User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:32, 4 January 2007

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.

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]

I don't understand this insistance that the NLP article is promotional either. I agree that the parts on its principles have been afflicted by jargon, but the main thrust of the article is to make it abundantly clear that there is not a shred of scientific evidence in support of it. This is quoted ad nauseum, the editors having to take refuge in long and exact quotes as a defence against POV from AlanBarnet. If anything the article is biassed in the other direction. If I knew how to create a link I could point to where AlanBarnet deliberately put in inaccurate citations in the manipulation section to the effect that 3 reputable scientists stated NLP was a cult in a matter where the true substance of the opinions of the scientists had already been fully discussed. AlanBarnet has been repeatedly asked to provide reputable sources to support his contention that NLP is a cult and was eventually, on his talk page, reduced to citing you as a source. Fainites 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. [3] The point is the fact that most of the previous citations for saying NLP was a cult had already been shown to be fake as was extensively discussed in Talk. (the only one of the total of 9 citations given which actually accused NLP of being a cult was Protopriest Novopashin.Fainites 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)) The opinions of the three scientists were extensively discussed in Talk. AlanBarnet refused to provide an exact quote and context for this claim and only provided the quote (which doesn't support it) long after someone else had already provided it. The point I'm making is that he's not editing seriously at all. He's just playing games which result in alot of extra work for everyone else and a distorted article. Fainites 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here Fainites - I think this may help [4]. Here is the statement that I used to present that information “Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult and may be nothing more than a psychological fad”. (Eisner 2000p158). I already explained that I deliberately kept the cult issue out of the lead section because I am as yet unsure of how to present it. [5]. It does seem to me that already some verifiable and reliable sources have been removed from the article on the basis that they don't contain the statement "NLP is a cult". There is a conference article that states NLP is a psychocult for example - written by a researcher and Russian archpriest for a cultic studies conference. Clearly there is a cultic issue. I have some solutions for the oversized article that I presented on the NLP talkpage under the title of "Cleanup taskforce issues". AlanBarnet 06:30, 2 January 2007 (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]
- Yep :) and of course I swiftly got a snarky response for making the above comment. Meta-drama, anyone? >Radiant< 10:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would both quit playing this little game. JzG, do you really want to revive that fight? I attacked nobody, and I think that both of you should quit the insinuations. ATren 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revive what fight? The fight between Fresheneesz and consensus shows no sign of ever having abated. He can shout until he's blue in the face, the consensus will remain that non-notable subjects do not get included, for reasons of policy as explained at User:Uncle G/On notability. As I have suggested before, anyone who thinks that they are an inclusionist should spend a few hours at Special:Newpages (a.k.a. "The Firehose Of Crap"). There are no deletionists, just different degrees of inclusionism. Nor is this an inclusionism issue anyway - Jeff Raymond has probably the lowest inclusion standards on the project and I have no great trouble getting along with him, because he works the Wiki way instead of the disruptive way. Disruptive behaviour is... disruptive. We don't need it. If someone loses a debate, they have to learn to get over it. MONGO is showing the way here, he has been amazingly philosophical about a case which went against him despite widespread support for him (much wider than Fresh ever managed to find). Guy (Help!) 12:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, you should know by now what I'm talking about. Radiant insinuated I'm "attack(ing) people", when in fact I have attacked no one. Fresheneesz has nothing to do with this - my objection is to Radiant's insinuations about me. I object to the charge that I am attacking people just because I show up in a debate involving Fresheneesz. I suggest you both stop accusing me of attacks. You are both experienced admins and should know better. ATren 12:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both you and Fresh is that you are entirely unable or unwilling to see the other side of issues. Note that in this thread you accuse me and JZG of "playing this little game", fighting, and insinuating - all of which are attacks. >Radiant< 12:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So my quote that you are "playing this little game" or "insinuating" something is considered a "personal attack" - but your baseless accusation that I'm "attacking people" is not? Is this not a double standard, Radiant? Now I'm asking again, please