User talk:JzG/Archive 24

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Sep-2024. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

• JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • archives • privacy policy )

---

Read This First

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

Terms of Service
By posting on this page you accept the JzG Terms of Service. I endeavour to satisfy good-faith requests to the best of my ability, but if you act like a dick, I will call you a dick. If you act like a troll, I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off. If you want something from me, your best bet is not to demand it on pain of shopping me to ArbCom, because that way is pretty much guaranteed to piss me off to the extent that I will do whatever I can to thwart your plans. This page may contain trolling. Some of it might even be from me, but never assume trolling where a misplaced sense of humour might explain things. I can be provoked, it's not even terribly difficult. You may find, if you provoke me enough, that I will do something I later regret. Only remember, you may regret it more. I am a middle-aged surly bastard who spends his working day wrestling spammers and beating Windows with a stick, but I am capable of seeing good in the most improbable people if they don't go out of their way to make me do otherwise. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This user posts using a British sense of humour and does not repress those instantaneous motions of merriment.

---

Inspirational message:

The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming. At the office, we are receiving dozens of

phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder. This is as it should be. However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation. This is simply out of hand, and we need your help.

We are the #14 website in the world. We are a big target. If we are to remain true to our encyclopedic mission, this kind of nonsense cannot be tolerated. This means the administrators and new page patrol need to be clear when they see new usernames and page creation which are blatantly commercial - shoot on sight. There should be no question that someone who claims to have a "famous movie studio" and has exactly 2 Google hits - both their Myspace page - they get nuked. Ban users who promulgate such garbage for a significant period of time. They need to be encouraged to avoid the temptation to recreate their article, thereby raising the level of damage and wasted time they incur.

Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go. I am here to tell you it is not enough. We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes. This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy. We must put a stop to this now.

Thank you for your help.

-Brad Patrick

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

---

Why

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

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of B-Movie Film Festival. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, really. This is really starting to worry me now. While I've seen you make some really ill-advised deletions and AfD nominations, I've never seen one like this. What were you thinking, man? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Walled gardens are a plague and hard to break down, especially once they've persuaded actual editors to help do their spamming for them. You're right, I can't recall seeing a nest of vacuous self-promotion quote this bad on Wikipedia before, although perhaps the Rikki Lee Travolta crap is pretty close. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You really don't see a problem with your behavior right now, do you? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I do see a problem with vanity spammers using Wikipedia to boost the profile of their endeavours, though. Especially when they are, like Eric Bruno Borgman, persistent about it. Guy (Help!) 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, Mel Etitis has been voting keep on Legge's related articles since May 2005 and for the article that underwent DRV July 2005. Arbustoo 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke

Truthteller86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first ever edit was to revert material. Second edit was to insert it again. Third ever, was on the talk asking why I called the edit vandalism.[1] The funny thing, I never said anything about vandalism. Arbustoo 03:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not SYSIS or Gastrich. I have evidence that it is another banned user. We'll see if he wants to be honest. Arbustoo 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Its Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is blocked. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthteller86 for details. Arbustoo 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't confirmed they are the same. Though their edits are the same. Sorry, about my careless wording. Arbustoo 17:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser is worth having, but this is a job for the duck test. Quack, quack. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is asking for an unblock. Arbustoo 02:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrazy (film)

Please keep to WP:CIVIL. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• When accused of running a hate campaign, it is perfectly reasonable to reply that it is bullshit. Dwain and Billions are doing a fine job of building up Legge and Borgman, but that does not actually replace sourcing as a basis for articles. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean that you think that incivility is justified by another editor's saying something with which you disagree? Where do you find that in WP:CIVIL? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean that his claim was bullshit. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Guy, "bullshit" is the brown stuff that comes out of a bull's hind end; therefore, it is hard to imagine any "claim" (outside of agricultural trading) actually consisting of bullshit. ;) Seriously, though, such epithets are almost universally unhelpful. Xoloz 18:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Where I come from, bullshit is just a slang term for nonsense. Merriam-Webster seems to indicate the usage is the same both sides of the pond. {shrug} Guy (Help!) 18:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, be as facetious as you like, but if you continue this sort of incivility, I'm perfectly prepared to block you for it. It's unpleasant, it unnecessarily raises the temperature of the debate, and it's against Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I think your being played with. See my comments on the afd. Arbustoo 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Ego and a similar issue with El C

Hi. Now that the case has closed, I would like to thank you for your support in the arbitration, which (although lenghty and bothersome) has at least closed with the ban of a disruptive editor along with an army of his socks.

