Thank you for your comments. You were right, I had not sourced the book adequately (I'm new to this and appreciate the guidance). I hope you find the article now suitably improved with the names of respected scholars and thinkers (three of whom are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles written about them, including a Nobel Peace Laureate) who have written about the book; the details of several major conferences based on the actual book itself (with speakers who are members of the British parliament, professors and heads of legal departments at universities, and other distinguished and renowned individuals); and the non-trivial mention in several legal publications and national newspapers.
--Lesley Fairbairn09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on the AfD page for this book. I was happy to establish the notability of the book but I am perplexed by some the other comments left there and would appreciate your advice on how I might improve the article further. The comments I refer to are:
"The article reads like an advert for the book, which is not what WP is for."
"until the "spammy" feeling can be dealt with, I have to go with weak delete"
Montini Catholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was hoping to get you to stop deleting the picture I put up of my school's old class shirt. I created that page originally as a means of giving my school some notoriety. The page has been mutilated and changed by numerous people and it's getting monotonous to run around hoping to get people to allow me to leave my page up. I thought the pictures would be a nice visual artifact of the school. I sincerely hope you realize the value of these pictures to my page and how they help, meagerly though it may be, to complete the picture of my school. Thank you. You can e-mail your response to juniorgamer@hotmail.com or my page. Thanks.
Forgive me for chiming in here JzG, but doesn't the stated purpose of the page ("a means of giving my school some notoriety") violate one of the basic principles of WP? Articles are supposed to be about notable topics, not to create notability. There seems to be no assertion of notability. Is there some precedent that would stop a high school article from being deleted? --JJLatWiki15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent in terms of schools is that some people will fight tooth and nail to keep any school article because their religion holds that all school sare inherently notable, but you are more than welcome to try, if you have your asbestos suit to hand. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I received your response and I wanted to clarify that, in fact, those shirts were school approved and officially a part of school history. In other words, they are every bit as much of Montini history as is a picture of our founder or list of past president's.
Eris1121:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous nonsense. My old school tie might just about qualify as encyclopaedic, since the school is over a thousand years old, but a single-year T-shirt is absolutely not in the same league as a picture of the founder, and only an idiot would suggest it was. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I have to admit dissent with your deletion. Aside from the consensus to keep, the article at least had some notability attributed to them. I for one was willing to assume good faith on the edits, but granted you seem to note that it appears to be an astroturfing move from his promotional people. I'm tempted to take this to DRV, but want to get your thoughts on this before deciding whether to do so. Is there something I'm missing? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus among single purpose accounts counts for not much. We have deleted this at Dr. Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Dr steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Phineas Waldolf Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Doctor Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and probably other locations besides, deleted by AfD and it reviewed in February Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22. Bottom line: Steel fans are aggressively pursuing what they call "operation Wikipedia" [1], the comments in the AfD make that pretty plain. To quote one of the Keeps: Doctor steel is gaining popoularity like a run away train gains speed; More and more people are joining his army - in other words, it's an astroturfing job. Check the web shop: everything but the self-produced DVD comes up "sorry, Dr. Steel does not have enough money to produce this". Over a dozen deletions by at least eight or nine separate admins. They ahve also inserted content at toy soldier, the articles for a couple of TV shows on which he did a 2-minute slot and so on. This one needs to go away and let the air clear for a while before the "army of toy soldiers" can get what they want. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, but there is incontrovertible evidence that Steel's fans are absolutely intent on using it as just that. It's been salted since February due to obsessive re-creation, and the response has been repeatably to think up another title and repost anyway. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not sure I understand why you redirected the page Computer_security_incident_management to ITIL_Security_Management. Incident management is the general area and I am working on an entry specific to computer incidents. I understand that my initial efforts went to far in the how-to direction and I am working on correcting this. The ITIL page is a general overview and not quite on-topic.
I have restored the page. I am working on this article and would appreciate any helpful comments on its discussion page. Thank you. Tanjstaffl(talk) 06:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were two problems, actually: too much how-too and excessive reliance on a single organisation as source for the term. I am part of the incident response team at a Fortune 500 company specialising in business continuity (tha's probably a giveaway in itself) so I will be along and see if I can help. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Guy. You'll no doubt recall the discussion on Talk:List of members of the Irish Republican Army about the redlinks. I posted 3 alternative suggestions there on 13th April. After 6 days, noone had proposed an alternate solution, so I posted (on the 19th) to say I was going to go with option 2. This morning, I created this page (unwieldy title, I know), copied the redlinks there, checked them, changed them where necessary, and removed the dodgy reference. I also removed a couple of bluelinks from the original list that went to wrong people/disambig pages. And then I created a link to the new preparation page here.
User:One Night In Hackney, despite not offering any alternative suggestions in the past, immediately put a speedy delete tag on the new preparation page for "breach of GFDL" and has been reverting my addition of the link to the new preparation page.
It should also be noted that you arbitrarily created it there in the first place, and you're not a project member. We don't need the page, it serves no purpose. We didn't ask for it, we don't need it, you created it, if you want it you can have it in your user space. One Night In Hackney30313:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is absurd to say infer that nothing is deleted when a merger takes place. One might as well argue that nothing is lost when a country is conquered because the land is still there, albeit as part of a different country. Brandon9720:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merger is not deletion. Deletion involves an administrator clicking the Delete button. Your example is precisely correct: nothing is lost. Same people, same place. Those with a deep commitment to the name of a thing may well find that unacceptable, but those whose focus is on utility may well not even notice. When the Romans conquered most of Europe, most of Europe thought it was a good thing, since it brought order[citation needed]. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting some very heartfelt and useful information on my talk page. Truly, it helped me understand a lot which I just did not know.
However, I still am not sure if I have been able to get my complaint through to the right sources regarding the behavior of Arbustoo in making the entry of "firewalking" misleading and inaccurate.
I notice that Arbustoo has censored and removed all the evidence in the logs since I filed my complaint. Also, he has just removed all the previous firewalking information that conflicts with his POV and rewrote the firewalking entry so it only expresses his own point of view. This is a terrible reflection on Wikipedia's integrity. Instead of citing recognized authorities, he cites magicians and discredited theories that have been withdrawn by their proponents. This man is a liability to WP.
Here is a copy of my original complaint, thought the logs I refer to have been changed (by Arbustoo?) since I tried to complain.
I am requesting arbitration because I believe the integrity of Wikipedia is being compromised.
WP posted a request to improve the entry on “Firewalking.” My name is Tolly Burkan. I am an expert on firewalking and you can inspect my credentials online using any search engine.
Since I have the qualifications to make a meaningful contribution on the subject, I of course responded to your solicitation for improvements to your entry.
I may be an expert on the subject of firewalking, but I am a novice in making submissions to WP. I apparently made many mistakes with symbols and protocol. I asked for guidance and an editor named Arbustoo responded.
However, Arbustoo soon began making changes, deletions and additions that made my contributions seem unintelligent and ridiculous. I did some research, and found that the same points I found frustrating were being experienced by others.
For example, I am the founder of the Firewalking Institute of Research and Education. We are a non-profit educational institution designated 501(c)(3). When I posted educational information and cited our archives, Arbustoo accused me of commercial and personal postings.
First of all, that is tantamount to a libelous accusation of fraud. If Arbustoo believes we are engaging in illegitimate activities, he should complain to the IRS and the Secretary of State to whom we report regularly. My personal site is www.tollyburkan.com. There is no connection between my personal site and our non-profit site… none… nothing… no links… never were.
When you check the logs, you will see that I asked questions about this and was told ”This is getting tiresome. Last friendly warning don't add your personal website to any more articles.”
Since firewalking.com is NOT my personal web site, my very legitimate questions went unanswered and I was threatened that if I asked again, something unfriendly would happen.
This is not the way to get experts in their field to contribute to WP.
In other words, Arbustoo is saying you cannot cite anything appearing in National Geographic Magazine, or on their web site, because they take in hundreds of millions of dollars and have built a luxurious office building for themselves. They sell magazines and charge for commercials on their TV shows. Such “commercialism” thus makes their stories unfit for being cited in WP.
The Firewalking Institute of Research and Education is not a cyber-location. We have a brick and mortar campus and must pay to maintain it. Arbustoo has no idea of how non-profit educational public benefit institutions work and he should not be allowed to make these arbitrary rulings without oversight.
Furthermore, he has no qualifications to be monitoring areas where his misunderstandings can only lead to dis-serving the public at large. He has inserted undocumented ideas that are absolutely false. He cites dis-credited theories in spite of having been supplied with accurate information. This is like citing a sermon on virtue given by a priest before he was sent to prison for abusing children. If you inspect the logs, they speak for themselves.
The result is that WP has an entry for firewalking that is a hodge-podge of inaccurate information. It is so disgraceful, I am ashamed to be associated with it. It states facts that Arbustoo knows are false… check the logs. For example, I corrected a typo in citing the longest firewalk… it is not 340’. I changed it to 328’, which is accurate information. Arbustoo changed it back to 340’… even though there is no proof for that figure. So it is with most of the article.
Now that I understand how unprofessional, unregulated and out of integrity Wikipedia is, I cannot imagine using it as a resource or recommending it to others.
After scanning several google stories, I can see that my experience is not unique.
I am neither confrontive nor vindictive by nature, but feel that you need to develop a better system of policing your editors… especially people like Arbustoo who have discredited your noble enterprise and alienated established experts who might otherwise have made valuable contributions. If he has indeed made valuable contributions himself, he should at least be limited to areas he is familiar with.
How you resolve this is no longer important to me as I doubt I will be returning to your site again anytime in the near future. I’ll probably check back in a few years to see whether or not improvements have taken hold.
So Tolly searched google and found Gastrich's posts. Tolly read my user page about that. That seems to be your general problem, using unreliable sources to support what you choose to believe then adding it to wikipedia. Arbustoo18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff I know you like to see articles on any band, but this one has a bit of a history. See the deletion logs for The Jeopards and The Jeopards (band) and I'm also sure there's another page I can't remember the name of, and also the talk page of the editor who keeps creating the article before he blanked most of it. There's an articles for creation for it here, and another request here, and an AfD for it here. Guy quite reasonably told the editor in question to either stop posting the article or take it to deletion review. One Night In Hackney30319:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't like to see "articles on any band," but I do like to see A7 worked properly. Given the speedy deletion of the article on the AfD, that seems to be a non-starter. I'll give JzG the benefit of the doubt for the moment and hope that he undeletes the original article and sends it to AfD, but I will DRV this if he says no - this appears to be improper, and it seems like the multiple deletions are only creating confusion, since the article has enough information to save it from a speedy, but it keeps getting speedied anyway. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about....given the current article wouldn't survive AfD, you take the information that can be found in here, add some sources in userspace and take it to DRV, otherwise it would be a bit of a waste of time. I did take it to AfD myself as you hopefully noticed, and another editor recommended it for speedy as well. One Night In Hackney30319:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the article could survive AfD, I can't predict the future. It should have never been speedy deleted. I'll simply request the undeletion, and, failing that, it will go to DRV. --badlydrawnjefftalk19:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been substantially expanded and cited. If this has addressed your concerns, would you be willing to withdraw the nomination in light of the improvements to allow for a speedy close? Serpent's Choice09:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. It pisses me off no end when people create articles with "X is a singer" or "X is an astronaut" or whatever and no other content, without making any attempt at an actual article. Why should we care? Anyway, concerns now addressed and an actual article results, which is always good. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new admin here, brought in to participate in the edit dispute. I must confess that I do not understand this block. As I understand it, there is an edit dispute going on in Noah's Ark. User:Codex Sinaiticus, a proponent of Biblical literalism, has been disputing whether the article introduction and other elements are sufficiently neutral as to the truth of the Biblical account. As part of this dispute, he put a {{totallydisputed}} tag on the article. Following this, you blocked User:Codex Sinaiticus for "contentious editing".
I am concerned about this block in three respects. First, I believe that procedure calls for an administrator who is a party to an edit dispute on an article to bring in a neutral admin to initiate a block involving on another party as a result of that dispute. Secondly, because User:Codex Sinaiticus had participated in discussion on the edit dispute -- this is not a case of vandalism or complete disregard of the community -- and because the maintenance tag involved a legitimate indicator to mark the presence of a dispute, I do not understand how User:Codex Sinaiticus' use of the tag, even if wrong, was a violation of policy meriting a block. Thirdly, immediately after the block, edits that had been the subject of discussion, such as changing the introduction to characterize the Biblical account as a "story", were made to the article, and I honestly think that there is some arguable merit to the idea that this language makes the intro less neutral. Suggest that block requests go to an outside administrator not involved in the request. Also suggest that if the dispute is escalating to the point where people are losing their WP:COOL, we bring it to RfC or otherwise bring in some fresh eyes to take a look. Thanks! Best, --Shirahadasha15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Codex Sinaticus insists that the categories category:Abrahamic mythology and category:mythological ships are unacceptable. When the category mythological ships was reinserted he slapped a POV tag on the whole article. When his small edit, which involved adding one subjheading and removing the category again, was reverted, he slapped a {{totallydisputed}} tag on it - ion other owrds, an assertion that the difference between his edit and the version deemed quite acceptable to others, of a featrured article no less, was so enormously significant as to render the article both factually inaccurate and biased. He has been told repeatedly that his behaviour is disruptive and he has already been blocked at least once for edit warring. He is on the fast-track to sanctions unless he changes his behaviour radically in short order. I am not a party to the edit dispute, I hadno edits at all to that article prior to CS posting to the admin noticeboard to solicit action against Jim62sch, who has been trying patiently to get CS to calm down and act rationally. I know Jim well enough to be pretty sure that he would be in the right - he is not given to unnecessary warnings - so I went along to help. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the existence of the RfC about the categories, what's the problem with informing the public that a dispute exists? Do you believe the RfC is illegitimate? He appears to be following standard procedures, and would seem to be entitled to their benefit. Best, --Shirahadasha16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, i do not believe the RfC is illegitimate, but using aggressive editing in the article space rather than discussing the issues on the talk page is a problem. There is a long history here, my point, so the leash becomes shorter. Basically, Codex should know better and is therefore held to a higher standard. David D.(Talk)17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with David. Codex has a history of being disruptive and has pulled similar stunts in the past. A single category dispute does not justify repeatedly slapping on a large template, especially when one has done little effort to actually discuss the matter. JoshuaZ20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely that. His response is completely disproportionate to the scale of the dispute, and it also fails to reflect the emerging consensus on the talk page. Add to that a dose fo forum shopping and you have a textbook case of tendentious and disruptive editing. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to remove the redlinks - each of the people that is added to the list is sourced and will in due course have an article, also I am adding details or a summary bio to each of the redlinks.--Vintagekits17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source is almost certainly ineligible - self-published sources are acceptable in articles about themselves, but this article is not about that book, it's about members of the PIRA. There is no doubt that a hagiography of the PIRA will be both iredeemably biased and therefore unsuitable as a source, and also well out of, line with Wikipedia standards on the importance of individual members. It is, in short, an atrocious basis for an article. Start with those who have articles, and add only those for whom there is a realistic chance of independent sources existing. It's unliekly that the book will be wrong in asserting that a person explixitly identified as an IRA member was such, but the list is badly flawed in containing many individuals who were never members of the IRA as such. Overall, it gives a very strong impression of soapboxing. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one soapboxing and you are the one that hasnt got a clue what you are talking about. If you have such a poor grip of a subject then I politely suggest that you refrain from editing on those subject. As for "self-published sources" - who was it "self published" by? Your ignorance with regards this issue is deafening and also I suggest that if you cannot check your own bias as the door then you should not be using your powers as an admin to promote and incorrect and ignorant POV. --Vintagekits09:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice ad-hominem. Now back to the real world. The book is polemical, a clearly celebratory story of the IRA, and is not obviously a reliable source other than about itself. The article includes individuals whose notability appears not to be established outside of that single, highly biased source. I have no particular interest in celebrating the IRA or its "martyrs", and the article looks to me a lot like soapboxing. The fact that you seem intent on personalising the dispute suggests that you may have an emotional investment in the subject which may not be conducive to neutrality. Obviously you would prefer to recruit an admin who agrees with you, and you are welcome to do so if you can find one, but I will probably not lose interest in this just yet. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about "recruiting an admin who agrees with me" this is about your ignorant view of the book - which has been used as a source by what the likes of you would consider a "very reliable source" - you have not provided any evidence that the book is not a reliable source and as you are a self confessed British and Protestant admin then I dont think the you are neutral when discussing a group that was formed to defend itself from a British and Protestant militia - you have obviously swallowed all the British propaganda that you have been feed throughout your life and this is evidences by your above posts. Either stick ot the facts and check your own POV at the door or else I suggest you busy yourslef elsewhere. good day to you!--Vintagekits09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? "I have a thorough appreciation, he misunderstands, they misrepresent, you are ignorant". A history of the IRA designed for families of the IRA is not really what the community had in mind when they wrote WP:RS, and you have (and I can positively guarantee this) absolutely no idea whatsoever about my views on the history and politics of the Troubles. None at all. Although I will give you this for nothing: anyone, protestant or Catholic, who believes that killing is justified by territorial ambition, is not reading the same Bible as I am. Seems to me this discussion is at an end. You appear to have decided that I am wrong, evil, biased and biogoted, based on the fact that I disagree with you about this source. You view that as evidence of a problem in me, I view it as a problem in you. There is no real likelihood of that changing. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Showing your ignorance again 1. The book is not "A history of the IRA", 2. The book was not "designed for families of the IRA".--Vintagekits16:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand what you said - I just thought I would point out that everything you have said is factually incorrect and then go on to finish the conversation the full stop . --Vintagekits16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was think the same thing about you - the only difference is that I know what I am talking about and you regrugitate the propaganda you've been feed since you were a kid instead of actually bothering to find out the reality. I'm finished with you now and wont be replying.--Vintagekits16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. But you do not constitute a reliable source. The Observer is tolerably trustworthy, and it describes the book as "a 368-page tribute to every IRA member to die in Northern Ireland's Troubles" [2] - in other words, no discrimination in respect of notability (as I said), a blatantly partisan view (as I said) and its reliability is questionable as it claims membership for individuals who are explicitly not identified as members in other works which are considered authoritative.