stop. I attacked nobody. ATren 18:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, until you pitched in I didn't even know who the supposed parties were (although there were only a couple of possibilities, it's true). Fresh has been sanctioned by ArbCom for disrupting policy pages. That's a fact. ArbCom did this after an extensive review, with plenty of participation and input. Fresh put his side of the case, and lost the argument. He needs to put that behind him and move on. Supporting him in creating pages which make snide remarks about "deletionists" - a class of editor which objectively probably does not exist, since there are no cited examples of editors whose sole involvement with the project is deleting content rather than creating anything, is merely helping him to dig his own hole. There are legitimate Wikiphilosophical debates about the criteria for inclusion, but there is very substantial support for the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a directory, and the crucial difference between the two is notability, albeit that people disagree on what constitutes notability (and even that is settling towards the current definition proposed by Uncle G). "Destroying information" and "destroying content" are remarks almost exclusively used by tendentious editors. Fresh's reaction to being told this, by just about everybody of any standing in the project, was to create a page essentially equivalent to "why I was right all along despite the fact that nobody agreed with me". As ever, with Fresh, he creates a locus for perpetuating the dispute rather than acting to resolve it. It's how things work on Usenet, but not here. And yes, all of us get sucked into that mindset from time to time, which is why I userfied the thing instead of nuking it. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into the Fresheneesz debate here, because it's irrelevant to Radiant's original comment above. I don't know what you knew or didn't know about who he was talking about, but I knew, and you should know by now that I will respond whenever other editors spread lies about me. And the "attacking people" quote is a lie. I've attacked nobody. ATren 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really really need to stop calling every difference of interpretation a lie. It doesn't help in any way whatsoever, all it does is reduce the chances of anyone taking your concerns seriously. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond anymore to this. Radiant, I disagree with your calling my actions "attacks", let's leave it at that and agree to disagree. Guy, feel free to delete the whole thread. ATren 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is an important point here which I think you have failed to grasp. It was at the root of Husnock's problems which led to his RFAr. It is this: if a remark is perceived by its target as an attack, you should give serious thought to the possibility that it could legitimately be construed as such - however it was intended. Linguistic and circumstantial differences mean that a remark made in good faith may be taken amiss by another editor. To compound that by saying that such an interpretation is a lie is not in the least bit helpful. My experience has been that the vast majority of differences can be settled either by discussion or by agreeing to differ. You will be aware that you and I have failed to reach such an accommodation. Seems that the same applies with you and Radiant. Now, that may be down to Radiant and Me, but it may not. We interact with a lot of users - probably some orders of magnitude more than you do - and we seem to have long-running problems with only a few of them. I would be the very last person to suggest that I am perfect or anywhere close, but you really ought to give some consideration to the possibility that your style of interaction with others - and even more so Fresh's - may also be a cause of friction. That's all I meant. Doesn't mean anybody is right or wrong here, but it does mean that the style of interaction is not moving towards resolving the problem, more towards escalating it. I'm really glad to hear that you intend to let it drop. Hopefully that will be the end of it. You may depend on this: Radiant is here to build a great encyclopaedia. Radiant does an enormous amount of work to help that process along. Perfect? I don't think either of us would claim so, but at least worth listening to with at least an open mind. Fresh has a big lesson to learn, and it's this: sometimes when a lot of people tell you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. Anyway, as you say, enough of this crap. It's a new year, maybe a new start. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not Fresheneesz. I happen to agree with some of his sentiments, that's all, and I made some polite comments in response to people who were accusing him of attacks. I attacked nobody in this debate, and yet when I try to defend myself against the insinuation that I am "attacking people", I'm made to look like the argumentative one. It's quite simple: if you feel I've attacked someone, please assume that it wasn't my intent and point out the offending diff so that I may defend myself and/or correct the wording. What you shouldn't do is make sarcastic remarks about me "attacking everyone" without a shred of evidence to back the claim, which is exactly what Radiant did here. That's all. I don't care who Radiant is, or how much he's done for the project - in this particular case he is either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what happened. If you can't accept that, Guy, then we will continue this pointless argument. ATren 20:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, as an outside observer who has never had contact with you, I can only observe that you appear to me to be belligerent and argumentative in your dealings with other Wikipedians. I urge you to step back and find a less confrontational manner in your comments. -- Donald Albury 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me specifically what edits are belligerent and argumentative. Really, I'd like to know what qualifies as "belligerence"? Did I accuse anybody of "attacking people"? Seriously, if you are going to make that sort of accusation, I'd appreciate specifics. ATren 00:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATren, I know you're not Fresheneesz. But you are being aggressive in support of behaviour by Fresheneesz of a kind that has already seen him sanctioned by ArbCom once. As for diffs, if your first reaction had been to go to the original complainant and ask them the same question (but not beliligerently), then we would not even be having this conversation. Fresh caused a problem, we fixed it after a brief debate, and the best thing to do would have been to go quietly about your business. If you really want to go around picking fights with anyone who opposes Fresh, on present evidence you are going to have a lot of discussions which are variants on this one. Probably not a good use of your time, all in all. If you genuinely can't see what in your recent behaviour is counted as belligerent, then you may have a much bigger problem. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Guy, I did confront Radiant, immediately and not belligerently, on his talk page. His response was to delete my comment as a personal attack (???) and then post a mocking message here. If Radiant had responded to my concern instead of deleting it, then yes, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Furthermore, last time I checked, engaging in a debate in defense of an editor (or, more precisely, his essay) should not be grounds for charges of personal attacks. Fresheneesz has written much that I have not defended, but this essay did have some good points in my opinion and that's why I defended it. I was certainly not the only one - several other respected editors defended the essay and its author on the deletion page. ATren 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that was not belligerent, then one of use doesn't know what the word means. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from an editor who regularly tells others to fuck off. But whatever, I'm done with it. ATren 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not regularly, just occasionally. When I think they really ought to - well, fuck off. But you miss the point: I'm not the one claiming that I'm not being belligerent. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 January 2007 (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' (to life, the universe and everything). By the way, you might take a look at Barrett v. Rosenthal. The talk page is getting heated, but no edit warring at this time. This is an article about a case of first impression in the CA Supreme Court. It is the first in the US to interpret a federal statute Communications Decency Act as to defamation by a "user" of internet 'services'. The parties to the appeal both appeared on the talk page. And Curtis, who had changed the article (after it was agreed on by a concensus, as NPVO and sticking to the facts of the case). This is related to the same people that were discussing or editing NCAHF. Only on NCAHF, Barrett appeared. Here, Polnevoy appeared. Both after Curtis' comments.Jance 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has Polevoy made an appearance here at Wikipedia? What's his user name? -- Fyslee 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drpolevoy, I think. He is a 'new' user, who first showed up today at this article, it appears - if that is indeed he.Jance 20:32, 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. WP:COPYRIGHT already has consensus (as well as the backing of the Foundation's legal advisors) and citing it to clarify a position absolutely is not disrupting anything to prove anything, other than that linking to offsite copyvios is a Bad Thing. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Barberio 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You now seem to be attempting to goad me into a 3RR or edit war by adding redundant statements on copyright to the guideline. Your recent addition of a new 'copyright' subsection replicates the 'restrictions on linking' section already in the article, and adds no new content simply restating the copyright policy linked to. Please stop. If you feel we misrepresent current copyright policy, please bring it up for discussion. --Barberio 13:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL did you just warn Guy for incivility and then 6 minutes launch a text book example of bad faith assumption? If this RfC ends up at ArbCom I'll be there to watch the ridiculing that will follow. MartinDK 14:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly like the assumption that I am pushing an agenda while those apparently attempting to obfuscate the problem of linking to offsite copyright violations are not...

