearly had input from Mierlo, using two different names. Now it's gone without a trace. I don't understand the moves, redirects, archives and need to obfuscate posts and pages that other people need to archive. I 'spose I should just delete the peer review (which is also malformed now at WP:PR) and not worry about it, but I really don't understand why this continues. I guess I need an admin to explain how these pages can disappear without a trace, without an admin making them disappear.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what he did; it looks as if the thing has been moved at least half a dozen times, and he might have done a {{db-author}} along the way. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just delete the peer review from WP:PR and the article talk page, since it's gone? Normally, it would be archived and listed on {{ArticleHistory}}, which is where I come in. It's still a mystery to me how it (and Mierlo's edits to it) can be gone from history; I need to learn how to make that happen :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing is to collect up the various bits of abortive debate, delete them, remove them form the talk, and then start again. The FA review is worth keeping as it generated some good input. In a year or so with some more eyes and input it may be worth trying again. I think it's a pretty decent article on its own merits, and I'm strongly inclined to do not much. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, deleting the PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement on the article. It was a lot of work to gather all that information and to create the graphics. Please delete my my user pages and history as per Wikipedia's policy 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion in the Karel Plíhal article

Hello JzG, I noticed that you deleted the link to the Karel Plíhal's songbook. Please be more careful and check links before deletion next time. By the way, the URL was added to the whitelist on my request. --pabouk 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did check it, it looked like an offsite copyvio, but it's not in English and I don't read Polish. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks more like Czech. Afaict, the website calls itself ‘unofficial’. There is a copyright note attributing the lyrics to Plíhal, but I haven’t found any comment on whether they have his permission to publish all that stuff. —xyzzy_n 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Without unambiguous evidence it's clean I'd not link it anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know that "copyvio" means copyright violation :-) Yes, the website is unofficial and there is no notice expressing a permission from the author there. You were right. BTW it is in the Czech language. --pabouk 21:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies

These two anon IPs have edited in way that might bear watching after the ArbCom is finished. Not sure what the connection to Plano, TX is.

--Tbeatty 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, what a giveaway... [24] Guy (Help!) 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration

Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. --Iantresman 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous title for a frivolous complaint. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'revenge of Bryno'!

Make sure to follow the links ![www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts?q=1&&page=201 Free Republic Funnies]

"Jayjg - LIBERAL - notorious left wing point of view pusher, close friend of liberal political activist Chip Berlet. No identity given, other than that he edits with a liberal bias."

Uh - oh! Snookered again! FaAfA (yap) 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Blacklisted link?

I noticed that you removed a link from the Shinobido: Way of the Ninja article, citing that it was blacklisted. I'm not sure I understand, and as I added the link, would you mind elaborating further? Gamer Junkie 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

totalvideogames.com is on the spam blacklist. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How in the hell did you find the site in question amongst all of that nonsense? Most of them look like porn websites, not gaming review websites. Gamer Junkie 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for it in Firefox. Trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially easy. Gamer Junkie 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ukrained

I know very little about Ukrained. Some of his greviances seem quite reasonable, but some of his behaviour is not. I will look into it if time permits, soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the case and based on diffs and discussion at the bottom of his page, I have to take Ukrained side. While his behaviour is not most constructive (calling a group of editors a cabal), it does not warrant a block: many users have called WP:PWNB a cabal, and demanded my desysoping for mostly not-admin related power abuses, yet they were never blocked for it (and I never demanded a block for that, only review of accusations by the community, and an apology if (when) those accusations were proven false). Further, any user has a right to ask for a review of any admins behaviour. Khoikhoi block for refusing to denounce his claim of cabalism looks to me like abuse of admin power, particulary as he is supposedly 'in the cabal' (there should be a DR case, mediation probably, filled to discuss this, and the losing side should apologize or take the matter to next steps of DR): this is what has happened here and with Ghirla case. Or are you telling me I had a right to block Elonka and Ghirla for their comments about me being a cabal leader, and WP:PWNB being a cabal?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block was based on the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Personal Attacks by User:Ukrained. No more, no less. I said within that very thread that I am against WP:NPA and WP:CIV blocks too. However, blocks for general disruption are sometimes called for. A couple of spilled incivilities do not qualify as a general disruption. But if user posts vicious attacks in every single talk page entry see the thread above), if he starts every wikiday with resuming edit wars and attempts to recruit more editors to help him in that with calls that incite ethnic hatred, finally if talking, warning, repeated warning, again warning and several last warnings do not work and trolling and disruption continues, I simply don't see what else but the block may be done.

I am all for being careful with blocking. I am also all for being extra careful when established editors are involved. Seeing the talk page history of the user, his entries and reactions to calls for cool down, could anything else have been done?

Ukrained is free to start an RfC of course, but I must say that Piotrus managed to surprise me again by his reaction. --Irpen 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

How are external links usually sorted? By relevance? Alpha numeric? I have added my link on the wiki Kristi Snowcat page “KristiSnowCat.com” and it has been moved down into the middle of the links. KristiSnowCat.com has the largest amount of information about the Kristi Snowcat on the web (424MB of content, to be exact), shouldn’t it be at the top of the list? The accurate history of the Kristi Company is done and posted on my site, there should be some merit to the site as an external link.

I still have a serious problem with the history page on wikipedia, it is full of jargon, opinionated statements, and just false information. What is the definition of a reliable source? The information on the wikipedia is vague and there is nothing encyclopedic about the article.

I do not wish to debate the history with the author, all he does is steal other people’s hard work and post it everywhere else on the web as his property. All I ask is the external links be ranked according to content of the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caroth (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Two things: first, adding your own site is not allowed, second, adding it at the top of the list is almost always an indicaiton of spamming. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please answer my question, how external links are sorted. Why is adding KristiSnowCat.com site considered spam? I did not "just" add the link, it has been there for a while. All I did is add the description of the link. Someone else keeps editing the external links.

- I am not the author of the wikipedia article, but the KristiSnowCat.com has the most content on the web about Kristi Snowcats. Eliminating this link does not make sense. I do not agree with you decision, who is next in line? I do not think you are being a fair admin. Please let me know what are the next steps to resolve this issue. User:caroth

You may not add links to your own site. How links are sorted is a matter for the editors of the article, there is no fixed rule. The only fixed rule is: do not add links to your own site. Every admin, from Jimbo down, will tell you the same. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So what is the point of having the external links and the wiki process? If a user who has had copyright problems cannot participate in the process, then the wiki model is not working. You are effectively defending a thief. There are still copyright issues with the article and now you removed valid information internal links area. Have you visited the KristiSnowCat.com site? Have you reviewed the history content there? How are you reviewing the reliable source? There is still information that is incorrect on the page. Please remove it or correct it. user:caroth

You can participate in the process by commenting on its talk page, declaring your conflict of interest. I know who you are, I know of your external disputes with User:Melensdad, I know you claim copyright on certain facts, which claim is not supported by our attorney's interpretation of copyright law. We have very limited patience with people who come to Wikipedia to pursue external disputes or promote their websites. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I was not aware you are part of the legal team. I will consult with legal directly. It sounds like you are threatening me, is that the case? I am not promoting my website, I just feel the link should be in the external links and that your article on wiki should be factually correct. I have added content to the talk section, have you viewed it? It appears you are taking a side in this dispute, I was not aware an admin took sides when they don't have all of the information. How do you know of the external disputes? You have never asked me? Having only one side of the story does not entitle you to "know" about any dispute. If you want proof of the previous copyright violations, I will be happy to provide them. I now understand your position, thank you for finally answering some my questions.

- Unfortunately, you still did not answer one my questions, have you taken a look at the KristiSnowCat.com website? After you look at the history and other content, I would think you would want to add the website to the external links yourself. The link is creditable and provides value to your wiki article. If not, please tell me why you feel the site should not be part of the article. I trust you will act as a non-biased admin. Thank you. Respectfully...user:caroth

I am not a member of the legal team, I am a member of the team that handles email complaints (including yours). Our attorney is Brad Patrick, and I did consult him about this. I am not taking sides, I am telling you what the problem is: you may not add links to your own site (and especially when you add blatantly promotional link summaries, as you did). It's a very simple rule, introduced for a very simple and obvious reason, and it does not require me to visit the site (although of course I have during the course of our earlier exchanges). You are free to suggest the link on the relevant Talk page, that is entirely unproblematic at this stage. And I have no intention of taking sides - either side - in what is clearly an external dispute, there is nothing on that article which seems to me to require urgent administrator attention so I am happy to let you and any other editors work it out via our dispute resolution process. I said I know of your external dispute - I have made no attempt to go into any depth because quite frankly I have more than enough disputes to manage here on Wikipedia without going out looking for others to take up. Please be assured that I do not care what your dispute is with Melensdad, as long as it does not disrupt Wikipedia. Really. As to "finally" answering some of your questions, I have done my best to answer your questions at every stage, please do not confuse not giving the answer you want, with not giving any answer. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have searched the wikipedia site looking for an official policy on posting links relevant to an article. I find no such policy; could you direct me to that policy so I can review it? I understand where posting a link for a product could be an issue, my website I posted does not sell anything. The site is a historical site for the Kristi vehicles and contains content relevant to the wikipedia article. Did you look at the website before deleting the link?

