User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:24, 15 January 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-Jul-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 biased 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 (Eisner/Elich 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]

See [[6]] and [[7]]. Also this is AlanBarnet quoting you as a source having failed to provide any verified source/quote/literature or anything to say NLP was a cult (the EisnerElich quote has been in the article since 24.12.06). (Protopriest Novopashin was already in the article). "Hi Fainites. Yes I don't take any statement at face value either. I did look into Guys statements tho - and they do reflect exactly whats mentioned in the literature of scientists and the more reliable authors. He said cult - but then qualified it by stating nuances about cultic systems. So the view is incredibly well informed and balanced on examination of the literature. I can only imagine he has come across so many well sourced statements and has seen all the similar cultic articles that he knows pretty much what he's talking about. As I said though theres no need to take them at face value. The facts should speak for themselves as it says more or less in NPOV policies." This is all just too silly for words. Fainites 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Guy. Here is more Comaze NLP COI business. This time on the psychology article. Interesting use of edit summary. [8]. AlanBarnet 02:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not even 'akin to a cult' from Elich. It's "NLP has achieved something akin to cult status when it may be nothing more than a psychological fad" (p625)". This is repeated exactly by Sharpley. Fainites 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Guy. Comaze is still showing up with COI related information [9]. Its fairly clear that the company Inspiritive is not only a strategic partner. Comaze.com is actually powering the security and financial intake of the site[10]. AlanBarnet 05:10, 13 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]

There is a response waiting for you at: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf. Regards, Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose that:

The article is recreated (using any means and material) in user space.
Guy and my self will review the article, and make recommendations to the quality and correct content.
Upon being approved the article is re-instated (with new article) and the page is unlocked.
The case is closed.

Would this be acceptable to both parties? Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 08:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told Rfwoolf right at the beginning that he needed to recreate afresh in user space, I'm glad he finally listened. Then it goes to WP:DRV. I am not much interested in helping with content since not only did he abuse by good faith in the first place, but he has since been quite obnoxious and also needlessly personalised the dispute despite its being reviewed at WP:DRV and all actions fully endorsed. Plus I am really not that keen to get involved with an editor who has so little other mainspace contribution in relation to the amount of meta discussion he has generated, and who seems so obsessed with this sub-trivial sexcruft. As far as I am concerned there are about three zillion missing topics more important and encyclopaedic than anal stretching. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 10 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]

Hallo, again. It happened just what I thought it would. I came up with the reliable sources from the serious and neutral scientists, discuss it on the boars, and than wht happened see for yourself: Talk:Pagania (look at the history and the deletion of the "Arguements against Serbian origin of Narentines" section). Now, you know what I new before: Pax-guy doesn't care about the facts, he dooesn't care about the encyclopedia - the guy is fighting his private war over the Wiki. This should be an open encyclopedia; this is the idea, I hope. But Pax was trying to push me out of it with all the means he's got. He's been harassing me ever since I came on the Wiki. Just look at my homepage discussion board: User talk:194.152.217.129 Look at the contributions and see if you can find any vulgarities or obscenities Special:Contributions/194.152.217.129 (two of the oldest contrib. are not even mine, and even those two are harmless). The Pax-guy and some Laughing-guy have been putting tags on my homepage like it's their private property (are they admins or something?) This I think has gone too far. I can not talk to Pax (I've tryed that too, but it was a surreal event) cause his only goal is to push me out and nothing else. Now, what are my options? What are you going to do about it: do you care for Wiki to be a better encyclopedia or just somebodys playground for some nasty games? Now, I don't care about Pax and his war with Paprika-army as he calls anyone (with good or bad intentions - without difference) that opose his views: for the Pagania article you have the facts well sourced, from serious historians on one side, and a guy trying to push his on "truth" on the other. What's it going to be?
83.131.36.177 12:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to either accept that your arguments are unpersuasive to other editors of that article, or go to dispute resolution. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject area to be of any practical assistance here. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: I'm not asking for your help concerning the subject metter, but the ways and the spirit of the free encyclopedia. I don't deserve to be pushed and harassed. You were fast to remove my coments when they hurt Pax's feelings (even though there were no obsceneties inthere) but you're not so fast to put back my deleted coments that are well argumented and sourced. Thanks JzG. :)
  89.172.219.143 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pax is a long-standing editor who has been attacked by someone pushing very similar ideas to those you propose, and I don't know you from Adam. Whether or not you are AP, you are arguing for far-reaching changes from your interpretation of a single source disputed by others. The only way to fix that is through dispute resolution. You'd also be best advised to register an account. I am unable to help you any further. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you I will register as soon as my fixed IP is unblocked. And if this Pax guy continues to put tags on IPs, all Croatian IPs are going to be Afrika Paprika suspected sock puppets. It'a ridiculous praxis, and I'm a proof that this "check user" thing doesnt function well... Well, only if you don't realy care for some "collateral damage" thing :) I understand completely that you want out of this mess, and I will not contact you any more - but don't be so fast to dive into it nex time if you're not ready to do the right thing, and let the arguments win.
89.172.20.31 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can register right now using this dynamic IP. Alternatively you can go to WP:AMA and ask for help getting your other IP unblocked. But I can't help you with your content dispute. Guy (Help!)