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to goad anyone into anything, merely clarifying on our external links guideline the established consensus in our copyright policy, which recent edits to the links guideline seem to me more to obscure than to clarify. I have yet to see a credible rebuttal to the contributory infringement precedent, and I am not aware of any circumstances in law where a failure of diligence is found to excuse any infringement of intellectual property rights (feel free to cite such a precedent if it exists). We know there is a problem with some (many) YouTube links, therefore we know we have to verify the copyright status from authoritative sources. I've seen the same arguments rage over whether text copied and pasted from a non-commercial website is really a copyright infringement. The law on this does look to be pretty much binary both in intent and in application. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I misunderstand something here but as far as I know anything is implicitly covered by copyright unless otherwise stated. Copyright notices are posted to show who owns the material not to ensure that it is in fact copyright. You need to explicitly license it as GFDL etc. for it not to be copyright in the traditional sense. So it seems to me that this entire debate is pseudo-legal nonsense since anything not explicitly licensed as GFDL etc. is covered by normal copyright and hence our policies are very clear on that, especially when it comes to YouTube because we know that they have problems controlling the content being posted.

Also, if YouTube content is imlicitly assumed to be legal non-copyvio unless otherwise stated then the same would apply to Wikipedia... and I assume (in good faith he he) that anyone can see the problem with that assumption and the reason why Wikipedia spends time and money on legal assistance. Just my 2 cents on this. MartinDK 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual porperty law does not, in general, work on the assumption that a copyright is not being infringed unless someone says otherwise. The onus is on the user to verify copyright. The pro-YouTube camp appear to be arguing for a reversal of this practice, allowing links to be added unless one can conclusively prove that they violate copyright. That is unlikely to be the interpretation an IP lawyer would take. None of the links are, as far as I can see, of such pressing importance that they are worth risking putting the project in legal jeopardy, and in any case this is supposed to be the "free content" encyclopaedia, linking to offsite copyvios - or material where the copyright status is questionable - is against that ethos. It's not much different from the endless "fair use" arguments. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a simple policy for copyright violations within text and images. If a copyright violation is alleged for text, a huge infobox is added to the top of the page, it's listed for investigation by an administrator. Ditto for images, sound files, and other uploads. It seems the only thing exempted from this policy is external links. They are almost as much of a liability to Wikipedia and it's perhaps time we had some process for external links to be checked for copyright status. We don't go around removing pages and pages from Wikipedia when we suspect a copyvio and we don't leave them trying to claim policy permits it, so I fail to see why external links shouldn't be treated in the same manner as other suspected copyright problems.

It really might be time to get Brad Patrick to comment on whether he believes the existing policy is fine and if not, what he believes we need to do to satisfy the law so we can then tailor new policy around that. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's much simpler than that. If an editor in good standing removes a link, citing a credible concern, then we should treat it the same as any other text removed in good faith: it should be debated and not put back in until the concern has been addressed. If I remove a link to a site which habitually infringes copyright, I don't expect to have to argue the toss, but if people come back and provide documentary evidence that the particular link does not infringe copyright, then it can go back in. External links are only ever the trimmings around the edge anyway, Wikipedia does not exist as a link farm or referral system. If the link cannot be unambiguously shown to be "clean" then of course it should stay out - copyright policy says we don't link ot material which infringes copyright, and states a perfectly good reason why not. I've yet to see a link that was so very special as to make it worth running the risk of a lawsuit. Why do people have such a problem with this? What is so wonderful about these YouTube links that we should throw caution to the winds and hang the potential legal consequences? Beats me. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for replying. I think there are at least 2 reasons. First of all YouTube makes it very easy to embed any video on their site on your blog etc. and that seems pretty popular so people assume that YouTube would be liable should there be any problems. Second, a lot of these YouTube videos are related to subjects outside the ordinary scope of an encyclopedia. And, without passing judgement on anybody, we all know that these articles are typically edited by people with a broader idea of what Wikipedia should be than those concentrating on the more traditional subjects. As for how to solve the interpretation problem I think Guy is right in saying that these links are not a central part of the articles. We already establioshed that YouTube is not a reliable source so really there should be no immediate need for them. The problem as I see it is that we have a very clear policy on pictures and copyviotext but people seem to be unaware of the legal status of these videos. Guy's edit to the guideline in question here may seem duplicate to some but it clarifies what many seem to misunderstand. As for Brad Patrick I think we should save him from the pain of reading through that RfC... :) I know a mine field when I see one by now which is why I asked here and not on the RfC. MartinDK 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

While I have dealt with a number of sockpuppets before and am more familiar with checkuser policy, one of my goals in my adminship was to help out on WP:SSP. I noticed you were one of the few admins doing something there and wondered if you can point me in direction of procedure, as I am very aware that a wrong move on that subject can cause endless problems, but inaction is equally problematic. -- Agathoclea 13:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly not too hard, actually - some people know the signs and give clear diffs to demonstrate, and others are pretty blatant. You might also want to subscribe to unblock-en-l. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just done so. Yes - some socks are pretty unimaginative making the same edits in all incarnations. Agathoclea 17:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete!