If you could spare the time, I would be grateful if you could try and assist me with resolving a somewhat similar dispute. It concerns El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), whose user page, I believe, is inappropriate for much the same reasons Billy Ego's was. However, El C has flatly refused to discuss the issue. He has simply deleted all my comments on his talk page ([2], [3], [4]; see also my similar request to Seraphimblade).

At this point, I think it would be helpful if you could ask El C to talk to me about it, and possibly if you would add your own thoughts about the appropriateness of this sort of user page content. As with Seraphimblade, I am also making this request because I am thinking about opening an RfC on this issue, which requires that two users have unsuccessfully tried to resolve the dispute bilaterally. Best, Sandstein 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would not bother. El_C is a prolific and respected contributor and his user page is not in any way polemical. Guy (Help!) 07:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • While I disagree that a quote advocating the overthrow of parliamentary democracy is not polemical, I appreciate your assessment. Thanks. Sandstein 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's a quote from Lenin. Billy Ego's page was full of quotes from Billy Ego. Seriously, it is no big deal, the quote in context is highly unlikely to bring the project into disrepute, except amongst hardline anti-Communist zealots, and I don't actually care if they decide never to darken our doors again as that would make my life easier. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by Sandstein: a sad account

Hi, Guy. Any thoughts about the manner in which Sandstein chose to deliver his ... comparison? To save you time, let me present the timeline:

1. Sandstein, in effect, compares my userpage to Billy Ego's, writing: "I feel obliged to point out that your user page suffers of much the same defects that his did" — Billy Ego and your user page
2. I remove the comment — I am deeply offended by the purported parallels and am not interested in discussing the matter further; please refrain from commenting on my talk page in the future
3. Far from showing a great regard, or acknowledgment, to "deeply offended," Sandstein merely restores the comment(!) — restoring deleted comment, reply will follow
4. I rollback the seemingly uncaring and cold-hearted replication. — Reverted edits by Sandstein (talk) to last version by El C
5. Sandstein then add another comment about how I do not own my talk page — Your user page, again
6. I remove the comment again, telling him it was impolite of him, in light of my aforementioned feelings — restoring the comment after it was removed was impolite; please read up on WP:WQT
7. Not willing to take the ""hint,"" he adds yet another comment (about how he really wishes to discuss my userpage with me before involving the community at large) — Your user page, yet again
8. I remove it, yet again, hoping he somehow would be able to understand I.do.not.wish.to.speak.to.him — please do not place further comments on my talk page; I am not interested in speaking to you at this time
9. He finally leaves my talk page alone and goes to make the same highly offesive comparisons elsewhere.
10. None of the individuals he contacts agree to be signatory in the RfC he wished to launch about my userpage.