What really doesn't make sense is the fact that you leave the link "All About Kristi Snowcats, Kristi Snowcat History Website" which does the same thing, promote a website. In this case, the link is run by the author of the wiki article. I do not understand why you only apply the "You may not add links to your own site." rule for some people and not others. It does not make sense and from the outside it appears you have some sort of bias. Please explain.

I reviewed the arbitration link you posted and do not think it is appropriate to take it there yet. Please explain your actions I do not understand them. Is there another admin that can review this before arbitration?user:caroth

I already pointed you to the conflict of interest and spam guidelines, suggest it on the talk page and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, please point out the official policy where a user cannot link their page. Conflict of interest does not apply: editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors. The KristiSnowCat.com does not sell anything, is not an organization, it is simply a website with details of the history of the Kristi vehicles. SPAM does not have any relevance, the KristiSnowCat.com website does not sell anything, it is not commercial, there is nothing self promotional about it. Simply put, the webpage has a ton of information related to the history of the Kristi vehicles.
- You really have me confused now, why do you allow the author's webpage, isn't that self promoting? By removing all of the other links and leaving the author's link, it appears you are harassing me, is this the case? Please answer my questions from above, why do you only delete certain external links? How do we engage other admins? Do admin review external links? If not who does that?user:caroth

How many times do I have to tell you this? I have been around this project for a while, linking your own sites is viewed by the community as spamming, WP:SPAM and WP:COI apply, don't do it. WP:SPAM absolutely is relevant, because Wikispamming can be promoting a website as well as promoting a product. As to policy, we have very few "official policies", everything else is consensus and "how we do things here". I know what the consensus is regarding adding external links to your own site: don't do it. You seem unwilling to follow the course of action I recommended, which is commenting on Talk, so I did it for you. Quite why you prefer to argue with me than go and engage in discussion on the article's Talk page, which is how Wikipedia works, is not entirely clear to me. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack

Do you see a JB196 type duck? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy shooting another duck? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

I noticed that the article for The Game had been deleted and that you said that you couldn't find any reference to it on Google, apart from Wikipedia. may I suggest that you are searching for the wrong thing. 'The Game' as a search term is pretty ambiguous, but a google search for "you just lost the game" brings up plenty of relivant references.

I think that the article should have not been deleted.

--Aiyda 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them, however, are reliable sources. The only source we ever found was one Flemish newspaper, and we never did prove that their statement about its prevalence was sourced anywhere other than Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

Hi, you probably have the user page on your watchlist. But to be sure see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Laura. Garion96 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG/Laura nominated for deletion

Thought I'd let you know that User:Alkivar nominated your subpage for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Laura. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman at it again

Now he is saying I acted like a corrupt admin: User_talk:Henchman_2000#Stop.2C_please. Is there something that can be done about this? First he edits my comments (and acts like it's fine) and now he attacks me once again. I have a RFC about his behavior open already, but it's not helping change his ways. RobJ1981 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

You will want to take a look at today's MfD's. Newyorkbrad 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

FYI: User_talk:Bradles_01#unblock

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems like the user is contrite, as long as he can clear up who Jane01 was then he can be unblocked. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to delete info from talk pages

This is in regards to your edit to User talk:SPmilkshakeGuru8. Also, you used the f-word which is generally considered to be in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. I know it is easy to get frustrated, but it helps everyone if we can all manage to remain civil. If you don't trust your own words, you can use any one of numerous templates to warn users about vandalism. That's what I do, goodness knows it can be hard to put things in your own words and remain civil! Thanks, and good luck with your editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barber - User:JB196 - has been blocked more times than I can count, he is banned and that account was yet another sockpuppet. He can, in short, fuck off. Trust me, I have a very good command of the English language, and what I said was exactly what I mean. The talk page is nto relevant to building the encyclopaedia, consisting as it does only of warnings which are superseded by the account's indefinite block as a sockpuppet of User:JB196. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying the kind of thing I wish I could, Guy. :) Dealing with Barber is annoying, the other day he buzzed my user page to try to taunt me into losing my temper. Your work is much appreciated. SirFozzie 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Guy - when you gonna stand up for your pal FaFfA for acting similarly aginst Bryan Hinnen's sockpuppet 'Dino'? That poor sap FaAfA is getting railroaded ! - FREE FaAfA! (yap) 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge I have no pals called anything like Fairness And Accuracy For All. That kind of username tends to be associated with the kind of behaviour that gives me more work to do. I have said what I have to say - I think a restriction and probation is merited, not an outright ban - but it's now up to the arbs, and you can't pretend they don't have plenty to go on. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't listen, did he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU AfD criticism

We can either exchange views all over Wikipedia, we can ignore each other, or we can discuss this. I'd prefer the latter. *You had suggested [25] that you would have banned me from the EU AfD.
Here is my AfD comment,[26] that was removed to the Talk page. I'd be grateful for your criticism; do my comments contravene any policy or guidelines, especially those concerning the Deletion policy: "A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment" (my emphasis).
Concerning the removal of my comments to the Talk pages, how does this stack up to the Deletion policy statement "Normally you should not remove any statements from any deletion discussion."?
(I'll watch this page for comments so the discussion is complete) --Iantresman 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, your comments were disruptive and argumentative, moving them to the Talk page was perfectly reasonable. It doesn't happen often, but it certainly does happen. Pitching in and describing the nomination as "misleading" was rude, and we do not have article advocates' "corrections" to nominations in that way. You can argue keep, with a rationale, and engage in a limited amount of discussion directly relevant to points individuals make in the debate, but what you did was to harangue everybody who argued for deletion, based largely it seems on your personal conviction that the concept is important. The problem is, external sources do not seem to agree. The nomination was well-argued, and numerous editors supported it from their own knowledge of the field. I'd have thought by now you'd have realised that your views on these subjects lie in the "long tail", and it really is time you started to accept the midpoint being very different from your personal view is not something we want to fix. We have deleted articles comparable to Electric Universe, for exactly the same reason: no dispassionate review in reliable sources. Without that, we can't write a neutral article. We have problems with Time Cube because of lack of critical commentary in the literature, we get round that by describing it as a website which is widely lampooned rather than as a scientific concept. As far as I can tell Electric Universe does not score on that scale either. It seems to be the strange view of two people, unpublished in any credible journal, lacking peer review (other than the judgment of the journals that it does not merit publication). All of which is an aside: the problem here is not the article, which was adequately addressed in the deletion debate, it's your crusading behaviour. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to read in the guidelines on "Conflict of Interest", (a) the section "Importance of civility" where it specifically comments on using the word "vanity", and (b) the following section "Conflict of interest in point of view disputes".
I would also like your opinion on how one describes comments that suggest publishing in a vanity press, but is not a vanity press. --Iantresman 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, those guidelines describe editor-to-editor comments, not editor-to-publisher-of-delusional-theory posts. Wikilawyering is just one of the ways in which you can disrupt Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume that although I can here in good faith to discuss this matter with you, that you have no intension of address my points? --Iantresman 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may safely assume that I have heard what you have to say, reviewed the debates myself, and concluded that due process was followed. You may further assume that I have addressed your points to the extent I am prepared to do so. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Guy, you have removed links from the Israel News Agency stating that they were "propaganda" and "spam." I took these links from Google Newswhich defines the Israel News Agency as a news organization. I also looked a little further and confirmed that the [www.israelnewsagency.com/inaabout.html Israel Government Press Office] recognizes the Israel News Agency as a news organization for over ten years. For the sake of arguement even if the INA was propaganda, then why does Wikipedia allow Aljazeera and censor the Israelis? That would be blatant discrimination. Await your kind response. Mhltv 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Leyden is banned from this site, the article on Israel News Agency was deleted, and the community discussion which surrounded that makes it clear that it is not a suitable source for attribution since it is largely propaganda and has no proper formal editorial policy - it is not a news agency, as it claims, and the fact that it reprints as fact the Israeli Government's press releases is a part of that. Yes, I know he got himself added as a Google News source. Lots of unreliable sources have done that. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the relationship between Leyden being banned from Wikipedia and the FACT that the Israel News Agency is formally recognized by the Israeli government, let alone Google News. From what I see the INA works rather closely with the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the IDF and the Israel Government Press Office. Again, if you stand by stating that the INA is propaganda then why do you allow Aljazeera to have links in Wikipedia? Mhltv 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read what I wrote properly, I think. The FACT is that Leyden's website is not a news agency, it's no more than a glorified blog, and it publishes uncritically anything the Israeli Government chooses to push its way. Everybody knows about Al Jazeera's bias, INA is much smaller, has a title which makes it sound legitimate, and we generally have a much better source for anything INA says. And if we don't, then we should not be saying it - just as we should not cite as fact anything that Al Jazeera says. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Hi, you still have not addressed the question. If you proactively pursue the Israel News Agency for what you state is "propaganda", then why do you not remove the links of Al Jazeera? By not doing so you are establishing a double standard. Mhltv 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mistake not giving you the answer you want for not addressing the question. INA is not a relibale source, there is no obvious merit in linking it. Period. If you want to start proposing removal of links to Al-Jazeera, you are free to do so, but do be careful you don't violate WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkquill unblocked