Sorry to bug you, but a while back, about everything I did (creating pages and adding images relating to Trainz) got deleted. This was my fault, because I indeed did things on purpose, such as blanking the TRS2006 page and adding a delete template, and adding things like "i stole this from auran without permission" on the image pages just to get them deleted. Well, I was very upset about something at the time, and I was wondering if you could undelete the images and articles I made? I'm sorry, I'll make sure not to let stuff get to me that bad again. Check my contribs to see all the pages. --Red Pooka 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles don't appear in contributions history. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Implant Protected page is the wrong version

Dear Guy,

I was away for 2 days, and during that time there was an edit war again on the breast implant article, and it seems that you protected the article. I am an epidemiologist, formerly on the faculty at Yale University and a researcher at Harvard, who has published several peer-reviewed articles and reports on breast implants. Droliver is a plastic surgeon who deletes information that suggests that implants have risks, prefering a POV that implants are available and therefore must be safe. (Of course, reality is more nuanced). The protected version of the article deleted language that had been carefully negotiated regarding widely-established complications. It also deleted a compromise intro paragraph in systemic diseases that had been proposed by Samir, an administrator.

I'm sure that was not your intent and I would welcome your help in protecting a compromise version ot hte article, rather than the current version, which is written by droliver strictly from a plastic surgeon's point of view. He doesn't seem to understand the epidemiological studies that have been published.

I don't know anything about the war between Jance and another new writer, but if you look scroll back on the discussion page you will see that a physician who treats implant patients, Dr Carter, agrees with my views (and vice versa), as do two other public health experts. Droliver has been alone on his POV, but somehow we always end up with his version of this article, which he has written almost single-handedly, deleting everyone else's revisions, despite considerable consensus against droliver's views.

Please help.Drzuckerman 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that Droliver did not even agree with some of the deletions by Curtis. The 'war' between Curtis and me has been a dispute between Curtis and virtually every other editor on several articles. Curtis has wikistalked me to this particular article. I do not know if he has done the same to others. I understand the purpose of protection, and that the admin does not protect a "right" or a "wrong" version. What the solution here is, though, I do not know. Jance 22:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All protections are at the wrong version. {{editprotected}} is your friend. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no hard feelings

hi guy, i've posted a response to my blocking/unblocking on my user page. please take a minute to read it, and let me know what you think, thanks. --Hexvoodoo 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

AMA Request

Hello Guy, I understand your involved in Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf. I would appreciate your comments and insight to help resolve this case either on mine, Rfwoolf's or the case's talk page. Thankyou. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to WP:EL while protected.

Please revert your change to WP:EL, the page is currently protected. The change proposed has only been discussed for an hour, and there had been voiced opposition by an editor. There was no reason to break protection to make the edit. --Barberio 21:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Please explain why you will not? --Barberio 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the change was very small and replaced a loaded word open to misinterpretation (as evidence credible concerns raised on Talk) with a value-neutral one. This is entirely reasonable in the lead of a high-profile guideline page. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, some reasonable backing for the original wording. And this was not an urgent change requiring immediate admin action, and could have done with some more discussion. --Barberio 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which just reinforces the ambiguity. The value-neutral term lacks the ambiguity. Move along now, nothing to see here... Guy (Help!) 22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is however a discussion you should have had on the talk page before editing the protected page. --Barberio 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing trivialities is never a big deal. Loaded word replaced with value-neutral one, world continues to turn on axis. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for the support... the objections are becoming objections for the sake of objecting. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are working backwards from a conclusion. We've seen the same in many policy discussions; in the end, no amount of "but I like that shit!" will ever overwhelm a credible argument based on policy (in this case the copyright policy). I do not think that looking the other way and whistling innocently has ever worked as a defence in law. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm inclined to err on the side of caution. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected use of Wikipedia to garner notability for others

Hello ... please have a look at User_talk:72.75.72.174#Suspected use of Wikipedia to garner notability for others ... I suspect Striver (talk · contribs) has been creating a web of articles about NN books and authors to promote an agenda associated with the websites al-islam.org, rafed.net, al-shia.com, and others ... this is all linked back to Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project and The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center, really two sides of the same coin, so why two articles?

Striver has been arguing for recognition of PageRanks for satisfying WP:N criteria in WP:WEB AfDs, but the more suspicious behaviour is the creation of articles about NN books and their authors published by them, then seeding Wikipedia articles with external links to "read it online" at al-islam.org or al-shia.com ... he placed 15 of them in one article alone.