I argue that Sandstein has been highly provocational, and that if he truly wished to speak to me about my userpage (at some point), he would have left my talk page alone after the first time I removed his comment (telling him I found his note "deeply offensive," which he didn't even bother to address). It's really unfortunate, since right now, I'd rather leave the project a thousand times over than to ever speak to him again. El_C 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the advice of Guy I'll leave the matter alone for now. I'm just really puzzled that a long-established contributor and competent admin like El C would react with such high drama ("Oooh! He said it again!") to my polite suggestion that we discuss my contention that his user page content is in violation of Wikipedia policies. For instance, how else but through his talk page was I supposed to speak to him, and what exactly was offensive about my remarks? Anyway, I guess we all have a bad day from time to time (I sure do). I'll just forget about it. Sandstein 15:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Um, guys? Can we just assume good faith here? Sandstein saw what he perceived as a polemical user page. I don't see it as such, but I can see how it might look that way. But drawing a comparison with a user whose uncontrollable biases and rudeness (more than his user page) led to his banning, is really unhelpful and I can sympathise with El_C finding that very offensive. I believe an apology would not go amiss. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG. I do apologize for the length of this exchange. But I'm compelled to note my deep regret in seeing that Sandstein still continues to act in what I percieve to be a provocational manner, with "high drama" innunedo, and so on. I really wish he'd exercize greater restraint and aim at utmost moderation. There was, indeed, better ways to take issue with my userpage than comparing it to the userpage of a fascist, and it is profoundly puzzling that Sandstein lacked the basic intuition to realize this; not to mention forcing comments on my talk page when I made it clear I had no intention of speaking to him. The entire incident reflects very poorly on him. El_C 16:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to imply any similarities in the conduct of Billy Ego (the disruptive sockmaster) and El C, who by all accounts is a distinguished member of our community. I apologise if my comments were taken that way. However, I do contend that with regards to the content of the user pages, there are parallels, and I regret that we have not been able to engage in a calm discussion about it. Both user page approvingly feature quotes by dictators (i.e., Lenin and Hitler/Mussolini), both pages also feature the appropriate large-scale propaganda photographs, and both pages are generally made up as a shrine to the respective totalitarian ideology. I agree that reasonable people may disagree about this assessment, but I did hope we could at least talk about it. Sandstein 16:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

JzG, I should not be forced to engage in polemics with and respond to the dubious ideological comparisons of Sandstein (or anyone). If he wishes for his userpage to reflect Swiss neutrality with all that that entails, or whatever, that's his prerogative. El_C 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The images of Guevara and Lenin adorned enough student walls when I was growing up that I find it hard to consider them offensive. And the quote from Lenin is pretty understated. What would Sandstein think of me quoting Churchill, I wonder? Or any other of the interesting views on democracy and government expressed by significant historical figures?

• Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay. (Shelley)
• An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger. (Confucius)
• The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away. (Ronald Reagan)
• Government of the busy by the bossy for the bully. (Arthur Seldon on capitalism)
• Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. (Winston Churchill)

I could go on. There is a difference between a person living in a democratic country but noting the problems with the democratic system, through the words of a historical figure, and openly advocating the economics of some of the most despised totalitarian states in history. I don't think quoting Stalin advocates the overthrow of democracy. And let's not forget than when asked what he thought of Western civilisation, Gandhi said "I think it would be a very good idea". So, let's draw a distinction between a single quote from a respected editor and outright polemic from an unrepentently tendentious editor. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

All right. We'll have to agree to disagree on that account. I think any of the above quotes would not be prone to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, but I guess experience will have to tell us whether or not El C's user page is. As I said, I'll drop the issue for now. Sandstein 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, with the for now; how ominous... El_C 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ticket for you...

Hay Guy. Ticket#: 2007041010008042 makes mention of you several times... It's a very difficult ticket to dissect, but it contains big heavy words like "libel" and "slander" so I thought you should know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wow. The word "incoherent" springs to mind. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I think I addressed what the concern was about... we'll see I guess. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gastrich

Further proof Gastrich has no life.[5] Wikidash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This new user seems to know about WP:BITE, and Gastrich's posts. That new user wants critical material removed regarding a religious school. You are mentioned on that page as well. Arbustoo 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cool Wall

In case you missed it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wild Law (book)

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 Fairbairn 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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"

"It needs cleanup"

"too promotional in nature"

Thank you for your time, if you are able to donate some to this. If not, thank you for your previous contributions. --Lesley Fairbairn 08:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

VEGF Trap

Hello JzG

I was very disappointed to discover that my page on VEGF Trap had been deleted by you on April 15, under the criterion "advertisement". It was not an advertisement, but an updated scientific article on a molecule that is not even yet commercialized. I spent hours writing it. It is more updated than the article on this molecule produced by the firm that develops it. To consider this as "advertisement" would lead to delete all the articles in Wikipedia dealing with specific molecules, and there are thousands, and very useful. It is even less "blatant advertisement" : Blatant advertising : Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion,

as there is no, in my opinion, inappropriate content, I would be very honored if you would reconsider my article. It is my wish to go on providing Wikipedia with many articles on biotech medicines, as that is what I am specialized in. I don't mind submitting them to you or other administrators. I understand that your role is to protect the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Please understand I am not part of the scourges, and eventually able to lend you a helping hand in my field of expertise. May I add that I am a newcomer to Wikipedia, and plead indulgence.