Hi Guy, I think you mistook InkQuill (talk • contribs) for Matt Duh Rienzo (talk • contribs) over the non-NPOV edits to Journal Register Company. -- Netsnipe ► 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Hartal's recent legal threats

Thank you for your response on AN/I. Perhaps I should have formatted my post better - Mr. Hartal has made two legal threats in the past 24 hours:[27] and [28]. I would agree that a RFC and/or community ban would be the appropriate course of action if these were older threats, but the recent deletion discussions on Rochelle Holt and Roger J. Geronimo have put a bee in his bonnet, so to speak, and I really don't like editing under the threat of a defamation lawsuit. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is about to climb the Reichstag, I have left a firm but hopefully helpful note on his Talk, if that doesn't work we'll just show him the door. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I hadn't read that bit about Reichstag ascents. Thank you for your intervention. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hartal

If you look at the difs given, you will see that the most recent comment on the BLP noticeboard was yesterday. JoshuaZ 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Not an overt threat, but inappropriate. I have left a strongly-worded message on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist

Your input is requested here. I would add my own two-penneth, but I can't see the opinions of anon IPs carrying much weight over there. In my opinion regardless of the opinions of the people complaining about the blacklist, a wrestling fansite is not a credible, reliable source for an encyclopedia. It's well known among internet wrestling fans and has a domain name, but in reality that doesn't make it any more a reliable source than any number of geocities or tripod sites. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan RfAr

Please be advised that Sam Sloan has filed a request for arbitration against you. It appears that he has failed to notify you of this and, in the interest of time, as a Clerk, I am advising you directly rather than prodding him to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sports Trainer

Hi Guy, Firstly thank you for unblocking my account, it's great to be back on, and secondly i was wondering why it is now not possible to create a sports trainer article? I think it is blocked or something, why is this so and can it be undone so that the article can be re-created (to wikipedia standards). Thanks, (Bradleigh 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Try making a version at User:Bradles 01/Sports trainer and then take it to deletion review. The last one was pretty crummy, especially with the generic pictures and "sports trainer" slapped on the subjects' backs using cheap image editing software. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA controversy

Why did you revert my edit? Is this not a part of the political reaction? --KarlFrei 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not promote online petitions. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this cannot be mentioned? It is still a part of the political reaction. How about if we don't add a link to the website? Of course, that goes against the policy of sourcing everything... --KarlFrei 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Whitelist Review & Cleanup

Dear JzG|Guy - I am not sure this is the right place to bring this up but I noticed you have cleaned up the whitelist here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Review This cleanup is much appreciated and must be very time consuming. However the website 'online-casinos.com' used to be on the whitelist for a reason. It was linked to from the external links in blackjack. The link has now been removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackjack&diff=113831845&oldid=113149890 Please add this website back to the whitelist as it is referred to from within the article - quote: "This version is much more advantageous to the player, but requires a slightly modified basic strategy table (such tables can be generated using the external links)." Please add the domain 'online-casinos.com' back to the whitelist and also add the external link to the blackjack strategy calculator located on online-casinos.com back to the blackjack article. The website 'online-casinos.com' is not blacklisted - but the frase 'online-casino' is on the blacklist - there is a difference:-). Thanks you for all your hard work and contributions to Wikipedia, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The domain online-casinos.com was blacklisted as a spam domain. We already have online calculators which are not hosted on widely-spammed sites. I don't see a pressing reason to include that link, and almost any url with casino in it is probably inappropriate per WP:EL. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can the domain online-casinos.com be blacklisted for spam when it is impossible to add a link containing 'online-casino' to wikipedia - unless the domain gets listed on the whitlist by a senior edotor? It's impossible for any website containing 'online-casino' to spam should they wish to do so. Clearly the domain online-casinos.com must have been added to the spam list by mistake - this is not a spam site. I am aware that the blackjack article offers external links to two other blackjack calculators - however none of these calculater offers to make any customized strategy tables. Qoute from article "(such tables can be generated using the external links)" - as the link has been removed the article is now incorrect. online-casinos.com offers much usefull information for gamblers and would in my opinion add value to the article. A domain containing 'casino' is in my opinion not a reason to remove a link - there is already another link in the article with a URL containing 'casino'. In my opinion adding the link back would be the right thing to do - the whitelist could make a specific exclusion about the specific subpage in case you are worried about SPAM, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

You can't add a domain including online-casinos because online-casinos was blacklisted in response to it being spammed. You can't now, because people did, so it was blacklisted. Every site on the blacklist has been spammed at some point, and can't be any more, that is the whole point. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand this perfectly clear. However in the whitelist there used to be a specific line allowing a single link to 'online-casinos.com/blackjack/basic-strategy-calculator.php' - this link overruled the general 'online-casino' (without the 'S') i the blacklist (the entery into the blacklist has absolutly nothing to do with the specific site online-casinos.com). The line in the whitelist allowing the link was then removed (I guess while you did the whitelist review/cleanup). This entery into the whitelist made it possible to add a single link from the blackjack article to this specific page on online-casinos.com - but only to that specific page. This was approved by a senior editor in the gambling catagory. I think what happened was that you removed the line in the whitelist (I presume) and then you removed the link from the blackjack article adding the comment "Two is enough, this site is blacklisted so removing". The site was specifically not blacklisted before 'someone' decided to remove the line from the whitelist allowing the link in the first place. Two links is not enough - since the other two sites dont offer any tables. The blackjack articel promiced people that they can find such tables using the external links - but now they can not because the link has been removed. I am sure there has been a lot of spam from sites with url's containing 'online-casino' but I am also sure that there has been zero spam from the site 'online-casinos.com'. I find it a bit unfair to remove the link to this site for spam when there has been no spam. First of all there has been no spam second of all the witelist and the blacklist combined made it impossible to add any new links to online-casinos.com apart from that single link from the blackjack article. , 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The link does not seem to offer anything that is not offered by other, less spammy links. In general we should and do avoid linking to overtly commercial websites, and it's hard to think of anythign much more overtly commercial on the web than online casinos. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that online casinos is very very commercial - but so is blackjack. Furthermore all the other external links in the blackjack article have information and links to online gambling sites - so they are no better or worse. In my opinion the url alone should not be the only factor that decides what can be linket to and what can not be linket to. I don't agree that the othere sites offer anything remotly similar to what this specific page offers. The tool on online-casinos.com can make perfect strategy charts for any rule variation with a few clicks - none of the other sites offer this. In my opinion this is a very usefull tool for people interested in blackjack. Furtnernore there is absolutly no banners or links to online gambling sites on this specific page and this makes i al lot less commercial then it could be. Please concider giving your decition a second thourght., 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fys

Uh Guy, can't you guys just avoid each other say for the next 12 months or so? (→Netscott) 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love to. I don't recall asking him to stick his nose into a discussion between admins and a user Wikilawyering over a cxlearly appropriate block. Maybe you can persuade him to keep his hooter out in future? Guy (Help!) 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, because I see the both of you continuing down a rather disruptive path I'm making a polite request of both of you to try and make conscious efforst to avoid eachother whenever possible. Would you do that please? (→Netscott) 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Now go and see who was in that discussion first. I find it rather hard to let seasoned edit warriors get away with knocking policies which prevent edit warriors from edit warring, in an attempt to undermine enforcement against other seasoned edit warriors, previously sanctioned for edit warring, and apparently slipping back into edit warring again. Fys thinks edit warring is fine as long as you are right - which, in his view, he always is. He also perceives his bias as neutrality, a standard failing of politicians everywhere. What with him, Sloan, Watts, Leyden and others it feels like the trolls are all coming out of the woodwork right now. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can think of is the RfC route. What I'm seeing is incivility on both sides here and that's just nonsense. I'm waiting on Fys to respond to my request... hopefully he'll agree to it and this type of draining and time sucking interaction can be limited. (→Netscott) 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, really. As you know, his problem is that he bears a grudge from a block some months back. Gets an official "so what" from me, but I find it unhelpful to have him pitching in to support other edit warriors. Of course it doesn't help that we both like to have the last word, and it certainly doesn't help that in Fys' view anybody who disagrees with him is necessarily and unequivocalkly wrong and should apologise for daring to dispute his judgment :o) Guy (Help!) 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBeatty is now 'wikistalking' me on a SECOND article

I just posted this to Tbeatty's talk page.