Other portraits of dead IRA volunteers in Tirghra also contradict claims that several of the victims of loyalist terrorism were not involved in the IRA.
They include Danny Cassidy, a 40-year-old Sinn Fein election worker shot dead by the UDA in Co Derry on 2 April, 1992.
In the book Lost Lives, the definitive index of all the Ulster Troubles' dead, the authors mark Cassidy as a Catholic civilian. It quotes a priest at his funeral who said: '[Cassidy] was killed simply because he was a Catholic.'
But in Tirghra Cassidy is referred to as an 'oglach' - the Irish word for soldier and thus a Provisional IRA volunteer.
"Verifiability, not truth" as they say. Where is your source to contradict this view by The Observer's Ireland editor? Here's a source for the idea that the primary intended audience was the families of the dead: [3]. Now of course these sources coule be wrong, or I could be mistaken in my reading of them, but certainly not to the extent of justifying your tirade above. At the very worst this is a disagreement over interpretation of sources, but actually it looks to me form the external evidence as if you are pushing a barrow. One thing's for sure, tributes to dead terrorists written in uncritical commemoration of their acts are not generally going to be viewed by the Wikipedia community as reliable sources. Scholarly analysis and critical review is much preferred to polemic, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had contacted you a couple of months ago regarding the article I posted for Rosati-Kain High School: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosati-Kain_High_School . I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and I have been unable to find an answer to the following questions anywhere else on Wikipedia and I was hoping you might be able to help. If this is not your area of knowledge, I don't wish to bother you, but if you do know the answers, I would be very grateful.
I have been researching a few other schools in the area and I have found several of them to have articles on Wikipedia. These articles are linked to what I understand to be a "stub" article on schools in Missouri. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high_schools_in_Missouri . My question is, how can I make the listing of Rosati-Kain a link to this "stub"? Several of the schools listed have articles that link to the name of their schools on this list, and I would like to do the same with ours, but I have been unable to do so.
In addition, I have noticed that several schools similar to ours have pages that seem to present the same type of information as ours does, however, they do not have the "factual accuracy disputed" label. Here is an example of one, though there are several others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnate_Word_Academy_%28Bel-Nor%2C_Missouri%29 . I have several sources I could cite, but none of them are online, so I could not include links to the original references when I created the article. But, if other schools are not required to include the same such references, why are we?
I am certainly not trying to get away with anything that is not within Wikipedia policies, and I am not trying to make an arguement out of it either. I guess I am just curious as to how these policies specifically apply to schools, since it seems as though my article does not do anything that other Missouri high schools aren't doing already with their articles. Yet, we are labelled "disputed" for it.
I would recommend you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, where you will find many editors who have considerable experience in related articles and who will be motivated to help you. Please let me know if they aren't helpful, but I'm sure they will be. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like your rationale as to why you decided to delete the Fascist Wikipedians user category. Are you also planning on deleting the Communist Wikipedians user category? Did you read the debate that went on a month earlier, in which the decision was made to keep? Algabal06:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? The most recent decision regarding the category was keep, and Billy Ego was only one member of the debate. Algabal06:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to insist on an offensive polemical category on your user page? Feel free. I hope you don't get arbcommed for it. Guy (Help!) 06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what does this have to do with anything? I'm simply asking for your rationale as to why you deleted the page, and what in the world this has to do with Billy Ego. Algabal06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously, I have no idea what a discussion on banning an abusive user has to do with deleting a user category which the community previously decided to keep. I genuinely want to know. Algabal07:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I think this is much necessary (I think the situation seems to be under control), but here's some actual "facts" regarding the category:
The result of this UCFD discussion was delete. (And raised concerns of misuse and abuse, which had already occurred.)
This discussion was a group nomination of politics categories, and Fascist Wikipedians was only kept as part of the group, even though there were several who had issues with it.
This discussion is the best, though, and is part of why the category was deleted in the first place. It makes it rather clear that this is "something made up in school one day".
And now, considering the arbcomm case, I think it's fair to say that this category should be deleted and salted. So, though as I mentioned above it's not needed, I Support the deletion of this category by User:JzG. - jc3709:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please outline those issues, as I see none which are not also inherent in the Communism user cat. I'm afraid the reason for your decision to delete the category is still totally unclear. You first cited an irrelevant decision to ban a disruptive user, and then someone else cited several decisions to delete, including one which was totally irrelevant (American Fascist Movement, huh?), ignoring the most recent which was to keep. Algabal04:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Jc on this. Fascist Wikipedians was judged as an equal to the other categories. There was almost no one in the third debate that endorsed the keeping of all but Fascist Wikipedians. There were some global-deletes, and more global-keeps. This one gets to stay, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker17:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and while I don't necessarily agree due to the larger issues, I don't necessarily disagree with your perspective in relation to the recent closure. - jc3707:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
American Fascist Movement was made up in school one day, but I fail to see how this means the category in question is made up in connection to that when Wikipedians can be fascist in general. Or how the arbcom case shows this category is disruptive by itself. Take it to DRV again? –Pomte17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best thing to do would be to ask Guy to restore it in order to nominate for discussion at WP:UCFD. If he does, I would also ask him to comment at that discussion about the concerns in relation to the arbcom discussion. - jc3707:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you commented in this AfD quite some time ago, so I thought I'd bring this to your attention. There's a rather large conflict of interest here, details of which I've documented here rather than overburden your talk page. Some of them do seem vaguely notable, but I look at Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) and think there's something rather wrong going on here. I'm involved in a dispute with this editor about another matter so don't want to start mass nominating articles for deletion, so how do you suggest this is handled best? I've already made a report on the COI noticeboard regarding the autobiography, but I think the whole walled garden might need a good look at. Thanks. One Night In Hackney30314:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, one slice at a time! Just if you look here the accusations of bad faith are flying thick and fast, and I'm concerned that any nominations by me will not be looked on in a positive light. One Night In Hackney30320:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate your help. I am the web director for a company called Xyience. I have a wiki username Tk421lj and had recent updated an article on Wikipedia about my company.
It appears that you recently deleted the article. When I originally created the article, I just wanted to provide the facts about the company. I tried to create a non-biased article that was based on fact. That article has recently been modified by someone who is trying to slander the company. Rather than stating the facts, this person is using Wikipedia for personal gain and self promotion. He has written sensational, tabloid style articles about the company and is posting them on the internet. He is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote his tabloid internet blogs. I have since removed his slander from the Wiki article, but he continues to modify and update the article with content that is not acceptable for a Wiki article.
What can I do about this? I would like to have a Wikipedia approved article about the company on the site, but I don't want to get into fighting with this guy. Is there anything that can be done, and what do you reccomend.
Thanks for your help.
LJ Jones
lj@xyience.com
Web Director
Xyience Inc.
10650 West Charleston Blvd.
Suite 110
Las Vegas, Nevada 89135
www.xyience.com
866.XYIENCE XT 5424 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.241.54.146 (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speaking of the spammer, you might add Gastrich's cybersquatting of Michael Newdow's name to a list of spam. Here's a list of his sock puppet activity at that article:
With reference to various comments you made here. I'm not particularly bothered about that article, as it's been a fiasco ever since it was created and I'd probably be happier if it didn't exist at all. However I've some comments on its reliability in other articles.
Danny Cassidy is also named as an ex-IRA member at the Sutton Index, which is a comprehensive and reliable source. Tírghrá doesn't state he was an IRA member at the time of his death, it actually states:
While still in his teens Danny became involved in the Republican Movement and was a Volunteer in the Kilrea unit in South Derry.
During the 70's and into the 80's Danny remained faithful to the republican cause and during the Hunger Strikes he was a committed member of his local H.Block/Armagh Committee.
After numerous arrests Danny was remanded in custody in 1983 and subsequently released. The Brirtish Army then began a campaign of harassment against him. At this time Danny was a member of the local Sinn Féin Cumann.
As you're no doubt aware, IRA membership is quite a secretive affair. I'm sure you're also aware the Republican movement likes to maximise propaganda. Therefore it would be in the movement's interests to portray Cassidy as a civilian, even ignoring that in the eyes of Loyalist paramilitaries (and Ken Maginnis) the IRA and Sinn Féin are one and the same anyway.
While it is true the book was initially limited circulation, it is now available from Sinn Féin and Amazon. Note that the Guardian says the book is hardback, whereas the general release on Amazon is listed as paperback, which I can confirm as I have a copy.
The book is only generally used in other articles for confirming information such as date and place of birth and other background information, which is permitted under WP:V as far as I can see.
I am curious about how you determine whether someone is "unremarkable" in carrying out your deletion policy since it's hard to know who is and is not important in a field other than your own. I actually see quite a number of listings under the Linguists category that are for not overly remarkable people and where the pages do not seem to demonstrate that the person is remarkable. So I am wondering if that is the real reason my page was deleted. Actually the Wikipedia policies are far from clear in that it is not obvious what kind of evidence you need that a person is remarkable (or not). Sproat17:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the main, notable people are written about by others, not themselves, and when autobiographies of genuinely notable individuals which nonetheless make no claim to notability are deleted they are not usually re-created verbatim by single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at editing/contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not sure where to put responses to messages about why the Goldstein Gallery page shoudl be deleted. So I'm placing this message on this page because I want to respond to something that Guy asserted in his comments. He suggested that the artifact analysis was probably lifted from some catalogue description. I want to assert that this is not true. This artifact description, and descriptions of other artifacts that I would like to somehow include in Wikipedia are the original analytical work of my upper division college students in the clothing design and clothing retailing programs. They perform these analyses as a service to the Goldstein Gallery to help the GG learn about its accessions and as practice for the kind of work some of them will do professionally as early as two months from now when they graduate. Dr. Hazel A. Lutz Lutz001300:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites which is so self-evidently important that the article would be
incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a
print source, say)." My position is like Clinton's on abortion - it should be legal and rare. Specifically we should judge links on a case by case basis with attack pages and sites almost never linked to but not mindlessly repeatedly removed while blocking all discussion and people who think they see an exception. I am against mindlessness in all cases. There is a decade old fight between Daniel Brandt and Chip Berlet, their positions of power at wikipedia are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, and this imbalance has affected the NPOV of wikipedia. NPOV is more important that allowing editors to use wikipedia as a battleground. How should wikipedia habdle such a think. Well, the below is the example you asked for. Other ways of dealing with this and other similar cases are possible, but ruling out the below mindlessly simply institutionalized bias. WAS 4.25014:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's Public Information Research (PIR) advisory board, including Chip Berlet, resigned over a dispute concerning another board member, L. Fletcher Prouty, and the republishing of Prouty's book The Secret Team.<ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected", Cambridge, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates, 1991. See Berlet's version of events at [http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html Political Research Associates' ''The Public Eye''] article ''Other Right-Wing Groups and the Gulf War'' (no by-line and no publication date) and Brandt's version of events at the Wikipedia Review website, Wikimedia Discussion section, General Discussion subsection, title: "''A general question regarding Brandt and WP: NPA, One rule for one?''", Post #13 by Daniel Brandt on 7th December 2006, 10:39pm </ref> WAS 4.25014:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just made my point for me. An argument not discussed or sourceable outside of the parties' sites does not look to me like content which is unambiguously valid for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the barnstar. I'm glad you like my script and if you need any help with it (or have any suggestions), don't hesitate to ask. ^demon[omg plz]18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
howdy JzG, you may recall the previous series of AfD's on Ali Sina and the subsequent deletion review, where the topic of the article Faith Freedom International was also brought up. you commented there that Karl Meier had provided reliable secondary sources demonstrating substantial, non-trivial, mention. myself and a number of other editors have recently called this into question per the article's heavy reliance upon primary sources (see sections here, here, here and lastly here for examples of discussion). i would like your input as to whether the links provided do meet WP:WEB criteria, or whether they fall short, because frankly productive discussion has hit a brick wall. thank you. ITAQALLAH20:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In future maybe you would want to base your comments on facts instead of opinion.
Hi! I created the banquet photography page and the website to gruberphotographers was not a link to "my" site b/c I am not a photographer. I just found their site helpful since they specialize in banquet photography. I put up some more info and pics b/c I hadn't had a chance a few days ago. Let me know if it needs anything else. Thanks! Emily —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drennae (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I generally agree with you on issues of notability. That is, I think you have a very good eye for identifying unsalvageable crap. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of entries in Category:Video games that warrant curt dismissal as fanservice. This one is different, methinks, because it covers a game which could have a dramatic effect on the industry, or at least become a footnote in the development of the fastest growing videogame market, MMOG. No, the article in its state prior to nomination did not reflect this notion, and yes, Wikipedia needs another game guide like you need someone to petition for a stay of execution for a videogame article, but there is potential here. ˉˉanetode╦╩03:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This wikipedia stuff is starting to take up too much time! Thanks for your efforts to keep things in line.
I'm working to keep a listing for the organization I work for up to date and accurate. It appears that there has been some acrimony with a few individuals and the Wall Watchers organization in particular. They seem to believe that we are not "Christian" enough to use that word in our name.
I've tried to correct some problems with the page by editing it, but it was reverted. I just posted a list of items on the talk page that outline issues with bias and inaccurate footnote/links.
Here are the details:
"As Assistant Director for Interactive Communications for CCF, I have been working with my team to monitor our listing on Wikipedia. Soupy is another employee in my department, and we have both been working on this task. That is why there are two accounts associated with our domain.
There are some factual errors and biased implications that are of concern to us:
1 - "In 2005, CCF reported $20.6 million in advertising expenses & 13.7 million in management expenses for 13 board members [1]" - This sentence implies that we pay our board. The fact is that our entire board serves on a voluntary, unpaid basis. Furthermore, the footnote does not relate to the sentence. The sentence is correct on the spending for advertising and spending for management expenses. However, it should not relate management expenses to board members. I'd like the sentence to include the fact that all board members are unpaid volunteers.
2 - The contributor to this page selects one out of about five rating organizations to state "CCF does rank considerably lower in efficiency than other charities receiving only 3/5 stars [2]." This is a biased statement that does not reflect ratings from other organizations. The footnote links to a page that does not exist - HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. We would like our rankings from other organizations including BBB, AIP and Interaction to be included to provide the full picture.
3 - The contributor includes the following information - "Upon pledging support, a donor is provided a packet of information on a specific child who is allegedly receiving food, medical care & education on behalf of the donor." The use of the term "allegedly" is biased and actually factually incorrect. We do indeed provide information on a real child in real programs receiving real benefits.
4 - In a recurring theme, the following statement is included and footnoted to an article that has no relevance to the statement - "CCF claims that they do in fact associate a specific child with a specific donor, but in practice this level of service is difficult and costly to implement [3]"
5 - How does the following statement use a footnote reference to a Human Rights Watch article on Child Soldiers in Uganda? "While CCF's fundraising advertising attempts to address this by only showing the single mother case, this is contrary to the demographics of developing countries where mothers have an average of 3.7 children (2003) [4]." The HRW report has no reference to demographics of developing countries.