Then I stumbled across what led to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 January 2#Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet and its author, Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi (my {{prod}} was removed) ... two more questionable stubs created by Striver ... this led to other books and authors whose only "notability" was that Wikipedia had articles about them that show up in a Google or Yahoo! search ... please see the talk pages and edit history for my comments, and note Striver's lack of comments in their edits.

My concern is that I am becoming a stalker, although it began as curiosity. I put a {{notability}} tag on an article, and Striver deletes it without comment ... I put a {{prod}} on it, and some other editor puts a WP:CSD on it, that also gets removed by the author, or changed to an AfD by another editor ... now it goes from CSD straight to WP:DRV so that it can get argued as an AfD, as in the case of the Imamate: The Vicegerency of the Prophet.

But I am also afraid that the kinds of external links being added, coupled with the number of articles being affected, is an attempt to PageRank values in Web directories, and that is tied to pre-establishing the "notability" of some other enterprise ... and that strikes me as being paranoid, which makes me question my own motivation in even following this trail of bread crumbs.

Now my IP address has changed again, and I don't really want to get dragged into repeats of the same old arguments about WP:V for WP:N as applied to WP:WEB, WP:ORG, WP:BIO, and WP:BK. I'd rather just do the research and turn this over to an administrator. Can I just sit in the background, following links, leaving coments on talk pages (and the occassional prod), but just stay out of the discussions? Is there some way that a whole bunch of these can be brought together at once for deletion (assuming I do the legwork), or used as a kind of "class action" to firm up some of the guidelines and policies so that this kind of armchair wiki-lawyering doesn't keep cropping up and wasting everyone's time?

Thanks for any help in this matter, even if it's just to remind me that I need to get more of a life than Wikipedia. —72.75.84.93 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between wikistalking and working your way through a walled garden. Striver has some history of strong opinions, so as long as you are open about what you are doing I see no pressing problem with it. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Guy!

Bad Guy! Bad! Fix lack of references, not delete! Bad! No donut! Georgewilliamherbert 07:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only works at first nom - still unreferenced at second nom means that (a) no references exist or (b) nobody can be arsed to add them (and why should I care?). Plus I am a heartless deletionist and would see all vanispamcruftisement excised from the project :-) Guy (Help!) 09:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus I am a heartless deletionist - Naww, you just play one on TV. There are an infinite cloud of references-needing but still notable articles out there. Nobody bothered to {{cite}} tag that one or I'd have fixed it. Haven't got an infinite amount of monkey time to type on all the things needing fixing... Georgewilliamherbert 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely believe you. My problem is with people who !vote "keep and improve" or assert refs in deleiton debates, and then odn't actually fix the article. If an article is AfDed and the people who want it kept can't be arsed to fix the reason it got nominated, then I rather stop caring. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now has references to a print book, the New York Times, a Somali newspaper, a US local newspaper, and several websites. Satisfactory? Georgewilliamherbert 10:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The print book is just a directory of ~~ego trips~~ micronations, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 10:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinion and guidance

I'm having trouble with the Speed bump article, I would appreciate your opinion. Alex Sims 11:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can reason with De Facto, although he seems to have an agenda against any kind of road enforcement (I'm guessing he's an ABD member) he is well versed in policy and not given to removing cited text. The solution is to find a good source. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only agenda is to promote the neutral POV in articles. There is legitimate criticism of speed humps, as there is of many other measures introduced in the name of road safety, it needs to be included - not swept away. -- de Facto (talk). 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your scepticism is generally greater than mine, and I'm pretty sceptical about road "safety" interventions. My major problem with the current opposition to road enforcement is that it appears to be founded on the idea that drivers can be left to make valid judgements - actually the fact is that they can't, if they could there would be no interventions. Most drivers overestimate their own skill. Most rabid opposition to enforcement seems to come from middle aged male company car drivers, whose collision rate (surprise surprise) is considerably greater per mile than the average - but bad driving is always presented as a problem with other drivers, never our own driving. This would be less of a problem if it were not for the fact that negligently driven motor vehicles are one of the biggest killers of children in this country despite our having some of the most restricted children in the world in terms of personal independent mobility. Motor vehicle collisions are at least one and possibly two orders of magnitude more likely to be fatal than other sources of avoidable injury. Why are there speed bumps? Because people drive too fast. If they didn't drive too fast, there would be no need for speed bumps. But that's a philosophical argument. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If criticism has been made it needs to be faithfully relayed, not censored. We musn't be tempted to apply our own moral filters or POV and attempt to eliminate arguments that we don't understand or agree with. -- de Facto (talk). 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, as an admin of some experience, I know that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mine or yours. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. If you had a moment can you review my comments on the talk page? I was sort of hoping for a WP:RFC-lite. Alex Sims 12:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More kids to use Wikipedia as a discussion forum