In the past two days you have followed me to two seperate articles that I have been actively editing, that you had never edited before. Zombietime and Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_scandal When I did that a few weeks ago I was charged by an Admin with 'wikistalking' and given a 24 hr block. I encourage you to stop wikistalking me. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

I trust that you will deal with TBeatty's 'Wikistalking' the same way you dealt with mine. Thanks FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop de do! hip You were not an 'uninvolved admin' on Feb 21 either. ocrisy With the blatant favoritism displayed 'round here on a daily basis, It's no wonder people are leaving Wiki in droves, is it? Sorry for assuming that you were a fair admin who would treat equal actions by different editors the same. My mistake. it won't happen again. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was uninvolved enough then, and you are ignoring the rest: TBeatty is a decent enough editor and you are headed for a ban, at the very least a serious editing restriction. I have nothign further to add here, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it! Wikistalking is only Wikistalking when its done by a 'mouthy' editor who doesn't bow down and say 'Master' to the Admin ruling class! Civil POV pushing editors get a free pass, as 'decency' and subservience are the overwhelming concerns in this colonial tea-party where ediquitte and 'knowing your place' reign supreme! You don't have anything further to add. FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to tell you this for some time now. It's not your politics that is necessarily getting you in trouble, it's your attitude and bahavior while pushing those politics that is killing you. - Crockspot 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but no banana. We are the Rouge Admin Cabal, our marching song is "We Will Block You", and you are at our mercy. Plus, checking the edits of biased editors is legitimate, but you could always try making less biased edits and that way you won't get reverted as often. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty's 'honesty' on display.... After admitting to 'Wikistalking' me to two articles including the US Attorney article: "You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits." diff he actually claims on the talk page of the article in question, that I Wikistalked him to said article ! "The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff He was entirely civil in his fallacious and specious claims though, and we know that carries much more weight around here than a mouthy truthful editor ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't fault his reasoning. You could always try not being disruptive and tendentious of course. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be having a hard time following along. "The other editor came here jjust to revert me." is an outright LIE, as he followed me to the article - but THANK GOD HE WASN'T INCIVIL, OR DISRUPTIVE ! Only dishonest and that's AOK around here, and as long as lies are cloaked in courteous civility! (like when CWC falsely claimed that you called DH a 'Neo Nazi') No PROBLEM ! - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the fundamental point here: you have never been anything but disruptive. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administorial dishonesty again, as can be expected! The FR archives and Mediator Jossi's own statement confirm substantial good faith nondisruptive efforts on my part, before BFP's sock puppet invasion. Of course you ALL chose to completely ingnore this DOCUMENTED PROOF in the findings of fact. Not enough Admin ass-kissing on my part is my guess. - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Elephant block...

What makes you think they're a sock? Steel thinks they're RunedChozo, but I haven't seen any supporting info... Georgewilliamherbert 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed on WikiEN-l, where his trolling was incredibly blatant. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see such a discussion re PointCounterpoint, but what's the connection with One Elephant? Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Sharon, Lois Bram" <oneelephant@gmail.com>, who signs at least one post as user:One Elephant went out to play.... The "I'm leaving" thread on WP:AN also evokes memories of "Parker Peters" and other trolls. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two threads; that one, with oneelephant@gmail.com, and an unrelated one by the counterpoint user. As far as I can tell, there's no connecting string between them. The counterpoint user was Checkusered as a Runed sock a while ago. Did you or Steel conflate the two cases, or is there an actual connection I just didn't see? Georgewilliamherbert 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel pointed me at a steward, who I'm emailing. Georgewilliamherbert 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. No, I didn't block as a RunedChozo sock, I blocked for trolling. I think the elephant one is a different recurrent troll. It said it was leaving anyway (Parker Peters' MO). Guy (Help!) 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my already-stellar reputation...

...but about Butt pirate - was there ever an AfD on this? I can't seem to find one, and I noticed that it got speedied by you as a "nonsense" neologism? Leaving behind for the moment about speedying neologisms, it's actually a word that's pretty well in use in the States, and probably doesn't qualify for deletion anyway. Think you could restore it? I won't protest an AfD if that's the course you want to go, but still... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted five times for various reasons, was salted for a while and re-created shortly after the salt was deleted, so all I did was migrate it into the new system. It included such stallar writing as The term "butt pirate" is an offensive reference to a person who actively seeks anal sex, an activity homosexual and some heterosexual men are assumed to engage in and 1980's Hardcore Punk artist and notable Gay activist Keith Cayea is believed to have coined the term in his band The Buttasters 1983 Single "All My Friends are Butt Pirates (Including Craig Cocker)". We already have {{wikt:butt pirate}}, this added only nonsense and speculation to the dicdef. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. I'll let you know if I pursue it further, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I know I don't have your full confidence in these matters, but for what it's worth I continue to advise that you pick your battles, and this is one you could probably let go. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other guys

Guy, I'm going to be traveling for two weeks. Since TS is semi-protected, the TS guys have been hitting the daughter articles (Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome and History of Tourette syndrome. Causes and origins of Tourette syndrome not hit yet - beans!)) Maybe they can be semi-protected during my absence? Or if you want a belly full of TS guys, add them to your watchlist? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Thomas J.J. Altizer

I have reinstated this article in my own name. I recognise that it was written by a banned user but the content is valid. As the policy permits, I have re-made the edit and taken responsibility for it. This is not intended to show disrespect to you in any way, simply to make the redlinks you left blue. The purpose of banning users is to remove disruptive influences, not to anathematise all their works. Please consider not deleting articles on this basis in future. If a banned user is contributing in a positive way, there is no pressing need to further punish them. Grace Note 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Shrubbery

A tag has been placed on Template:Shrubbery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

TSD1 - the template is derisive and inflamatory. It is used to mock the arguments of other editors and is therefore unhelpful and counter-productive to building the encyclopedia

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Template:Shrubbery|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Johntex\^talk 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that "do not template the regulars" essay when you need it? Sometimes those arguments need mocking. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be {{templater}}. Recommend you take this to DRV. It should at least get a listing on TFD. Had shrubbery on my shortlist for months now, and no one's ever complained the few times I've used it. I find it to be a mood enhancer. — coel acan — 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Shrubbery. — coel acan — 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When one is in a hole.. (regarding FAAFA)

Hopefully FaAfA takes heed to your words.. he didn't when I said the same thing on the RfArb. *sighs*. It's one of the bad things about having the Proposed Decision being viewable by all while things are being discussed, because someone who's frustrated and sees he's going to be out for a year no matter how he acts has no reason to not go out in a blaze of "glory". SirFozzie 17:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that. Seems to me that this would be a fairly typical outcome when that is going on. In any case I am disappointed that he decided to leave on that sort of note. --BenBurch 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFD nomination

Note: a template that you created, Template:Shrubbery, has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. I thought that it'd be helpful for you to explain your logic behind creating it, and that sort of thing, or otherwise offer any non-shrubbery ~~excuses~~ explanations. Thank you, and have a great life! Gracenotes ^T § 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, you and your misleading signature :). Happy editing, Gracenotes ^T § 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

I'd like to report a couple of socks to you, but first a little back story. I started Designer Whey Protein and Biological Value a while ago. As you know, because you blocked him, there was a sockpuppeteer operating there. A sock came complaining on my talk page about the Biological Value article, I went out of my way to notify a ton of science experts to work on the article (over 50 which took a while becuase I didn't know where to find them), not knowing he was a sock. Anyway Yankees identified him as a sock and tagged him, so I moved on and started the Michael Jordan FAC which I've been planning for months. I decided I'd try to get back to the article, get the tags off of it, and see if I can get an expert to work on it later.