6 - Instead of referring to an anonymous "spokesperson for the group" we would like the person's name to be included. The "spokesperson for the group" was our former Communications Director, Toni Radler.
We would also like to add a section on Accountability to inform on our validation tools and standardized reporting mechanisms.
There is clearly strong bias against CCF in the current content. We are simply requesting that the items above be reviewed and that we then be allowed to make appropriate changes. The fact that several statements are not even related to the footnote links is a problem. If a statement is made with the appearance of being a fact, provide the reference."
If you have any ideas, let me know how you think I might best proceed.
Microsoft undoubtedly needs the exposure of a Wikipedia article to help it to become, in time, as significant as Alientrap, which is, as you know, a household name. Or is that the other way round? Guy (Help!) 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need to take that to the user comments and smileys Wikiproject and get it approved using form 27/4b section 5 subsection 2. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I am supposed to sustain my sense of righteous indignation if you insist on injecting reason and moderation into the discussion.[12]Tom HarrisonTalk01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for doing the RfA! We'll see how it goes. One minor correction: I have neither legal background nor training. Other than that, I think it's good to go. Thanks, William Pietri04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a somewhat timesensitive related matter that I'd like to email you about. However, the email will need to be CCed to another admin and non-Wikipedian whom I trust (the reasons for this should be apparent in the email). Do you mind having your email address included in this fashion? JoshuaZ05:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, homemade flan should be in order. Hope you can eat dairy products!!! Cary BassdemandezHere is some delicious Cuban flan for the outstanding job you're doing on keeping biographies decent! Cary Bassdemandez
A7 doesn't cover radio shows. Knowing that you can't divulge OTRS issues in detail, is there a specific thing that needs to be avoided in the future, since we should have an article on this? --badlydrawnjefftalk20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, you should sign up for OTRS. You'd be good with the courtesy and some other queues. Seriously. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's an issue with having a spam article on a generic Christian prayer show posted by a single purpose account and then continuously reposted after deletion by three separate admins under at least two titles. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you mentioned an OTRS issue in one of your deletion summaries about it - I assume this means that there's no issue with an article being created other than the fact that it may have read spammy to you? Was the OTRS thing an error? --badlydrawnjefftalk21:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several problems. The article is spammy, it was posted by a single purpose account, it has previously been subject to edit warring, the subject wants to maintain it as promotion and someone else wants to maintain it as a hatchet job. It is not worth the trouble. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would only leave three problems: deliberately and self-consciously rewarding a spammer; reintroducing an article that attracts pretty much only partisan edits and attracts complaints whenever it strays from hagiography; and wasting time that would be better spent on an article with some objective merit. Oh, and gratuitously pissing me off. So that's four. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this is notable. It has been on TV for over 4 years, including 1 year on national television, and he has been on the Howard Stern show 3 times.
If only someone with edits outside of this subject thought so, and it was supported by non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do so love the moral certainties of fundies. The only thing funnier is watching them quote Christ's berating of the Pharisees without noticing the irony. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing how much you enjoy dealing with all this, can I get some input here please. Note that I'm arguing for fully sourced (in my opinion anyway) content that portrarys Adams in a more negative light adding back to the article, not what you might expect! One Night In Hackney30321:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But no other news source has picked up on it, and there does not seem to be any kind of external interest. The number of hits is tiny, it does not appear in books of notable cases as far as I can see, we don't even know if he's still alive. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, it's just that I can imagine online sources being somewhat scarce for it. If it had happened in the last 5-10 years no doubt there would be 1000s of sources for it. One Night In Hackney30320:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user, for example, wants an section removed because [13] "implication that this is somehow LBU's fault that one of its (possibly) former students is claiming to have a degree in a program not offered."
So his new user is claiming that Robert Morey may not be a student and could be falsely claiming this. Thus, this user is arguing for a conspiracy without proof into order to remove material cited from the OC Weekly. I tried to talk to this user on the talk page and his talk page. However, more tags (advanced tags) by this new user got added as the reasons because less convincing.
I have an interest in many articles, especially controversial articles; specifically, improving and/or contributing to them, and ensuring that said articles do not contain OR or synthesis. I have also added other redirects (e.g., Scopes Trial book). I did not know others have tried this before for LBU. Is there a problem with redirecting LBU to the Louisiana Baptist University article? If so, I apologize. I don't recall adding a {{totally-disputed}} anywhere. I was merely subjecting the LBU article to scrutiny, especially since it seemed to be dedicated to a single aspect: LBU is not accredited. In one case, I did commit the gaffe of not noticing one of the references had multiple pages, and I apologized profusely about that. I really don't have any opinion on whether the article itself should stay or go, but if it stays, it should meet wikipedia standards. Since I am not an expert at interpreting these standards, and also because even if they are violated, such violations can be addressed without wholesale deleting, I add tags and bring up issues in the discussion page. I have been wrong more than once, but have probably been right more than once. I tried to have a civil tone with Arbustoo. But I can see that he is annoyed. Therefore, I decided to stop editing the LBU article and hope things calm down by tomorrow. Please AGF. ImprobabilityDrive05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is this standard operating procedure to intimate that users are sockpuppets? Another user insinuated that I was a sockpuppet of User:Gnixon. Hostile place, wikipedia. Live and learn. ImprobabilityDrive05:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happens a lot when brand new users come along displaying extensive knowledge of Wikipedia tags and syntax and pick up on controversial articles. Very occasionally they are not sockpuppets of blocked or banned users. Guy (Help!) 07:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BITE . . ;) . . More to the point, from a first glance at the article it seems to be an attack page playing fast and loose with statements from rather unreliable or indirect sources, so a critical review should be welcome. Sensitivities in this area are appreciated, and no doubt LBU deserves the criticism, but it should be well supported. Good luck to all, .. dave souza, talk08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the major problem is that with this kind of place the sources fall into two categories: uncritical adulation, and debunkers. The mainstream is simply not interested. Guy (Help!) 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very valid point, but another problem as shown here is that in at least one case the article went far beyond or misrepresented the cited source. This sort of problem can arise very easily, and I'd hope that all concerned can work together to make sure that statements are as well founded as possible. Ta, .. dave souza, talk14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've been slightly unfair on me on ANI, as I'm not involved in the current dispute there at all. My sole involvement with the article to date was back in January/February when I added some sources, then got into a slight disagreement with Squeakbox over whether he was a "disgraced politican" or "former politician". I was briefly involved in the discussion in February about the move, and concurred that Jeffrey Archer was the correct place in my opinion. But I've not been near the article since February 10, other than to try and prevent the current (and lengthy) move war. One Night In Hackney30321:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have, and if so I apologise, but my point was about the wider dispute that the four of you seem to be having. Maybe you are trying to moderate, I don't know, but mediation is certainly justified here because a fight is brewing between some or all of those named. I am given to oversimplifying complex issues, so I could be wrong, but that's how it seems to me. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not be involved in any disputes at all, as they always involve wasting time discussing things when time could be used far more productively. I'm not involved in the ongoing debacle over the use of Ulster Banner in articles, I'm not involved in the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, I'd rather get done what needs doing. Do you want to see some of my excellent contributions?
Guy, you have been bang out of order with me ever since I came across you and to be honest I am getting a bit p'ed off with it. You seem to think that because you are admin you can say and do what you want. I would appricate I you acted in accordance with the power that has been accorded to you have have a bit of respect. To drag my name into the "Lord Archer" debate is misleading and bang out of order - its got feck all to do with me. If you dont agree with republicanism then that is fine but you are not entitle to harass me because of your political and religous POV.--Vintagekits22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you say. But your advocacy of a polemical source that conflicts with more reliable sources is a problem, and the problem has been noted by numerous editors. Mediation is thataway -----> Guy (Help!) 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we got to the bottom of that one and proved that the source that I was using was the correct one! on ya trot!--Vintagekits22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Verifiability, not truth". Where most sources agree, we go with most sources, noting any disputes along the way. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, your blocking the entire Larry Gluck article without using any deletion administrative process sure looks like vandalism to me. Are you abusing you power as an admin?--Fahrenheit45118:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy - Fahrenheit451 is a good guy (though not Guy), a good contributor and on the side of the angels and Wikipedia. I've pointed out to him that living bios are by far our biggest headache, so a certain snappishness is more or less policy. I've also suggested he ask you for help with living bios, because you're one of our really good living bio attack dogs ;-) He edits in areas where clearly bad faith editors are unfortunately frequent, so I hope you can forgive him his lapses as he can forgive yours ;-) - David Gerard01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For absolutely no reason other than trying to cheer you up a little :) Have a beautiful day, dear Guy! Love, Phaedriel - 07:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the page. Please don't ignore other admin's judgement and merrily speedily delete away, particularly when a valid AFD was underway. The content was not the same as that which existed previously, I was asked to move the temporary page that had been worked on for over a month into the article space, and agreed that it deserved a fair whack. If you wish it deleted, use AFD - speedy deletion is not appropriate. Neil (►) 11:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ignore other admins' judgement - it has been deleted enough time that the ones restoring are the ones doing that. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comments re Endal (dog) rfd. Endal is currently an exhibit in the Animal's War exhibition in the Imperial war museum http://north.iwm.org.uk/server/show/conEvent.1409
He today has had 300 film crews from around the world film him, currently a movie is being made about our story. If you live in the UK on Sunday in the issue of the newspaper The Star, Take Five supplement is an article about Endal
I really can't fathom what it is a dogs needs to do to be considered more famous. The UK Times Newspaper listed Endal in the top ten most famous dog of all history. He has launched Crufts in 2004, been one of five hero dogs presented to an audiance of 18 million at Crufts in 2005
Do you want to take a look at the recent history of Nick Gulas and block pretty much every account (excluding me obviously) that's edited it in the last week as a sockpuppet please? I've just had to get it undeleted by the deleting admin but he's not as familiar was Barber as you, so I doubt he'll be keen on blocking. Thanks. One Night In Hackney30322:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can get the CheckUser folks to block the proxies? The Open Proxy CheckUser has stood there since the 25th of last month. Thanks :) SirFozzie00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, it's a not insignificant part of many people's lives. Simply because the action is taken at a distance while the person is typing text into a computer does not remove it as a part of our "real lives".
Do you consider only things that "matter" to be real life? If you do, then how do you determine what it is that "matters"? (What you care about is not what most others care about - especially if those others are naval gazers.)
I especially find it disturbing that you consider it important enough to post "Hell yes. It makes the Wikipedia community look like a bunch of shallow vindictive bastards at worst and obsessive navel-gazers at best.", but that it shouldn't be important enough for others to want to oust someone.
Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53
Have you seen my contribution history? I think I can afely say I am one of the more active people on the project, and I absolutely stand by what I said at that time. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are fair-use images no longer allowed to use this template? The main objection to the template, I thought, was that it was being misused to protect fair-use images that were not linked to mainspace articles (that is, they were used on User pages, or truly orphaned). But what about fair-use images that are linked, but by text and not directly? Does this mean that all fair-use images must be directly linked to a mainspace article, and that text-linking for fair-use images is not allowed? I've looked at the fair-use criteria at WP:NONFREE, and I don't see that mentioned anywhere. I'm just trying to understand this, because it seems to me that there is a legitimate use for {{notorphan}} applied to fair-use images. What needs to be changed is the abuse of the template, not its coverage. --ShelfSkewedtalk06:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfree images can only be used under a fair-use rationale. The deletion debate for the template makes it pretty clear that use in the case of unfree images is problematic, to say the least. We cannot have this template used to keep unfree images not actively used in article space. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that when I go to Image:Mr. Saxon new trailer.jpg I see that the uploader initially gave a relatively low quality image and then uploaded a higher quality image over the top of it. The lower quality image is more in keeping with our non-free image criteria (though there are still problems). If possible I'd like to revert to the older image but I can't see how to do that. --Tony Sidaway09:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That did not work well. I hit the revert version link, which looks as if it ought to do the needful, and it created a blank image... I'll re-upload the low res version. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person who started the Eep MfD and just added evidence on the RfC you opened. I have never participated in a RfC/User before and am willing to certify, but am frankly uncertain if adding evidence is enough. If I need to do something else, could you please let me know (and sorry for not knowing the procedure). Thanks, Ruhrfisch15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have tried and failed to resolve the issue then you should sign that section; if you endorse the evidence then sign that. I think it is likely we will have enough people to ensure the case is addressed. I am not in favour of a rigid format, so sign where you add, agree where you agree, and add views (e.g. types of problem behaviour) where you see them. People will refactor if there's a problem with where you put stuff. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see it, of course, or I would have commented. Sadly I can't even hope to keep on top of the deletion noms for utter tripe these days, there is so much of it. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed the historical inaccuracies at great length and apparently achieved some sort of a compromise. You barge in and take away the entire section without even attempting to discuss the matter on the discussion page. I find that behaviour rude. I have reverted the article. -Sensemaker
Yup, because it was OR and because you gratuitously forked it. You could always ry citing reliable secondary sources who address the issue. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You reworded the 'criticism' section removing proper nouns as well as changing the reason for the investigation while keeping the citations, saying it was more accurate. How in? Normalphil02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a source citation on the above claiming WP:RS. Reading the page cited, it states that it is a guideline, not policy. Further, the page cited was maintained by the unit's veteran's organization. AFIK, that makes it a primary source.--Lepeu199912:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, and what we need is reliable secondary sources, not Geocities sites that say they are maintained by primary sources. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - which is why I have the additional citation of the Leach book - a published secondary source. Given the WP - as quoted here
"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
Given that Leach is a reputable secondary source (it's the official Division History sanctioned by the US Army) and given that the primary source in question is the actual veterans association for the field arty regiment - and it is, discounting it because they use Geocities to host seems to me unfair - then the amalgamation of the 2 seems to be an example of the encouraged standard rather then a violation of it. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just discussing. I'm making an issue of it only because the peer review from the Mil Hist project recommended a wider range of source material - and there are less out there then you'd think at this level of granularity. I'd like to be able to keep it in.--Lepeu199914:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, the intersection of Geocities sites and reliable sources is pretty damn small. I'll look into it more though. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, two folks went to war on an articles, and it kinda looks like both sides are using confirmed sockpuppets, and it's spilled over to WP:CN. It may be a "pox on all your houses" type situation, the primary users are User:JRod2 and User:Mike Sorensen. Both sides have taken it to my talk page (one after a question on how CN discussions work, the other asking to see his side of things). If you could take a look, and decide what needs to be done? (Maybe both sides take it down to one and only one account, and both let known if the edit war continues, it's up the DR tree and to ArbCom, maybe? SirFozzie14:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to block Jrod2 and his socks as well, but I can't find evidence of the kind of overlapping edits seeking to pretend to greater support that I see from the other guy. Actually I suspect that Mike Sorensen is OK really, but has been pushed over the brink by a tedious spammer - that's how it looks anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an unblock of Mike Sorensen, and a final warning to both jrod and Mike Sorensen to solve their issues and work together with NO MORE SOCKPUPPETS, or off to ArbCom (who will look at these shenanigans with even more of a jaundiced eye then we do?), or if there is further sockpuppeting, just simply being invited to leave, period? SirFozzie15:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, before you decide that I have made a spam, please see what I posted on February 28, 2007. [17] That's all I can find. I erased everything. There is no "spam" after that date. And, If I had wanted to spam WP, why would I leave the name of the person who wrote the article on? Or, even sign my own username? See: [18] Is this behavior consistent with someone who spams WP? It was a mistake, I was a total newbie. Why can't you believe me? Is this behavior consistent with someone who spams WP? Yes, I had Evinatea, but after that, I had to stop using it, please check contribs [19], notice that I used the Evinatea account one more time just to give thanks a kind supporter. If you find time I beg of you to read the incident report [20]. Thanks for your attention.Jrod216:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing you should know about Mike Sorensen. I gave him a chance for the second time (As Jrod2) to explain why the article had always the same interviewer so, I asked Mike Sorensen if he could provide more interviews, not by The G-Man, but by other known and reputable journalists, supporting Art Sayecki views on the subject of "Artmastering" (See [21]), he accused me of making a personal attack against him and Scott G, "The G-Man” (See: [22]).
He next accused me of being a "sock puppet account" of another user. This unknown user came in that day to apologize to Mike Sorensen for being rude to him in the past (See: [23]) and to respectfully request that article not be included on the mastering page again. (See:
[24])
Believe me, I was not attacking anyone. I was only making inquiries to establish that the mastering engineer and his studio, Art Sayecki, has proven notability and not placed on the page for pure financial gain. he unleashed his puppets and attacked me. Did he acted in good faith? You can read the whole story about this article he wanted in the audio mastering page here See: [25]).