This one apparently led by the teacher, who thinks a WP user page would make a great bulletin board. I left a note suggesting otherwise. [6] -- Fan-1967 17:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the inaccuracy in the "Pagania" article?

Hallo JzG. According to your advice, I found reliable and neutral sources from various historians against the Serbian origin of the Narentine people in my "Arguements against Serbian origin of Narentines" discussion. Nobody tried to dispute it (only Pax sustained that I'm Africa guy). What is the next step to change this inaccuracy in the article to match the Wiki standards? I'm sure that if I follow the "be bold" advice of the Wiki, I will start the edit war, and I don't want to do that. So, what am I to do? Thank you in advance.89.172.6.250 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the subject area, you need to propose a change on the Talk page and discuss it with the other editors. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to do that. But, whose consent do I need to get in order to do the change? Is it the authors? Because I'm sure I will not get it. And what if he never replyes? What's the procedure?89.172.6.250 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't achieve consensus, then maybe you've not got it right yet. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to Lose (but an article)

Hey, I noticed you deleted Nothing to Lose. Thing is...I kind of need this article to...uh...exist. Is there anything I can do to remedy this? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could always try making some assertion of notability, but that only works long term if it's credible per WP:N. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World

Cube World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What's your problem?! Why the heck did you delete my cool new article about Cube World?!!! Next time, at least just put a warning that the article's under vandalism before you go along and just delete it! Drewdy 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Drewdy[reply]

Same reason as the other five deletions. Why the heck did you keep re-creating it? Guy (Help!) 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DekiWiki Page Deletion

DekiWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would you please justify why an article that has had several contributors was deleted? It was clearly not spam. It was clearly of significance. The traffic alone would surely validate this. Google DekiWiki or MindTouch. Now consider the project only launched at the end of July (2006) and in that short time has garnered more than 50,000 installs. I provided several other notable assertions in the article and on the talk page. It's surely significantly more notable than 99% of other wiki projects that have articles on them. Moreover, the deletion process was not adhered to when it was initially deleted because the page was not spam or vandalism. You cite that no assertion of notability were provided. That's incorrect there were several assertions to this affect. I can only assume you did not read the article or it's corresponding talk page if you think it's not-notable or an advertisement. It is, without a doubt, not either. I urge you to read the article and you will undoubtedly realize this. This is at least as notable as any of those listed here: List_of_wiki_software.

Finally, I did not notice you had deleted it (I noted two deletions in 20 minutes after the page was locked) b/c I was, at the time, editing. Had I noticed the deletion I would have immediately posted here prior to recreating so as to prevent lock. I recreated the page in the first place because the deletion process was not adhered to in it's initial deletion. I'm also very surprised that you wouldn't have had the courtesy to post a message on my talk page.

I can only assume, as I've previously surmised, this is motivated by monetary or political motivations. It's becoming clearer daily that Wikipedia is not free.

~ AaronF 23:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Knowledge.

22:35, January 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement))
20:15, January 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability), G11 (advertisement))
14:14, January 2, 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "DekiWiki" (Spam: near-orphan, non-notable Mediawiki fork)

So that's three deletions by two admins. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory. The difference between the two is notability. This article did not assert it. As to your conclusions about Wikipedia, I would suggets they are skewed by your evident involvement in the DekiWiki - a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an admin says it's so doesn't make it so. Did you personally read the article? A conflict of interest is Wikia and Socialtext employees or those garnering any monetary benefit from said companies making decisions on an article like DekiWiki. Moreover, of the several people who contributed to the article only ONE was a MindTouch employee (me). It's obvious Wikipedia is being used as a weapon against a competitor of companies that are involved with Wikipedia. With this, it's also clear(er): Wikipedia is not free. ~ AaronF 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DekiWiki on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DekiWiki. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~ AaronF 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam #7 (gator flavour)

A deletion review in which you participated has been relisted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafed.net (2nd nomination).
brenneman 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges at Mint Hill

Bridges at Mint Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Do not nominate this page for speedy deletion again, with a reason of spam or advertising. This page is no different from any other page that is in Wikipedia for a mall. Wikipedianinthehouse 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, demands always do the trick. Especially in respect on directory entries for places that don't even exist yet. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for watching my talkpage while I was gone. JoshuaZ 04:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was quiet :-) Guy (Help!) 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters.com

I was just wondering, out of curiosity more than anything else, why "fisheaters.com" is blacklisted under spam. I suppose I can imagine some content on the site being incendiary or something, but it had some pretty good information on customs for Saint Catherine of Alexandria's feast day, so I was going to add it as an external link on that article.

Oh well.

Trusting in your good judgment, --Alekjds 07:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:JzG/Fisheaters for the whole sorry tale. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response at RfC

I have responded at my RfC. Could you point out anything that should be improved upon or removed? Thanks in advance. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pitonpro

With regard to your recent message on his talk page, I take it that the image in question was speedily deleted; is that right? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. It came up blue on my deletion log. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder you for the price of a coffee, New York

I am so tempted to create that article :-) Gwernol 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! WP:BEANS strikes again... Guy (Help!) 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Fly

This argument

“

SlamDiego, thank you for bringing to our attention the fact that you have accused Jimfbleak of libel. This could be construed as a legal threat and if repeated could indeed see you indefinitely banned from the project. Since you chose to self-report I am hopeful that you have realised the error of your ways and will not repeat this personal attack.

”

will not fly. Identifying libel as such is not even a claim that it should ever be legally actionable. (For example, hard-core proponents of freedom of speech such as Nat Hentoff and Murray Rothbard use the term, yet have bluntly said that libel should be decriminalized and that existing laws should not be invoked even as they remain on the books.) Please understand that no amount of cleverness is going to mystically transform the mere act of identifying a false and derogatory statement about oneself as such into itself a violation of present Wikipedia policy. —SlamDiego 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about which you were bitching wasn't libel, and using pseudo legalese is widely interpreted as a legal threat under Wikipedia policy. Now stop being a dick. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any false and derogatory claim is libel, and accusing me of holding other nations in contempt merely for not being “mighty America” is false and derogatory. The word “libel” is certainly neither legalese nor chosen to seem like legalese — it is just a single short word which will stand for “false and derogatory claim”. And calling me a dick is a personal attack, but presumably you'll get away with it. —SlamDiego 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you did mean it as a legal threat. Cheerio, then. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh.

Someone brought up the Wikipedia revival userbox on WP:ANI in connection with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo.plrd/Phoenix. I speedied the user subpages, but left the userbox for "some other cold-hearted bitch admin". I should have guessed that title would go to you. -- Merope 18:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want cold-hearted? You gottit :o) Guy (Help!) 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, that's not half as nice as some of the things I've seen said about you (or Merope, either, for that matter). Fan-1967 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't poke pissed off people.

Yes, he was obviously over the line. However, when pissed off good users snap, it is appropriate (I know from exeperience as a pissed off good user) to take them somewhat seriously. You can think what you want of his motives for the report, but can we all just kiss and make up re the PAIN report? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi. Is publisher notable by your standards? Thanks. --Striver - talk 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? How many twelvers are there in the world? Guy (Help!) 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 '''If you need urgent admin help''' please go to [[WP:AN/I|the incident noticeboard]]. To stop a vandal, try [[WP:AIV|the vandal intervention page]]. For general help why not try the [[WP:HD|help desk]]? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may [[Special:Emailuser/JzG|email me]], I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&action=edit&section=new click this link]''' to start a new conversation.
+'''Terms of Service'''<br />
-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.  '''This user posts using a [[Douglas Adams|British sense of humour]]'''.
+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 [[m:DICK|act like a dick]], I will [[WP:S{ADE|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 [[WP:ARBCOM|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 their 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. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
+'''This user posts using a [[Douglas Adams|British sense of humour]]'''.
-Note to self: '''[[User talk:Brazucs]]''', Esperanza admin coaching.
 ----
 * [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science]]