According to this, the anon you're talking to is Afrika paprika... Khoikhoi 01:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's Pax's view, yes. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the anon wrote on his talk page ..by the way, I indeed am Afrika paprika - and Factanista, Zrinski, Pygmalion .. and vowed never to let "dumb-ass idiotish Americans and British" rule Wikipedia, promising to always return. :) I guess I was right all along. --PaxEquilibrium 14:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, I contribute from time to time to mentioned page. I don't want to take anybody's side, but it is a fact that Pax deleted part of talk page with his, anon and your discussion. Whether this anon is from Afrika paprika army or not, he gave suggestion for fair and documented contribution.Plantago 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know I said I won't be bothering you any more, but I just can not stand aside and look how Pax-guy throws mud at me. Once again, I am not the Afrika-guy, nor I have ever said I am (I would realy like to see that, maybe I am a split personality); I never used obscenities or vulgarities here on Wiki (especially would never do it as an adjective for any nation). The way Pax and his pall Laughing-guy behave is so low, and so mean; it's a disgrace for the Wiki. They already showed that they don't care about the encyclopedia objectivity, they just throw mud and push aside anyone that disagrees with them. If you want to see a real conflicing personality, just follow the Pax's posts on his and other people's talk pages.
PS. The IP I currently own is a public one, and as soon as I leave the net, sombody else can have it. How on Earth can you conclude who posted what by tracing these ever changing IP-s. Pax-guy and Laughing-guy keep on putting tags on every IP I was assigned; pretty soon every IP on the server will be AP puppet, and everybody using it will be the target for thair harassment. I never acted as a sock puppet and always admit it's me using the specific IP. I have no reason to be perfidious.
PPS. This "dumb-ass idiotish Americans and British" rule Wikipedia thing was the ultimate meanness, so despicable.
Sorry once again, for everybody who read all this mess; especially sorry for you JzG it's happening on your talk page.
83.131.54.234 19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - as 89.172.226.252 and 89.172.230.208 you openly self-declared & signed as Afrika paprika. And those are the exact 89 & 83 IPs which continually edit this talk page, among others - I will quite know a a wise user sad: If Users behave like trolls, treat them that way. One of the most recent things was posting that I suck someone's dick for a dozen times on my user page. --PaxEquilibrium 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To-do

List of episodes for The Nick Cannon Show - dozens of one line articles need merging into the list. Shw cancelled due to low ratings, unlikely that there will ever be sufficient interest to justify articles on every episode.

Is this guy anybody?

This article looks questionable, but what would I know of British television presenters? Has been some vandalism in its brief existence, which makes me wonder. Claims are that he's a screenwriter on what look like non-notable short films, and presenter on a TV show. Don't know if the show makes him notable. Fan-1967 22:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About three people watched "Whatever", two of them were his mum (she recorded it and watched it twice). The "presenters" were about one third as good-looking and one fifth as funny as they thought they were. It was not aimed at me... Guy (Help!) 22:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just popping in - if the show isn't notable enough to have a page here (as it doesn't appear to have), then I doubt that someone who came to fame through this show can be considered notable. FWIW - I've never heard of it (maybe before my time - and on the "other" channel) Martinp23 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was recent - late last year I think. Lots of trailers, all of which looked utterly dire, so I didn't watch it at all. I think it was trying to be a more edgy version of TFI Friday and failing badly. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh - it must have jsut been the picture in the article which gave me that idea (though i could have bothered to read it...). OOps - but still, never heard of the show. Martinp23 23:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block

you blocked me. you thought i was a sock puppet. i fail to see how you reached this conclusion. i have not edited wiki since june, and i have not edited joan of arc since may (2006). can you please release the block. i don't edit very often anymore because of all the shit that goes on but i still want the block removed. i find it annoying that you don't seem to need any justification to block me.