Best regards,

Tony Marcel, MD, PhD marcel.tony@orange.fr

• "VEGF Trap is a therapeutic fusion protein manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. It is a potent inhibitor of VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor)and as such is ongoing clinical trials in cancer and in ARMD(adult retinal macular degeneration)." And so on. Come back when the trials are done and we can validate the claims from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Query

Hi there! I would like to ask your advice on something... WP:PNSD has been protected for two weeks now, and based on the talk page most people seem agreed on how to move ahead. But I fear that if I were to request unprotection this would simply lead to another tag war with the people who want the page gone, resulting in yet another protection. Any suggestions on how to handle this would be most welcome; perhaps we simply should employ {{editprotected}} a lot? Thanks, >Radiant< 15:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to VEGF Trap

Your comment is very important. My article crearly states that clinical trials are ongoing. If you decide that Wikipedia can only mention drugs whose claims are validated, you will have to suppress a few thousand entries: all those concerning drugs that are not EMEA/FDA approved. But describing only approved drugs considerably reduces the scope of Wikipedia, and would reduce it medically speaking to a PDR. The issue is not making false allegations (I have made none). Your "come back when we can validate the claims" is contradictory with my text that specifies that the drug is in phase II. Therefore no claim can be "validated" for years. If patients asked whether or not they wish to enter a trial could consult Wikipedia, it might not be so bad. If there is a pharmacologist or person from FDA or EMEA among your administrators, it might be interesting to ask him his opinion. Please give this a thought.

All the best,

Tony

• Wikipedia articles must be neutral, attributable to reputable sources and demonstrate notability. At this stage of development I don't see how a brand-name drug will fit these policies; the sole source of information at this stage is the manufacturer. Drugs can fail during clinical trials. Overall, we need to wait, I think, until we have a wider base of more neutral material on which to draw. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy,

Thanks for helping me around. I do understand your reservations and will not persist on this specific article. The problem with VEGF Trap is that it has not been given an INN (international non proprietary name) like most drugs in clinical trials, so it looks like a brand name drug although it is not yet ! I will try to avoid such situations in the future. I will concentrate more on pharmacological families (like anti EGFRs, where you have 5 or 6 different drugs, if not more), and if drugs are still in trials, I will add something like "claims have not been validated by regulatory authorities". This latter intention holds mainly for stubs, because on one hand Wikipedia is calling for help, and on the other I do not want to induce unnecessary hopes.

Have a nice evening,

Tony

Template:pnc

Mangojuice nominated it for deletion. I don't know how closely you're paying attention to the guideline pages at this point, so I figured I'd let you know since you created it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate...

Virginia Tech shootings. Perp: unknown. Weapons: unknown. Number of victims: unknown. Motive: unknown. Why we have an article when nothing is know: unknown. Why someone has once again mistaken Wikipedia for Wikinews: unknown. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Because at least this way we have an article on it, before the WikiVandals come in and do it for us? I agree though, I wish there was a 48 hour cool off period after an event before an article can be written about it, just to avoid this kind of thing. SirFozzie 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Soft redirect: "Wikinews has an article on this subject". Protected. Job done. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And how many pages will you have to create that to cover everything? Look at the move history of that page, that was on five/six titles. And I'm sure that 10-20 more could have been created easily. Eh. After the reaming I just took on WT:BLP about Burntsauce, don't expect me to do anything controversial if following the policies as written gets you told "to get off your ass" and do something. SirFozzie 22:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Australian Forces Mod - Speedly Deleted?

