User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:40, 28 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.

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

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.

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.

Deletion question

I'm curious about this deletion. I don't see how this was a speedy candidate...is one of the leading Barbados-based manufacturers of solar hot water systems in the Caribbean region is certainly an assertion of notability. The article creator seems very disenchanted with process here (e.g., he filed and then removed a DRV request, and is concerned about systematic bias. He's a solid and dedicated editor and one of the top 3 contributers to articles about the English-speaking Caribbean. If nothing else, it might be nice to explain what went on and why you consider the article to really have been a speedy candidate. Thanks. Guettarda 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable call, I guess. I restored it, but I still think it looks spammy - namecheck for founder, no evidence of turnover etc. However, the prevalence of solar power in that region makes it more significant than I thought at the time. I'd AfD it as failing WP:CORP but I'm guessing that the creator could do with some Wikilove right now, so I'll leave it to you to decide what, if anything, to do. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guy - I appreciate it. Guettarda 18:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I'd appreciate a third opinion at Talk:Brown people. You might like to swing past the AfD discussion page, too. Uncle G 19:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to have lost their cool there. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help.

Dear JZG (GUY),

thank you for your reply in regard to the deletion of Matt Norman. I am a journalist who has taken a big interest in the story of this film-maker and also the subject matter of the film that he has made. Its a time in history that finally gets to be revealed to the World because the subject matter is the uncle of this film-maker. As you can see by doing a goodle/yahoo and Wikipedia search, there is a lot of information about the 1968 Games, Black Power Salute, Peter Norman etc. I think it's crucial to have the name of the film-maker who is about to change history in the way that this event actually happened. I have spoken with the film-maker about this and let him know that I would be putting information about this on Wikipedia. He and his company have agreed that I can look after that for me so I do have a connection with this story. I was hoping that finally I could get an administrator like yourself to help edit my last article so that at least people have a place to go? Is it possible for your help making sure that the right thing is written so that it doesn't keep getting deleted? I ask for your help. Filmnews2007 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salute - The Peter Norman Story(film) -- you have to be kidding me.?

JzG,

C'mon you have to be kidding me. I ask that you please undelete this article that I spent hours doing. To say that it has no notability is wrong. Please search the web and tell me if you truly think that this is not a part of history that documents the truth of what happened during one of the most dramatic moments in history. The person that made this film is actually the nephew of Peter Norman. I am getting sick of re-writing these articles knowing that they are being added to Wikipedia purely for Historic study. I suggest you actually look over the links and do a little searching of your own to find the notability of this film. Hate to say this but if LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times, Fox Sports etc etc etc think that this is the most important sporting and history story of the past decade then why is it that you have deleted it??????? Enough is enough. Please re-instate this! I feel like i'm editing these pages full time because there are a few people as administrators that know nothing about this part of history and the importance it has on our world. Filmnews2007 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the external sources? The story we already have, it's the film that's the issue - it does not even seem to have been released yet. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment to Peter

Guy, I don't think time ever heals some wounds, like the death of someone you love. The pain can lessen with time. I am sorry about your loss. Jance 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD "vote"

Hi Guy, I just wanted to double check whether this is your edit. Bucketsofg 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for checking. My broadband went down and I was using my Blackberry, which is Teh Suck. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias

Thanks for the kind words. Always glad to bump into you around Wikipedia. Tijuana Brass 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you have a look at Google SketchUp 6

Can you have a look at Google SketchUp 6 external links, really close to Spam Event Horizon. 131.111.8.104 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject West Yorkshire

JzG, you're from Yorkshire aren't you?? I've set up the Wikipedia:WikiProject West Yorkshire, feel free to help me expand on it. I'm trying to get new members for this wikiproject, all help is much appreciated. --SunStar Net^talk 11:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, lad, ah'm from down South. Born in Hertfordshire and live in Berkshire. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFI stuck

Could you please take a look at this RFI mess and either handle it or delete it if you agree with me that this is all silly.