However today Designer was tagged for deletion and as spam by a new account and an anon, who have admitted they are the same account. I argued it shouldn't be deleted as it has 106,000 google hits and there are surely non-notable indepent sources which could be used to verify it's existence. I tried to provide some but they were admittedly weak and it will probably get deleted. I've been extremely busy with the Michael Jordan FAC, so I'm not going to argue for it anymore (Although Bill Phillips mentions it in his Supplement review and I'm sure there are of articles in bodybuilding mags talking about it, as it was the first brand of Whey protein to hit the market and be successful). This isn't about the afd as I'm sure it will get deleted and I don't really care about it anymore. However, all of a sudden this was left on my talk page:[29] and I'm not sure what to do. I'm telling you all this instead of reporting on the official page as you are already familiar with it, I notified the other two admins who blocked socks of the original sockpuppet. Bssically my interest in those two articles in reaching negative integers and would like to be left alone by all these socks and single purpose accounts. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks or not, it reads as advertorial. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Outlaw Halo

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		Is hereby awarded to Guy, for his brilliance and audacity in creating the WP:NCR policy and page, and valiantly defending it from any usurpers, whether appropriately attired as superheroes or not. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply] (about the award)

Removal of Complaint Against PocklingtonDan

Why did you remove the complaint? I had been thinking about complaining since I saw it but could not complain because I was blocked. It also involved an election. John Wallace Rich 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no sockpuppetry. You may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. What you are looking for is dispute resolution, try one of the mediation groups. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already contacted the mediation groups, as well as the AMA and RfC. So far, I'm very disappointed in the response, not to mention defensive. I filed a legitimate complaint, and getting attacked by one administrator seems to lead to the whole inner circle keeping an eye on me, not to mention keeping its now Newspeak article killed in action. John Wallace Rich 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's legitimate, but others think it's retaliatory. Your own actions are problematic. You need to show a bit more sign of accepting the community view of your conflicts of interest; you also need to ask nicely rather than demanding. AMA is a dead loss in my view, go to the mediation cabal or mediation committee. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my responses on my user talk page. John Wallace Rich 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're in dispute, uninvolved people see no sockpuppetry. End of story, really. Try dispute resolution, and try acknowledging that there may be fault or misperception on your side. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association

Good afternoon (GMT time); thanks for your help at the above page - it's great to see that Wikipedians who don't have access to the sysop buttons but who reguarly exercise administrator-style actions (eg closing debates) can count on those with the mop to provide a hand where necessary. Take a star!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For coming to the aid of a non-administrator promptly, and making a real efficient job of the MfD on Wikipedia:Department of Fun/Word Association .. I, Anthony, award you, JzG the Working Man's Barnstar! anthonycfc ^[talk] 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you around — anthonycfc ^[talk] 14:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning of Edits

Good evening (GMT time); users have raised concerns over the pages that you deleted and those you never. Discussion is currently under way at my talk page, at this section. Your input would be appreciated!

Kind regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screamers (1995 film)

You removed an amazon link from Screamers (1995 film). I have reverted it because it is a reference for the date of release fro the VHS tape. You're welcome to remove it when you can replace it with a source that is more acceptable to you. Cburnett 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of inappropriate links to Amazon, we should not be sourcing stuff from off-the-page sales pages. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, leaving something unattributed because it links to amazon is not acceptable to me. Furthermore, you need to better explain why WP:NOR is relevant and what aspect of WP:ATT you are referring to. Or is your answer to revert and not discuss, because that's a good quality in an admin. Please, tell me how WP:EL (a guideline) trumps sourcing information. "Please see WP:NOR, WP:ATT, WP:EL. The onus is on the editor seeking to include." is definitely insufficient. Cburnett 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, since the fact itself barely rises to the level of trivial I'll just remove it altogether, that should solve the problem handily. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can't rationalize why an unsourced statement is better than a link to amazon under the guise of a guideline (WP:EL) which I have no problems removing if you can source it elsewhere, so your course of action is to label it trivia and remove it? You have no grounds to delete the VHS release date. Cburnett 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can rationalise it perfectly easily. We do not need to link to an off-the-page sales advert as a source for anything. If we can't find a better source and the data is controversial, then we can remove it. Actually of course it is not even slightly controversial, and is trivially easily verified without linking to a sales page, but the release date on VHS is really not sufficiently important to merit any kind of dispute. Doesn't say if it was PAL or NTSC anyway, so quite likely misleading for some markets. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's trivially easy then go ahead and find one. Until you do, you have no grounds to delete the source. Cburnett 19:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that it violates WP:EL, WP:SPAM, is market specific data without the market identified, and is in any case of no evident value. Oh, and the onus is on the editor seeking to include content to justify its inclusion, so you're reversing the burden of proof. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both are guidelines (one is even a MoS guildeine), yet attributing the source is policy. Policy trumps guidelines. As an admin, I shouldn't have to be saying this. Cburnett 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as an experienced Wikipedia I should not have to be telling you that we do not link to off-the-page sales pages. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what policy is that stated in again? Just find another source, which you say is "trivially easy", and things will be peachy for all. I added the date and I sourced it per policy. If you don't like the source and rationalize it under a guideline, then it's your deal to replace it with one satisfactory to you. Cburnett 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the "don't be so stupid" policy, right under the bit where it says "hey, look, as one of the top twelve websites in the world it's a realy great idea to get your sales links right in the articles, so don't let people do that". Guy (Help!) 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good way to have dealt with this, though, would have been to find a replacement source as opposed to just removing a source that's being used. Perhaps that's the only citeable evidence found that there was a VHS release at this point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, there are many thousands of links to deep content in Amazon, and the vast majority of them need to be removed. Is the VHS release date a controversial fact? Not as such. So I left it there with the off-the-page sales link removed. For some reason cburnett appears to believe that he VHS release date is of vital importance and it is sufficiently controversial to require a citation, unlike many other facts in that article, and the only available source is Amazon's sales page so that must be used, and he seems to believe that it;s my responsibility to justify removal, rather than his, as the editor seeking to include content, to justify that inclusion. I dispute pretty much the whole lot of that. And above all I dispute the need to link to sales pages, of any retailer, however big. Links like this are a large source of such problems, and another large source is links which should use the ISBN magic. It's going to take a while to get the link count down if we have a Federal case about every one. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just disagree with you that this is even an issue of minor importance at this stage. It's not even an external link in a section, but a reference. What if someone does challenge it? Then what? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do challenge it - PAL and NTSC versions often had different release dates back in the days when I was active in film, and this does not actually make it clear. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If only the release date had a reference for it, you could research that answer yourself. Guess what? It does. The answer: NTSC. Tell me again why leaving it unsourced is better for wikipedia because you're contradicting yourself: link is a Bad Thing (TM) but you want to know more source information (NTSC vs. PAL) which requires a source. Actually, I can't think of a better example of contradiction. Cburnett 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the problem: the reference is not a reference as such, it's the Amazon sales page. Click here to buy. Exactly the kind f link we remove every day. Exactly the kind of link spammers insert, and get blocked for. And guess what they aregue? "You've linked to Amazon here, it's only fair that I should link to my site". No. We should not link to pages with a "buy here" link. Even if it is Amazon, even if it is the easiest place to find a particular piece of sub-trivia. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the link when the page was protected. This is abusing your administrative privileges and a much worse offense than a link to amazon. Do not do it again. Cburnett 13:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Sorry, I did not even notice it was protected. But wait! You used your administrative privileges to revert that! Which is surely far worse! This has to be one of the most abysmally fucking stupid disputes I've ever been involved in, and frankly I find I can no longer bring myself to give a shit about giving a sales link to Amazon in order to prove the massively contentious and vitally important date of publication on VHS, especially since VHS is pretty much unavailable now (most UK retailers don't stock VHS players any more). Ludicrous, utterly utterly ludicrous, and I am dreadfully ashamed of both of us. Next time a spammer comes along insisting we allow hium to link his site because we link to Amazon's off-the-page adverts I will send him your way. Cheerio, Guy (Help!) 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said ALL ALONG that I would take any link over amazon and that no link is not acceptable (policy trumps guidelines, always). That was my position when someone else tried removing the link. And it appears [30] and [31] (found by User:One Night In Hackney) have a date we can use. End of story.