username cwiki

you don't seem inclined to respond?? 150.101.184.35 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't it be a good idea if administrators had to justify their blocks in some small way? and then respond to their blockees' objections?? or even be held accountable for ill-conceived blocks??? cwiki 150.101.184.35 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page problem

An anon seems to enjoy making "witty" alterations to the warning I left on his page [11]. I'm not really sure which template to add next, any suggestions please? One Night In Hackney 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours for childish vandalism. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The vandal seems to have a dynamic IP anyway, normally with a 58.84 prefix. Craig Charles seems to be a frequent target of his for comments about rape, and I have it watchlisted. Normally I'd have checked for any further contributions and reverted them, but got sidetracked with the template situation. One Night In Hackney 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of DXRAW

You blocked this user for being User:Dick Witham. However, that account was blocked only for an inappropriate username. By the way, there's something fishy going on between this guy and User: The Mob Rules (each accusing the other of being socks). Cheers! yandman 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact DXRAW isn't Dick Witham. Dick Witham was one of Chadbryant's main antagonisers, and a disruptive influence at that. DXRAW is Australian I think, and has plenty of good edits. One Night In Hackney 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed further at ANI. yandman 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inshaneee

Guy, we've had the dispute resolution stuff and Inshanee has not altered his behaviour (hes mentioned on AN/I again this last week). Talk to Inshanee if you want to resolve this dispute as i have nothing to do with how he chooses to act. If you think that gathering evidence of Inshaneee's constant (more than 6 months now) incivility, abuse of admin powers and software, wheel warring and refusing to be accountable for his action is "trying to recruit a mob" then thats your faith (what ever sort it is).Hypnosadist 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, posting to multiple past disputants' talk page that you are putting together evidence to get InShaneee desysopped is considered spamming and vote-stacking, and is extremely likely to get you in hot water, so I have reverted the posts. It is of particular concern that you did not make any obvious attempt to include those whose disputes appear to have been satisfactorily resolved. So: please don't go around trying to rustle up a lynch mob, if anything it will weaken your case. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass link additions

Could you take a look at Special:Contributions/HowardWiki. Is Jerusalem Post Radio so significant that every interview they ever did should be added as a link in the article on the interviewee? The links are all specific to the subjects, but, without actually listening to each one, no way to know if they're actually significant interviews, or how much value they add. Fan-1967 14:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garden variety link spamming. Note that the user is HowardWiki and the webmaster of the station is named Howard. No contributions other than to the station's article and adding linked content, as far as I can see, and once those were rolled back there were virtually no links to the site left, so clearly nobody else is adding them in any numbers. I have blocked the user. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP

File:VictoratCosford8107.jpg

side view with Vulcan, underside

Don't know if you've been watching BBC news today, but they've been running an item about a RAF museum at Cosford in Shropshire to open shortly, and having read of your interest in HP I thought this might interest you. By the way, glad to see you've got your heads well screwed on.. ..dave souza, talk 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

woot! My dad has an oil painting of a Victor, he used to work on them. Thanks for that, Guy (Help!) 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. Here's a pic to view and destroy in case you've missed the news, apparently the exhibit opens Feb 8 - news item with Lightning pic. Never let it be said I'm not obsessive.... dave souza, talk 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Suz Andreasen

I would like to talk about why you nominated the new entry I posted for deletion. I have re-drafted it to include primary sources via the suggestion of an admin in the Jewellery Designer category which needs filling in. If you can point me to the edits that need to be made, I can correct them. Thanks, Archie MArtin 15:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiemartin (talk • contribs)

Archie, it was tagged for speedy deletion but I disputed the tag so sent it to Articles for Deletion instead, that was the limit of my involvement. Please feel free to contribute to the debate. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

Archie

Archiemartin 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your Vandalism

They are not your talk pages, i'm reverting and if you delete again your off to AN/IHypnosadist 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already posted there before I began. Guy (Help!) 18:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete material from my talk page? Not a big deal, but I'm very curious. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you had at least left a note. Also, I'm trying to follow and understand Wikipedia policies in general, so please give me a link to the policy on this issue. Thanks. KP Botany 18:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is WP:SPAM#Canvassing currently being discussed in mroe detail at Wikipedia:Canvassing, see also the WP:ANI thread. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, had I been uninvolved. However, I am one of the leading people in the RfAr against him and was planning the RfAr before he even mentioned me.