I apologize, I won't be ranting on your page anymore.Jrod216:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jrod2, I believe you, but your actions in pursuit of Mike Sorensen have been very disruptive, and we really do not need your fight here. Please make nice with him, or simply avoid him. If you think he's doing Bad Things, call the cavalry. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Guy, You are a fair man and you are also a kind man. One can tell. I could talk to you about anything, make discussions, probably for hours and we'd get along just fine. That's why you are a good admin. However, You are also a bit too trusting in "Biggy P" a/k/a "Mike Sorensen". Let me just say, this was not your ordinary sock puppeteer. He was a masterful sock puppeteer at it. A brilliant person, highly intelligent being who chose dwelling in the dark side. An antagonizer you could loose your sleep over. The main difference between a good nature person from a arrogant one, is how you conduct yourself from initial contact. It's all about "Power of Intent"... "In Life, Be always clean to your connection to source" (Wayne Dyer). Alright enough of mystics.
You are right. I misbehaved too. That's because, no one before had treated me so disrespectfully and have ever driven me over the edge like this user. Example. Here is March 5, 2007. I am not even a week old user, still learning WP as I go, but already participating in discussions with other editors at the audio mastering talk page (See:[26] Then Mike shows up out of the blue and says this [27], then "Biggy P" joins him [[28] says that I am "attacking Mike", this is my response: [29], then his meat puppet cohort joins him on cue and says: [30], then "Mike" puts a checkuser on me, because, some IP address guy (71.108.230.46) thought that I was correct with my answers to them: [31]. Holy macro! So, almost one month later and at that point, no longer able of being "Evinatea" in the discussions anymore, (Because of Mike), I am still giving this guy the benefit of the doubt. We are having new discussions going again, so I made one more relevant important question for the consideration to include, once and for all, that damn "Artmastering" article, so here is how he responds: [32], Oh, c'mon, it's totally unacceptable! Needless to say, he brings the sock puppets, meat puppets and the muppets all over again to do another edit war. Trust me, you would really get fed up and start getting erratic and crazy yourself. It was an impossible situation to be in. But why? All I can say to you, is that there were hidden agendas there. Would you ever trust Mike or Biggy P?
It has to be said, that I left out, but I really should have reported it, this other Biggy P sock puppet "User:MasterChemical" Here is the evidence: [[33]]. Interested in busting this one up as well?
Just one more thing, because I am still learning. You wrote: "Please make nice with him, or simply avoid him". So, does this mean that he is not being blocked and he'll be back to be "Mike" and Biggy soon? All I need now, is his wrath. Are you Cavalry? Thanks for any further input you might have, and BTW, rest assure, you did the right thing. Best. --Jrod204:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I considered you to be displaying "Crass stupidity". Let's be bluntly honest here, you are a little person pretending to be a big person. Here is another one just like you: Guy's Twin. EnviroGranny
JzG, please justify your speedy deletion of the 'Men in skirts' article. Clause G4 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion applies only if an article has already been deleted by the Articles for Deletion process, and the recreated article is essentially the same. As far as I am aware, from the article history and talk page, the 'Men in skirts' article had not been through the AfD process. Even if it had, it is highly unlikely that the article you deleted was essentially the same, because of the amount of editing that had taken place recently. Man in a skirt21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy with your response. It is uncooperative and uncivil, as are your recent comments on the talk page of another user. I've raised both these matters on WP:AN/I. Man in a skirt21:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the deleted article and it's pretty clearly recreated content... the article names do not have to be the same, the wording doesn't have to be the same... all that matters is that the intent is the same, and this general theme has been through AfD already. It's not notable enough to get an article of its own regardless of title. ++Lar: t/c21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you claim that the general theme has been through AFD already. Lar or JzG: What is the title of the article (other than "Men in skirts" itself) that was deleted, so that I can read the rationale for the original deletion? JzG: Is there a reason why you did not specify the original article's title in the deletion log entry? I am watching this talk page. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How simple would it be for an arrangement to be created where both groups of editors currently in dispute mutually agree to refrain from nominating or voting in Arbuthnot (or Irish republican, but there haven't been any of those for a while) related AfD debates, so rather than (allegedly) partisan editors voting (and arguing in the case of Vintagekits and others) and muddying the waters, a clear consensus from editors who aren't involved is gained? Would that be easily enforceable?
I've put details of the partisan voting here. I will voluntarily agree to this right now, but I think some editors may need a slight nudge to get them to agree. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney30321:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that avoiding each other, or some kind of truce, is an excellent idea. Also, seeing if you can work together on a subject on which you have partial agreement, and see if you can come to respect each other as editors and accommodate your differences. This sounds like motherhood and apple pie, but it's incredibly difficult to do and can make for some excellent content, which reflects all sides of a difficult issue fairly. Some of our content on the Arab-Israeli conflict is like this. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is good. You and he are both valued contributors, I am really happy that my fears look to have been unfounded. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very one sided statement of partisan voting by ONIH. Actually I don't have a problem with agreeing to stay off IRA people if VK leaves my articles alone entirely and ONIH discusses rather than afd. I can't speak for anyone else. - Kittybrewster (talk)22:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated on your talk page, I'm not denying partisan voting has occurred on both sides, but I'm slightly too busy to compile the evidence for you as well. And focussing on the past and arguing about it defeats the object of what I'm trying to accomplish. One Night In Hackney30322:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I'm finding it very hard to assume good faith when you write things like:
Bastun. Has engaged in minor disruptive editing on Irish republicanism related articles.
Bastun - Keep per RHB and Nunh-huh - standard pile-on vote.
Bastun - Keep per Mgm, Billreid and BHG - again, typical pile-on vote.
Bastun - Keep per BHG and Aspenocean - typical pile-on vote from Bastun as normal.
and fail to note under your Martin McCaughey entry:
Weak keep Vintagekits' #4 and #7 above would appear to be notable. However, the article still needs work....
or as I mentioned elsewhere my keep vote on Bernadette Sands McKevitt (the Afd archive of which seems to have disappeared).
I presume the "disruptive editing" to which you refer is the List of members of the Irish Republican Army debacle where I engaged in extensive discussion and moved (rather than deleted) the redlinks to an appropriate project page where they could worked on. One editor from that project objected and undid that work, despite knowing many of the redlinks and even bluelinks led to the wrong person. Yet this is precisely akin to what others have proposed to User:Kittybrewster in regard to the Arbuthnot articles - i.e., prepare a good article first before publishing it to mainspace. BastunBaStun not BaTsun23:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So really what you're saying is if I'm voting "against" your side, it should be noted that I'm "partisan" but if I'm voting "for" your side (at the same time as the others are voting against) it should be discounted. How selective. Again, for the record, I vote according to policy. I wasn't "votestacking" when I voted to keep certain of the Arbuthnot articles, I merely saw no reason to repeat what other editors had already said in regard to policy.
Nonetheless, especially given the day that's in it (er, well, yesterday, now!), I do think your proposal is constructive and is definitely worth consideration. Would be interested to hear from the likes of Vintagekits, though. BastunBaStun not BaTsun23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I tried, and despite the best efforts of myself and Kittybrewster the dispute cannot be solved as you will see from his talk page. I am now voluntarily withdrawing from all aspects of this dispute, and will take no further part in it, and will concentrate on improving articles I wish to edit. One Night In Hackney30313:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could help me, and the rest of the wrestling wikiproject out here:
Since the JB196 mislabeling Burntsauce has completely shut down any form of communication attempts with him about his wholesale blanking of articles, which applies solely to professional wrestling articles. When it is pointed out he will not blank articles of biographies with no sources that are unrelated to professional wrestling he will simply delete the comment and ignore everyone.
The wikiproject has put in a large effort to source wrestling articles, many of the major articles went from nearly zero sources to one hundred in mere hours, but request for Burntsauce to leave the information in articles (the information being non-contentious) falls on deaf ears and he continues his blanking before anyone can source the articles in question.
This wholesale blanking nearly always results in the page being fully protected when other editors re-insert the information making the pages unable to be edited by anyone, admin Alkivar (talk·contribs) being especially notable in this regard as having previously shown in arguments favouritism to Burntsauce's actions and will protect articles on Burntsauce's version. The wrestling project has changed its goals to sourcing and fixing articles (many now have more sources than actor or director related featured articles) but this user has seemingly made it his war to delete wrestling biography information from wikipedia without giving anyone a chance to do anything.
Just a clarification I know of your opinion on ANI about this situation however this message is more to do with the users behaviour than with whether BLP blankings are an effective use of policy (although in the interests of full disclosure my opinion of wholesale blanking of an article when the "external links" alone cover a lot of the information in the article is incorrect application, in line citations are not the be all and end all). –– Lid(Talk)23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice is to remove WP:BLP violations on sight. The assertion that I am only removing WP:BLP violations from professional wrestling articles is completely wrong, but I will say that only the WikiProject to be entirely uncooperative in ensuring that Wikipedia is free of such violations is the WP:PW one. I have stated before that I have no interest in "joining" such a poisonous and insulated atmosphere so disconnected and out of touch with the rest of the Wikipedia community (and policy). One look at the talk page archives there is enough to make a person go mad.
Furthermore, I am not rapidly blanking articles you and others in your project are quite falsely claiming, rather I am bringing them to stub status until they can be properly sourced. Every bit and byte of content is available in the history pages. The difference between the two is the difference between vandalism and upholding policy grounded in good sense.
Finally, I am not removing any opportunity for you or anyone else to source any article which needs to be sourced. In most cases these articles have been identified as unsourced for 6 months or more. If you disagree with the methods by which these articles are being handled and refuse to contact Jimmy Wales, the Arbitration Committee is thataway. Burntsauce00:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to join the community, the issue is your unwillingness to even talk to the community. Your talk page seems to be non-existant in that any posts on it are removed, thus negating the purpose of the talk page in the first place.
I did not state you were rapidly blanking articles, in which case an argument could be made for disruption in its extremes, I did state that you remove information that is sourced even in the external links wholesale. It implies to me that if it doesn't have in-line citations then the information listed can be removed, as well as showing that you don't read the external links before erasing the information.
Thirdly you commonly, and often, reply to criticism with "take it up with Jimmy Wales" rather than actually responding yourself, it's a tactic that avoids the issues altogether. It's akin to me saying, if you and I were in an argument, "take it up with the wikimedia foundation". It ignores the arguments put forward and insulates yourself from any criticism by blanketly stating "I'm just the middle man, I have no power over my own actions" which is just irritating due to the impossibility of even having a debate.
Irrelevant to your reply but the reason the project itself feels that you attack only wrestling related articles shows that your copy pasted text of "per WP:A, all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source" is not to be found among you making edits to such pages as Svetlana Broz and Diana Ross which don't feature references either but are left clean. I know that you also blank other biography articles related, largely, to Jamaican politicians but apart from bot related vandalism reverts you only seem to remove information, never source it. Adding to this is that you have received words of encouragement by all-around loathed banned user JB196 (talk·contribs) through forum postings off-wiki and through sockpuppets. Not only is JB196 loathed by the wrestling wikiproject, he is loathed by wikipedia in general as one of the worst and most persistant vandals in wikipedia history. It doesn't look too favourably on you when he is actively encouraging you.
On a more stylised note I saw you requested Babe Ruth for featured article. I didn't want to comment on the FA page given our current dispute but in my opinion it could not pass FA, largely because the entire Major League Career section is unsourced entirely. If you would wish for Babe Ruth to become a featured article that section especially would need sourcing. My knowledge of Babe Ruth is pretty much non-existant but featured articles require a pretty strong amount of references, usually for a biography the reference number is fromlate twenties to forties.
I agree that EnviroGranny is a bit harsh in his Talk Page comments, a bit too quick to revert, etc. However, he did seek mediation and your warning, while funny in a dry sort of way, seems inappropriate especially since it mentions William Pietri as your friend and the idea of using admin privileges to support friends suggests a [{WP:COI]] even if the editor in question richly deserved blocking.
I am not a "friend" of EnviroGranny. My edits to Talk:Sprite (lightning) should make it clear that I have not generally supported his position in the debate. However, I think your style of warning followed by block is a bit too cute and should be far more straightforward. I would suggest that you just give a warning without the cutesie-cutesie and make it clear to even the most dense of editors that it is time to clean up their act.
Sounded like childish behavior for childish behavior. The block seemed more to demonstrate to EnviroGranny that he is not invincible here, and he cannot just throw his weight(whatever that means) around, insulting people and making false accusations, like a child. I would not consider it conflict of interest, as the block was not a direct result of communication between EnviroGranny and William. The first warning was rather a "please.. just knock it off, let's play nice", which EnviroGranny seemed to escalate into name calling and false accusations. I think it was handled as appropriately as can be. I checked EnviroGranny's contributions and it appears they haven't been around here long, some people have to learn the hard way. Wikidan82904:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a slap with the Wikitrout, richly deserved, and if he stops behaving like an idiot he will have no further trouble from me. Honestly, what did he expect? I told him not to threaten people to keep off his talk, and his response was to threaten me to keep off his talk. He might just as well have asked outright for a block. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took you this long? Gag Halfrunt, Zaphod Beeblebrox's personal braincare specialist. "Vell, he's just zis guy, you know?" Oh, and it was a radio show first and best :-) Guy (Help!) 16:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have dropped out of this discussion and not responded, but I'm still confused about what you're asking for here. What's wrong with the four sources on the article for constituting multiple non-trivial sources? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they are trivial, not primarily about this flight, and the incident itself seems to me wholly unremarkable, there being any number of crashes of poorly-maintained ex military DC3s in the late forties. But I don't feel the need to fight, others have reviewed it and decided they are adequate, so I shrug my shoulders and walk away. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just keep seeing your name pop up in 'unilateral' (i.e. challenged) actions, especially deletions, lately, and it seems out of character for zis guy I know... everything okay in your world? -- nae'blis19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, just dealing with a lot of OTRS tickets, which tends to attract kickback. Wikistress level about 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, was higher but some kind soul blocked user:Man in a skirt - I really did not relish another months-long rounds of soup-spitting from that one. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a cursory look over this user. He/she has some very technical and useful edits, such as joint precision air drop system. I don't know what the Men in Skirts controversy was about because it has been deleted and I couldn't find an AfD on it. I have worked with 2-3 user when there was a SSP or 3RR dispute and, so far, peace has been attained. I also have an adoptee. My feeling is that this person may know quite a bit and want to contribute on non-skirt topics. Blocking him/her indefinitely will only cause bitterness and socks.
I am willing to consider (not a promise yet) adopting this person through the formal wikipedia adoption system and supervising him/her on the condition that skirt edits are not permitted in the first month and then require discussion with me for a period afterwards. If this is successful, then you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you improved wikipedia in some technical topics. Will you cooperate? If you do, you will be the point man that I will contact in case blocking should be needed.VK3500:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mugaliens has a strong agenda, and is utterly convinced that the only reason we do not have a slew of articles on the male fashion freedom movement is because we feel threatened by it. This is, of course, nonsense; we don't have them because we deleted them, despite his exceedingly tiresome input and that of many sock and meat puppets. I put off sanctions for a long time because he went away, but he has returned and has continued to push and push and push his drivel. I will undelete the AMA request so you can see the kind of thing we have to put up with from this person. Deeply, deeply tiresome, and a massive waste of time and effort, because he absolutely will not be corrected: like all true believers, he thinks the problem is with Wikipedia and must be fixed. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a complete newbie, but what's AMA?
I'll will consider your advice carefully. Mugaliens has not responded. If he does, I still have to consider what to do, if anything, as I have not promised adoption (as I said to begin with).
By the way, "Guy" is confusing. At first, I thought JzG and Guy were separate users. A nickname, I suppose!VK3517:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Since when do we unlink deleted articles? I know that particular case is rather controversial, but if you remove links like this, especially on old talk pages, it makes it terribly confusing for people reading pages months or years later. If the original user referred to an existing page at the time, the red-link should be left to show that it was probably later deleted. Removing red-links from article namespace I can understand, but this is userspace. I know that if I had red-links on my user pages, I wouldn't want them delinked. If this is a specific case, then fair enough, but I hope you don't remove red-links outside the main article namespace in general. Please let me know if I'm missing a debate somewhere that discussed this. Thanks. Carcharoth23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else was doing the same, I was just helping out. It's so that we can watch for problems with this particular article, which as you know is uniquely contentious. Guy (Help!) 06:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some poeple monitor links to that article (and a very small number of toher deleted articles) to watch for trouble brewing. It really is only a very small number of articles that are affected. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is why: 2 more sock puppets were found to match On the Diff and at the top, it says declined, but at the bottom, the admin revised the case and changed his/her mind and caught them coming from Biggy P's IP address 75.19.58.45. Therefore, Check user shows Iclaudius2 and MasterChemical = 75.19.58.45.