If that "spammer" is trying to reference something that is hard to reference and can only find a source on a commercial site then by all means send them my way (you probably really don't want to do that as it's obvious who I'll side with: WP:CITE). Otherwise, if you're going to send all spammers my way, then you never understood my point and my argument. Cburnett 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in order to game the system all Joe Spammer has to do is find something suitably obscure, include it on his site, and bingo! instant approved spam, with admins prepared to revert a protected article in order to defend it. Genius. I've half a mind to set up a site with Betamax release dates just to make a point, but in the end I have better things to do with my time than war over trivia. Mind you, I consider removal of spam non-trivial, so I may be the one who is badly off base, most people doin't give a toss about that. {shrug}. Incidentally, you may be interested in this parallel situation: m:Talk:Spam blacklist#exoticindiaart.com Guy (Help!) 14:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cburnett, I don't see in WP:CITE or WP:ATT where they require a citation for the VHS release date information. CITE, being a guideline, defers to the policy, ATT. ATT states, "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Should seems to be an important aspect of the policy. I don't think the veracity of the stated VHS release date is likely to be challenged (although it certainly could be based on this contradiction to Amazon). So without a challenge, what else is left that requires a citation? IF there is a challenge or an editor inserts a citation, then a reliable source is required. Is Amazon a reliable source? Does Amazon have an "editorial oversight or fact-checking process"? If not, it seems justifiable to challenge the source as a questionable source as defined in WP:RS. I could be wrong. --JJLatWiki 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports trainer / User:Bradles 01

Hi Guy, you recently unblocked User:Bradles 01. He's still obsessed with sports trainer--he's recreated the article twice, and after those changes got reverted he's started a discussion at Talk:Athletic trainer to get consensus to recreate sports trainer. A new user, User:Kitti-Kat01, has arrived, and agrees with Bradles' ideas. This is manifestly a Bradles sock. I don't think Bradleigh is really interested in playing by the rules; could you take a look at this situation, please? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting this article - it's been getting tiresome but it's awfully hard to just walk away when someone is messing around. andy 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradleigh is blocked anyway. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was..

trying to figure out how you picked up on her. :-) (→Netscott) 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bircham International University

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bircham International University. I think it deserves a speedy keep and a stern warning to the nominator. Arbustoo 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent MFD vote

Just letting you know that I've added two addition subpages similar to the first, User:Otheus/notes and User:Otheus/aa, to the MFD description. FeloniousMonk 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

File:Bus Stop.JPG

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson

ps... i have written to the user that removed the links to appologise, also put the above paraghrahps on a discussion board on the spilsby article

No problem, common newbie error. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Edith Jacobson deletion
[edit]
Hi Guy, I saw that you deleted the small article on edith jacobson because of copyright issues. I just wanted to ask if the problem only was that there were things literally taken from another website or if the article had other problems. I am only the (quite inadequate ;)) wikifier-person of the group that created the article, so thats why i don't know if the contents involved plagiarism. It was still a stub, the intention is that tomorrow the full article (with appropriate notes and references) is being set up, hopefully without copyright problems. Marcel flaubert 13:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was just that there was verbatim copied text from another websote there, with no assertion of permission. Feel free to try again. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for watching out, and I hope everything is sorted out tomorrow for the totall article launch, see ya! Marcel flaubert 13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Is this spamming?
[edit]
[32] - seems to be a representative of this minor basketball league posting in the pages of each city that has a team. --BenBurch 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
[edit]
Hey Guy,
Just a favor to ask you: I'm an undergrad at Syracuse, and I'm writing a long analytical essay on Wikipedia's organization, user interaction, etc. I was wondering if I could ask you 5 or 6 questions so that I could get an inside perspective from someone other than myself. I went through my mental rolodex of active users with experience and you came up in my mind. A short paragraph for each would be fine. If you could find the time, that would be great and I would really appreciate it.
Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please send Wikimail, will have a look. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Almeda University
[edit]
Hi Guy, what do you think about this? (Copied from WP:RFPP):
Fully protected since March 10 even though it was the lead story in the Signpost on March 12. I don't think the mere threat of paid editing is a good reason to protect an article. Watchlisting can deal with this kind of threat; full protection should be a last resort. Kla'quot 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please speak to JzG, since he probably knows the background of the situation. – Steel 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kla'quot 16:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZineWiki
[edit]
I see you created an AfD. As you might have seen, this article was previously deleted. Have you considered making a fresh AfD subpage for this? The previous AfD was rather large so it is unclear that this is a new open debate. —dgies^t_c 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, it wasn't previously deleted, it was closed with no consensus (thus keep), but your (second) nomination for some reason was appended to the existent (archived) AfD page rather than creating a new one. Cheers, 131.111.8.104 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I misread it because I saw the previous debate on notability concerns and just assumed... —dgies^t_c 19:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course
[edit]
Hello Guy, My name is James Miller, and I posted the article that you deleted today. I wanted to cite references that this is not an advertisement, but instead a documentary film (which happens to teach filmmaking), as catalogued on IMDb [33]. I propose that this is no different a documentary than say, The Fog of War, which although is more famous since it deals with more political subject matter and has greater historical draw, is still the same category, and is still sold on Amazon like the Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course. What I would like to request from you is help in not making the entry sound like an Ad, because I assure you it's not. It is a documentary that is the subject of great debate in this public forum: DVXuser: [34] Also, I am an avid wikipedia enthusiast, and I struggled to make the DCFTC article as clean and well-linked as possible. Please help me make it even more reliable. Less photos? More of something else? Thank you for your effort on Wikipedia. Sincerely, James. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Proof of existence is not sufficient. You would need to show evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the producers. I can't think offhand of any other articles on training films, although I'm sure there must be some. It's been deleted before for the same reason, I notice. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, I am at a loss as to how to show proof of multiple non-trivial coverage of an Independent Documentary film other than IMDb, a Film Chat Forum, Amazon, and an Official site. Generally, there really aren't any other venues for an Independent documentary film than those. It is not going to air or release in theaters because it runs too long and is not affiliated with a major studio. That is the purpose in my mind for a home like Wikipedia, indpendent of major studio budgets. I did a search for "The Fog of War" and noticed that aside from the Sony Studio site and the author's site, it only appears on Wikipedia, IMDb, Amazon, and Rotten Tomatoes. The Film chat forum ought to take the place of Rotten Tomatoes in my case, since it is not sponsored by the producers, but totally independent. Please suggest some other nontrivial means of establishing coverage. Thank you sir. PS: The only portion of the article that was deleted before was a photo that I did not properly subtitle. That is all.
James T. Miller 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)James T. Miller[reply]
Precisely. Generally, there are no other venues. And Wikipedia is not a directory. So we typically do not have articles on traiing films. I think even the ones made by John Cleese, which acquired a degree of external coverage, are only discussed in his article, but I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I just want to stress that I am not trying to promote these people's product. I just happen to own it and think that the world should be aware of it. That said, my question is, why is there an entry for The Fog of War when it has the exact same amount of nontrivial coverage. Whether or not the Digital Cinema Course is a training film, it is still a Category "Documentary" film that is of international fame and importance. Can we make the course made public to the world through Wikipedia simply as a means of reference to a documentary film without any external links to its official site or pictures? What I mean is that, this isn't an intra-company training film to teach plumbers how to properly plumb. This has become a phenomenon among filmmakers because it is the only one like it created in Hollywood. It has personally inspired me, as have other films about making movies in Hollywood. So as a documentary, documenting the current trends of filmmaking, such as Visions of Light with serves the same purpose, why can't it exist on Wikipedia? Thank you for you patience, sir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please don't use obviously invalid comparisons. The Fog of War is a documentary which won an Academy Award, and has an original score by one of the world's foremost living classical composers. Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course is an independently produced training video. See also WP:INN and arguments to avoid. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the DCFTC has won no academy award and has no famous composers, but the core theme is still the same. It is a famous documentary out to teach something, just as Fog of War is out to teach the rules of engagement in war (Rather than a training film for Generals). If you ask the average moviegoer "what is Fog of war?" they will have no clue, as opposed to "what is Snakes on a Plane". So both documentaries are famous to certain people. It is still a phenomenon among filmmakers. As a documentary, documenting the current trends of filmmaking, what needs to be modified on its page to exist on wikipedia? Thank you for your time. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Famous? Cite sources. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Guy, here are cited references, and there are more.
DVXuser "The online community for filmmaking" [35] - forum posting

IMDB "Earth's biggest movie database" [36] - user-edited directory

Credit given to Rush Hamden and DCFTC for inspiring modern filmmakers working on the show "24" [37] - trivial passing mention

Cinema Treasures gives credit to DCFTC for inspiring young filmmakers (temp article) [38] - not mentioned on that page at all

Amazon.com Page [39] - sales drectory

MySpace [40] - creator's MySpace page

Digital Cinema Course at SIGGRAPH 2000 [41] - no mention of this product on that page

YouTube (Thousands of views) [42] - creator's YouTube video

Filmmaking.com "The film and video industry's most trusted resource" (Front Page Pixel Directory) [43] - advert

Sell.com [44] - advert

DVinfo.net "The digital video information network" DCFTC present at a national Camera Test [45] - forum post

2-Pop "The digital filmmaker's resource site" [46] - forum

Creative Cow [47] - news listings
Those were the sources already present. None of them qualify as non-trivial, none are primarily about this product, some do not mention it at all (at least not by name) and most are not acceptable as sources anyway due to being forums or not independent of the creators of the work. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please name some non-trivial sources where this documentary should show up so that it will have the sources necessary for Wikipedia.
Wrong way round. That's your job. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James, I did look for your film because I'm generally very good at finding sources. I couldn't find anything. You said:

Generally, there really aren't any other venues for an Independent documentary film than those [Amazon, IMBD, etc]. It is not going to air or release in theaters because it runs too long and is not affiliated with a major studio. That is the purpose in my mind for a home like Wikipedia, indpendent of major studio budgets.