After you going on the offensive in favor of InShaneee in the RfC, look me straight in the eyes and tell me that this is not for the sake of stifling the RfAr. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking sides at all. You appear to be assuming bad faith. I have no opinion at all on whether there should be an RFAr in respect of inShaneee (I have seen my fair share of conflicts go to arbitration, I trust the process well enough), but RfCs are not against anyone, they are about them. Viewing them as an adversarial process is a common mistake, of course, but they are designed to fix a problem not escalate it, and you don't fix a problem by inviting only one side to participate in the process, or by begging the question in your invitations. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I was in charge of the RFAR against him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In charge of it, eh? But whatever. I was referring to the RfC, which exists, whereas the RFAr does not at this point. Guy (Help!) 07:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? We weren't talking about it. It doesn't matter which exists. Does a game not exist when it's in development? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back off, ALttP. You are assuming bad faith. Further disruption might result in a block. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If assuming bad faith is a blockable offense, I have a feeling InShaneee would see the next decade before he'd be allowed back on Wikipedia. Not only that, but I don't see you telling JzG not to edit war over the contents of someone else's user talk page with the owner of that talk page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice more threats if we don't stop this, my talk to the 7 other people was about this up coming Afc. I checked wp:Canvas and nothing in it coveres evidence gathering. Just like the spam charge it is completely bogus, show the line in wp:canvasss that covers this incident.Hypnosadist 09:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been pointed to WP:SPAM, which describes why what you did was wrong. Several other experienced users and admins have told you the same thing. At what point do you start accepting consensus? Above all, nobody was blocked. All I did was point out a problem and undo it before someone more trigger-happy decided to do something about it. As admin actions go, it was not an especially controversial one. Guy (Help!) 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALttP: I never intended to make a block at all, but from my knowledge of your editing, where there is ample evidence of stalking and harassment of the concerned administrator. In the end, don't twist my words, my reason for blocking would be disruption and not simply assuming bad faith. Wikipedia does not exist so that you can push your political motives or have revenge against an administrator. Use email instead of exhausting Wikipedia's resources. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was a bit cryptic

Perhaps if you could be more specific, that would be helpful. --ScienceApologist 20:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, an example or two would be most helpful. --ScienceApologist 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But when you say I need to be "more circumspect", I'd like to know what in my contributions over the last week or so gave the appearance of me being abusive or "less than circumspect". --ScienceApologist 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubenuts RfA on me

Sorry I ve only just seen your comment on my talk (Ive been out). I have now apologised for my mistake both on my talk and on the RfA page.I didnt realise the previous admission was not sufficient. I wonder, in the light of this whether you would consider cahnging your vote? ThankS 8-)--Light current 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Horn Players

Hi,

It's kind of curious that you've replaced the two American and the one German hornist with more Brits and an 18th century Italian. Are you sure Pyatt is as notable (outside of the UK) as Hermann Baumann? I'd never heard of him! --Rschmertz 04:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the list should be there at all. Baumann? Maybe. I don't know. I was going by who the horn players I know think were especially influential - the only two for whom I can provide a reference of pre-eminence are Punto (who was more famous than Beethoven in his day) and Brain. Lists in top-level articles are inclined to be arbitrary so maybe we should just take it out. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intuitor

Hi JzG. Last month you speedy-deleted Intuitor with the summary "WP:CSD criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). Fewer than 600 ghits, and the top ones are for a completely different site!" However, an archived version of the article does assert that Intuitor's "Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics" feature "has been cited on popular websites such as Fark and Slashdot, on radio programs throughout the U.S. and Canada, and in major print media." I get 38,000 Google hits for "intuitor", and 8 of the top 10 relate to the site. It doesn't seem to meet A7; could you take another look, and consider undeleting it? Thanks, Tim Smith 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review, second on your left down the corridor :-) Guy (Help!) 07:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Started. Tim Smith 15:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whale to

