User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:43, 5 March 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.

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.

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article B. B. King, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Bottle Square

Thanks for explaining the situation to me. You did much better than anyone else who tired.

Most appreciated, may Wikipedia be with you

J19086

Comment

Bowsy and Henchman aren't sockpuppets, that was proven. But nothing was ever proven against meatpuppetry. Them saying "I'm not a meatpuppet" and other things doesn't seem like enough, when they share the same opinions on a few things... and seem to try to make AFD and RFCs go in their favor. RobJ1981 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or they might just be friends. You know, people who hang out together. And go to the same school. Remember that? Lighten up! Guy (Help!) 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: User:Lee Nysted continues to removed a talk page post I added to his talk page. Isn't that a form of vandalism? He doesn't agree with what I posted: so he removed it. Erasing comments solves nothing. RobJ1981 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he's gone around and removed the sock tags from the socks confirmed by CheckUser; he's asking them all to identify themselves and saying they're innocent victims, or somesuch. He's also saying he's "investigating" the CheckUser (or, as he refers to it, Checkloser) system. *head asplode* Tony Fox (arf!) 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I think it is time for drastic action because it appears that RobJ is not going to put this behind him anytime soon. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic action? Get over it already, I have. RobJ1981 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Guy, you wouldn't believe what I found...

Uh, Guy, you wouldn't believe what I found... I am not notifying everybody and their brother of this new truth I found, but since you were the poor admin stuck with "doing something," I feel I owe it to you to let you in on the latest:

Even though I don't see how you could honestly claim that I have violated any identifiable policy (just stubbornly insisted that I have a right to voice my opinion), I will not reargue the case here -out of respect.

However, since we last "spoke," I have noticed that no actual WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, only a minority of the votes went against me -and a minority is NOT a "consensus." Observe:

There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.

The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by you, User:JzG, here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.

Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.

In conclusion, the fact I have not actually done anything against the policy (did not edit war, did not vandalize, usually did not post excessive long posts, accepted consensus even when it was against me, etc.), if no consensus exists against me (not even a slim majority, mind you), this is the sort of thing that would prompt an email to Jimbo: After all, isn't it against policy (and also quite wrong) to pretend a consensus exists when it, in fact, doesn't?

