User talk:No Guru/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Fan Page

No Guru, I would respectfully ask that you reconsider your deletion of the Hire Jim Essian! website from Jim Essian's Wikipedia page. You say that the page is not about Jim Essian, but I beg to differ. The page is all about the satirical undermining of the current Cubs manager in order to have Coach Essian inserted in his place. We have had visits from Jim Essian, Jr., Coach Essian's son, as well as several friends of Coach Essian, and are working on obtaining an interview with Coach Essian himself. I think to dismiss the site as being not about Coach Essian is incorrect. Thanks for your time.

Vandalism Question

Unclear on vandal policy. Are IP addresses ever permanently blocked? I asked, because the following user 70.91.221.157 has a extensive history of "blanking" articles related to evolution. I visited his user page which is littered with warnings, yet his current probationary period is 1 week for deleting the intro to evolution article. His list on edits, which have been numerous appear to be all acts of vandalism. So, as stated: Are IP addresses ever permanently blocked? Thanks, and thank you for protecting the page ... we worked very hard on this new entry, it is hard not to take such attacks personally! --Random Replicator 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing the bagwell profile as the information is true.

Protection Request

Please protect "Richard Nixon" on wiki. It appears to have been vandalized numerous times today.SallyD1265 17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism from my user page. Amos Han 23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up the vandalism of another Evolution vandal on my user/talk page. It's appreciated. --Hojimachong^talk 22:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for reverting my user page :) - Myanw 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism

My bad. And thank you for staying on top of Johnny Estrada's page on Wikipedia.

Phil Gronowski, Portrait of a Sad Young Man

You deleted this page despite it being well sourced from a personal statement by the producer of the film. On the referenced page said producer listed FOUR upcoming projects. Wiki lists three of them- why not the fourth? Do we have a right to pick and choose? Please explain why you deleted a page that was NOT an attack but an explanation of the guy's films when pages for his OTHER three films are not deleted. And please do so NOW. In Haiku PhilPhague 05:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart vandalism

User:216.220.82.225, whom you blocked on 2 March 2007 is back to his/her old tricks again, vandalizing the Braveheart article a little more than a day after coming off blocking. How long can we send this naughty little puppy to the doghouse this time? I would opt for indefinitely, as none of their many edits could be considered constructive in the least. Arcayne 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

image replacement for V Morrison article

The main image for this article is to be deleted 3-9-07. Do you have experience with this happening on articles you're working on. What happens after it's deleted? Do you think it will be hard to find a replacement? Any thoughts you can share will be appreciated. Also have a question about deleting mistakes. I went to create an article for song, Crazy Love the other day and typed Crazy love when I created it. I had a problem linking to it and blanked out the material and then saw where the created page had to be put up for deletion. Anyway, I guess it's out there somewhere, but also guess someone else has to delete it. I would if I could. First time, I've made that mistake, & hopefully last. Thanks for any advice.Agadant 01:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, No Guru, for the information and compliment on contribution. After reading about disputed images on some articles, I don't think I care to be involved in all the hassle. Like everyone else editing here, I have limited time to contribute, and want to use it more productively. I'm sure something will turn up for an image. Thanks again for your help and support.Agadant 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell edit dispute

Hello, I'm a member of the Association for Members' Advocates who's been assigned to this dispute in response to this request by Miked789 (talk · contribs). Please see my comment on Talk:Gordon Campbell#Preventing Edit War for details. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Jade Goody

Hey,

As much as you might hate vandalism, if you have ever seen or heard Jade Goody then you will understand why her page gets continually vandalised and moreover the vandalism is thoroughly warranted as it reflects the utter hatred for this putrid woman amongst the general public. So it totally bewilders me why anyone in their right mind would want to protect this woman’s page, she deserves everything that comes to her.

If you dont know who Jade Goody is i suggest you read her article on wikipedia, in short she is arguably the most hated woman in the UK at the moment. I suggest you think twice before defending her page in the future.

Regards,

A. Vandal

Thanks

CSP 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC): Thanks for helping fighting off the vandalism on User talk:68.211.159.35. I've added the appropriate template to indicate that it is semi-protected.

Snowbot

Thanks for blocking it. I'll fix his errors manually with AWB. When you've got time, you can unblock the bot ;-). Again, thank you for blocking it. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Martinp23 unblocked the bot, I've fixed Snowbot's errors. Happy editing, Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 21:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for blocking Fred92 and reverting the vandalism on my talk page. :) TwoOars ^{(T | C)} 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you too for the revert on my page, I just saw it, i'm sorry I didn't thank you earlier :-) Myanw 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

Hi No Guru. Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my little improvement to the article on the American Revolution. In a similar vein, I notice you're from Edmundston. I recently was similarly appalled to find there was no entry for "Brayons". There is one now, and you might like to check and see if my (admittedly short) article is remotely correct. Cheers, Esseh 01:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IP Masquerading as me...