G'day, I see that you were involved in some early discussions about the website whale to. Someone has suggested that WP neither links to Whale to sites nor quotes from them. Is this true? An editor is busy adding material that seems to come from Whale to to several articles and if there is some WP policy about Whale to I'd like to quote it before I delete it. Thanks! Maustrauser 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links are forbidden (it's blacklisted) and if it's on a subject like vaccination then nothing should e sourced fomr there because it's terribly, terribly biased. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - are you aware of any WP policy that I can cite? Much obliged. Maustrauser 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS should do. It's not a reliable source. He does host a lot of copyvios; if the content comes from one of those then it can be cited to the original source (as long as it's from the source, not John's editorialising, which he has a tendency to add). Guy (Help!) 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Maustrauser 07:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khani

In reference to you recommendation to delete this article, I think a search under Google for Aga Khani will confirm the facts on this article. Further, the article is clearly sourced from other articles on Wikipedia such as Ismaili and Aga Khan. Clearly the term Aga Khani is a common term used in India and Pakistan for followers of this Islamic sect and this can be confirmed see below links:

http://www.islamawareness.net/Deviant/Ismailis/ http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=39226 http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/communitydetails.php?archives=1&commid=18

Thus from the above it is clear that the term Aga Khani clearly belongs in Wikipedia.

Thanks

trueblood 06:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was take it from a speedy deletion request to AfD, citing the tagger's rationale. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Ballistic

How do you think this article asserts the notability of its subject? I'm not trying to be a dick about this, I'm just curious if I'm misunderstanding what it means to "assert notability." As far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't have a real definition of that concept anywhere. Thanks. -P4k 06:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists a lot of releases, which is an assertion of notability. Just not a credible one in this case. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

Thanks, I appreciate the...um...cucumber. :) I think, though, since no everyone's letting Link and Hypnosadist do as they please in regards to me, the best thing I can do at this point is take a little wikibreak (I haven't had one in two years, so I'm probably due, anyway). BTW, I love your archive system, and may be forced to steal it. :) --InShaneee 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(peeks) Except for you, I see. Thanks for trying to keep things by-the-book here. It honestly does mean a lot to me. --InShaneee 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

This was not one of AMA's stellar moments

Have they had any? Thatcher131 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'll have you know that out of several advocacies, I've had at least one success -- I counseled a new user on why his page was speedied, helped him confirm that he couldn't get proof of notability, asked JzG to give him temp access to the page content for his off-Wiki use, and passed on his concerns to the deleting admin. He . . . um . . . thanked me nicely and left Wikipedia, never to be seen again. (Seriously, there are a lot of things AMA should improve, but the biggest problem is almost unsolveable - 25% of the people who show up are looking for advice about policies and options, and are helpable, but 75% are headed straight for a wikicliff, and it's very hard to talk them out of it in time). TheronJ 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)

You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (Second nomination). This was closed as speedy keep under criterion for speedy deletion G5 as a page created by a banned user, and its content deleted. You may or may not want to contribute to the new discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). This message is being given to all users - except proven sockpuppets - who contributed in the original discussion. --Robdurbar 14:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me. However, I will not provide you with a second shrubbery and definitely not beside the other shubbery to produce a lovely two-level effect!--Nilf anion (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water fuel cell

Hello, I believe Water Fuel Cell violates WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:OR etc... After more than three times that the template requesting more sources has been placed and removed (over a period of several weeks), I am RfCing (Jan 9th 2007). A poll is being held on the talk page. --CyclePat 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are not a good idea (polarising not resolving the dispute) but what is the problem, precisely? Guy (Help!) 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meuh! Go figure... I alway pick the hard way! B.t.w. I think you where right on the cplot thing. Sorry and thank you! To the problem, I think the problem is that we have an article that has sources (patents) but doesn't have much more references than that. Furthermore, because of the discussion on the talk page, it appears like there may be original research adding to that the lack of referencing directly in the article and it feels like we have a violation of everything! The poll was just to see what users though... if they see a lack of sourcing or not? (The contreversy being that the sources are there but we don't specifically elaborate which sentences are linked to which documents and on which page?) So the problem isn't really citing, but it is, but it is the verifiability. Thank you for listening. Sometimes that's all it takes. --CyclePat 04:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bose headphones