The reason this film isn't notable isn't because it's an Independent documentary. Independant films still get reviewed and get articles written about them and win awards. The reason is that this is an instructional video, something that wouldn't run in a theatre anyway, even if it weren't 24 hours long. This isn't something you'd rent at the video store, it's something you'd buy from an infomercial (it's 16 discs), and btw, as far as I know, instructional videos haven't been considered documentaries for a very long time.

This would be notable if it did win awards and had articles written about it and reviews and if a notable school used it perhaps. But keep in mind that if you could find these various sources and want to write an article again, you are writing about a product. Miss Mondegreen | Talk 09:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why
[edit]
Why is there no page on the Tourettes Guy? Afterall, you have pages on numa numa, not nearly as popular as the tourettes guy 1B6 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, endorsed, endorsed some more, endorsed again, and then the endorsement endorsed. No credible non-trivial independent sources, end of story. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, dont talk to me like that, secondly, "non notable"; he gets over 300,000 hits a month, that to me is notable. 1B6 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk to you like what? I stated the facts. See the Wikipedia definition of notability - hit stats are fundamentally unverifiable anyway (and my vanity sitye gets around 100,000 a month so 300,000 for a supposedly massively popular meme is ridiculously low). Oh, and don't bother posting any more argumentation here. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete a good edit of mine? wtf was the point. My god I hate you so much. --1B6 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting, if somewhat perverse position. I have no idea which supposedly "good" edit you are talking about, of course. Guy (Help!) 01:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Policy in a nutshell" for wp:sockpuppets. Does that jog your memory? 1B6 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiight. So you changed a policy page, and got reverted, and that's a cause for hatred?

Original version: Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else

Your version: Using a sock puppet to evade a block will result in the block counter being reset, and time added. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else.

Which is either a WP:POINT violation or just a bad edit, using jargon instead of clear English. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt distrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point, you on the other hand, are a complete bastard. 1B6 08:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you're over-reacting at all, of course... Guy (Help!) 09:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so Mabey you would like to explain how that is a bad edit, admin abuse in my opinion?
I can't believe I really have to explain this. What the nutshell said before:

Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else

What you said:
Using a sock puppet to evade a block will result in the block counter being reset, and time added. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else.

The first version does not require you to know what sock puppet means, and tells you what you should not do with an alternate account. Your version deals with a small subset of circumstances and consequences after the event, and is stated using jargon (sockpuppet, block counter). It assumes that the user has already been blocked which may not be the case, the whole point is to help them not to do the thing that gets them blocked. It replaces telling them where and why they may not use alternate accounts, with a statement that simply says that if they do get blocked for something, using puppets will get the block counter reset, which is factually incorrect as it may result in anything from no action to a ban. And above all it misses the point that use of sockpuppets by users who are not blocked is still forbidden, if they are used abusively.

And in any case it was a unilateral edit to a policy page, and any such edit is always liable to be reverted and challenges should be taken to the Talk page. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include, in this case the onus is on you to include this new nutshell description of the policy. Your sole justfication seems to be that nobody spent an hour explaining to you why it was wrong. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't reason with an asshole. --1B6 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but I did in this case at least try to. My fault for not simply deleting the comment as blatant trolling in the first place, I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling me an asshole? 1B6 10:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZineWiki afd problem
[edit]
Hi, your AfD nomination of ZineWiki ([48]) has some technical problems. Can you re-format it properly as 2nd nomination? Can't do it myself, way too technical for me :) 131.111.8.104 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fixed now. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honesty
[edit]
I would like to nominate the Wikipedia community for deletion but I do not want to be accused of being disruptive. Further, I do not know how to nominate it for deletion. My reasons are on the talk. If I can get permission, I would like someone to nominate it on my behalf because it is a redundant article already in other articles. Thanx. :) - Mr.Guru (^talk/_contribs) 22:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Almeda University
[edit]
I have been observing the article and the heated discussions on Almeda University. I am not based in USA, so do not have much idea of the reputation of Almeda; but from reading everything about Almeda University its existince in Wikipedia seems questionable to me. Is it big enough to have a Wikipedia existance? I am doubtful. It seems to me like thousands of spammers who want to be in Wikipedia to get some free publicity. I feel this article should go for deletion. Seek your opinion.--Pinaki ghosh 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it is - it meets the criterion of having been discussed in reliable external sources anyway. It does not help that the majority of people looking to delete it seem to be tied to the place in some way. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JzG
[edit]
Hi, I would like to say thanks for replying on the spam blacklist page. Your page is very entertaining. :) I'm a Zorpia.com user and i visit the site everyday. The owners are kinda sad about this situation. I hope they get back on Wikipedia one day. For them it's very important to have the site back on Wikipedia. I tried my best to help them. The only thing that i can do now is wish them good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MelMillane (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia inclusion is not an indication of worth, and a Wikipedia article is not a storefront. Many businesses who consider it important to have a Wikipedia article seem to have missed that. Guy (Help!) 07:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of List of notable glider pilots
[edit]
I am puzzled by your deletions made in this article. The explanation was cryptic and so I have reverted them. 10:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC) The normal convention seems to be to reply to individual messages, using the talk pages. You deleted two names from this list, both with valid references. From what I can see, the Academy of Achievments page on Paul MacCready is a valid reference and does not seem to involve spam. Can you precisely explain to me your objections and I will delete or replace the reference? JMcC 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Coulter
[edit]
Thanks for the earlier help. I'm just gathering information for my impending defence for this frivolous waste of time. From what I can tell the original (ie the politician) Robert Coulter was moved to Robert I. Coulter and the history deleted along with it, can you let me know when the page was originally created please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the history under {{deletedarticle}}. Let me know when it can ber deleted again. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've posted on the talk page as there doesn't seem to be anywhere for me to post on the main page, it's safe to assume once the advocate has seen the sequence of events it can be deleted again, but I'll let you know. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I usually comment in "Discussion". AMA is a waste of time anyway, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI
[edit]
Thanks very much for the compliment about the community ban nomination. Would you refactor the end of that post? It's kinda odd to see that within 24 hours of my posting this: At any rate, although I do escort people to the door sometimes, I'd rather not kick them in the pants as they leave. A natural response to is pick up a rock and break the window after the door closes.[49] Cheers, Durova^Charge! 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :) Durova^Charge! 16:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nominations
[edit]
Hello; I notice that you have recently nominated several articles for deletion. In these cases, you seem to have left out a deletion category, which means that the discussion is not listed in the relevant Wikipedia pages for people to find - and it also shows up as "uncategorized" in the list of discussions with a bunch of wiki-code hanging on. Not that I mind categorizing the debates or anything, but it isn't difficult to pick the relevant category from the list provided. Thanks :) ◄Zahakiel ► 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I'm happy to cooperate with the wikignoming of AfDs by removing the template when closing the debates but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite difficult when using the AFD nomination script... --kingboyk 20:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has a better one that fixes up second and subsequent noms, but I don't know where it is. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN
[edit]
For the love of god, we have about 80 pages of deleted crap at {{Bjaodn}}. I'm all for having a rolling page containing the latest deleted nonsense, but 80 pages?! I'd love to MFD the whole lot, but I'm worried it would be a lot of tagging for nothing. What do you think? --kingboyk 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hell yes. Most of them are not even slightly funny - uncyclopedia would delete the lot. I foresee a "Featured Nonsense" bureaucracy, with a much lower standard for "good nonsense" which is gamed by puppets and cabals. I'm game, though - let's MfD the latest one and see what happens. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good solution would be to history merge all of them, and then anybody who wants to look at that amount of nonsense is still able to. Not sure we could take WP:BOLD that far though, so I guess MFD it is. A small sample, or all of them? You or I? --kingboyk 21:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A history merge would be good, but the servers might implode under the weight of all that nonsense. MfD te last one symbolically? Guy (Help!) 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Now let's hope sanity prevails - it didn't in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/ASCII cows although that was 2 years ago. --kingboyk 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're still around Guy, would you please look at - and perhaps respond to - User_talk:Picaroon9288#The_BJAODN_MFD? I'm in a pickle, I have some folks saying nominate one page, and another saying close the nom and nominate all but with one central tag. Your advice would be most welcome as you're much better at this kind of thing than me :) --kingboyk 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not working Guy. With the keeps and the "don't like the single page nomination" it'll be no consensus, despite imho an emerging consensus from established users that something must be done. A rethink is needed. Close and start again with a nom of all 60 pages? Start up a policy discussion somewhere? Ask Jimbo what he thinks? Any ideas??? --kingboyk 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your post to AN seems to have done the trick, and we have a better proposal now. I think I shall withdraw my MFD; agree? --kingboyk 20:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of George Vithoulkas
[edit]
Forgive me if I stay back a little and don't move things or actively stop discussions: I think homeopathy-supporters hate me quite enough already. Luckily, though, many of them are doing their best to make me not care they dislike me.
Well, that's unfair. Most of them are actually pretty sensible people. It's just the two that you can surely guess, and the meatpuppets who are really trying my ability to care about anything they say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JzG
[edit]
Hi JzG, Did you post a picture about Zorpia on the talk Spam blacklist page? Was it you?
Nope. I use an account on meta. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WGBH links
[edit]
Guy, spamming riles me up too, but IMO there's a distinction between slapping commercial links all over pages where they don't belong, and adding relevant content links to appropriate pages. Yes, she's adding lots of links - but there's TONS of content on the Web site, all of it free to view without ads and pretty much all of it is of the highest quality. I agree that her link additions should be looked at, edited and possibly pruned, but I don't think we should be looking at this person's contributions as ripe for a blanket reversion spree. FCYTravis 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to one-per-article links, or people saying "do you mind", but this shows a large number of links, two or more to an article, and no other content added whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Examine the link structure - the second link in the string is a link back to the site's general page about the program in question. Not useful and can be removed or Wikified, I agree, but I don't think that shows any sort of malice or "spam" intent, just a misapprehension of our linking guidelines. Easy enough to edit out or Wikify (I've already started a stub for one of the shows referenced.)