Hi - I was looking at the contributions of an unregistered user who has vandalised my userpage more times than I can remember, and noticed that he had left a message on your page (an anti-vandal template...) pretending to be me! I see you've deleted it, but just so there's no confusion, it wasn't a case of me editing without signing in!

Cheers, Libatius 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

SureWest Article

There is an article on a local phone company based in Roseville, California called SureWest. I am local to that area and, on a lark, typed it into Wikipedia once. I was rather surprised to see that it had an article. I suppose it could be noteworthy because it has been around for almost 100 years and is publicly traded but I'm still not entirely sure it should have an article on Wikipedia. Either way, I was checking back on it one day and was surprised to see that it was changed to read like an ad for the company. The PR manager of the company apparently decided to edit it. I realize that this is likely far from your concern, but you have a reputation for being anti-vandal and as an admin likely have a pretty level head about these sort of issues so I wanted your opinion. Am I being too picky about this article or is the stuff he's added in (without sourcing, I should add) not really appropriate for Wikipedia (especially coming from the subject's own PR manager)? - Kuzain 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This one is borderline. It does have sources but the last two sentences may cross the line into advertising, but it's a tough call. I've tagged it as potential advertising. Hopefully this will attract some attention to the article so others who know more about the subject matter can check it out. I'll keep it on my watchlist. -- No Guru 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good god, you work fast! It was much worse before I altered it some. It was originally just a long list of things you might find on a flier for the company. Thanks for taking a look! - Kuzain 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron Liebman

Welcome to the growing cadre of editors having to revert User talk:Ron liebman and his various IP address sockpuppets. Wahkeenah 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• His talk page has (or did have) some interchange with User:Wknight94, who is a baseball maven and who, like me (and others), has taken issue with Liebman's approach. Basically, Liebman is claiming to have found birth records that contradict the established info. But he won't provide citations, he just keeps changing the dates and making snippy remarks. Then we change them back. He has also done this with certain people on The View and he also has tried to impose his viewpoint on baseball "streaks" of various kinds. He doesn't use his user ID very often. Typically it's from one of several possible IP addresses that are apparently from the New York area, which is his home turf. Wahkeenah 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Recent red-link users Isidore wax and Moe kaplan and Cynthia roberts, along with a group of IP addresses, are all sockpuppets of User talk:Ron liebman, who persists in this game almost on a daily basis, especially as no action has been taken recently. User Wknight94 had been working on it, but he's been absent from wikipedia since about the third week in April. Wahkeenah 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• And now he's back to using IP addresses. I'm watching every page he's targeted (it's a fairly short list) so I can revert him quickly, but I can't be doing this all day every day. Wahkeenah 18:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I can do it all day, but I shouldn't, 'cause I do have better things to do, doncha know. Thanks for the protect on Victor Pellot. As you can see, he used two anonymous IPs and a sockpuppet today alone. I think he's going to get worse, the more people get involved, and the more frustrated he gets. Appreciations for your involvement, and hope things are well for you otherwise. :) --Ebyabe 22:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman for an overview of this continuing annoyance. I have not yet contacted SABR about these (presumed) impostors. What would your opinion be on that? Wahkeenah 22:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael ing - new liebman sockpuppet

And kinda being abusive about you, if you look at it that way. Just FYI. -Ebyabe 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Sox

Well, second day back under a new ID, and I'm nearly in a revert war already. Notice I said "nearly". This guy [1] appears to be on a crusade of some kind. Maybe he's got a point, but I don't know. In any case, I don't feel like getting a suspension just yet. Thanks fer listenin'. d:) Baseball Bugs 20:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC) (previously Wahkeenah)

Quick Question

I think someone accidentally deleted my article is there any way you can help me?JoeyC5 00:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

About Jon Doh

Since Jon Doh has no more plans to be within or use Wikipedia anymore, he wants his userpage to be deleted as soon as possible.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Great work on your diligence, particularly "Belgium". :) Nevermorestr 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your Barnstar

Need your help on the Van Morrison article. PjtP is back making the same old entry. As far as I know this editor has never made another entry to this article, but feels very determined to make this one. (?) I've removed it one more time, but can I refer it to you next time? Perhaps that would have more effect. Thanks, Agadant 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Tecmobowl