Hello. I have nominated Bose headphones for deletion. I noticed you started the original AFD and thought you might be interested in following the second one. —ptk✰fgs 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: I used such headphones a few years ago. They worked, but hissed a bit. In the meantime, many manufacturers sell headphones using the same principle, so the article should be called Acoustic cancellation headphones or something --Theosch 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Cwiki

Cwiki, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 09:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to the admin noticeboard yesterday. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I just responded to that posting on the noticeboard. --Philosophus ^T 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Guy, do you have any information about this? If not, you should probably be aware of it. Newyorkbrad 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my friend Newyorkbrad got to it before me... I though I should tell you that after reading through one of your postes,[12] my CyclePat Senses™ started tingling... I sudenly wondered; is there a flaw in the way we post at AN/I board? What would happen if someone create another account or posted annonymously purposelly impersonating an administrator? For example, let's take my friend JzG. If I user:CyclePat decided to start a new thread called User is Sockpuppeteering and needs block but impersonated my friend by signing at the end his name. I decided to test the theory by doing the first step and starting a new tread.[13]

The rest of the comments on this subject can be found on my User talk page. --CyclePat 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, this is not actually news - it's always been possible to copy-paste another user's sig, but anyone who did it would be in deep doo-doo. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah! I know. But, you know what they say. Sometimes you just want to make sure. Why else would we be building here in Canada Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. To confirm the simplest of things! Thanks guy! Sorry if I caused a small ruckuss --CyclePat 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing image

An GFDL image used by several pages has disappeared. Stem cell diagram File:StemCellsDia.png that was created by User:Adenosine. Was linked to by Stem cell. Any help appreciated. TimVickers 18:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC) sorted. TimVickers 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chirstianty

First of all not my band and secondly you guys are topic nazi on here I mean actually make this place appealing to everyone.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)

I was just reading this and feel you should take a look at the AfD again as the two most recent comments look like socks of User: Dick Witham or reverse psychology socks of User:Chadbryant. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me! By the way for some humour have a look at [14] DXRAW 11:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links.

This will be my last attempt to bring you to regular dispute resolution.

I understand that you feel your changes to the external links guidelines are important, and you believe they would protect Wikimedia from imminent threat of litigation. However, legal issues are best handled by the Foundation, not individual editor actions, and they have a lawyer on retainer. I find it hard to imagine he has not reviewed the current state of things for any potential liability, and would have commented had he found an urgent risk. Especially considering the amount of publicity this issue has had.

I do not want to link to copyvio, and wish you would stop saying I did. I have made it clear to you that I do not several times, and not only do I not want to link to copyvio but I *wrote the section of the guideline making linking to copyvio a non-negotiable restriction*.

My objections have been that your proposed changes have either muddled an already complex guideline, added redundancy to what was already there, or introduced new 'legalistic' sounding text that actually offered *less* protection and guidance. And that you did so without making a good faith effort to gain consensus support for your changes.

I conclude with a request to please take this to dispute resolution. --Barberio 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the dispute is you and Cindery, the rest of us are quite happy with the status quo. Feel free to take yourselves to dispute resolution. Don't forget to mention that you've ended up getting the guideline protected twice and the talk page forked to improve the signal to noise ratio on WT:EL. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful...

...of voting twice at AFDs! ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you expect? The bastards made me take the flag out of my sig. Anyway, I'd have deleted it twice. Guy (Help!) 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, sorry. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're up late