One question that begs to be asked, shouldn't that IP address be blocked for good, in light of so much vandalism? Or, is this enough evidence? BTW, I love that inspirational message on your talk page, I made a copy and put it to mine, I hope you don't mind that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrod2 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I tried to clean that category up and nominate the worst articles for deletion, but I think I'm losing the battle. Gene Poole is currently working his way through my contribs of the day and rolling me back, and the usual suspects (3, 4 or 5 fans) voicing keep on the AfDs will be enough to result in Keep, unless they're closed by somebody who doesn't just count numbers. I don't really have the time to go through every article painfully reconstructing it from the sources as I did with "New Utopia", and Gene Poole would probably roll my work back anyway... WP:OWN clearly doesn't have a lot of teeth, nor WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV or indeed dear old WP:CRUFT :( --kingboyk00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this image unfree? How can I know that? can you explain it to me please? can we use this image in another section in the preity page???? dondoniko
Thank you for posting some very heartfelt and useful information on my talk page. Truly, it helped me understand a lot which I just did not know.
However, I still am not sure if I have been able to get my complaint through to the right sources regarding the behavior of Arbustoo in making the entry of "firewalking" misleading and inaccurate.
I notice that Arbustoo has censored and removed all the evidence in the logs since I filed my complaint. Also, he has just removed all the previous firewalking information that conflicts with his POV and rewrote the firewalking entry so it only expresses his own point of view. This is a terrible reflection on Wikipedia's integrity. Instead of citing recognized authorities, he cites magicians and discredited theories that have been withdrawn by their proponents. This man is a liability to WP.
I'm curious what the previously deleted material was? I can't find a previous AfD for Men in skirts, so am wondering if there was another article or something?
I'm not sure where I stand one way or the other on the article btw, but am curious why this got speedied rather than going to AfD. Mdwh23:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
iirc, JzG has tried to get this article removed before, and failed. This time he reckons he doesn't need excuses, so has made up a lie instead. The article was created by me, from nothing. I received no warning or discussion, and no notice was posted on the article. He just turned up and deleted it, presumably for personal reasons. If anyone knows about wiki appeal procedures, and procedures to get admins de-adminified, I would be grateful for the help. Bards10:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a POV pusher? First I've heard of it. And I have not been thwarted, ever, by anyone. I was just about to post, for the interest of other readers, that you seem to have pushed for a block of the user called Maninaskirt (see above, and here). If you think I am him, you are wrong. I am me, and only me. What do you have against men and/or skirts, or the combination of them? Bards10:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The skirts for men crowd are the POV pushers, and one on particular has been vexatious ion the extreme under three successive accounts. Things that have no real existence outside the Bravehearts forums have no place on Wikipedia, as we decided before. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know my way around much of wikipedia yet. Where is the record of that decision? I admit it is a potential grey area, and I have tried to be careful. Your assertion that it doesn't exist beyond the bravehearts is not true. The online forums provide a meeting place for an often widely scattered, but philosophically cohesive group of people; and as a source of support. These people meet up in Real Life, and have common Real Life issues to overcome, as described in the article. Offline documented sources, I admit, are thin on the ground, but there are some. Bards10:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very remarkable! (And, therefore, worthy of inclusion?). <joke. But I'm not here to discuss the arguments. I accept that it is debatable and could go either way, and always while developing the article that was in my mind. I'm sure I could put up a very good argument about the merits of the expansion into whole articles of notable, troubled, minority issues; and I am certain I could find hundreds of similar articles. ...
I know Lar from another forum years ago - a cogent and persuasive man. But there are at least a dozen similar forums on the web, each with slightly different angle on it. You can expect more, if it is now your job to delete MIS/MUG-related articles - people like Me and Lar, and some like maninaskirt.
I am discussing this with you because of your unilateral, un-noticed, un-discussed deletion of my article, which I and others unwittingly put a lot of work into. If it is proved and you keep having to dig up the arguments, why not collate them so that you can direct people to them? Especially if, as in this case, you don't want to mightily piss off bona fide relative-newbie wikipedians (like me). Talking to you has softened the blow a little, but I still don't like it. Bards12:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "debatable", it was debated. It is not "could go either way", it went the way of delete, several times. It is not "unilateral", there were numerous debates and other admins support deletion. Wikipedia is not pitch-till-ya-win, especially for blatant attempts to advance an agenda. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still have me confused with someone else.
"blatant attempts to advance an agenda" = not me. I wrote the article to describe a little-known, interesting, and notable aspect of society, which I know a lot about. I am a cutting-edge, creative kind of guy ;) and I know of quite a few things like that, many of which I could write about. The problem is that with such subjects, providing offline references is always going to be a problem; and you could reasonably accuse me of original research with some of them.
"pitch-till-ya-win" = not me either. I created this article once, and I won't try again. I have no doubt there will be a lot more people who attempt it!
non-debatable = not me. I said that to me, it was debatable in my own mind. You have debated it with other people and won. Perhaps against me you would not win. Who knows.
My point is this: there must be a procedure, or some wiki advice somewhere, to prevent this problem. A newbie puts a stack of work into an article, not realising a similar one has been deleted; he gets opinions and contributions from a dozen other people (eg. here). He spends hours researching the web for sources. He assumes that if there is a problem, there will be a diuscussion. But one day, with absolutely no warning, it all disappears in a puff of high-handed adminship. This could happen to any controversial subject matter. The way this has been handled is a smack in the face. Bards12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have you confused with anybody. The fact that the subject is inappropriate for inclusion is not your fault, you did not know the history. That happens, doesn't reflect on you at all. The fact that you worked hard on it - apparently egged on by those who did know better, looking at the history - is regrettable, and I am sorry for the inconvenience. There is a way of preventing this, known as salting the earth, and some of the titles used have been salted; others were not. It relies on us thinking of the various titles at which a subject might be created, and until recently there was also a tendency for salt to expire (less so now). One thing you need to know: existence of forums, and posts on them, is not in any way a reliable source or indication for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be possible to salt the earth permanently with a generic template which optionally directs people to the relevant article, or the discussion behind it? - a type of non-automatic redirect, simple, prettified and user-friendly. That would help readers and writers. It would probably make searching more efficient aswell. The "deleted page" template seems too joyless to use commonly. Thank you, anyway, for taking the time to answer my questions. (I still think there will be more like me recreating this article, and you're going to need a system of some sort). Bards14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I've now had a good read of the AfD of MUG last year, and of your other discussions above. I think you are wrong about it, but I can see the water has been muddied, and unless I had been aware of that, my article was bound to end up similar to the deleted one. (And no, I am not a puppet of anyone else, and no, it was not recreated content. It probably reads in a similar way, because MIS guys see common MIS-related issues). But admins are people like anyone else, and need to be persuaded: MUG is a relatively new term mainly used on the web. MIS is a relatively new movement (although it has had its precursors, eg. mainly by fashion designers since the 1960s). The various shops selling skirts and modern kilts for men are a relatively new phenomenon. Guys who wear skirts are relatively creative, adventurous types of people. Trouble is, the movement is not documented except in a small handful of recent books (eg Andrew Bolton's Men In Skirts), exhibitions (eg. see the Victoria & Albert "Men in Skirts", which also showed at New York); and a slew of evangelistic websites devoted to extolling their virtues. I think the web has, to a very large extent, allowed such men to get together and build each other's confidence, allowing the movement to get off the ground. This has resulted in a proliferation of news articles about it (for instance have a look at http://www.imff.net, which archives many of them). Anyway, I'll give wikipedia another 5 years to catch up with the latest developments in cutting edge men's fashion :) (And no, I am not a puppet of anyone else! I am just me, and only me, with similar views and information as other MIS advocates.) However, I share your love of bicycles and music, so you can't be all bad. Bards15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No danger of assuming puppetry, a 30-second look at your contribs makes that plain. I can't reply in more detail right now, I'm in the middle of something. Get back to you later. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that comment wasn't directed at me. Whether someone is a POV-pusher or not, I am concerned about assumptions being made on AfDs of other articles, and the AfD process being bypassed. I'm worried about POV-pushing on your part - speedy deleting articles because you appear to have an axe to grind against this particular user. Both myself and Damian_Yerrick are clearly not anything to do with the guy wh's been making these articles. I'll volunteer to put the article through AfD myself if you like - if the consensus is to delete, then fine. Mdwh09:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was, according to last year's debate, that "MUG" or "Male Unbifurcated Garment" was a neologism, and the article was deleted mainly on that basis. I have stated that my contribution was not a recreation of that article (the reason given for your deletion this year). So why, exactly, did you delete it? - and why are you not apologising now, and offering to restore it and begin a proper AfD process? It also bothers me a little, that last year's article was not simply renamed to something else, rather than deleted. For all your rational arguments, JzG, and despite that I can see you're not a bad guy, I think you have some hidden subconscious thing going on which is leading you to be negative at every turn. Bards10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the numerous debates. Another say the fashion freedom article deleted and redirected to skirt and dress, where there is a section which covers this with appropriate weight. Several titles were tried and rejected. The whole concept was discussed at nauseating length and the conclusion was that anything more than that constitutes undue weight. We have kilt, we have skirt and dress, we have cross-dressing, and what is not covered i those three articles does not appear to be significant. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote was significant because it was about a group of people. "Men in skirts" are comparable with Victorian dress reform#Rational Dress Society, but from the perspective of the opposite gender. Both 'kilt' and 'skirt or dress' are about types of garment. The people I described may wear either of those classes of garment, and others, and they are by definition and intent a different thing to cross-dressers. Now that you've deleted it, there is nothing to describe that group of people, and the issues and problems they face.
I also disagree with last year's decision. There are numerous articles about specific types of skirts and dresses, which are not covered in "skirt and dress" - which only acts as a generalised introduction to the subject. See Category:Skirts and Category:Dresses, which I created and populated earlier this year to group together those articles. There is no reason why there should not be an article about types of skirt designed for men, such as those sold by Midas Clothing. In fact, such an article would complete the set, and compliment the other articles, very nicely. The term "MUG" is probably a neologism coined in the last 5 years or so by online forums, and personally I've never liked it; but "Skirts for men" would be a reasonable title for it.
However, as I've said before this is not about my or your opinion. It is about your decision to delete, based on your erroneous assumptions and (as I now believe) rooted in personal prejudices, which are unduly colouring your entire outlook. Bards15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You assert that it's comparable with Victorian dress reform#Rational Dress Society. I notice two things: first, that is attributed to a questionable source; second, it is not a stand-alone article but a single paragraph in a larger article (just as Skirt and dress#Male wear is a section in a larger article). No substantial external sources have been cited to indicate that it is more significant than that article states. And yes, it's obvious that you don't agree with last year's decision - neither did the people who came along from the Bravehearts forums - but that doesn't actually change anything. We have a few references about the brief vogue exemplified by Cruise and Beckham, some forums advancing an agenda, and pretty much nothing else. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wrote an article about the Rational Dress Society, it would be be separated into another article and linked. Perhaps someone will. Is that your last defence? All your other defences have been answered. If references are the problem, you should insist on having them, not delete the article. How many other objections will you raise, and be defeated on? I think your phrase, "pitch-till-ya-win", applies more to you than to anyone else here. Bards16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wiki so leftist that the other side cannot be told. I know that liberals hate freedom of speech unless they're the ones doing the talking. What's the deal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libsmasher (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia disallows all poorly-sourced defamatory material about living individuals and all grossly biased edits. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear "Guy". Poorly documented? From the State Department's own information? If it was poorly documented as you say, then why hasn't lefty Mike rebutted it? His actions are also well-documented by the FBI and documents are available via FOIA. What do you need for proof, the Queen herself posting?
The door is over there on your left, please don't slam it on the way out. Wikipedia needs more POV-pushing zealots like it needs a hole in the head. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a guy named Guy - in fact, named Guy four times over. Guy André (from the greek andros, meaning guy) Chapman (chap, an English slang equivalent of guy, man, a guy). Guy (Help!) 13:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did anything ever get resolved regarding the person who contacted you? In a stunningly coincidental happenstance while reading some intellectual property law blogs, I came upon the following post:The Microsoft of Kickball. One choice quote: "You can't copyright the rules of a game (although you can copyright the specific wording used), and in any case, neither of the rules cited sound particularly original."
Seems right in line with the situation you're handling (someone claiming copyright, generic rules, etc.). Mahalo. --Ali'i20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. My view is that we should allow a link to the manufacturer's site, but not describe it as being their exclusive property. The article does lack something, though: encyclopaedic content. Just rules (as it is) violates WP:NOT. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Really helpful tweaks, but do you know the name of the initial bassist? I had always thought they were a threesome to start with and that a bassist was added. As it stands, there is an ammbiguity in the article (though your info would appear to come from the horse's mouth, so to speak). Best wishes BONNUIT18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The attempts to add unsourced claims (and remove sourced claims) to those articles has been persistent and it's nice to see an admin get involved. Hopefully the person wont bother signing in to get past the semiprotection. Pacingcar16:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of people coming in and doubting Ali Sina's notability. Is there an end to this? I mean, these people are never going to agree that Ali Sina is notable. How can this debate be closed for once and for all? Sorry to bother you like this, but since you had agreed that Ali is notable, I thought I would approach you and we could get this wrapped up somehow. --Matt57(talk•contribs)03:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware I'd agreed he was notable, since I don't actually know who he is, FFI is notable and the last AfD indicates strong support ofr an article, so I archived that debate as a waste of time and the wrong venue anyway. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you recently tried to nominate Pantyhose for men for deletion. It has occurred to me that you may be suffering from a fear of tights. There's nothing to be afraid of. Tights are lovely to put on and wear. Many men now wear them; under trousers for everyday wear, and during physical exercise, such as cycling. There are several manufacturers making tights specifically for men. Collanto make tights only for men, including a product that suits you. 212.126.143.11121:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, nice troll :-) I have tights, this type anyway, and I aborted the nomination only because it had recently been kept. Wrongly, IMO, since it's essentially pushing the pretence that a few guys wearing them for specific purposes makes it perfectly normal to wear them as street wear as women do, which is twaddle, but that is a fight for another day. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I know you get frustrated, I know we're on opposite sides, but I'd never accuse you of lying. That never ever crossed my mind, and I don't want you thinking I did. If my phrasing gave you that impression, I'm really sorry, because it was not my intent. I've always respected you in disagreement, even in this one, and this hasn't changed that, so I hope you can accept my apology. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, Jeff, but you did go too far here. I'm not going to get worked up about it again, but suffice it to say that I saw the deleted article and it existed solely to promote racism and islamophobia, and we need it like we need a hole in the head. Enough. I'm done with that one. Anyway, kudos for apologising, and I hope we can still be friends :-) Guy (Help!) 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but notice the quarrel with my co-developer Gregory Kohs. What exactly is the hostility so I can help resolve this issue? And I'm just starting the process of decking out my version of new york city with rss, videos, and amazon associates links. check it out and tell me what you think. Andman802:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, he wants to make money out of our volunteer-run project. The community as a whole really doesn't like that. But there are ideological differences, too: Gregory seems to think Wikipedia is doomed to fail as a business directory because it does not allow subjects to have editorial control, but since we are explicitly not a business directory I don't see this as a problem. His arguments for paid editing have been rejected by the community, the closest most people will come to endorsing aid editing is if some benevolent organisation were to fund a group of editors with resources to edit on subject areas, but not the funding provider, and without editorial interference. And of course the fundamental recurring problem is that Gregory thinks he's right, we think he's wrong, he doesn't accept the community's view and has consistently evaded blocks and bans to pursue conflict of interest edits. We have never at any time seen any evidence that Gregory's interest in Wikipedia is anything other than selfish. I can see why he'd still be interested - Centiare has demonstrated pretty clearly that his model lacks the attraction of Wikipedia to the reader community and the editor community, which we could have told him if he'd asked - but actually I don't feel any great personal animosity to him (despite his attacks on me), I just don't like people who refuse to accept consensus. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFPP is that way, they probably won't protect it due to the low level of vandalism (once a day), but I have blocked the IP for a while. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at: User talk:Aktron. I'm sorry for the style I used (in my contributions, in my edit summaries), but I was very shocked when seeing what was happening. Also I was quite surprised of removing the number from my talk post and mainly of your warning on my talk page - that if I add the key again, I will be blocked.