I'm repeatedly bumping heads with this guy, and I need your advice. He seems to be on a crusade of some kind, to rewrite the baseball articles without compromise or discussion. Specifically, where we've clashed is Black Sox Scandal, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, and most importantly, Ty Cobb. I just had to go back about 20 versions because his rewrite rubbed out my additions of MLB official stats and re-instated the baseball researchers' stats as if they were official and universally accepted, which they aren't; and uniform across the various researchers, which they aren't. At some point yesterday, during some petty clash over the Willie Mays trivia section, he said, "There is really no need for you to leave comments on my talk page, as they will not be considered". That tells me all I need to know about his attitude. I won't argue that my own attitude can be chippy. But I am always willing to talk about stuff. This guy is one of these editors who has decided that he knows what's best, and won't listen to anyone else. Thank you for your attention. :) Baseball Bugs 12:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Curiously, despite his NPOV corrections (some of which are arguably valid), in addition to his POV-push about the Cobb non-MLB stats, I see he got reverted in Shoeless Joe Jackson for posting a spam site. Hard to tell what this guy's agenda really is. Baseball Bugs 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Where the latest flair-up really got started, in the Mays article (which I was only watching due to the "Ron Liebman" situation), is something that I now see he's doing in a lot of articles: simply axing any section labeled "trivia", citing WP:TRIVIA as his justification; without making any effort to incorporate into the article, which is what WP:TRIVIA says to do. I pointed this out to him (somewhat snippily at one point), and his response was to delete that from his talk page. I pointed out that deleting from his talk page was considered vandalism, and he deleted that also, of course. This is not helped by the fact that someone has run a robot program to place the trivia tag in hundreds of articles. As I told the guy who did that, my fear is that it will give guys like Tecno-whatever license to whack this info blindly. Baseball Bugs 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the late-night childishness of both of us, with him accusing me of "harassing" him, and my throwing it back at him (which he also deleted, of course). Our paths have only crossed on a few articles. It could be many more, but there's no point in reverting all of his trivia deletions before I get an admin's opinion on the matter. Baseball Bugs 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really going to engage this person in any more discussions. Any attempt at discussion quickly turns to him calling me names and such. I will continue to remove trivia sections, as is advised by wiki and continue to be aggressive in my removal of content that does not belong. While I appreciate other people's perspective, I have no desire to engage someone in a conversation when their only actions have been to revert edits simply because they don't "have time" to address the issue. Be well and happy editing. // Tecmobowl 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your information. In my review of Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps, I take into consideration many things before deleting information. Many of the items that I end up removing have sat in a "trivia" section for some time. It is not as if I am systematically removing information just for the sake of removing information. I do remove information that is considered: unimportant to the goal of the article, trivial in nature, and/or unreferenced. The remark about ignoring that user is appropriate. I am not here to get into "name" calling matches, and debates of subject matter that is pretty cut and dry. One simply needs to provide good and relevant information and verify that information with citations. I am not sure where the remarks regarding removal of statistics comes from. However, the user could very easily have simply placed that information back in the article instead of trying to engage in an all out revert war. We have had an extensive discussion on the inclusion of the "Curse of the Black Sox", so I am not sure why this person thinks I am not here to engage in open discussion. I simply asked that the information be placed on relevant talk pages as most people don't have my talk page marked for watching. I will continue to be bold in my edits, but will not engage in childish discussions with someone. //Tecmobowl 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not very hopeful. He has again attacked the articles I mentioned, using another tactic, a bogus claim of a lack of citation for MLB.com's stats, which is stated in the article. I don't recall having called him any "names", but he can cite them if he wants to. Despite what he claims here, there was no real discussion on the Black Sox Scandal, it was his-way-or-the-highway, as with everything else so far. Baseball Bugs 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He has now taken me to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and continues to refuse to discuss anything, as per his promise given above. Baseball Bugs 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is such a waste of time. I'm not disputing or even talking about Ty Cobb's stats in ANY of my edits. If a small portion of an edit contains bad information, FIX THE INFORMATION, do not revert the entire edit. I did not change that text myself, it is simply a remnant of an older version of the article. Please keep your arguments focused on the topics at hand and do not make false statements. I told you that I would engage in an open discussion about the information at hand on the relevant page's talk page. Let's move this away from USER TALK PAGES (such as this) and move it to the relevant page. There is no need to bring up the issue with Cobb's stats, and as I previously stated, his nickname "The Georgia Peach" does NOT need to be cited.