I know it's easy to get jaded on here, but I think we have to treat someone from a non-profit educational TV show adding links to useful content differently than Mr. "Hay look at my neeto Web directory, here's a bunch of links so I look like a l33t SEO expart" link-adder. Now, as for those Amazon.com links... that is a battle which must be fought, and won. FCYTravis 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did examine it. I still don't like it. Smells of fish, y'know? Guy (Help!) 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sondheim page
[edit]
I (kind of) understand removing any links to chat forums from Stephen Sondheim, but why did you delete links to these two interviews?
Academy of Achievement interview with Sondheim from 2005

Part 1 and Part 2 of a WVXU Cincinnati radio interview with Sondheim from 2006 (30 minutes, mp3 audio)
They aren't spammy or copyright violations (the first links to an extensive Sondheim interview conducted by the Academy, and the second goes to mp3s that were posted on the WVXU Cincinnati web site.) Hobbesy3 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the IP address for the audio files are copyright violations. The interview was linked by an employee, whose sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to add links to her employer's site. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD removal
[edit]
I see some Betacommand traffic on AN/I. I don't know what the issue is or if this is related, but thought you might want to restore this AfD template [50]. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 01:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the template, he was obviously reverting his earlier removal of links and didn't see the intermediate AfD nom. WjBscribe 01:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlamDiego once again
[edit]
Hi Guy, SlamDiego's attitude is a little bit better than in the beginning, but still far from what we expect from an editor. As soon he can't argue for his stance he start to call the other editors trolls and vandals as well as bad faith wiki-lawyers and the like. He breaks all the wikipedia rules of conduct I can think of at the same time. Currently he has taken control over St. Petersburg paradox and revert any valid change that isn't to his liking, or if it's against his own private set of rules (as he creates on the fly). What do you suggest that we should do in a situation like this? As he doesn't understand rational argument nor blocking as a punishment I'm running out of ideas here. iNic 02:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
iNic is in a state because he's been trying to prove that he could place me in a position of either myself making some edits or accepting damage to the article on the St. Petersburg paradox, but now agr is preparing to make those edits instead of me. Amusingly, iNic asked agr to make the edits, thinking that agr would be unwilling or unable. So I'm pretty happily talking with agr about the edits, and rebutting the frustrated insults as they come. —SlamDiego 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N. Scott Momaday
[edit]
Hiya - Why did you remove the interview transcript from this article? It's the second time it's been removed, but for the life of me I can't see why it's not useful to researchers. Vizjim 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the links to that site were added by an employee. Wikipedia is (or was, last time I checked) the main source of inbound links for that site. Join the dots... Guy (Help!) 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone one further. The interview was useful, so I searched for a replacement one to add to the article. Lo and behold, the exact same interview comes up on at least one other site (now linked from the article). Possibly the Achievement people are copying their information uncredited from other sources. Vizjim 11:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Good detective work, well done. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon linkage
[edit]
HOLY COW were you right about that. I'm cleaning them out by the dozens. Also do a linksearch on emusic.com... plenty of links there saying "buy this CD from us." FCYTravis 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Oh my, there are probably rather a lot of them, aren't there? This might take a while... Guy (Help!) 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternative Nobel"
[edit]
The "Alternative Nobel" was the name I knew it by back in the late 1980's when I first heard of it as an Undergraduate. Honestly, that's the name it was known by among my peers in Ottawa Canada. I know that's nowhere near a reliable source, but the prize had quite a bit of currency, at least among the eco, alterntive, leftie crowd of the day, which leads me to conclude that it's notable. As for the Ignobel (my PhD supervisor won one for "Chickens Prefer Beautiful Humans" back in 1993) I've never heard it referred to as an "Alternative Nobel" which has been the (unofficial) moniker of the Right Livelihood Award for several decades (www.rightlivelihood.org's web page, and the web-pages of the awardees eg: [51] [52] aren't just making that up). Cheers, Pete.Hurd 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Katz photo
[edit]
Excuse me, I don't see there is a rule in those links you provided on the ANB. Also it is not just a simple list. It is an article about UW-Milwaukee's alumni. Phil Katz is illustrated as a programmer and inventor who graduated from this school. Isn't that fair used enough? Miaers 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Fair use allows the image only in an article primarily about Katz, and only where no free replacement can readily e obtained. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Hobley
[edit]
This was deleted once upon a time (by you) after an AFD. It's back, but has the person become famous in the meantime? --Calton | Talk 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all we have is a one-liner from a single purpose account, I don't think so. I have AfDd it. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNMF
[edit]
Greetings,
Checkuser was already performed on FNMF: [53].
The were two blocks, the first for "following in the footsteps" of Asmodeus. I'm not familiar with that case enough to comment on, but I read enough of the judgement to see where Asmodeus was rude and discourteous. I do not see that with FNMF. In fact, I see quite the opposite.
The second block is for personal attacks. I cannot see where this is the case at all. [54]. It is true that I have a narrower definition of "personal attack" than some would have here, but the worse of FNMF's comments are not as bad as the taunts by 151.151.
Can you please detail to me how you "see" this issue? --Otheus 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A spammer writes...
[edit]
I do not spam wikipedia. I provide links to relevant interviews with the subjects of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benbenbenben (talk • contribs)
Riiiiiight. Just happens your name is Ben and so is the name of the guy runs the site and nobody else has ever linked to that site. Funny how that happens. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denying others the right to comment
[edit]
I object to the speedy closure of the discussion on Doctor Who categories on Wikipedia:Deletion review. I am in favour of the original decision, but not of this denial of the right to comment. If you are confident that the decision was right, you had nothing to fear from allowing a proper discussion. Choalbaton 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a "right to comment" it was a retaliatory nomination in a fit of pique by an admin who had just had two closes added to DRV. There's no evidence the close was genuinely contentious. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an utter dork of the highest order.
[edit]
I have nothing of value to contribute here in terms of what is or is not deleted. I was reading through some things and came to the rather amusing (if only to me) realization that you are the Rodney McKay of WikiPedia. You are brutal, honest, and many people hate you. You're also damn funny. If you delete this and/or mock me it's probably well deserved but my impulses get the better of me. --Leafypie 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bikini Car Wash Company
[edit]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Bikini Car Wash Company. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Hektor 10:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]