By the way, in spite of the fact we had some disagreements hither and yon, thank you for your weak support for ArbCom to take this case -and actually look into ALL the facts.--GordonWatts 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, I did look into *ALL* the facts. The consensus is that you should be actively restricted from your disruption. You want to email Jimbo? Go right ahead, but as with the ArbCom case you raised do not be too surprised if it has the opposite of the desired result. Jimbo knows my name, at least. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, I did look into *ALL* the facts. The consensus is that you should be actively restricted from your disruption. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I initially posted, I had said there were 32 participants, and I was wrong (there were 33!) -yes, I make mistakes, and I own up to them (I am sorry about that), but notwithstanding this, how can 14 (out of 32 or 33) be a "consensus," Guy? That is not even a majority -not even a "slim" majority. What now? A "Minority" of votes can somehow translate into a "consensus" (and, BTW, even a "super majority" is not always a consensus -look at WP:Consensus to get the actual facts.
- Things like this make me want to call up Jimbo and tell him his project sucks -and that either he bites you -or you bite the other users, or I will tell the project to "bite off" because of this utter foolishness.
- Let me point out, I am not trying to be a dick or anything -but if the actual consensus went against you, why not just say "hey, I was wrong." -- Guy, did you know: I, myself, accept consensus when it goes against me (sometimes it does) -even were this consensus-supported, no actual violations occurred by me, but you are in violation of WP:Consensus. your move, but remember: I'm not trying to be a dick, as you would call it.--GordonWatts 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That statement makes absolutely no sense. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, more than half (17) supported NO sanctions stiffer than limitations on the amount of talk page discussion. So, less than half supported ANY type of article-related editing restrictions. I am just letting you know that, since the action against me is closed, no "new" votes can come in, and, by the numbers, there exists no consensus against me, (BTW, my patience has fully expired) so you are in violation of WP:Consensus. Figuring out that less than half does not constitute a concensus is not a harsh task.--GordonWatts 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, Gordon, it will make sense to everybody else. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Trust me, Gordon, it will make sense to everybody else" From your dictionary: "Everybody" - noun - Less than half. --- Another entry: "Less than half" - noun - Consensus. ... uh... right. - All snipes aside, I appreciate the difficulty of your task -and do not envy it. However, "life isn't fair" is well exemplified by this debacle.--GordonWatts 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "everybody else" means, as usual in discussions involving you, everybody other than you. Now drop the stick and step away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GordonWatts, please get a clue - most people didn't want you here PERIOD. You should be thanking JzG that he even let you stay around. My interpretation of the consensus was "banninate with fire". ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were careful to put in the small tilde in your edit correction, but you missed the "big picture." I am fed up with people like you (learn to count already) who don't even realise that less than half is NOT consensus -not even close. Yes, it was close, but close only counts in hose shoes and hand grenades. -and even then, Consensus never trumps policy -even imagining it did somehow exist here. Now, be off, and I wish you well in your retirement.--GordonWatts 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guess what? We are fed up with you! Specifically, we are fed up with your endless argumentation and assertions that it's everybody else who is the problem. It's not everybody else, it's you. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "assertions that it's everybody else who is the problem" no - it is a minority who are the problem -a minority who have the support of a rouge admin.--GordonWatts 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it's been awhile since I've seen "rouge admin" where the misspelling really was unintentional. You've made my day, Gordon. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel stupid -that was a BAD "rogue" misspelling on my part...--GordonWatts 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have offended you -I guess we're even now (all sides are fed up at each other), but I stand by my statement: At least I know how to count, and you do not. The only thing for which consensus MAY have existed (and even this is tenuous at best) is some type of restrictions regarding talk pages. If you don't agree here, then obviously I can count, and you can't, so being fed up does not alter the facts: You have NO consensus for MOST (or all) of the illegal actions you sanctioned. You remind me of a bad police officer: You think that authority (admin or police bobby) allows you to violate rules -and in this case, you violated the WP:Consensus rules -and maybe some others. Be fed up -or don't -but you must comply with the rules.--GordonWatts 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been repeatedly editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration I am sure you have seem this analysis of why you are wrong about the consensus. You really have an outstanding ability to ignore anything that might be inconvenient for you. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ObiterD, I think that maybe some slim consensus existed in regards to one of the 4 "sanctions," but no matter how you spin it, no consensus existed on all four -at all. (That's even when I went looking for extra "oppose" voters -who may have opined -but failed to sign on the poll.--GordonWatts 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Regan (talk · contribs)

...is probably a sockpuppet of a banned spamming user, especially based on this edit. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and is probably indef-blocked :-) Guy (Help!) 09:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about image on Aerosan page: Ant4_1.gif

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly as I am fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, but it looks like someone deleted an image from of a early 1900's Russian Aerosan snowcat/snowplane. The image file is/was: Ant4_1.gif I did not contribute this image, I am just questioning why it vanished? Melensdad 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

I brought you this tasty and shiny apple

May I have permission to edit the Zombietime article, and talk page? If so please fill out a hallpass so no one complains to the principal. I don't want to get suspended again. I'll be back before math class. - FaAfA (yap) 04:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content at Zombietime comes from user Zombiefan (talk · contribs), who admires 'zombie' a lot (could you guess?) and is very new to Wikipedia. As a result, the article was far too positive. Thanks to FaAFA,[1] some more experienced editors have stepped in to start fixing the article, and Zombiefan is now learning about NPOV. I would not like to see FaAFA scare Zombiefan away from Wikipedia. CWC(talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Power Line talk page CWC. You know WP. The Zombietime article is a self-sourced hagiography, and The Red Cross ambulance incident has been refuted so thoroughly by so many sources (including Israel itself) that his clinging to that debunked Conspiracy Theory reminds some of the 9/11 truthers. If you don't want me there, I ask that you do some work on the article. A LOT of work - FaAfA (yap) 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a constructive way of putting it. But the article clearly has POV issues, so why don't the two of you see if you can work on it in harmony? Guy (Help!) 09:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I thought I was turning on the charm! Thanks for the OK! I'll try to be extra nice. I've been taking lessons from some of the Wiki Illuminaries. (did you see my work on the Rouge Admin page?) - FaAfA (yap) 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list jargon