Stonewalling. I don't know what to do. The article was a certain way, and in his rewrite of it he rubbed out the official MLB.COM stats, and by his own words above, refuses to discuss it. Baseball Bugs 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

He also presumes to give me orders as to where I may post questions to him. If I post them on his page, he deletes them as "harassment". But he won't engage in any discussion on the article talk page. Baseball Bugs 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I complained to him that it was unfair for him to make me re-add just my paintstaking edits from the other day, and of course he simply deleted it again. He has won for the moment, but his approach is bullying and unfair, and something needs to be done. Baseball Bugs 04:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for this taking place on your talk page, but to make sure you see this, here we go AGAIN: A) This is not about unfair or fair, your "feelings", or who you are as a person, this is about the content and nothing more. B) I apologize if your content was lost in one of the various reverts. The best way to fix that is to simply copy that information into the current article and NOT to revert and entire edit that was well based and supported. Another user made a number of small series of edits instead of one large one. It is quite possible that something got lost in there. To the best of my knowledge, the information from MLB.com is in the article. C) I am not bullying you and not trying to win for the moment, I will simply remove content that does not belong on wikipedia. D) I have engaged you in an article's talk page well before this admin was brought into the discussion. I am sorry that you feel I have slighted you by not allowing information on the "Curse of the Black Sox", but it does not hold water like the Curse of the Billy Goat or the Curse of the Bambino. Please stop posting harrasing tidbits on my talk page and keep them to the relevant talk pages. This is about content and nothing else. Meanwhile, I suggest that this text be moved to your talk page as it does not involve this admin. // Tecmobowl 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to answer fair questions on these topics, on any page. I don't see why I should have to painstakingly re-do my work from a few days ago, and even if I do, you'll slap me with the 3-revert-rule. I haven't had time to find you a citation about the Black Sox scandal, besides which your POV-pushing on the Ruth and Cobb pages are of far greater import. And it's up to the admin to decide what should be on his talk page, not you. Baseball Bugs 04:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One way to avoid a bully is to stay away from where he's known to hang out, which is what I've decided to do for now. So I won't watch any page he's got his mitts on. He wins. Baseball Bugs 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm now seeing a growing number of users having a problem with this guy's inflexible attitude and refusal to compromise or discuss (despite his claims to the contrary). I expect this is building to an RFC, which would be too bad, since I think he has something to contribute. I think he already knows about all this chatter, since I think we are all on his watch list. But I wonder if someone should post something on his talk page warning or cautioning him about all this. He posted a "wikiquette" complaint against me, but he has a lot to learn himself about "wikiquette". Baseball Bugs 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Baseball article creation

Thanks for the message! I will still create player articles. It's just that yesterday I went out to see my local 9 play, so I didn't have time to create articles. I'd like to start an article on all players with at least 1,000 hits (I think there are 12 or so left) and then start those that played in at least one all-star game (about 30 or so). Once again, thanks for the support! Patken4 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Van Morrison Album images to be deleted

Some of the album images are due to automatically be deleted because of no fair use rationale being given. In fact, 4 already have been: Avalon Sunset, Back on Top, The Best of Van Morrison and The Best of Van Morrison Volume Two — I've only recently noticed this as I don't often look at the discussion pages. I'll admit I have no experience with this disputed stuff and usually try to stay out of it. But I hate to see the album images be deleted when I know it's a lot of work for someone to upload them and I wouldn't know how to do it myself. Can you give me an example of what I need to put on the image page to keep them from being deleted? I wrote a message to the editor who uploaded them but heard nothing back. (In fact he previously wanted to delete the album articles stating lack of content which in the case of some was not accurate) The list of album images in question at the moment seem to be: Hymns to the Silence, Irish Heartbeat, Enlightenment, Days Like This, How Long Has This Been Going On, The Healing Game, 'What's Wrong with This Picture?, Tell Me Something: The Songs of Mose Allison. Thanks as usual for help or advise you can give. Agadant 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• No Guru: Thanks a million! Your prompt reply and excellent example will make saving the album covers more certain. I did Enlightenment already and will go through the rest now. Used your rationale as you wrote it —seemed perfect to me. Agadant 16:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

?

All I did was edit Method Man's birthday to the CORRECT date (March 4). I left comments on his talk page explaning my edit. Someone keeps changing it back to the INAPPROPRIATE date (April 1) Know the facts before you try and show yourself off as some sort of authoritative figure....--Tainted Drifter 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your little freind has vandalised again...

User talk:69.130.62.98 needs a severe blocking, after MANY final warnings and Personal attacks to this page. Thanks. Meateater 12:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)