IMO, this whole board should follow straight the WP:PAIN's path into history 'cause those who used PAIN as the substitute for Wikipedia:Request to block my opponent now turned to RFI as the means to settle scores. Durova was investigating this "report" but she seems to be having hardware problems and this leaves the user under the threat of an "investigation" of an uncertain length. If you have time, please handle this issue to the best of your judgment. Once it is settled, I will submit this board for XfD. No need for shortcuts to win content disputes. --Irpen 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a great time to drop it. Please discontinue the argument at WP:RFI or I will drag the warring parties apart while adopting a policy of actively not caring who, if anyone, is right. Same goes for Piotrus. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did you actually read what I was saying? Shutting it down was what I was actually calling for all along! Thank you. --Irpen 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. My view was that there is an issue with Dr Dan's behaviour which needs to be addressed. Unfortunately the whole thing is so messy and so bound up in the fight between you and Piotrus that I could not actually get to grips with it (I am a bear of very little brain). Durova's block of Dan was amply justified, and if that does not lead to a change in behaviour from that quarter then he can expect more trouble, but the real problem there was you and Piotrus going at it hammer and tongs. Please don't do that. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I will be happy to leave Piotrus alone. Moreover, what I would like to see is everyone leaves everyone else alone and goes back to editing. I have a big problem with Piotrus' going to all sorts of boards seeking for the blocks of his content opponents. That was the only issue I raised. Now we have Ghirla gone, thanks to the campaign of perpetual frivolous complaints Piotrus was running for at least a year. We need less of such boards and more admins like you who clean them up from nonsense. That's why I voted for you for ArbCom, btw.

Anyway, I hope Ghirla will come back at some point and Piotrus will stop bringing his complaints against everyone to all sorts of boards and stop inciting his friends to do the same.

At the side note, I am going to submit RFI for XfD. We do not need the kangaroo courts that will just attract all sorts of the individuals to act as judges and juries to provide their uninformed opinions on the long conflicts and inflame matters further. There is ANI and ArbCom. That's more than enough. --Irpen 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh-day Adventist Deletions

I noticed that you have nominated a number of my articles for deletion that relate to Seventh-day Adventists. Could you please keep them? I am working on trying to expand them and it is taking time to track down all the necessary sources and several others I have noticed have done some work on them, too. William Paul Bradley, Francis M. Wilcox, and Kenneth H. Wood. I noticed that you stated that the editor of the "Watchtower" would be significant, but not the main periodical by Seventh-day Adventists, the "Review and Herald" (or today the "Adventist Review"). While there are hundreds of Adventist periodicals (I am the chair of a Seventh-day Adventist archive located at Loma Linda University), this is the most important periodical published by Adventists, a group that totals approximately 15 million members with an attendance of around 25 million each Sabbath. The editor of this church paper is usually a very influential person, someone who relates to other religious leaders, and I think merits inclusion on Wikipedia (although I also recognize the articles need expansion and sources)--which is happening to many of my other articles that I have started. In addition, the prophetic voice of Ellen G. White is a significant component of understanding Adventism, and hence I think the chair of the board of the Ellen G. White Estate is also worthy of including. I responded to each of your requests for deletion. Would you please not just delete them but give them some due consideration? thewalkingstick 22 January 2007

A small number, yes, because they don't appear to meet our criteria for biographies, the primary notability criterion is that they have been the subject of multiple on-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, and there is no evidence in the articles that they have been. The fact that White is notable is not disputed but that certainly does not make every administrator of the trust notable by extension. I'm pretty sure that most editors of the Catholic Herald or Watchtower wouldn't qualify for an article, and we don't even have ana rticle on the Sikh Messenger although for example Indarjit Singh would undoubtedly qualify, because of his many appearances on the highly influential Today programme (Redlink! Scandalous. Not for long). But I am not going to delete them, I have submitted them to the community for debate. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your comment -