... in your time zone. Any thoughts on this? Not sure what you'd call it, besides pointless. Fan-1967 02:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 21:32 so in Philadelphia, waiting for BA0068 to be reprovisioned for the outward flight to LHR. Bars all closed, no food on offer, Philadelphia airport sucks by comparison with Heathrow. On the plus side, tailwinds over the Atlantic should mean the delay outbound is amde up en route. Oh, and I am listening to Leopold Mozart's Sinfonia da Caccia recorded by the New Zealand Chamber Orchestra, complete with dogs and guns. Not thinking too straight, though, thanks to a couple of pints of Yuengling. Guy (Help!) 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This shows you have 7073 edits to main spaces. If you wish to have more information check out this link which gives you the chance to opt in for more details by adding a code. That same program indicates that you have 25496 edits. There is however a problem when I used Flcelloguys_Tool_5_00 from WP:COUNT, it only goes up to 15000 edits and max's out. Similarly this wannabe kate program says you have 27201. (and give everyone the chance to see what you edit). You appear to be avraging 2000 edits per month. With approx. 30 days a month and approx 24 hours in day - your work time (lets say 7 hours) - sleep time (7 hours) = 10 hours. Within one month you should have approx. 300 hours of leasure time. If we divide that by the amount of edits... 2000 edits/ 300 hours... = 6.66 edits/ per hour. Furthermore, your first edit was the 6th of January 06, at 6:16 p.m.... (spooky)... 666 is referred to as the Number of the Beast in the Book of the Revelation (see Revelation 13:17–18)... On your title page you have a comment that says "beware of tigers"! (a beast). That means your edits are somehow linked with this evil. Some perceive it as the "Devils Number". Given my Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, I think I've seen this in a movie once... everyone died. (Just kidding). But interesting to know, no? Maybe it's time we take a wiki break! Have a safe trip! --CyclePat 16:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked at most of them, the wannabe kate's tool takes a very long time to count all my edits. However, modern scholarship shows that the number of the beast in the original sources is actually 616. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow! That makes it all the more spookier and ironic given the time of registration. Humm... I just hope you're not flying on a Boeing 707 version 3... (that would be too weird given the amount of edits you have is 7073 to main spaces. If you're supperstitious I'dd stay away from wikipedia while on the flight! (turning into some Stephen King Thriller) Humm... anyway, (in a serious tone) keep up all the good work... (sarcastically) You little devil!! --CyclePat 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized bicycle

I noticed you removed reference to Series Hybrid Cycle. Did you delete this page as well? That page appear to have been quite informative as this backup demonstrates... [15]. Can you please undelete the Series Hybrid Cycle. Thank you! --CyclePat 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it out twice, once when it first appeared and again now. The only reference for this term appears to be Andreas Fuchs [16], and the article was created by FuchsA (talk · contribs) who has no other contributions. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am no brainiack here, but given the backup version available here and my extensive research in "electric bicycles", it actually appears that this was the begining of an article that can be called electric bicycle. Given the many references that exist for electric bicycles, I would suggest that the information be dropped within the electric bicycle, the motorized bicycle talk page, or maybe a sub-user page user:CyclePat/hybrid serie cycles. I would be happy to find more sources for the article and include the information within motorized bicycle article or electric bicycle(or the book I'm writting). We know according to the backup that there where some good sources in that article concerning electric bicycle. Given the nature of our past conflicts concerning the merger of power-assisted bicycles, electric bicycles, or almost anything talking about electric bicycles having it's own article seperate from motorized bicycle, I think it would be a good idea to, if you did delete it, that perhaps you could undelete (in one of the afformentioned methodes). Again, though perhaps not notable (only 2 pages in google search) (and one page if searched in the singular form) the information on that page had some interest for the developement of electric bicycle article or at least the electric bicycle section of motorized bicycle. (I do agree that the term is however rare in my region, and that the article didn't have all citations!) Thank you! --CyclePat 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric bicycle is a redirect and that's just fine. That article was one man's name for one man's research. If I thought there were more sources I'd have done something other than nuke it! Guy (Help!) 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm a personal friend of the author Andreas Fuchs and know his projects. I think his work should be included somewhere in Wikipedia. I agree that his article was perhaps a bit too extensive for Wikipedia, considering the specialist nature and I think the name of the article was somewhat misleading, so I'm not unhappy at the deletion, Guy. However I'll try to work with Andreas to create a shorter version under a better name or put some of the infomation into chainless bicycle or hybrid-electric bicycle, which is still a stub. I also think there should perhaps be a separate article called Electric bicycle, which is not a redirect into Motorized bicycle, which has a lot of combustion-engine related stuff. Of course, we could call the new article Electric cycle, because many vehicles are actually tricycles. I've only joined Wikipedia recently, but I'm a specialist in lightweight electric vehicles and hope to find time to help out in this field. I notice that you and CyclePat above have had some edit wars together but seem reconciled, so please point out to me if any newbie blunders of mine threaten to cause a flare-up again. --Theosch 21:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In the meantime, I've pretty much rewritten Hybrid-electric bicycle, putting in some of the info from the previous Series hybrid cycles and added more references and links. Not perfect yet, but what do you think so far, Guy and CyclePat? --Theosch 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson

Hey, Guy, I'm sure you're as swamped as I am - do you have time to peek at Talk:Ernest Emerson? I may be missing something. I first encountered the (well-meaning, productive) main editor when I peer reviewed the article. I satisfied myself that notability was well met (read the sources), but he is having issues with another editor who is labeling the article as spam and deleting referenced text, after a lot of hard work. I've encouraged the other editor to come to the talk page, and I don't think referenced text about a notable person/company is necessarily spam, but since the main editor is hard at work, another set of eyes could really help here. Maybe I'm wrong. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress here on Jeffpw's page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good article, for sure. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy! I was wondering if you could take a look at it again when you have a spare moment. I ommitted non essential elements of the EKI article and moved the important stuff into the Ernest Emerson article. I think it's actually a bit better now thanks to this reccomendation. Hopefully it will calm down the guy who thinks it's spam...but I'm sure he'll be back with a new objection. --Mike Searson 21:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

The following was on my talk page. I figure you can probably help him/her more than I can. PatriotBible 03:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several bogus institutions from India have been using Wikipedia to promote themselves. None of them has government accreditation. However, their promoters are repeatedly reverting my edits and projecting these bogus institutions and diploma mills as genuine. These are:

Of these, the Serampore College is a bogus theological University and diploma mill. It has never been accredited by the University Grants Commission or other government accrediting agencies in India.

Noticing your stand against diploma mills and bogus institutions, I request your help in keeping an eye on them. The Hermes 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I am currently jetlagged and won't be able to tackle this until this afternoon (GMT) but I will look at it. Please also consider letting FeloniousMonk know about this. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOUP

Thanks. I needed that. —Cryptic 14:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I love it when someone puts there finger on a problem as precisely and as concisely as that. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOI.net

Your removal of every single DOI.net link on Wikipedia constitutes nothing short of vandalism and will continue to be reverted on sight being that DOI.net meets WP:rS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.138.41.183 (talk • contribs)

Speaking of which...Anon IP adding the links to DOI that you removed [17], [18] and [19]. Regards. One Night In Hackney 16:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Indeed. It is User:JB196 again. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. GaryGoingggg also re-inserted the link on the Tommy Dreamer article immediately before the IP started editing, and GaryGoingggg is another suspected sock of JB196, further details here. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust... Guy (Help!) 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for CR Mediation comment

Thanks so much for comment in the CR Paganism Mediation case. I was beginning to get a serious flash of Kafka or that my sense of communal reality was slipping badly. I just wish I had thought to decline this mediation until the end of the arbitration first rather than trying to explain things. I have this archaic notion that communicating clearly, honestly, and thoroughly helps resolve situations. It didn't occur to me that someone coming in cold to the situation might not understand or look carefully at the links provided. I might be stuck in an Arbitration state of mind around the issue, though, where everything needs to be presented as "evidence". Anyway, thanks again. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I think they are trying to tie you up in knots. One meta-case at a time is quite enough. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank you very much, Guy. I, too, was getting a serious dose of the surreal. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to comment. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For dealing with the JB196 situation. Can I get some input here please? See my comments for the reasoning. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email, g.c@spamcop.net for subj: Ackoz / Azmoc aftermath --66.58.130.56 13:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

Several bogus institutions from India have been using Wikipedia to promote themselves. None of them has government accreditation. However, their promoters are repeatedly reverting my edits and projecting these bogus institutions and diploma mills as genuine. These are:

Of these, the Serampore College is a bogus theological University and diploma mill. It has never been accredited by the University Grants Commission or other government accrediting agencies in India. Noticing your stand against diploma mills and bogus institutions, I request your help in keeping an eye on them.

They are simply reverting my posts about this Fake University without furnishing proof. The Hermes 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 437: / Line 437: @@
 For dealing with the JB196 situation.  Can I get some input [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tsuyoshi_Kikuchi|here]] please?  See my comments for the reasoning.  Thanks. [[User:One Night In Hackney|One Night In Hackney]] 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
+Please check your email, g.c@spamcop.net for subj: Ackoz / Azmoc aftermath --[[User:66.58.130.56|66.58.130.56]] 13:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 ==Need Help==