I see that you decided that Australian Forces Mod needed to be deleted, and that it wasn't up for debate. You have stated A7 (no assertion of notability) as appropriate grounds for speedy deletion, so would you care to be specific so we can work towards the page being restored? How many sources would be required for the article to be restored? (it has been in at least 1 reputable publication, PC PowerPlay)

For the record, I am a part of the development team for the project, and it was one of my colleagues that put the page up in the first place. I was intending to edit the page to be more of a neutral POV than the, frankly, bias page that was there.(he's not that savvy with wikipedia so he just copied text from the readme file for the mod and thought that'd be ok)

That said, it seemed a bit premature to have the article deleted on the spot without even giving anyone a chance to post up some sources rather than just putting it up for deletion. I'm not going to pretend to know all the ins and outs of the wikipedia system, but I do think the page was hard done by...

I look forward to hearing from you, and hope this can be resolved in a civil manner.

Cheers, BrotherEstapol 10:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• You will probably be wasting your time. Individual mods are rarely significant enough to be discussed outside the main article on the game. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Your delete of No Reservations (film) is under DRV

Looks like the filer forgot to notify you (pgk noted this a while ago, but I didn't parse it out properly).

An editor has asked for a deletion review of No Reservations (film). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ZIP Drugs company profile delete - Speedily Deleted?

• ZIP Drugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just trying to understand why you deleted it and how this article is different from the ones about Walgreens, Eckerd etc. I specifically put it into company profile section not as a news article. There was no advertising in it other than basic information about the company similiar to all other company profiles.

Your response is appreciated.

• No assertion of notability, created by single purpose account [user:Zipdrugs]], and we don't have "company profiles" we have encyclopaedia articles about notable companies. Guy (Help!) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

Hi, as you've been involved in blocking or unblocking Tobias Conradi during the past six months or so, I'm making this courtesy edit on your talk page to notify you that there has recently been an inconclusive community sanction discussion, and I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Aluka

Could you please take a look back at the deletion discussion about Aluka? I am not sure if I am writing to the right place and what is the next step... Olyashok 15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Firewalking

Tollyburkan (talk · contribs) is adding himself and his institute to the page. I have repeatedly warned this user to avoid this conflict of interest.[6][7]

He offers no knowledge of physics, and his webpage is commerical in nature.

I have really cut him come slack: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolly Burkan. Firewalking is based on simple science; nothing supernatural or $15,000 worth of training.

Please give this user some friendly recommendations. Arbustoo 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

High School Article Edit Mistake

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.

No chance. A picture of an unofficial shirt produced by one year's alumni is simply unencyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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? --JJLatWiki 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Eris11 21:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

The recent Dr. Steel AfD

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)

• 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" [8], 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)
  • OK, that's fine, thanks for the response. It's enough to keep me out of DRV. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirected page to ITIL Security Management

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)

• 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)

List of IRA members

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.

I am finding it extremely difficult to WP:AGF at this point. Any suggestions or intervention welcome. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made a clear statement as to why the page isn't needed, all that is needed is a link to an older version of List of members of the Irish Republican Army before you removed the redlinks. Given your previous disruption on several IR related articles, you seemingly don't act in good faith at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney has now arbitrarily moved the article to User:Bastun/list, despite his own 'speedy' tag and my 'hangon' tag and a debate on its talk page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(Link doesn't seem to work - try this) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a project member I don't want the page in project space. I stated I would do it, and you failed to reply. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Hackney₃₀₃ 13:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy, FYI, please see here. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see that policy confirms the reliability of the source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger is deletion

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. Brandon97 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you JzG

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.

With sadness, Tolly Burkan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tollyburkan (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

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. Arbustoo 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jeopards (German band)

He doesn't get it does he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting A7'd? The assertion of notability is completely clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to provide some independent sources to substantiate any of the claims in the article, which keep getting added each time it's posted again? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, but that also doesn't matter for A7s, which don't require sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Hackney₃₀₃ 19:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

From your user page

Thank you JzG

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.

With sadness, Tolly Burkan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC).