User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:33, 1 January 2007

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

Calling editors cult victims

Hi JzG. I would like a sincere answer in defense of you labelling wikipedians as cult victims. In asking you a single legimate question in an appropriate forum.

Your edit here takes an strong view of the article topic and indicates proponents of the article are cult victims. I find this is quite insensitive and I think at worst it comes across as trolling. What was your goal in responding to an editorial dispute by labelling one side of the argument as a cult? I'd like to know your thoughts. 58.178.195.26 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading far more into it than is warranted. NLP is a cultic system (per numerous sources), but that does not imply that anyone who is involved with it is a cultist or cult victim. The entire nest of NLP articles exists primarily to promote the cult of NLP, and that is a pressing problem. Several involved editors have a vested interest in promoting it, that is a pressing problem, too. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Much appreciated. Can you point me to a reliable source that says NLP is a cult? It's government accredited field in my country. Several independent editors have identified falsified references about NLP being a cult in the wikipedia article. I hope you aren't using a wikipedia as a source for your opinion. On the second point. Let's be equal-minded. The incredible amount of NLP forks happened because of the editor that created 10 or more sockpuppets and refused to write anything in the parent article other than "NLP is a cult" in every possible grammatical permutation. A handful of independent editors forked the main article. Nonetheless, over half the editors involved in the Arbcom case are all that one single sockpuppet controller, who has quite possibly returned to run ammok again. He wasted many people's time over many months with his various useraccounts, personalities and theatrics, and was ultimately banned. I hope we can learn from history and this time include all consensus viewpoints in the parent article without dogmatism. I implore you to not take things at face value on the NLP article. Take care. 58.178.157.33 04:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people identify elements of the cult about it. Talk space is not mainspace, so citations are not necessary. NLP is not a mainstream scientific discipline, it is a heavily promoted commercial field and one which is often used to prey on the vulnerable. The whole thing makes me profoundly uneasy. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think if NLP worked so well, its promoters would be more convincing... Argyriou (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! I like that thought :o) Guy (Help!) 10:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I too wouldn't consider being uneasy as an ideal starting point for giving advice. I note that you sought a third opinion on Arbcom. Thanks for sharing. 58.179.175.12 04:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tree Mall

Hi JzG, you deleted this about a month ago... it was written by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville and I assure you at not created for advertising purposes, they were trying to create articles on all major regional malls at the time. At any rate, unless you're willing to undelete the article as it was, I'd like your permission to userfy it so I can add some references and hopefully get it back into the main namespace at some point. Thanks for your time. --W.marsh 17:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that at all, of course. The real problem was a mass of articles apparently created by an employee of General Growth Properties, but it seems to have opened a minor debate about what constitutes a directory entry for a mall. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this particular one makes some claims to importance, perhaps not the most important mall in the world but it's important at a regional level, it gets 117 article results in a search of the last 7 years of the Courier-Journal. I have userfied it to User:W.marsh/Green Tree Mall, we're going to look at adding some sources to support notability. Thanks. --W.marsh 18:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP COI notifications

Hi Guy. I'm still not sure about what should be done about COI issues on the NLP article. I seem to be very much on my own on that article and its very hard to edit there without feeling that straight reporting is being resisted very strongly by an NLP provider company plus associates. They (especially Comaze) are now trying to make it look like I'm close to or actually throwing personal attacks. I don't see how they can claim such a thing. I looked at the personal attack policy and I see to be nowhere near attack. They seem to be presenting most of the critical facts - but now the work is towards reframing NLP as some kind of "soft science". The only excuse they find for doing so is their own unsourced OR. They are completely against any succinct statement of what NLP does in reality - and they don't want to clearly present the actual reasons for why scientists and others are concerned about NLP's promotion as a science. They are all fighting against me and even user Fainties supports the rather OR frames of Comaze and the IP numbers there. I heard mediation is an option but mediating just myself against a group of them seems a little strange. Comaze seems to be agianst clearly presenting his known COI on the ANI page and of course is refusing to leave the NLP articles alone. If I'm doing anything out of line please specify the error. Thanks - Ding dong merrily etc... AlanBarnet 05:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Guy. Just a bit more on developments on the NLP article. A new editor (Doc pato) has turned up and you may want to assess a possible COI there. I actually feel things can be handled there relatively easily there now. Comaze and certain numbers are accusing me of attacking them (on my talkpage) because I reiterated your message. I calmed things down by simply posting the link and referring to the right policy. Again - if you think I have edited or handled other editors wrongly then point me to the relevant policy. I'm happy to work alone on the opening to present it as balanced as possible according to Wikipedia Lead Section recommendations - though I have also made it known on my edit summary that non-COI collaboration is desirable. I imagine as before - key issues will be deleted from the lead on a fairly regular basis - but I'll keep calmly and flexibly trying to sort the problem if it occurs. Apart from that I'll also keep an eye out for OR and selective editing. Who knows - maybe the article will be clear and balanced one day. AlanBarnet 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not be fooled by yet another sock of Headleydown. His edits are the same, his language is the same, and his arguements are the same, if not politer. Doc Pato 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politer, yes, which is why I have not yet blocked as a Headley sock. Reasonableness was never Headley's strong point, as I recall. Which means either he's learned (in which case is there still a problem?) or this is not Headley. I recommend "trust but verify" here for a while anyway. NLP promotion is a problem. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politeness would be the secondary issue. The primary issue is POV warrioring, distortion of authors meanings, and deleting bona fide cited information.

Like here where he removes the cited quote indicating "the effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated.", because it conflicts with his POV that it has been properly investigated and it had failed.
Here he moves the context of Einlich's statement regarding the popularity of NLP, so it only refers to an ambiguous "cult-status".
Editing technique descriptions to present them in the most cartoonish way as possible. (Same Headleydown style from ages back)
Here he removes information regarding mental health bodies that use NLP
Here he is altering the more accurate "Some reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed" (because some have not) to simply the definitive "Reviews have characterized NLP as mass-marketed psychobabble" (implicit all).
Here he does the same thing. Changing the balanced "NLP is considered by some scientists as fraudulent" to definitive "NLP is considered by scientists as fraudulent." (implicit all).
Here he removes the cited notion that NLP might be untestable, because it conflicts with the POV NLP has been tested and has failed.
Here He removes technique descriptions to replace them with his own cartoonish "imaginary magic circle" copy. (Same Headleydown copy from ages back).
ad infinitum

Regarding NLP promotion, I'm a little confused. As the article stands:

While there's abundance of quoted research reviews (to the point of bloating the entry) reporting the POV NLP is unvalidated and doesn't work, as of yet, there are no research reviews listed in the main article reporting that NLP techniques may have some merit (despite the fact there are many to list[1]).
And despite the fact there are a number of media sources and magazines praising NLP[2], as of yet in the article, none of these are listed and instead only journalists who are critical are included.

Therefore, I'm a bit curious as to how the article is somehow promotional? While I understand you may have had the view that the general unorganized loose body of techniques and operational presuppositions of NLP is somehow a some sort of a "cult", one might consider that if BBC allows it's founder's and trainers to use/demonstrate/promote it's methodologies on prime time television shows (Paul Mckenna/Bandler/Derren Brown), perhaps the whole NLP=CULT view might be somewhat of a fringe POV. Granted, this is a view to which you are perfectly entitled, but to present this as a "fact" which is being "obscured", is perhaps an overstatement of a particular POV, generally promoted by fundamentalists of other -isms.Doc Pato 22:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buttocks

Sorry about the misunderstanding about the buttocks article. You removed a contiguous block of over 8K, which appeared at first glance to be partial page blanking. Because I thought it was vandalism, I interpreted the summary as confirmation.

After you reverted my reversion, I re-read the entire section that you removed. I'm undecided on whether I agree with your decision to remove it entirely but I respect your decision and we'll leave it at that. :) --AliceJMarkham 05:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem, I was a bit tetchy (kids, Christmas eve, you know the score). I'm not opposed to a pop culture section, but listing every single mention not only of the word but of the part of the anatomy is really a recipe for disaster. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err. I think that the comments at Talk:Buttocks#Cruft purge were also aimed at you... --AliceJMarkham 22:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Hexvoodoo

Hexvoodoo, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He hadn't advertised Boobpedia since November, and has done other things since then. Therefore, the block for something he did almost two months ago seems punitive rather than preventative. I don't want to wheel war, but I do think he should be unblocked. Perhaps warned strongly that we really would prefer contributions to our project rather than merely advertising another one, but not blocked, unless he insists on keeping it to the exclusion of other work. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to unblock if you think he will be productive, but his sole mainspace edits were adding links to boobpedia (and all but one of those articles are now deleted anyway). Guy (Help!) 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Corley

Would you mind sending me a copy of the deleted article Mike Corley? —ptk✰fgs 22:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ptkfgs/Mike Corley. Not a very good article, given the author... Guy (Help!) 08:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just ran across this dude for the first time yesterday. —ptk✰fgs 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy. I can tell you more about him than you probably want to know. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A694523 and all that. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Taylor Allderdice High School

Seasons greetings and all that, and a favour to ask. Appreciate your input as to how best to present information in an article. It boils down to how to present the fact that a school newspaper is placed upon the school website, and what importance we should place on the choice of the particular edition so displayed. Thanks. Steve block Talk 09:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-19 Zoe and badlydrawnjeff

gaa. I hate it when people are reasonable. :) You do know that I hold you in the highest regard among all people on this project, right? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhh! You'll ruin my rep as an evil rouge admin! Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist

Hi, can you please take a look on my white-list request:

http://www.cslegie.wz.cz/AJ/indexAJ.htm I would like to ask for whitelisting the page above. It contains nice work about Czechoslovak Legions already added in external sources, but with brackets to avoid spam filter. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That page appears to be dead or off-the-way, Gurch proposed to write you a message directly. Thanks. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Done. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your work on DRVs and AFDs which does not go unnoticed and never fails to impress. --Nearly Headless Nick 11:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD comments on Ghost ramp

Hello Guy. I hope you won't find my comments here confrontational; I felt I should approach you regarding some of your comments on the AfD discussion for Ghost ramp.

My first comment is simply a suggestion: when you make a statement to the effect that you'll disregard comments from other AfD editors and demand certain changes to an article, it comes off as heavy-handed and will tend to create an adversarial relationship with other editors. I would suggest a role that is closer to a "coach" than a "magistrate."

My second point of discussion is with regards to WP policy. I'm somewhat concerned by your statement because it suggests that AfD is not so much a means of reaching consensus amongst editors as it is a means of editors presenting evidence before a judge. If it is the latter, I believe that's a major departure from WP's historical position that "By long tradition, the consensus opinion of the community about an article's disposition is held virtually sacrosanc" (see: WP:GAFD). I am aware that AfD is not a vote, and therefore it is not the sheer volume of opinions regarding an issue that determines consensus. However, my understanding is that AfD is also not an "administrative hearing" in the sense that it is not merely an opportunity for an admin to listen to different points of view prior to making their own independent decision. If in fact it is becoming the latter, I think this is an important policy change that should be reflected in WP:GAFD.

I look forward to your thoughts. Regards, Tarinth 13:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD, in my mind, is to give more input than you'd get from a single admin looking at a thing and saying "this fails policy" and deleting it. It allows us to chew the fat for a bit and decide if a subject is salvageable and which side of the notability border it sits. The problem is that a large group of people who like a particular article can almost always outnumber those who find problems with it. That is why AfD is not a vote. A deletion debate where one person credibly argues that an article fails WP:NOR and a hundred argue that they like the article, but without ever rebutting the proof of original research, can and should be deleted. A couple of months back we kept ghost ramp because several people seemed motivated to fix it, and we have no deadline to meet soa bit of good faith is fine. Now, two months later, the fundamental flaws are unremedied. It is an article whose name is a neologism, whose premise lacks sources, and whose elements are almost invariably original research (i.e. reliant entirely on interpretation of primary sources). Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, but we appear to eb the number one source of information on this topic on the Internet. Where are the reliable secondary sources? Guy (Help!) 13:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to say I feel much the same way as Tarinth does about your comments. There is a degree of coercion and intimindation in them that I find highly troubling. They could be much better done without saying "Since no sources have been provided after two months I give advance notice that I will personally close this as delete unless sources are provided by the end of the five days" or "Which is why, if these deficiancies are not remedied, I will delete it, because WP:INTERESTING does not trump WP:V and WP:NOR." as the primary problem is the use of the "I" which indicates a personal involvement in the situation, rather than a more neutrally worded reference to policy. Every concern you express is valid. How you've chosen to express it is not. Your third comment lower on the thread is much better, as it doesn't do that sort of thing. At this point, I do have to seriously recommend you do not choose to close this discussion yourself, but leave it to another admin. That would be less likely to hurt anybody's feelings, and help increase my confidence that the decision whatever it may be was a proper one. If for whatever reason, you end up disagreeing with the results of the discussion, you can always take it to Deletion Review. Mister.Manticore 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And just so you know, I do agree that the list has some problems. I mostly think it should be a subsection of ghost town for now, with a possible retitling to something else. Mister.Manticore 15:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is not at all personal. The article has been up for deletion before, we have given the interested parties time to fix it, but they don't seem to have done so. As it stands, it violates core policies. I want to concentrate people's minds on that. It needs fixing now or deleting. It really is that simple. I want every editor interested in that subject to go out and do their best work to source it and fix it up, because if they don't they are going to lose a lot of hard work. This is not some piece of shit porncruft article, it's a realistic attempt to produce an encyclopaedic article on a topic which several people think is worthwhile, but unsourceable articles get deleted and that's what's going to happen to this one unless it is fixed. I can't find any credible sources for it either. I will not enjoy deleting it. But I will if I have to. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it is personal or not, and if that were my concern, I'd have expressed things much more strongly. But I don't believe that and I am assuming good faith that you mean well. However, I think your choice of words has created a problem. My concern is the appearance of your words, which instead of focusing on the policies, places what I consider an intimidating emphasis on the power of deletion by one person. That takes the concentration away from improving the article, and puts it on you as a person. Accordingly, I really advise you refrain from deleting it yourself. Leave that up to another administrator, it will probably cause less ill-feeling about the decision whatever it is, than if you do it after the words you have provided. Even if it is kept, you can always go to deletion review, or wait a few months and nominate it again. There's no need for precipitous action, and I'd rather avoid a situation that could cause unrest. Mister.Manticore 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And next time, concentrate on the policy, and leave out the parts where you say you will do something. It just doesn't look right. Mister.Manticore 16:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it only fair to give warning that arm-waving is not going to save the article, since the !votes to that point were all arm-waving Keeps. I don't want people to be unpleasantly surprised, I want them to be spurred to action. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's fair. I think it's intimindation. You may have had good intentions, but I think you had bad practices. You may spur them to action, but I think it's quite possible that action will be against you. IOW, you used too much of a big stick. Mister.Manticore 20:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: All entirely possible, but rather assumes bad faith on my part. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing my best to assume good intentions, but given that you made such statements multiple times in the same AfD, I think it's a valid concern. Your words given an unfortunately intimidating impression, and I'd rather avoid giving that impression. If I weren't AGF, I'd not be bothering talking to you, I'd be elsewhere. Mister.Manticore 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know

Take a look on User talk:SandyDancer - seems our old friend GLF has emerged in person, calling people 'scum' and being generally abusive in a tone which suggests to me that he is trying to goad a litigous response and intimidate other users into not meddling with his 'pet' articles on the Monday Club and the Conservative Democratic Alliance. Given his habit of firing off solicitors letters at every opportunity I'd say that this is potentially very dangerous. I'm concerned that a user might refer to certain details of his personal life when editing either of these two articles. What to do then??--Edchilvers 18:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that account is a sock of you, me and Homey :-) Guy (Help!) 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for JzG

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all your work on WP:DRV, have this barnstar, Guy! Continue your excellent work on DRV. SunStar Net^talk 22:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost ramp (second nomination)

Can you please comment on whether a phrase like unused highway has the same neologistic problems as ghost ramp? Thank you. --NE2 23:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question, replied there. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now in my attempt to remove the neologism "ghost ramp" from list of unused highways, I'm being reverted by someone who claims a personal website (AARoads) is a reliable source. --NE2 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Committee for a Free Britain

If you have a spare moment, would you mind taking a look at my overhaul of this article here and let me know if you have any comments - I'd like to check I haven't missed anything / gone too far. --SandyDancer 01:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads as acceptably neutral, but there only seems to be one source independent of the group (City Limits) and that only covers one event. This may not meet notability requirements. Better this than what we had before, though. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

Hi, Guy - seeing posts here and there, I'm reminded that, once, an editor I don't know inquired if I am SandyDancer, because apparently s/he also speaks Spanish. I didn't understand why the editor was inquiring. Just clarifying that I don't know him/her, don't share his/her opinions about the best countries for beer :-), and I've only spent one week of my life in the UK. Just wanted that on record. Best, Sandy (Talk) 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC) PS - I don't dance either - not even salsa. Sandy (Talk) 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I noticed it was a different person - but hello! Long time no see :-) Guy (Help!) 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Help / Re-review of Moondance Magazine AfD

Hi Guy, Thanks for taking a look at the article for Moondance magazine. I have just added a large number of sources (embedded citations [3]) for the magazine and its use in the public eye(spec. w/academia). The info added is a list of universities inside the U.S. and one in Spain that currently does use the quarterly in their their class cirriculum(s). When you said the article needed more "sources" not sure you had a chance to see this. If it's alright could you detail more comment info (in the AfD discussion [4]) about your needs that makes you want to delete this article? After I know more I can then adjust the material accordingly. Working now to closely meet all Wik standards. Thanks.--Lysanzia 23:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project

Hello ... Would you please take a look at the talk page and history for this article? The author has thrice reverted a {{notability}} tag. This article is also tied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-islam.org (second nomination) by the same author, and Rafed.net, which just survived an AfD that is currently under review ... the systemic problem is lack of WP:RS to meet WP:WEB notability. Thnx! --72.75.72.174 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chelsea Tory

Hi there. I see you have brushed up against this user before. I am beginning to feel somewhat harassed by him. He is attempting to demonise me and cast me as a biased editor, which I am not. As far as I can see, an admin called SlimVirgin is now cooperating with him via email, and I think it is unfair that someone who simply wants to harass another user can do so with impunity. SlimVirgin has not contacted me about this. Is there anything I can do? --SandyDancer 20:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a she, but whatever. If the user is harassing you, then you need to go to WP:DR - or you could post idffs to the admin noticeboard with a polite request for help. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for adding that explanation to the ED talk page. I hope it will help prevent further flare-ups. I'm also glad you did it before I had a chance to; what you wrote is spot-on, and I'd rather it come from someone other than myself, seeing as my motives have been called into question on that mattter. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The quicker we can agree and move on the better, with ED. Too many bad vibes. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)

Apparently your well-written message to Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) did not work. -- tariqabjotu 03:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. I tried. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Plains Historical Society

White Plains Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I disagree with your deletion of the White Plains Historical Society page. To be fair, you should also delete all of the other historical society pages from Wikipedia, links found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Society

Please reinstate WPHS or give reason why it should be deleted and the others not.

Thanks.

Lou.

The existence of other articles is not a precedent or an indicator for inclusion. You need to provide evidence that it has been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject (see the notability guideline). Guy (Help!) 13:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

My recent remark on ANI wasn't directed to you, but to a Certain Person who tends to show up everywhere to attack people who disagree with a Certain Other Person. Happy new year! >Radiant< 15:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, drama :o) Guy (Help!) 16:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New year!!!

Wish you and your family a very happy new year from Sushant gupta 16:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mia and Tia Twins Cars

I just recently put that up for AfD... should I remove it? -WarthogDemon 19:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for the apparently unnecessary AfD . . . though I am unsure how I should've reported the "fair use" issue. What should I have done? Oo -WarthogDemon 19:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem - it worked, so it doesn't matter. You could have tagged the images for speedy deletion as having invalid sourcing, or taken the gallery to the admin incident noticeboard WP:ANI, but the end result is what matters. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. :) I've warned the original creator of the article (who was the one who uploaded all the images) about it. Thanks again. -WarthogDemon 20:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCAHF

Would you please do something at NCAHF. Curtis Bledsoe has ignored the input of every single editor without exception, and continues to revert. He has been belligerent, abusive and sarcastic, and freely reverts despite not only the consensus but what 100% of the editors on that page have said. I mean editors who have a range of personal opinions from supporting Barrett to disliking Barrett. If this continues, and he is allowed to continue, then I really know that Wikipedia has no standards. Jance 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no edit war at that location... Guy (Help!) 20:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! --Ronz 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you! --Hughgr 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make that three? Jance 20:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! As many as you like. If it really is only Curtis then I could block him, but we'll see if he can contribute productively to Talk first. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to add another thank you for page protection. --Wildnox (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I forgot to protect the wrong version... Guy (Help!) 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can be desysoped for not protecting the "wrong version", it's a requirement. ;) --Wildnox (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis is now disrupting 3 articles. Two of those have been protected. The third article he just recently reverted. I changed it, then decided against it, because I am quite sure I would be accused of reverting, if I did.Jance 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmings Motor News

I recreated this article with the copyvio issues corrected. Please let me know if you see any problems with it. Tubezone 21:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I recommend you merge the others and check the contribs of User:Hmnuser for the covers, which should be fair-use (I didn't speedy them as I was pretty confident you'd make an article). Guy (Help!) 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't these AfD's:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemmings Sports & Exotic Car

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemmings Classic Car

be closed, too? The nominator, User:Rugbyball, has been blocked for repeatedly trying to disrupt AfD's. Tubezone 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stopping you from doing that, but I still recommend a merge. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an admin, I don't think I can close an AfD. Can I? Tubezone 23:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ,if it's uncontroversial and doesn't require the admin tools. Admins are just editors with delete buttons in that respect. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to object, even though I participated in the discussion? Tubezone 23:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't have thought so. Point them here if they do. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got the templates right on the close, finally! Enough of this, time to go get a beer and watch some Chicago Bears football.... Tubezone 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

You know the answer is '42'. Jance 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT warning over editing the WP:EL guidelines to support your argument without consensus support.

Please do not edit guidelines that initially contradicted you argument, in order to make them support your argument. Such edits should only be made if you have a demonstrated and firm consensus show to support the change, and even then it would be better to ask another editor to do so. --Barberio 13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having given this the consideration it merits, fuck off. I quoted another policy rather than leaving a version which is being used by some editors to reverse engineer support for their agenda. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 13:12, 1 January 2007 edit Barberio (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 4,269 edits WP:POINT warning over editing the WP:EL guidelines to support your argument without consensus support. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:33, 1 January 2007 edit undo JzG (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 154,975 edits →‎[[WP:POINT]] warning over editing the [[WP:EL]] guidelines to support your argument without consensus support.: No thanks Next edit →
Line 313:		Line 313:

	Please do not edit guidelines that initially contradicted you argument, in order to make them support your argument. Such edits should only be made if you have a demonstrated and firm consensus show to support the change, and even then it would be better to ask another editor to do so. --[[User:Barberio\|Barberio]] 13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)		Please do not edit guidelines that initially contradicted you argument, in order to make them support your argument. Such edits should only be made if you have a demonstrated and firm consensus show to support the change, and even then it would be better to ask another editor to do so. --[[User:Barberio\|Barberio]] 13:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

			: Having given this the consideration it merits, fuck off. I quoted another policy rather than leaving a version which is being used by some editors to reverse engineer support for ''their'' agenda. <b>[[User Talk:JzG\|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help\|Help!]])</small> 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)