Regarding [1]. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tyag

Why did you remove the NPOV tag at brown poeple while you were protecting it. This is a clear case of admin abuse as you have edited the article yourself and while in a protected state. I willr eport you if this isnt fixed pretty quick, SqueakBox 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no substantive complaint about the neutrality of the article, which is written by one of our most respected, and in this case disinterested, editors. You are disputing how the term is used in the real world, whereas this article accurately reflects how the real world uses the term. If you feel that there is a substantive problem with the accuracy or neutrality of the article, based on reliable sources you can cite, then feel free to propose changes on Talk, but the only issues you've raised thus far are based on sources we simply can't use. Uncle G really is an honest broker here, and entirely open to changes based on credible sourcing. "I think this subject sucks" is not a valid basis for an article tag, though. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vexatious

Nice use of that word. :) David D. (Talk) 23:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Case

Hello Guy, there are a few responses and a proposal for resolution in regards to the ongoing AMA case in which you are involved. However, the contents of the discussion are located on my talk page, on Rfwoolf's talk page and on the AMA case page. Your input at this time would be appreciated. Cheers, Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Robbers

My son wrote the article for "The Three Robbers" by Tomi Ungerer. His grammar is not always clear. Could you please undelete the article for "The Three Robbers" and I will be happy to clean it up.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CameronPG (talk • contribs) 06:12, January 23, 2007 (UTC)

It says, in its entirety: A book by Tomi Ungerer. The three robbers is a summary with a blunderbuss, a pepper blower, and a huge red axe. They blew pepper in the horse's faces. They chopped the wheels with an axe. And threatened the passengers with a blunderbuss.

Not much there you can use, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#For_your_entertainment

Is it just me, or does this guy seem like a net negative for WP? Note his history and that of his (clear to me) previous incarnations as MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) and Thekohser (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal question

Hi, just soliciting an opinion, I promise not to argue/reply at all. I saw your comment at ANI - "Meh, what is this crap? There are ED trolls, Jeff is not one of them." - the heading involved me as well, so I was wondering if you were lumping me into the "ED trolls". Milto LOL pia 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Hipocrite&diff=1996981633&oldid=1996980772
www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Template%3AWikipedos&diff=1997061923&oldid=1997060160
www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Netscott&diff=1996974615&oldid=1996974614
Other than that, I plead the Fifth. Guy (Help!) 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Anal Stretching

Thank-you for your feedback and work on my rewrite on Anal stretching on my userpage. I was not prepared for any changes to the article because I need to set aside some time to work on the entire page -- which is obviously still in an early draft stage (very early!). I have read all of your comments thus far on that page and it seems to be quite constructive, although like I say -- I will need to set aside some time to work/read it all properly.
If you have any suggestions on where I can get some good sources/references for the article rewrite, please let me know, because Google is apparently not the most effective.
When I do get round to working on the article some more, I'll possibly call on you again if you're available for feedback.
Cheers Rfwoolf 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to avoid you going down yet more blind alleys. I care slightly less than not at all for the subject itself. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rfwoolf

Hi Guy. What's the deal with this user's page protection? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was using it as a soapbox to tell us how evil and biased we all are (especially me) in suppressing the vital information on anal stretching for which the world is clamouring. Unprotect it if you like, but if he ocntinues to use it as a soapbox and attack then I shall ask an uninvolved admin for a block, because I have completely lost patience with him. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved admin, Guy. I don't like neither his attitude, nor the content of his page, but I am not sure that we should be censoring him. Let him dig his own hole, as they say. Anyone reading his "anal streching" diatribe, can reach their own conclusions, don't you think? I will not unblock unless you agree with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, unlock of you like. It's not censorship, though, but removal of outright bloody rudeness. Anyway, he seems to be calming down at the moment and finally understanding that when we said work on it in user space we meant work on it in user space. His idea of what constitutes sourcing and supporting content needs work, though. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Lee_Nysted_Experience

I've been considering moving or refactoring the aggressive racketeering from the three odd editors that keep mucking up the place whenever anyone votes. Think I should? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good idea. I nearly did it myself, but last time I tried it blew up in my face. Shout if you need backup. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Closure -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F@NB0Y$

I just want to say I think you did an excellent job of closing the debate, summarizing the positions, and justifying your decision. I had started a batch delete of all the similar stub-class and totally unreferenced webcomics articles, however another admin convinced me to allow a rollback due to the difficulty of large batch AfD's.

There are dozens of webcomic articles that need to go, based strictly upon the merits of and precident set by this AfD. Do we have to go through a lengthy debate for each article, even when noncompliance is obvious and the opposition is not concerned with applying proper policies and/or are generally largely SPAs? /Blaxthos

Not really related to the above comment, but didn't want to start a new thread. I saw the storm building up at that page, a few days ago, and wondered what poor soul is going to close this, and how are they going to do it? That was an excellent closing statement -- shows both a familiarity with the discussion and a reasonable analysis of the points raised by a number of editors. Hopefully that softens the blow to those who are surely disappointed by the decision. Either way, I appreciate it. Luna Santin 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand what you mean...

On ANI. In any case, advice, as always, appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do now. Please, please, just leave Irpen alone (and he you). If you need help with Dan, ask Durova or someone. It's bad enough with you and Ghirla, we can only fight so many fires at once. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, I asked others for help on the RFI, Durova replied and then Irpen tried to steer the discussion from Dr. Dan's behaviour to unrelated greviances about me. I don't need to leave Irpen alone as I do leave him alone - I did nothing to pull him into this discussion, he came into it on his own and instead of discussing Dr. Dan's actions he started to revive old RfC accusations against me. You will also note that unlike Irpen, with his plethora of accusations against me unsupported by diffs, I did not make any similar claims about him and only asked for an apology. As for the problem with Ghirla, as he has agreed to the civility parole (which was what I asked from the beginning) this fire is mostly out. PS. I find your threat of blocking us quite worrying: it would certainly be an abuse of admin's powers, and quite uncalled for. I don't think I have done anything wrong, and I don't think Irpen's actions in this discussion are blockable, neither - he is a usually reasonable editor and I although I feel offended by his accusations against me, and his actons on WP:RFI seem pointless, I would not ask anybody to block an editor whose only recent fault was offending me (I have thick skin, and can live through such torrents of slander occasionaly).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, Irpen trolled and you took the bait. Which goes straight to the "oh no, not again" department. Please, please just walk away sometimes. People were tryng to look into the Dan situation, and then you and Irpen started a fistfight - bingo, trainwreck. You don't need any more battles. Solution: both stop it, or I make you both stop it. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. I suspect not. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I do pledge guilty to forgetting about WP:DFTT, you are right there. Unfortunatly I have the mentality 'if I don't defend myself, I admit by silence they are right'. Is your advice that in such cases I should not reply to such posts? Again, my mentality is 'make them apologize and ensure they learn the lesson and don't do that again'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You get the idea. Not that Irpen is a troll, anything but, but Irpen did bait you, and you took the bait. Trust me, I know how hard it is to avoid getting sucked in, sometimes it's best to let others fight the battles and you watch from the sidelines. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trolled? I baited? Listen, JzG. Please read the discussion. If the thread is too sick for you to read, do not at least resort to uninformed name calling. Piotrus has been using various boards as a tool in edit conflicts. I am sick of it and I called him to order. I stand by my every word I said there. I did offer diffs and this was not trolling. If you want to start another ArbCom called "Piotrus/Irpen" as you did for Piotrus/Ghirla, go for it. The Piotrus/Ghirla was the last straw and Ghirla is gone. Now, Piotrus can do more editing like what he did with the Russian Enlightenment article.

I will not leave if you submit an ArbCom because I have a thicker skin than Ghirla. So go for it if you feel it warranted. I will present the evidence there and let ArbCom decide. Or, better yet, reconsider calling my activity trolling and baiting because it was none of that sort. I am fine working with Piotrus on the articles. It is just when he resorts to Admin boards as a workaround, that's where I have a problem with him.

The bottom line is that Piotrus uses all sorts of boards to shut down and eject his opponents. I am tired of it. If you don't see it that way, it is only because you edit articles in other fields of interest. --Irpen 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know he does, and that was part of the stalled RFAR now in mediation. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my reasons for my actions at the ANI discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My editor review

Thankyou Guy, for your kind words on my editor review. I am ready to truly put behind me the mistakes I've made in the past. Can you believe that WP:NCR is still around? I'm happy that I have made peace with both you and Tijuana Brass. Thanks again for your input, it means a whole lot more than two cents to me. Regards, Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NLP, COI, and possible solutions

Hi Guy. It occurred to me to look into the NLP archives for some long term solutions. The problem seems to be long term promotional activities and incivility. The incivility is contained to some extent though on the main article so I believe can be easily managed as long as there are editors there willing to promote civility and get along.

The COI issues are becoming more clear. The anonymous editor (58.178.141.147) seems to be the most argumentative and uncivil at present – calling for blocks on the article and in edit summaries – and restoring argumentative phrasing and debate into the article. There seems to be 2 possibilities. It could be that 58.178.141.147 is the previous editor [2]. The approach is the same according to a brief search: [3]. The user is editing by presenting lists of non-conclusive articles, obscuring science views, and adding or restoring very argumentative phrasing into the article. Alternatively a brief Google IP check (giving an Australian IP (can’t be sure)) shows it may instead be a meatupppet of Comaze [4] who was editing previously and has an obvious COI. They work in the same town and are part of the same organization as I presented before on ANI.

I understand that there will probably always be at least some meatpuppeting from the pro side and its easy to hide so there’s nothing much we can do about it apart from keep tabs on dominating groups and verbally discourage it.

COI issues will also be pretty hard to deal with as its even easier to hide.

The ANI notices seem to have helped to some extent. The basic fact (NLP is sci unsupported) has become easier to present now and the proponent group are presently not pushing to add argumentative information to it – though they are resisting to present the finding in summarized form. The basic criticism is still being denied though (that NLP is pseudoscientific/misleading and is inappropriate for clinical psych – HRM – self development…..). ANI seems to be a good place to present information for scrutiny – though I’m looking for other useful venues.

Presently the group seems to be quite dismissive of both ANI and non-promoters alike. For now though - I’ll continue to calmly point out the need to clearly present most relevant critical science views - and cycle the appeals to civility and the need to get along on Wikipedia. AlanBarnet 09:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Experience

Thank you for the advice, in re: The Lee Nysted Experience article. If you would be so kind, as "someone that has been around," maybe you could help to edit the article so it doesn't have too many links? I found that the vast majority of other articles here did not require what I have had to put in here. Most do not have any verification or back-up. My company likes the music area and we will be helping to clarify some other articles about other artists that we feature in our rotations. Be well, C.H.Huntress829 15:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Deletion from My Talk Page

Hi, This is to thank you for what I believe was a well-meaning deletion from my talk page. Whilst I'm very sympathetic to the need to keep this business as narrowly dispersed as possible, and I see that you have placed the deleted comments in the discussion page of the AfD debate, I'm not completely sure that deleting comments before I'd even had a chance to see them is the ideal way to go. There is, I think, a risk of being perceived as censoring discussion, although I'm actually quite confident that this wasn't what you had in mind. I think you were right to put copies of all the participants' comments in one place, but I'm not sure about the deletion. I guess this is just a small quibble in the great scheme of things, though. I'm looking forward to seeing how this AfD debate turns out.

WMMartin 16:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing my adminly thing to prevent Nysted from spamming his vanity campaign all over the project. You are welcome to revert. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Please vote at the AfDs for:

Sinfonicron
Wobbly Dog Productions
Penn Singers (this one was deleted per previous AfD, I think)
Empire Lyric Players
Montreal West Operatic Society

Thanks. -- Ssilvers

What do you think of the Cornell Savoyards article? -- Ssilvers 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Factiva, a few hundred unique Googles, none of which appear to be reliable sources. Tag as unreferenced and if not fixed in a month nominate for deletion. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi JzG just thought I should say that there are plenty of articles with only one source and sometimes none so why haven't you deleted them? And if it's because of the fanfiction in Electrosphere if you havn't noticed I remove all of that and have kept all the reliable information and some of this info can be found in the game by using the aitcraft. So what exacally is the problem?Sam ov the blue sand 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how do you eat an elephant? Answer: one slice at a time. Unsourced articles are nominated for deletion one by one as they are found. The source you cite does not look reliable, and that is the sole source - plus the vast majority of the article is plainly written from direct observation (we call this original research and it's not allowed). Sorry, them's the breaks. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I said I get rid of the fanfiction and other such things if you can piont out some of the problems that would be helpful to prove my piont.Sam ov the blue sand 22:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem one: total absence of substantial reliable secondary sources. First, find your sources, then clean up the article. No sources, no article. Did I mention sources? Guy (Help!) 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the only thing wrong with it? But like I said before I can't find any other sources all the other ones have things like "This aircraft is believed to be able to fly in outer space" or "This aircraft is believed to run on an atomic generator", and I can't use crap like that so Electrosphere is the only place I can find anything but I'm guessing that you don't care about what I'm saying and will just say what you said before like other admins (no offense to admins, they have stressful jobs). So there is absolutly no way to have an article with only one source? Not one way?Sam ov the blue sand 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not the only thing, but it is the first and worst, because without sources we cannot have an article at all, so without sources it is simply not worth expending any effort rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. No sources, no article, no exceptions. So: first, find good sources. If you can't, then you've chosen the wrong subject, bad luck, pick another one. Multiple, non-trivial, independent sources is what's required, and your one source fails that test, so in fact you have no independent non-trivial sources. In point of fact there is precedent for deleting articles which have one reasonably good source, but your source is not reasonably good. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever thanks for the help.Sam ov the blue sand 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD

Huntress and Lee are sockpuppets, as established by checkuser, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lee_Nysted I just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed, but not surprised. I will block the lot, if they aren't already. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll-B-Gon

Guy, excuse my ignorance but this new reversion tool seems to be a little inflammatory at worst and spam at best. The summary edit currently reads "Comment removed using Troll-B-Gon Professional v 1.0". i have noticed a few people using it today. Is there a way to turn off the troll-B-gon tag line? David D. (Talk) 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a joke? I'm confused now. David D. (Talk) 22:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A joke it is. Satire on Popups and the like. Nysted is a vanity spammer. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, hook, line and sinker ! Seeing two troll-b-gon edits by different users in the space of a few minutes really fooled me. Where did it originate? David D. (Talk) 23:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I buy one of these? -- Steel 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG GPL PLZ. —xyzzy_n 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with normal practice in user scripts, I have created a page for it at User:JzG/Troll-B-Gon, with download instructions. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:You spat in my soup!

Very good. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

It's much harder to find your contibutions now your sig is an English word. And that's a shame because they are always interesting. Stephen B Streater 09:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching text for "Guy (help)", that finds only my sigs :-) Guy (Help!) 09:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good thinking :-) Stephen B Streater 11:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Kidman

Thanks for protecting Nicole Kidman. I was alsointerested in whether the IPs were related, and why it seemed to be a coordinated attack? --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 10:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to do a WHOIS and find out if they are the same ISP. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Guy, you restored histories for Bought Science and Problems with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) while they are on deletion review. I've now cited the sources that they are copyright violations of there, so WP:CSD#G4 definitely applies, but I don't want to reverse another administrators actions. GRBerry 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away, I was just ensuring that nobody could possibly filibuster the thing, one look at the content is more than enough to satisfy any rational person that this has no place here, copyvio or not. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture assistance