I think, if there would be any wish to ban this number, it is to be done as ordinary copyvio - because particullary thought it is copyright violation (however we could think it is ridiculous). Also the official policy must change (of course only a bit to avoid such problems). I know that a step like this would be very hard to proceed, but current conditions are simply too bad and can't continue to the future (I think this in law refers to legislative crisis).
Current status of removing the number is maybe good for the foundation and the project, because it prevents any problems with legal threats, but it means that the admins are violating official policy. I believe I'm not the only one, who has this opinion. I personally do not support any of the sides of this conflict, but I'm very unhappy if official policy is violated in this way. This means, that the rules, according to which many users were blocked and banned can be used "only in some case" not universally.
Such a situation, that we can see here, would I never accept on Czech wikipedia (where I'm sysop) and I will do anything to solve it peacefully according to our local official policies (závazná pravidla). Thanks for any help. --Aktron (t|c) 18:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the possibility of RfAr filings over your unilateral reverts and full protects with regards to the AACS encryption key controversy page, I am notifying you that the Arbitration Committee has already considered a very similar case, and an overwhelming majority held that the sysop in that case in question was in the wrong, but because he acted in good faith no further reprimand was warranted. This notification may be brought up in future RfAr filings as evidence that your actions were not carried out in good faith, as you are now aware of this prior precedent. A link to that arbitration case is available from the above-linked AACS talk page. Konekoniku20:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you had checked, you'd have found I already took it to ArbCom myself, and Kim Bruning has seen fit to remove it; we will wait and see, I think. I believe I have explained myself pretty well: wilfully evading the sitewide regex filter is a sure sign you are doing something badly wrong, in my view. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fu_Jow_Pai. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Fujowpai20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you jumped right to the admin hasty delete button, without any opportunity for peer review. That's not in the spirit of wikipedia. We'll follow the formal processes for addressing the issue.[reply]
I appreciate your support of course, but I don't agree with the overall assessment in your motion to close the Rfc on me. I think the Rfc is petty, vindictive and incivil...brought on by those who have either openly engaged in trying to add more CT to 9/11 articles, or have supported others efforts to do so. Basboll and Tyrenius have made some extremely hostile demands and commentary as far as I am concerned. Hell, the Rfc is extremely hostile...Basboll apparently is not satisfied and has requested an advocate...this no longer has any atmosphere of dispute resolution, and has instead become transformed into some effort to "get MONGO" at all costs. Basboll's contributions have gone from being mildly annoying at times to being vendetta driven. I'm considering an arbcom case regarding single purpose accounts, soapboxing and misuse of the dispute resolution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. He has stated numerous times, as has Tyrenius, that they suggest I not edit 9/11 related pages, unless of course, I can rise to some unachievable level of wikilove for vandalism, libel and abuse of our articles to promote CT nonsense.--MONGO21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. Consider this: if you were just a fraction more emollient in your response to these idiots, they would not have even the slightest hint of a chink in your armour, you would enjoy the unqualified support of almost all (rather than the support and admiration of many but minor misgivings in others) and you would make it even more obvious who are the trolls and who the guys in white hats. As you probably know, my response to unrepentant vandals and POV pushers is to tell them to fuck off, but your position is made more difficult by the fact that (a) they won't, (b) they have friends who won't either and (c) you are no longer an admin, so you can't simply slap them with the banhammer, you have to persuade someone like me to come along and do that for you. Life is simpler all round when there is no "yeah, but" hovering in the air. Now I know I'm a fine one to talk, and have had my share of slaps with the Wikitrout for losing my patience with people who, after all, would try the patience of a saint, but that is how I see it. I absolutely agree that the nest of POV-pushing that is conspiracy theory articles needs to be dynamited. I applaud your tenacity in dealing with these vexatious and often dangerously unstable individuals. I salute you for taking on one of the worst jobs on Wikipedia, and keeping it up through ArbCom and elsewhere. In passing, I would note that it is likely that closure would achieve near-unanimous support pretty rapidly, and allow the silly thing to be closed, which was my aim. I want the nutters taken to ArbCom, and I want the case to produce a unanimous and unambiguous endorsement of policy against them. Play the long game. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think closing it is the best thing. It's nothing but a crapshoot at this point. I doubt anything is going to alleviate Basboll's unmitigated indignation about this sordid affair...but perhaps had he should have let things go a long time ago....myself, him and lot of others might have been able to spend their time doing more productive things. Regardless, the extremely limited examples Basboll provided in which one might claim I am incivil enough to warrant an Rfc, much less an arbcom case, could be found by cherry picking almost anyone's contributions if they have been here as long as I have and have worked on as many controversial issues. Additionally, (and I know you know this), I have only started one case of action regarding anyone...Seabhcan, so it's simply not my nature to "go after" anyone here...I really do try to egress from situations if at all possible...I'm not deliberately seeking out places to argue with people...I want peace. I have an article at peer review now that I have been distracted from making the finishing touches on, and have offered suggestions to another on their peer review request...9/11 articles are but a tiny fraction of what I contribute to here. Lastly, I do concur that Basboll is definitely not one of the "problem" editors to the CT phenomenon...I have applauded his efforts on the Collapse of the World Trade Center openly...I simply can't possibly imagine exactly what his problem is at this point. My efforts on the 9/11 articles likely gave rise to my article on ED, Cplot trolling and other venues...maybe my blunt-no-nonsense approach to dealing with them here has created these reprecussions...then again, maybe the efforts by some of these persons are coordinated off-wiki in overt efforts to coerce editors from opposing them here....me being one of the most vocal opponents to their efforts...the ability to neutralize me might make others more wary about fighting them off...Durin has stated openly that this is one of the very reasons he stays away from these articles now. I am not inclined to paranoia, but this seems to be a likely fit. I will admit though, that I do very much appreciate your support and will always take whatever advise you have to heart. Best wishes.--MONGO22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for some sort of consensus, but if you're going to delete them, at least get rid of the endspoiler tags as well. They leave annoying extra blank lines otherwise. Clarityfiend22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example, please, I put that in the serach terms as well so if I'm missing thme there's a variant name. I'm only doing it for things over 10 years old, I think, for which there is no obvious rationale. I mean, Jack and the beanstalk - with a spoiler tag? Guy (Help!) 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to have a general discussion about this rather than just going through and removing them. Even in the cases where they are old works, the reader may may not know or wish to know the ends. Furthermore, in some cases, the authors clearly didn't intend the reader to know the entire plot. An example in that regard would be almost anything by Dickens (in contrast Shakespeare expected his audience to know the basic plot and so spoilers don't make sense in those cases). I don't know what my opinion is at this point about the tags in general, but it shouldn't be done unilaterally. JoshuaZ00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy, Heatedissuepuppet (talk·contribs) posted an unblock request which I have granted per legitimate use of a sockpuppet account (I was only vaguely aware of that part of the policy untill now). I haave reviewed the contributions of both accounts and have satisfied myself that they are not being used in tandem to edit war etc and the main account is not misbehaving. Posting this here to keep you in the loop as the blocking admin. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me about it. ViridaeTalk23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Viridae, I do not agree with your decision to unblock this account and think it should be reblocked. No one has the right to a second account. They are just tolerated in some circumstances. Using a second account to edit war is not okay. This gives a user the freedom to misbehave without having it linked to his behavior on the main account. This is an improper use of a second account. Take care, FloNight23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:SOCK, where it says users may use a second account to keep heated issues away from their main account. Having served a block on both accounts for a while now (between 2 and 3 days) I believe the edit warring block has been served, and since this is a specifically stated legitimate use of a sock account per WP:SOCK, he should not continue to be blocked IMO. ViridaeTalk23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has no right to have an account to give him cover to edit war and protect his good name on his main account. And it is wrong for him to be doing it. Again, no one has the right to a second account. I feel that he has abused the use and should not use it any further. FloNight00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me FloNight, but perhaps you may wish to re-read WP:SOCK or my user page. Stating things like "no one has the right to a second account" is an interest opinion, but that's all it really is. In fact could you please check wiki rules, in particular WP:SOCK, which appears to allow for sock puppet accounts. Perhaps there is a mis-understanding of some sort, somewhere along the lines. --SockingIt05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took this to the Admin notice board. I feel the discussion there has been closed prematurely, and would appreciate your comments there [36]. Sparkzilla02:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user has posted a response on WP:AN/I, which clearly indicates to me that he is only interested in attacking the editor. I wonder if you could respond. Thank you for your support. Sparkzilla09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, hi. I've noticed that The Game (game) has been coming up at DRV lately, and you closed the last one (at least the last one I saw). Can you help me understand why this is a case of trolling? It seems that people are claiming new sources - would it be a bad idea to allow a conversation to take a look at those, and reconfirm that the article is still not writable? I haven't been involved lately, so if there's something I missed, I'd appreciate a point to the appropriate archive discussion. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk)05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They bring it up about once a week or once a fortnight, every time there is a trivial mention in some new obscure source. Every single request I've seen has been by a single purpose account. It would be much better to wait until it is unambiguous and then one of the registered, historied editors who are fans of it, bring it to DRV. As it is, repeated requests from single purpose accounts registered solely to request review of a multiply-endorsed deletion would seem to me to be trolling, in the classic sense. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy, Yesterday, MONGO said "I haven't done anything to warrant this petty, vindictive and incivil Rfc." Less than an hour later, you closed the RFC saying that while "MONGO should please refrain from being overtly rude to vandals, POV-pushers and trolls," my "complaint has no legs to stand on." In the light of MONGO's remarks, this is a pretty serious issue about my conduct. I would have preferred to leave the RFC open long enough to either reach an agreement between MONGO and I (we did not endorse the motion the close), move the process along (ARbCom did not take the case as I presented it), or let it quiet down on its own. Like I say, you closed the RFC immediately after MONGO rejected the whole thing as a mean-spirited attack on him. That's a charge I am now unable to answer, and with which your summary implicitly concurs. What are your thoughts on that?--Thomas Basboll09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, you can open an RfC on yourself if you like, but the fact is that MONGO has wide support for his actions in resisting blatant POV-pushing and astroturfing of conspiracy theories, and the only issue he needs to address at all is that when pushed to extremes, sometimes he bites. You would be much better advised to help the cause of educating trolls to stop trolling, or get them speedily blocked before they can bait prolific, well-established and highly valued editors into telling them to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody certainly needs to think about what a troll is. You don't educate trolls. You don't argue with them. And you don't let them bait you. You revert them and eventually block them. If MONGO can be educated to understand these simple things he won't make the more complicated mistakes he made with me (dropping the assumption of good faith and wearing down a perfectly good editor; I'm not the first, I won't be the last). If his supporters had emphasized the issue you now say he actually does have to deal with, rather than praising him for his good intentions, the RFC could have been an occasion to keep me "helping the cause". (For an example of the sort of help I might have continued to provide, see the Nicholas Rockefeller AfD and related talk pages.)--Thomas Basboll14:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me, Thomas, that the conspiracy loons are being actively encouraged by some editors on those articles. The fact that the 9/11 conspiracy theories egregiously violate Occam's Razor does not seem to matter very much, does it? Guy (Help!) 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you are right or not, "conspiracy loons" is an unconstructive way of referring to a minority POV that we will have to deal with continuously given the basic nature of WP. We cannot say "Be WP:BOLDunless you are a loon". The kind of editor you think is loony simply has a by now very familiar set of beliefs. We can undertake to systematically insult, provoke and bait that kind of editor, or we can politely teach him how a free encyclopedia fits into his world-view. The Occam's Razor argument, along with all other claims about the "truth" (or even coherence) of the theories, belongs at internet forums or blog-comment streams where the content of the theories is discussed. All we need to do here at WP (which makes it a potentially more pleasant place for everyone to work) is to demand a chunk of neutrally written, reliably sourced prose. If the editor can't produce that, there is not reason to insult him. After all, he is often capable of understanding the problem and of respecting the editor who reverts him. [38] IMHO, MONGO and those who take his approach are turning the 9/11 articles into an us versus them batteground, now complete with permanent grudges even within the established community. I withdraw in order to avoid making things worse.--Thomas Basboll07:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unconstructive on those articles, but here on my talk page I tend to refer to spades as spades. The problem is not that they hold these unfounded beliefs but that they attempt to infect mainstream articles with them. We can document all kinds of idiocy (Time Cube being a good example) just as long as it doesn't start to creep into mainstream topics and give the idiocy undue weight. If people want to believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens, the CIA shot JFK, the moon is made of blue cheese, that's their affair. But don't use mainspace articles to pretend that these beliefs are anything other than delusional. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unconstructive on those articles, which is why I requested comments on the now accepted practice of doing so. MONGO does not agree with you with on this point. The RFC could have made your (much more sensible) view clear to him.--Thomas Basboll08:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, please put down the stick. I have said to MONGO that I think he should be more emollient, even while I sympathise with his frustration. I believe that reflects the consensus of opinion here. MONGO indicates that he has heard the message (whether or not he decides to act on it), and that message was carefully phrased so as not to give a false impression of support for POV-pushing. That is, as far as I am concerned, an end to it. Please don't press this any further here - if you think the close was wrong, then take it to the admin noticeboards or somewhere because I closed the RfC to the best of my ability before it degenerated into a cesspit. I have thought long and hard about this. I know exactly how MONGO feels, he and I are similar in many ways, the message to MONGO was carefully considered and I hope will have the desired effect. Wait and see, eh? Guy (Help!) 09:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed your discussion with MONGO above. Lots of worrying things there. Anyway, I've asked ANI to review the close. That's my last swing of the "stick" for now. Hopefully one day it will be clear that we were both trying as best as we could to make Wikipedia not suck. Thanks for putting up with the both us and I'm sure it'll be back to normal soon. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of worrying things? Odd. I saw it as MONGO responding that he would think long and hard on what was said. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas didn't get what he wanted so he'll try another venue. Untill he is allowed his pound of flesh, he will continue to try. Hipocrite - «Talk»13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page I had sourced three examples of them, in their infancy, getting in the national spotlight on the Glenn Beck Show, Showbiz tonight, and the New York Times. I guess those sources are not "notable" enough for you? DanielZimmerman14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable people, possibly notable event, not yet a notable group. Formed, as they were only a month ago. Don Imus got fired, get over it. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say that a group is not "notable" if the people involved are "notable" and the event is "possibly notable". That is the problem with the notability "standard" is that there IS no standard. It is all subjective. And Imus getting fired should have absolutely nothing to do with the argument on whether a group that has been covered by the national media, been featured on several tv shows, and has been mentioned in several major articles, should have an article on wikipedia about it. I think there are many on wikipedia who should get over themselves. DanielZimmerman18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man sacked. People protest. End of story. Do we have an article on the station? Put it in there. Works well enough. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, man. They have a song that's ranked #54 on the Billboard Top 100 and they have a video circulating on most, if not all, of the music channels. I don't feel I was given enough of a chance to get sources. ♣ KlptyzmChat wit' me§Contributions ♣ 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I speedied an article that had been deleted four times previously, contained no assertion of notability, and was sourced solely from the band's website ("site may not be working, at the time of this comment posting") and MySpace. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "no assertion of notability" are you having trouble understanding? A place in the Billboard 100 is an assertion of notability. No, it did not contain that or any other assertion of notability. Clear now? As I have suggested before, rather than baiting the few friends you have on the project, you would be better advised to spend your time identifying and educating those who mis-tag articles for speedy. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wouldn't have been the first time a band was speedied with an assertion of notability. Could you unprotect/restore so I can add some sources? And as for "baiting the few friends I have," the "few friends I have" are often the ones deleting/endorsing those very articles, so I guess that puts me between a rock and a hard place, eh? --badlydrawnjefftalk17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, try for once to put yourself in the other guy's shoes. You come to CAT:CSD in the morning, there is a backlog of some hundreds of articles. More are being added as you watch. There is a wailing and a gnashing of teeth about the backlog. Years of dealing with garage band vanity articles has fostered a certain scepticism when an article pops up that tells you about a New! Wonderful! band whose debut album is - quite by coincidence - just out and available from their website, click here to buy. Be sure to check out their MySpace. Know something? When the janitor empties the trash, sometimes he misses something slightly above the level of valueless during the screening process. According to you that makes him a bad janitor. According to me, that makes him human, but the people chucking stuff in the trash in the first place should maybe take more care. Who's going to educate them? With three IRC channels, five OTRS queues, the unblock list and two admin noticeboards to monitor, I'm a little short of time. I could suggest that you do this valuable work. Oh, wait, I have suggested it, once or twice, haven't I? Seems the fashion is to beat up on the poor bloody admin who doesn't realise that the unstated facts proving notability were soon to be added, honest, rather than slap the fool who creates an article in an area prone to massive vanity spamming without stating anything of the claim to notability because he was too busy inflating his brag list by getting Edit #1 on as many articles related to that subject as he possibly could. Sounds tetchy? Sure is. Guy (Help!) 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do what I can, Guy. I do what I can and what people will let me do. I'd do more, but thems the breaks, but at the end of the day, we're building an encyclopedia, right? And if one or two slip through, that's not a problem, mistakes happen. It stops becoming a mistake when it happens over and over. Put yourself in my shoes on this one, maybe? When you're hated by the masses because you dare put content, process, and people actually writing a damn encyclopedia over protecting the feelings of some thin-skinned/self-important administrators (not you) who pull the same bullshit over and over with zero recourse. So I'm sorry if this bothers you - I figured triple checking with you, like you ask people to do, about an article that very well could have had an assertion, wouldn't be such a big deal, as opposed to heading over to DRV with it. So can I get the page restored so I can fix it up and move on? --badlydrawnjefftalk17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, people can respect those with whom they differ. Your best bet, and I will keep saying this, is to fix the problem by educating the taggers when they get it wrong. I have been at newpage patrol, there is a kind of race or competition to tag before someone else does - that is not healthy. If you did more of that, you would have less to do challenging the occasional wrong 'uns and you would be far more popular (if you care) because you would be part of the solution rather than a gnat biting away at those of us who are pressed for time and rarely get to do the bit we actually enjoy. Sometimes yo are your own worst enemy, you know. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy: probably a good request, as their single is showing on the charts, including at #4 on the Hot Rap Singles at the moment - I can't get below #50 on the Hot 100 online. (Totally understand the deletion if there was no information on this in the article, of course, and it looks like the media's slow to pick up on them from a quick search.) Tony Fox(arf!)18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's hands are tied. What's easily done can be easily undone. I've restored for now. I'm not even saying the speedy deletes were improper, as the article contained very little information. But, google results make it clear they've gotten legitimate coverage. Friday(talk)18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing. But: the Googles should be done by the taggers. WP:CSD#A7 says no assertion of notability. I frequently untag things I know have been wrongly tagged but my knowledge of the rap scene extends only to puzzlement as to why the C is silent. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this speedy delete WAS the end of Wikipedia, and you know it...geez...why not just delete Earth! For all that is holy...you need to ask for desyopping now. I see a long and very ugly arbcom case looming here...now, can I create an article on MONGO has a pet Zebra named Spot...or will that end up in your trashcan as well?--MONGO19:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Ymous is attempting to reopen it, but I just wanted to thank you for the concise DRV closure summary of "patently absurd". Rules like WP:SNOW and WP:IAR can be invoked wrongly, but when they're used correctly it restores one's faith that Wikipedia is going to survive in a usable form. Plus I got a broad grin out of it. Thanks. Mike Christie(talk)20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes even Jeff would agree with a speedy close - articles on things started days ago by the creator of the article fall into that category :-) Guy (Help!) 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this edit to be pure visigothism. Why not replace the page with "PENIS!!!!" instead, it would not be any less destructive. Since I put in a fair amount of effort on that page, I also consider it a personal insult. Herostratus02:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, and you may be suffering from WP:OWNitis. Oh, and you might like to get the derivative images based on fair use out of that page. Guy (Help!) 07:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? It's an easy-to-use template for all books and albums, and puts all worthwhile information in one place. What is this about? --badlydrawnjefftalk12:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except it refers to a single retailer and is missing the actual fair-use rationale, so actually it's equivalent to "this image was scalped off Amazon". Guy (Help!) 12:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Amazon.com is the leading provider of images for books and albums, it's entirely legitimate, and does not lack an "actual" rationale - it's actually modeled off of other fair use rationales for books and albums, and does exactly what's necessary, allowing users to fill in the requiste gaps. If you want it deleted, you should go to TfD instead of what you did, so please restore it or I'll have to do so myself, since there's nothing legitimate about the deletion. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed your comment here. See also this, which was followed by the user leaving this message on my talk page (14 is white supremacist slang for "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" (14 words) and 311 is slang for "KKK" (3 x 11th letter)). I thought the username violation was a slam-dunk, but it was shot down pretty quickly. Fireplace14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if User:Thomas Basboll has exhausted the community's patience, but he's sure exhausted mine. Assertive action is needed to end this business once and for all -- perhaps a topic ban stating that Thomas cannot bring any further action against MONGO, and that the two should stay away from each other. I don't know how to go about proposing such things formally, so would appreciate your advice on that (and your comments as to whether such action would be appropriate or effective). Raymond Arritt15:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose some stern words in that direction, but he seems to be fundamentally OK, for the most part. This MONGO shit needs to stop, though. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make a compelling case why I should not overturn your DRV close. Actual engagement with the discussion makes it quite obvious that the second AFD requires overturning. GRBerry16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 16:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a really good reason for you: just about every admin who has expressed an opinion, including several of the most active WP:BLP handlers from OTRS, have advocated deletion, and the overturn of the previous delete was based on a false premise, as bainer notes in the AfD close. Process wonkery meets policy, policy wins. But hey, let's have a really long drawn-out fight over it first, and look totally fucking stupid, shall we? Guy (Help!) 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the OTRS red herring is being trotted out, nor does an administrative opinion somehow have more weight than anyone else. And you want to follow policy? WP:N, WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:BLP - all policies and guidelines that this article meets without trouble. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a red herring. You go and count how often the carefully neutral Cary Bass votes to delete or endorse deletion. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant, in fact. Great, he handles OTRS stuff and thus has a different perspective - that doesn't make his perspective more legitimate than anyone else's. --badlydrawnjefftalk17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about an email from banned editor Jennifer Powell headed "This is a communications-only email of which WP:OFFICE is aware", I'm slightly perplexed about why I should be getting it. One Night In Hackney30317:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you replaced Dianetics in the section of the pseudoscience list article reserved for topics that have specifically been labeled pseudoscience by mainstream scientific bodies even though the sources clearly do not meet this criterion. Since you are also clearly aware of this rule and simply yet chose to ignore it, I can only assume that you are intent on disruption. Please desist.Davkal21:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to you to apologise for an insult placed on the talk page of the Rouge Admin article; my comments were the result of inebriation and fatigue, as well as my profound conviction that I was actually asleep at the time. Please accept my apologies for my rather hasty and unkind comments. I will endeavour to cease editing under the influence (EUI) forthwith. Thank you for understanding, all the best, Whiskey in the Jar22:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to make a statement on that arbitration request if is just going to be utterly incivil and add nothing to the discussion. You, as an admin should know better - especially in an arbitration request. Had it been on talk pages I would have let it slide, but that is ridiculous. ViridaeTalk04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is a complete waste of everybody's time. Plus it does add something to the debate: it adds my opinion that Jeff is beating a dead horse. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe the primary problem is Jeff. I fully support taking this to RFC, what I do not want to see is yet another rehash of the same crap. We need to wait at least a month before even thinking about running this through any kind of deletion or review process again. There is no problem with the original deletion, per policy, but there is a problem with Jeff on a crusade. Take it to a slower and more wide-ranging process, and let people explore the issues in a nuanced way, and get it off DRV because that is only ever going to be a pitched battle, which will not help in any measurable way, whoever wins. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree that Jeff is the problem. I had to take a break from Wikipedia over the weekend to avoid participating in the wheel war myself. I think the deletions, and especially the speedy closes of the DRVs, are abusive actions by administrators as administrators. GRBerry22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no more telling people to "fuck right off" in the current discussion. It's only serving to inflame things further. I predict that this will be sent to arbitration again, and that the arbitration committee will, if it accepts it, do so on the grounds of editor conduct, most likely of several of the involved parties. Please ensure that your conduct is exemplary, so that you avoid becoming deeply embroiled in that. That wouldn't be good, in my view. Uncle G19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's British usage, different from US usage. Seriously. It means, more or less, that I am absolutely outraged that he would make such a suggestion, nothing more. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It means a lot of things, and that's part of the problem. Simply saying the far less ambiguous "I'm outraged at that." instead in the current discussions is a better course, because it will forestall the diversions from the main issues that you know will otherwise occur further down the road if this comes to the arbitration committee. Save yourself from some future grief. Uncle G23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear that (and worse for your parents of course). Best wishes (I have parents and we 3 kids are alive, thriving and close), SqueakBox20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My sympathies to you, also, Guy. Having lost my own sister earlier this year, I know well the sense of displacement and, to coin a phrase, "cosmic loneliness" that follows. Regarding your comments about my surname and edit of my entry, you would lose your pound, sir, for my family has always had the truly Scottish spelling of Stuart (before it got Frenchified), and my edit was to remove a link to a personal blog, because I am about to work on a controversial project, and did not want crazies of the Star Trek variety or any other feeling that they knew me too well.
in this wikicommunity it's easy to forget about the real life, every user name here represents. My prayer is that you and your family find strength and comfort in this most trying time. My sympathies, R. Baley20:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently created an article on Byron Calvert, an American Neo Nazi leader using sources from my research. Problem is Calvert himself has become wise to it and disputes the accuracy of my sources. His followers have also taken it upon themselves to blank the article. Advice please!
I noticed you deleted Both Euphoria Volume 1 and PF project. I can't see what the article looked like but for every other volume of Euphoria (Euphoria (compilations)) the pages are fine. Maybe the article sucked, but just so you know Euphoria volume 1 was hella popular, and its notability doesn't really need to be asserted other than "was the first in the series of Euphoria (compilations)". I don't really know what to say here, because don't know why exactly you deleted the articles, but there should definitely be articles under those names. If they fitted the format of the other volumes in the series and you came across them and deemed them not notable, you were wrong. I'm confused, help. Howboutpete14:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the original author of the album listing on Wikipedia, and I just found this morning that it's gone. Apparently it doesn't satisfy the Unremarkable People/Companies/Groups condition of WP:CSD#A7. Can someone help me understand what I did wrong, and how to make sure I can submit articles that will last? My goal is to fill out the entire discography of that series, because I own all the albums. Nmcspadden16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, me I blame the machete blow to the head I receivved 2 and a half years back that messed my vision something chronic at the time for my typos although the loss of vision isnt really much of an issue now. My Mum is a trained typist and is as bad as anyone I know for typos (she's approaching 70 and like my Dad an online enthusiast), SqueakBox00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed that the Xyience article has been deleted and protected. Did it not go to an AFD discussion? If it didn't, maybe it should have as it is a reasonably notable brand. Chicken Wing05:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I would like to bring to your attention the following pages: Shane Ruttle Martinez, Marxist Candidate Page, Paul Fromm, and Paul Fromm (neo-Nazi). The same users are at each page putting forth the same unsourced information that is very POV. They also edit out any sourced negative information. The users I speak of are user:Frank Pais, user:AnnieHall, user:Black as pitch, user:Paul Fromm (blocked, I believe), and the new account user:CmrdMariategui. I do not have enough information to go to the sock puppet page to warrant an investigation, and I only came onto the pages based on the BLP claims. It seems that they have a strange understanding of BLP and POV that only positive information (especially unsourced positive information) is the only thing allowed on a page, and that sources with vague connection to the line they claim to be references for are allowed to "prove" notability of the figure mentioned. It is very strange and seems to be a great problem. For information connecting the people as being sockpuppets or possibly a group that uses numbers to avoid the Three R Rule, see the histories of the pages I cited above or my user page to see where a newly created name said I was "wrong" about a page and reverted where I removed blatantly wrong sources that didn't actually match the lines which they were included on. SanchiTachi 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)"
I really don't know what to do here. I really don't want to be a part of this debate. I voted to endorse removal of certain claims in the Shane Ruttle Martinez article and now SanchiTachi appears to be on some sort of vendetta; just won't seem to let it go. She/he is now accusing me of potentially being a sockpuppet.
I might not be the best editor on wikipedia, but I don't think I deserve this abuse merely because of a decision I made concerning the relevence of information. Basically I'm looking for advice. I really don't want to have anything to do with SanchiTachi but I don't want her/him to continue making baseless accusations against me. God, seems so much like high school it's ridiculous. AnnieHall07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note from the deletion logs that you deleted the above article. I'd like to see the above article undeleted or at least a version moved into user space please. Catchpole14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now there is an RfC and an ArbCom case pending, and no obvious forum for discussing this subject in isolation from the history of the problem article. I am trying to think of how that might be accomplished, but right now I can't think of a way. I am asking some arbs and other old-timers what they think. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Little Fatty article you deleted had been moved from a userspace draft. I'm thinking we should just put it back there. I do think this deletion may need to be argued separately: my understanding was that those wanting deletion had agreed the meme was notable but the kid was not, and this article seems like an attempt to address that. But yeah, let's not do that NOW while feelings are so raw. What do you think? Mangojuicetalk15:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JzG -- I have just posted this message on Talk:Warren Allen Smith. I notice that you have been deleting some of his links, so I'm drawing your attention to my comments. Maybe you're right, but I'm not so sure. I certainly found Smith's correspondence with Paul Blanshard and Brand Blanshard interesting. Respectfully -- WikiPedant20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TO THE EDITORS WHO CONSIDER WARREN ALLEN SMITH'S LINKS TO BE SPAM -- I have tracked Smith's edits a bit in recent months and I'm not so sure they should be dismissed as spam. Smith is a venerable periodical editor who corresponded with many notable thinkers of the twentieth century over many decades. He has scanned some of this correspondence and established links to the images. I am a university professor and personally have found some of this material rather interesting and, arguably, historically significant. Be careful what you delete. You may be getting it wrong. Respectfully -- WikiPedant20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the link summaries make it perfectly plain that he is pursuing an agenda. Plus he should not be linking his own site. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on Mr. Smith's self-created Wikipedia page and it's very lengthy bibliography? He also has inserted himself in quite a few aritcles using his many monikers. --David Shankbone23:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I don't know who to report this to. I don't know why, but I have a feeling this nickname isn't appropriate. Seeing the one contribution they put on the Tornado article, I don't know if they should be around. Wikidan82915:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it was deleted or what, the link I put here doesn't work, but if you look at the recent history in Tornado you'll see who it is.
(disclaimer : I work for ADVFN plc)
why delete 'ADVFN' (may 4th) as blatant advertising? article is old and other similiar articles, e.g. yahoo finance, bloomberg, etc remain
There is no such consensus. The only disruption of Wikipedia is being performed by the individuals who choose to remove the spoiler tags. (Ibaranoff2415:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Read the debate again. There seems to me to be a strong groundswell of support for the idea that spoiler tags are generally redundant in plot sections, and in classic works. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read it that way too, and consequently I have been cautiously removing spoiler tags on book articles on my watchlist. So far nobody has objected. I never liked them, always thought them unencyclopedic, and I think we will be well rid of them. --Guinnog15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your edits to my talk page [42], please refrain from removing other users comments to me without my consent. According to WP:CANVASS: "It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive." I highly doubt that User:Ttguy's comments would qualify as disruptive, as it was in direct relation with an action of mine, namely a request for semi-protection. Thanks. --CA38717:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to review Merky's most recent claims that I am a member of some organized group to push my pov on 9/11 articles with Tom Harrison and MONGO. His source is Wikipedia Review.Hipocrite - «Talk»10:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk07:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which account is my sockpuppet and where is the checkuser request that justifies you blocking my IP address?
What I have done is Wikipedia:Canvassing. Canvassing is "overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages, and it is controversial"
On this page it says "a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem."
I don't believe I have engaged in an aggressive propaganda campaign.
It has been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet has a statement that contradicts [Wikipedia:Canvassing]]. So which one is actual policy? I would have though that a page called Wikipedia:Canvassing would define the policy on Canvassing especially since I have not engaged in any sockpuppetry.
If you can not produce evidence of my sockpuppetry will you appologise for besmirching my reputation?
Hello, Please undelete the article "Dynamic Software" ... I have no idea why you deleted it. It was a company stub and the company develops Windows based software. I have been working on the cite's for the refernces I came back to work on the article and it was deleted.
Please undelete or have an explaination why you deleted my work in progress.
Hallo...I noticed you made some edits recently on Men's skirts, and I wanted to ask you a bit of a procedural question about the subject. The article mentions Utilikilts, so I threw in a wikilink to the article which I helped turn from a stub to only-slightly-less-of-a-stub-but-still-kind-of-stubby, which is at The Utilikilts Company. Now, when I did this I noticed there's two redirects floating around out there. One is Utilikilts which I made, and pointed at The Utilikilts Company article. The other is Utilikilt (singular) and points to the main Kilts article. So, my question is where ought those redirects point? Seems to me they ought to both go to the same spot, and I'd lean towards The Utilikilts Company article, but I'm not sure.
And on a side note, was I right to linkify that mention of Utilikilts in Men's Skirts, or is that advertising? I've no connection to the Utilikilts Co., and advertising was not my intention...but looking at the page today, I realize it might be seen as such. Anyhoo...you seem quite the knowledgeable type, so I thought I'd ask you. Don't you like being high-profile? --InkSplotch15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the wrong person, as far as I'm concerned the whole POV-pushing mess can be redirected to the bitbucket. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't too concerned on the skirts article (I haven't even really read it). I was more curious about the redirects. Anyways, thanks for your time. --InkSplotch17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I think I've just been trolled once too often to be anything other than completely jaded about the whole subject. Hopefully you'll find someone slightly more sympathetic to the subject who can help out - maybe Uncle G, he's a good guy. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy,
I hope you don't mind me contacting you directly. I was just wondering if you could use some help with the whitelist review. You or another admin would obviously still have to remove any superfluous entries from the whitelist yourself but I guess I could help out with the grunt work. I understand if you'd rather do it yourself. Cheers -- Seed2.019:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a nice change from the disambiguation/typo fixing stuff I've been doing lately but, yeah, not terribly exciting. ;) I've tried to keep my notes sufficiently detailed but concise. Oh, and I'll be back to help with rest but I'll probably only do a few at a time since I'm a bit busy (and, technically, on a wikibreak) at the moment. Cheers Seed2.000:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Guy. I understand if you never want to hear the word "skirt" again as long as you live, but I was hoping you'd care to cast an eye on my skirmish here:
[43][44][45]
Amazing behavior... are those editors on the talkpage in your opinion separate people? If not, might a CheckUser + a community ban be the way to go? I'm pretty pissed off about that abusive last edit by Bardsandwarriors, as I'm no kind of a hand with the accursed cite template, and was forced to hand-knit a separate note in order to include a quotation in it, grrr. Bishonen | talk11:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This is precisely what I expected and precisely why that page should have been drowned at birth and left salted. Kilt is notable, cross-dressing is notable, and the rest is frantic attempts by a few individuals to change the way society views their dressing habits. Wikipedia is not the place to fix the fact that Western society views skirt-wearing by men as an eccentricity. The AfD should have been closed as delete, the arguments for keep amounted to "we know this is not notable, not important, not neutral and inflates the importance of an utterly insignificant movement, but we like it." I have had it up to here with these people. They are abusing Wikipedia to try to rewrite history and reshape popular opinion. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We now have an edit war and a talkpage war. Sigh. I'm already tired of Mugaliens all over again. If somebody tells me to take it to Dispute Resolution, I'll tell them to talk to Bishzilla. Bishonen | talk14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I reverted your deletion of a source link that referred readers to a review/summary hosted by Amazon. From your comments on WikiEN-l on 19 Mar 07, I understand that you don't agree with this, but other editors clearly disagreed. If you feel very strongly about this one link to a commercial site out of the twenty-seven sources cited in the article footnotes we can discuss it further at the article talk page. Cheers, DickClarkMises18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but the situation is difficult enough without adding joke edits to the mix. Please refrain from engaging in such behavior in the future. Thanks. —David Levy20:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's unfortunate that you insist on treating the first, oldest and most anarchic of policies as some kind of religious tenet. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. You've removed a certain paragraph from the NO MA'AM article, stating that the reference is not really a reference. I accepted what you said, put the paragraph back but without the reference. Still, you removed the paragraph again. What's wrong with it? Is it not relevant that NO MA'AM is popular among fans of Married... with Children and that T-Shirt are being sold? #Ido50 (talk to me), at 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has no obvious relevance or significance. The assertion is not verifiable per WP:ATT, and in any case is just trivia of no evident importance. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're about my favourite editor, and so I was happy to revert back the changes you made at this page, whcih have subsequenty been challenged on the talk page. If you feel so inclined, pls explain your logic for your edit. I am, of course, in agreement. Eusebeus22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to tell the tens, or even hundreds, of other editors who do the same thing for many, many books pages. But, ok... ~ clearthought01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be contributing to wikipedia anymore so you might watch the unaccredited schools and Gastrich puppeting. Arbustoo02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to correct the article you nominated for deletion. This is the very first article I ever wrote. I am trying to do this correctly. Any suggestions would be welcome. It took me a but of time to understand how to get the refs to work properly. Any help would be appreciated. I moved the article into the NS from my sandbox so I could get input but instead you want to delete it even before I write it. Could you explain to me what I have done so wrong in writing it so I can fix it?
Thanks Al
The main problem here is that your every action increases the suspicion that you have a connection with the subject. Do you? If you do, it wold be best to be open about it and help people understand where you are coming from. I don't understand your passion for this particular piece of spam-enabling software, and your comparing the firm to Microsoft was not a good call. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the ANI discussion, you said "The fact that there are over a thousand subpages rather makes the point that it is hopelessly unmaintainable". I agree, which is why I came up with the proposals to move from that system to a more maintainable one that would only require people to add a correctly pipe-sorted category to every biographical article. I was actively trying to get people to discuss this (while somehow missing the DRV) and was preparing to find a way of generating a single LoPbN list to ensure careful and methodical transfer of information from that system to the new one. I still fail to see what was so bad about my proposal that people just ignored it and said delete? My proposal would only have delayed the deletion, would have led to an orderly transition and avoided all this drama. During the MfD I pointed at the list of people's names beginning with X that existed at LoPbN. Can you, or anyone, without undeleting the old page, tell me what biographical pages we have under "X". I can use the system I've set up here to find living people under "X", here, but then compare that to the Wikipedia LoPbN 'X' page here (a mirror that someone at ANI was kind enough to point out). Again, I fail to see how a category-based system of accessing the "X biography list" is a bad thing, and I was proposing to carefully transfer the information from one system to the other. Why did people just ignore what I was trying to do? <sigh> I know I'm going over the top here, mainly because I'm typing away here when I should be packing. But I hope some people listen to what I am saying. Sorry to rant like this on your talk page. Carcharoth16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm complaining, but why did you revert them? Do you have plans to revert the rest of them or was it because of the "edit warring" going on in those specific ones? TTN19:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring, that's all. RfC is the way to go I think, or maybe mediation. Mind you, fans won't usually settle for anything less than a full size article on every single episode. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this guy isn't even a fan. He just wants all episodes of all series to have articles for some reason. I guess I'll have to go for mediation eventually, even though the guideline is clear in what needs to happen to the episodes. (RfC's always seem to take too long to be useful). TTN19:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two problem editors: Matthew and the ex-Nintendo guy. I blocked the ex-Nintendo guy for 48 hours to give everyone else a rest, he looks like an obsessive. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they're arguing on two different fronts, but they are both in disputes with me. Matthew wants episode articles, while Nintendo is quite obsessed with having those character articles ("they're culturally important to the world"). TTN20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If she had died recently, and the only thing really known about her was she was a Nazi victim, and her diary had been published post-humously, you'd delete the article. Am I right? -N21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, because that's not what happened. Most likely I'd redirect to an article on the diary, if it was garnering significant critical interest, but it's impossible to say because that was over half a century ago and these days it would be a blog not a diary, you simply cannot compare such vastly different cases. Who knows, if those kids write a book that's still selling after half a century they may end up with an article as long as Anne Frank's. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that, and there's been tremendous scholarly research on her life and play and movie adaptations. I'm just want you to know that although you stated that my examples had no basis in reality, I wasn't just being a jerk. I was trying to make you understand the other side of the argument. -N21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know the other side of the argument, but choosing hyperbolic examples doesn't help anyone, I'm afraid. I think my later comment says where I stand on this. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who speedied these articles in the first place, I plan to respond to the serious arguments presented on the other side of the ledger, including yours, N. The whole process would be a lot easier on both sides without the inflated rhetoric, though, and that goes for both sides too. JzG, thanks for the support. Regards, Newyorkbrad21:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I started an essay that has the same name with a previously deleted one (but the contents are opposite), can you restore history please? Thanks! WooyiTalk to me?22:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is far too close to poking Merkey with a pointy stick, there is no way we need that right now. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, please just drop it, trust me on this: we don't need this particular dispute escalated or perpetuated. Maybe later. Much later. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. He is also an authority on some things we could do with help on, and notoriously vulnerable to trolling. And perhaps also vulnerable to interpret as trolling things which aren't necessarily actually trolling. So please just let it go. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two.
As you know, I've got a "thang" about WP:A, especially when I see absolutely no WP:RS whatsoever, just ELs to the subject's website, but before I waste any more time with this, I figured I'd better get the opinion of an admin ... I'm currently up to my cojones in the feces arising from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich (which is a "kill it before it grows" situation), but these are legacy articles, created before we became quite so anal retentive about WP:Verifiability, i.e., requiring multiple WP:RSsecondary sources.
I mean, I can hear the arguments already:
Bust (magazine) has been published since 1993, so it is notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
Debbie Stoller is the publisher of notable magazine, so she is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
"Stitch 'n Bitch" has been the subject of multiple books by a notable author, so it is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
Okay, so my opinions at DRV seem to have me walking into a way larger dispute that I was originally aware of existing. I hope and expect that by the end of this (whenever the end comes), the community will have either some sort of functional compromise or at least clearer delineation as to what is acceptable or not. Otherwise, we're going to see a lot more good-faith disputes over living people in general and I fear quite a few nonliving ones.
In the meantime, in my efforts to determine where the currently involved editors and admins are currently drawing the line, do you feel that this article, as it stands now (and decided opposed to how it stood then) is acceptable in regard to BLP? I have tried to be cautious in source selection in order to avoid salacious, prurient, or "tabloid" details, and to ensure that the case and the subject were placed in an appropriate context.
I know that I have a different stance on these articles than has generally been voiced, feeling that we in fact meet our moral responsibility best by combatting other permanent online sources with factual, referenced, neutral, and mature articles. I am interested in hearing your opinion, to feel for where lines can and should be appropriately drawn.
I certainly do not want to troll Jeff Merkey. Please take note that I refrained into any comments or edits before the RfC (I believe that any community member has the right to voice his opinion if requested). My question is simple: if I see an obvious Merkey sockputppet, can I leave you a note about this (with the edits and/or other evidence)? I will try not to look for the socks actively, but Merkey is so easy to spot on some articles that I meet yet meet him. I do not wish to interact with Merkey in any other way. In fact, reporting his sockpuppets was my only interaction with him after my first (disastrous) interaction with him 14 months ago when I was a WP newbie. And I almost forgot his existence by the time Jimbo asked me to archive the list of his old sockpuppets. If you wish to answer, please do it here. -Friendly Neighbour11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind before reading the following that I deal extraordinarily badly with trolls and do not follow my own advice.
The best way to deal with volatile individuals is probably to start by trying calm discourse on the talk page, and then to call the cavalry (nicely) if that fails. Thus: "I am having a problem on article X with editor Y, more eyes would be appreciated." If the individual concerned tends to personalise disputes, then keep it strictly to content and suggest mediation or article RfC, or ask at the relevant Wikiproject. Use a dispute tag rather than edit-warring, and justify the dispute tag on Talk. It might work, it might not, let's see. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood. I am talking about sockpuppets of a blocked user. I have no wish to go into any revert wars (with a blocked or unblocked Merkey). In fact, I do not wish to go into any discussions with him, not to accused to be another "SCoX troll" (such accusations against people who disagree with him sadly happen too often, most of them by M. himself but not all). I would simply back off if he started to edit an article I watch. This leaves me the final option: tipping off an admin about the sockpuppet (or the whole community). Hence my question: can I start from you? -Friendly Neighbour11:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy. Sorry to bother you, just a minor query. I was wondering if you'd received my email? I'm not hassling for an urgent response, it's just that I've sent a couple of emails through the Email User function over the last day or so and not had replies to any of them, so I'm beginning to wonder whether they're getting through or whether I've just emailed a lot of busy people! A yes/no answer will suffice. Cheers, --YFB¿18:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've sent it again, direct to your email (via chapmancentral) instead of using the Email User button. Could you let me know if you've still not got it? Cheers, --YFB¿15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I really appreciate the cool head and even-handedness you've brought to this discussion. I recognize that some of my posts last night weren't as well-considered as they might (and should) have been, and apologize for that. Thank you for looking out for the project.Proabivouac22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just dumped a whole heap of fluff, which just leaves an article about the second smallest premature baby ever. Its not speedyable under any criteria and in my opinion just warrrants a line in Premature birth. I am just going to dump that in and redirect it there. ViridaeTalk23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge completed. Feel free to take the redirect to RfD. I would oppose speedy deletion however. Have removed references to the names of both premmies. See what you think. ViridaeTalk23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well as much as I am on your side regarding unilateral deletions, the article was full of fluff (she is 17 and likes horseriding - whoopdedo) so when I removed the fluff, it left a very short article on the worlds second smallest premature birth - mildly interesting but not in my opinion worth an article of its own. Consequently (and to forestall possible outright deletion/more arguments) I merged everything relevant into the parent article, where people are more likely to want to find it (ie they are reading about premmies and they read how small the worlds smallest was). This is one of the times where I agree that notability from one incident 15 years ago (and she was only the worlds smallest premmie for 6 years) does not make it worthy of a biographical article. And considering there isn't much to be gained from having an article on Worlds second smallest premature baby the information is more useful in the parent article. ViridaeTalk00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, her story was interesting enough for peopel tostill care 17 years later. That's why this one is so baffling. Furthermore, the redirect tells me nothing. Her name doesn't even pop up, as an example. --badlydrawnjefftalk00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed her name intentionally - but feel free to put it back. The redirect redirects to the appropriate section - as anyone who would be actively searching for her name would have to already have a good idea of who she was, given that she is not notable in any other way. ViridaeTalk00:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and nothing to do with my merge - please don't remove the section I added again. It breaks the redirect from the merge. ViridaeTalk00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read what I wrote up there ^ you would notice that is what I basically did - you just gave it a better title and made it snappier/worded it better (mine was a rushed job). excuse me if I am assuming bad faith, but that comment looked liek you were unhappy with my solution. ViridaeTalk09:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I went to Meta to see about blacklisting his site, but Kohs has popped up to dispute my nomination and the admin there doesn't seem to really understand the history or be convinced by the evidence of linkspamming. Some more opinions there would be helpful. --Calton | Talk04:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see you working with Mr. Merkey, and I have a couple questions. Assuming you've read through our dispute (about WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS), am I generally in the wrong here? And if not, do you have any advice on how to reconcile his position to my own? Or if I am completely correct, is there a way we/I can hold Mr. Merkey to some interpretation of policy (without the situation devolving into another troll campaign)? I know I'm asking a lot, and I'm fine if your answer is something like, "wait and see." I just want to be in the loop a little, as I feel out dispute has received the short shrift in comparison with the AGF and troll based issues, and I want to know where the dispute stands if/when Mr. Merkey is returned editing privileges. Thanks, Smmurphy(Talk)16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the solution will be mediation, I think. I hope Phaedriel can be persuaded to help. JzG 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Further to the whole Philip Kraus/Paxart situation: What do you think of the new link at Light Opera Works to Philip Kraus's history site? It appears that Kraus has been building this site because the official LOW site has expunged all mention of his name. I have no reason to believe that it is not accurate (frankly, I have not reviewed it carefully), but it is a partly commercial site, and given the excesses of some of his claims, and his bitterness towards the current LOW management, as illustrated by his vandalizing her WP page, I cannot be sure that it is accurate. Would WP:RS and WP:EL require deletion of the link? Best regards, -- Ssilvers18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Guy! :) I've just been contacted by Jeffrey Merkey regarding the dispute on the Cherokee article, following your suggestion that I could help mediate in the terrible dispute taking place there. In fact, I asked for the page to be protected a few days ago myself, and I'm intimately familiar with the positions of both sides. Therefore, I'll be happy to help the best I can. I can't drop by IRC right now, but there's more I'd need to discuss with you regarding this matter. So please, let me know the times you're usually on so I can meet with you and analyze this a little, k? Hope you're doing fine, sweetie, ttyl! Love, Phaedriel - 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been on the receiving end of some of your patience and wikilove; it seems to involves unprovoked obscenity. And your love for this project is such that you have unblocked a malicious and disruptive user for no reason after being exposed to countless examples of his malice and disruption. Ben-w18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-2007-05-14T10:37:00.000Z-Image:VictoratCosford8107.jpg){kind=link}