What does "I think he was responsible for all new subscribers going on mod" mean? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at least one permanently blocked user, I think it was him, trolled the mailing list under several names, so the moderators changed the settings so that new subscribers are on moderation by default, and only taken off moderation once we are sure they are not trolls. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights

We have been contacted by the rights owner of a number of images you uploaded. He is, to put it mildly, not happy. Please do not upload more pictures unless you yourself are the rights owner (i.e. do not upload images you find on the web, only those you take yourself). Guy (Help!) 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which one was it was it? I get permission from everybody beforehand.--sonicKAI 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Unblock_of_Thekohser.3F --Calton | Talk 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I note that Watts is being deliberately contrarian again. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished myself, it being so out of character for him. --Calton | Talk 08:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheater.com

Hi, if you have time, please help me out here: Talk:Circle of stars. The article Circle of stars report that fisheater.com is blacklisted, but it does not exist in the article. I'm a newbee Wikipedian so this is new fo me. --Roberth Edberg 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reexamine.info

Guy, I just left this note:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Removing 279 reexamine.info links for copyright reasons

These links are both sensitive and urgent so I want to make sure the right message is conveyed. If you have time, feel free to look at it and correct or clarify my comments as you feel may be appropriate.

If you need help with link cleanup, I'll be happy to help once I get better Internet access in a day or two. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note. Posting the same message to 7 different admins to try and insert your preferred content is called 'spamming'. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Tbeatty 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it can wait, plus 200 people for a web forum RL meet is not bad. Guy (Help!) 08:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJay RfC

Just wanted to let you know I posted at the RfC. Arbustoo 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How

Hello, JzG, how do you cope with depression? (Rather, is there a way you deal with it other than alcohol?) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dosulepin hydrochloride and cycling, for the most part. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Red Book

Just fyi, Image:Little rouge book.jpg is technically a copyvio in several ways. The book cover is (probably) copyrighted and non-free, the Wikipedia logo is certainly non-free and the photo’s copyright status is unclear. Since you’re an admin, I won’t bother looking for the right tag. —xyzzy_n 14:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of book cover? Feh. Photo is off Commons, license free. Wikimop has no recognisable logo (no degree of enhancement will give you anything other than a grey blob). Guy (Help!) 14:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls

Anon ≠ troll. 137.222.189.198 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Person who posts deliberately inflammatory remarks = troll. Happens that one was an anon, often they are not. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mandatory reading

What's all of this nonsense about conspiring with the forces of darkness? Doesn't anyone wear night vision goggles anymore?

Beyond Rouge, is Infra-Rouge... Georgewilliamherbert 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if the trolls get nasty, I get ultra-violent with the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for semi-protecting Patrick McCrory. I stumbled across this article yesterday and saw that it was likely to be a target for a while. Ironically, I had already decided that if it got vandalized one more time today (after my last revert), I would take it to RPP. So, you saved me the trouble.--Kubigula (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. OTRS complaint, as it happens. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking your opinion

In light of the Essjay firestorm I'll throw a question your way: this project has only 11 active bureaucrats. Do you think it would be beneficial to add one more? And what would you think if I requested it? Durova^Charge! 20:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with asking, but is there a backlog at all? Might be slapped down if there is not. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments on the Essjay affair suggest that a backlog might result if he stepped down. I'd appreciate your advice. Durova^Charge! 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I 've been having similar thoughts and my thought was to suggest that Guy run for cratship. JoshuaZ 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley you can't be serious? Every troll in Wikihistory would be along in a shot! Guy (Help!) 21:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was considering running but I think I might have the same problem. JoshuaZ 21:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, I think. Look through the WP:100 list, though, there might be a likely candidate or two. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Not you" mean that you don't think I'd have the troll problem or that you think I shouldn't run? I can't quite tell from context. In any event, other candidates might be Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Daniel.Bryant, Blnguyen, Bishonen, Sarah Ewart and Rama's Arrow. I might suggest SlimVirgin but she'll have a lot of objections and I dont think she wants the job. JoshuaZ 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd have the troll problem. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm a bit busy right now, I'll run sometime next week probably. JoshuaZ 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good idea to wait until next week before nominating new 'crats while this firestorm rages. Otherwise some users might misinterpret the candidacy as a cynical bid for power. Durova^Charge! 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASR

BNver knew there was a specific self-referential policy, thanks... Can you explain when it will be tripped? Chivista 22:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that those who wish to delete the article on Daniel Brandt are guilty of censorship in the article on censorship is both self-referential and original research. In my case it's also wrong. I think the Brandt article should go because the sources are not about Brandt, they are about his enterprises. There is a degree of irony in Brandt, the fearless crusader for Internet privacy, apparently stalking a Wikipedia editor, but that is not widely discussed in the press. If it is, then that may lead to sources primarily about Brandt. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unaccredited

Your template creation, Template:Unaccredited is ungoing issues. I don't feel it needs to be changed as the material is available on the talk. Arbustoo 03:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RobJ1981

This user has blatantly ignored your warning on his talk page. Please do something about him before this gets us unfairly indef. blocked. Henchman 2000 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RF RFAr source

Note that there is a second source stating that Byan and Dino are one and the same - user Eschoir, contributions a real-life attorney and an admitted Free Republic provocateur. He is referrenced here : link His dealings with Bryan/Dino go back years. - FaAfA (yap) 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Favor? I orginally made this page Chacala/AltaVistaPetroglyphs as a sub-page of Chacala (cause I'm an idiot) and have now moved it to a stand alone article at Altavista petroglyphs, and updated the links. Could you delete the chacala/AVP page? Much obliged. - FaAfA (yap) 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi - just to inform you, there's someone complaining about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_about_JzG, apparently in relation to an arbitration case. Best, Sandstein 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got it wrong

see there is no COI and Gordon's sites are fine and so on --Fredrick day 22:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better not to respond? That one little paragraph is probably going to trigger twenty in response. And I think he'll have a greater chance of being able to resume editing after a month without too much disruption if he hasn't had a lot of practice in responding to people during the month. And, frankly, I'd hate to see the block made permanent because of Gordon being provoked into a response that will lead to a block, especially since he really, really has been treated very rudely by some editors. (I don't mean you.) I'd say the best way to help him to be come a productive editor is not to respond to his arguments. ElinorD (talk)

Probably, but I live in hope that if it is said often enough he may one day understand. Triumph of hope over experience, I expect. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's still not wrong? [9] --Calton | Talk 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For supporting my right to prepare an RfC in userspace. The RfC is now filed, should you wish to look at it. I've got no use for this page any more, so could you delete it please? I would try db-author but Astrotrain decided he wanted to edit it, so I don't think it qualifies. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real life

JzG, I read your RfC comment about "Wikipedia is not real life. Nothing here actually matters that much." I was sympathetic to this until Essjay accused a reporter of unethical behavior. [10] It gives me no joy to point this out. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: And another

Thanks! Perhaps it's time we came up with a "doing the needful" barnstar :) – Qxz 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject PipeOrgan

Hi,

Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan has now been created. Feel free to assist in the creation of the project page, and then we can get started!

Best,

MDCollins (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 275: / Line 275: @@
 :: Probably, but I live in hope that if it is said often enough he may one day understand.  Triumph of hope over experience, I expect.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
+:::Guess who's still not wrong?  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGordonWatts&diff=112543111&oldid=112425099] --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 ==Thanks==