Hi Guy ! Earlier, I had written to the University of Heidelberg for permission to use the picture of Gerhard von Rad but did not get any reply - I had matter-of-factly stated that I wish to upload it onto Wikipedia. After waiting for a while, I had uploaded the picture. As an Administrator, may I request you to suggest me possible ways to get back the picture. I've seen your edits on Victor Premasagar - thanks for the same.Pradeep 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are asking. Have you lost the original, or are you trying to get an image with unknown copyright reinstated? If the former I can mail it to you, if the latter then I am not too comfortable with that. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Hi Guy! You deleted the article for Dupobs on the grounds that it did not assert Notability. The band includes a member of A Spectre Is Haunting Europe (which was noted in the article), which meets Notability guidelines. I think it should be restored because of crossover in band membership (Notability Criterion 6 - "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"). Could you please restore it?

That criterion is badly worded. These are not criteria for notability, they are indicators that notability criteria might be met. Notability criteria are, as for all articles, multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to jump in here, but the criterion has also been included in WP:MUSIC for quite a while with minimal complaint and no efforts to change it. Maybe there weren't sources, but that's not a speedy criteria. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I know you reverted the guideline back to allowing all these as criteria which on their own establish notability, but the previous version was correct, because without sources it doesn't matter how many records are sold, we can't have an article without violating fundamental policy. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're talking about two different things. Apples and oranges. Things can have the requisite sources without being "notable." Besides, I'm not even sure why WP:N is a guideline - it directs people to the specific guidelines for different subjects - and the way you changed it back - again without discussion - weakens the whole thing. And your speedy was still improper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it wasn't without discussion. Can you come up with an example of something which has multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources but is not notable? Guy (Help!) 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did over at WP:N. Are you going to force me over to DRV on Dupobs? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the WP:N page asserts that the N guideline "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", a reasonable and prudent editor would defer to the more specific guidelines about Notability for music as indicated on WP:MUSIC, where any one of a number of criteria are acceptable as evidence of being notable. If the criterion is "badly worded", explain why, and make the argument to change it. As it stands the article was speedily deleted because you didn't agree with the wording on WP:MUSIC, not because the article was inconsistent with the guidelines. The article should be restored.
Guy, please restore the article. First of all, dupobs contains a member of a group that meets notability guidelines. Second, I suspect the deletion was instigated by unfamiliarity with what concerns dupobs (i.e., their conceptual art take on the marketing of pop music), and their uniqueness. I think this is the case because a past contribution I wrote, on "man-made trance" was deleted: I didn't protest the deletion because the article was merely a stub, but the deletion of man-made trance was clearly a case of someone not being familiar with the concept, and the fact that there is little English language information on this topic: the term "man-made trance" was coined by the Japanese band Rovo. I believe something similar has happened with the dupobs article. In any case, please trust that many contributors to Wikipedia do have specialized areas of knowledge and that their contributions are made with good reason. I hope to see the dupobs article back up sometime soon.

Cube World

Why did you delete it man? I want to learn about it.Pendo 4 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Pendo 4[reply]

Alientrap

You deleted the Alientrap article for lack of nobility, But it linked to this: http://www.alientrap.org/verm/nexuiz.jpg How is that not enough? Revert the deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.168.4 (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New Image for WP:NCR

I've made a new, free and more formal image for WP:NCR. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads

Jeffrey Gustafson recreated Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC proposal

FYI, this proposal is actually getting a bit of comment now, after a few days of gathering dust; however, the comments thus far seem to be indicating that I may have misread the desire for something to actually be done with RfC/User to make it work a bit more smoothly. (And one person called it added bureaucracy despite the numerous indications that it's not supposed to be one, of course; I should have expected that.) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 353: / Line 353: @@
 [[Image:DFRGNCR.jpg|thumb]]
 I've made a new, free and more formal image for [[WP:NCR]]. Cheers, <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="5">[[User:Dfrg.msc|Dfrg.]][[User talk:Dfrg.msc|msc]] </sup>   </font> 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
+==[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads]]==
+Jeffrey Gustafson recreated [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yes ads]].  [[User:Zoe]]|[[User talk:Zoe|(talk)]] 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 == RFC proposal ==