User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:35, 16 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

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

I'm guessing from the pictures that have been removed, it was Adam Murray who wasn't happy. I have written permission to use pictures from his site. He even uploaded some of them here himself.--sonicKAI 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all these images, including those uploaded by him, are gone, he has withdrawn whatever permission he may have given. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 6 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'. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --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]

Guy would make a good bureaucrat. Someone who has good judgement and is prepared to use it. Stephen B Streater 10:08, 9 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? [8] --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. [9] 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]

Thanks

Thanks for realising the purpose of the sock case. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:RobJ1981#Bowsy & Henchman 2

An RFC about Henchman has started. However, I do not think my behaviour was "over-enthusiastic." Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 11:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, however, does. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Sock Case

What is the code for a diff for Henchman's second sock case's creation? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 13:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one, I deleted it. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)

Can you specify the copyright violation that got this page deleted? I am sure it can be removed so that the page can be reinstated. It was an huge and significant article about a fairly important concept in psychology? Thanks --Zeraeph 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The checklist was asserted to be copyright by the copyright owner. A prose article covering the subject should be fine. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. I suppose it isn't possible to put the article history in my userspace under the copyvio circumstances, so I can work it up? I do have a copy from a cache at "answers.com"...I'll be exceptionally careful, and watchlist it. At present there is only the most basic stub. Hope it offends no-one. --Zeraeph 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for RobJ

Could you post here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981. I've noticed you've had some problems with him as well. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

Hello,

I created an article titled "Rosati-Kain High School" a few weeks ago, and it was flagged as potential copyright infringement. I contacted Wikipedia and explained that I have the rights to this article under GNU, since I am the original author and I maintain the site that the original info was found. That was a few weeks ago. Today, I went to the site to check to see if the flag has been removed, and I found that my entire page was removed. I received an email from an administrator that instructed me what to do to get the page republished, and I did all that I was told to do.

I have followed all of the rules and policies set by Wikipedia and I have sent my permissions to all of the necessary contacts, yet my article was deleted anyway. What else can I do in order to have the article republished?

Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it.

Annie Hafner ahafner@rosati-kain.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annie Hafner (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have checked the OTRS queue. Please send an email to that list, using the existing ticket number, explicitly stating that you release the text under GFDL, that will be fine. Note that this is a big step form simply saying that you have the right to the text; releasing under GFDL means you release all rights and control over the text, and it may be, as the edit box so aptly puts it, "edited mercilessly". Once I have your release under GFDL I will undelete. The email trail shows that you are who you say you are, so the only remaining problem is assessing whether the school's own website content is sufficiently neutral to meet our policies. You may wish to tag it as requiring checking for neutrality, as a sign of good faith. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I do appreciate it. I will do as you have instructed, including the tag for neutrality checking. I just have one more question: How do I check the OTRS queue? I am new to this.

You can't check OTRS, but OTRS volunteers can. You can mail OTRS, it's the address to which you sent the previous emails. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete Taschner for RFC

Would you please place the version of John C. Taschner you deleted on 15 February in to John C. Taschner/15Feb07 so that respondents to the RFC User:TheronJ has requested will be able to comment on both versions? I am reluctant to bother you about this again, but the question I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Is an expert posting to a moderated mailing list reliable? is inconclusive. James S. 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Another admin restored the page history. James S. 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware...

Please be aware that interfering with a homicide investigation, concealing material evidence and threatening a law enforcement office are felonies. Nocternal 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that the above is completely irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating your position for the record. Nocternal 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it was a legal threat. I have just the tool to deal with that. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what that was all about?? Seems pretty random and bizarre... Georgewilliamherbert 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a thread on ANI where all is explained, at least to the extent that it is explicable. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bircham International University

You seem to be good at sorting at complaints. There is an official complaint at Bircham International University. Arbustoo 07:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of RfC that was speedy deleted

I request the restoration of the page indicated at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Wikipedia%3ARequests+for+comment%2FDominick 75.46.74.131 20:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you are wrong.

Please refrain from making assumptions about me, my businesses, and my family. Further, please do not use the checkuser system to try to back up your vexatious vitriolic behavior. Please refrain from communicating with me, if you cannot be civil and abide by the policies here. Checkuser is a system with multiple flaws. That is my opinion. Lee Nysted 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per previous ArbCom rulings, we don't actually care whether multiple accounts editing the same content with the same bias from the same address are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, it is irrelevant. Thank you for playing the troll-the-admin game, you get no points this round. Guy (Help!) 17:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop.

I did not even know I had an article here until an employee came to me and told me your "CLEAR CHANNEL article was deleted." You can delete Matt Walker and Todd Sucherman and all of my players. You can delete the world for all I care. I have a band. Notable people play in it. I have an investment business. I am accountable to over 20,000 employees. Use Google and AMG and any other source you find to be reliable. I have businesses and addresses all over the world, Guy. Checkuser has blocked people in every corner of the world. It isn't right and it is not an accurate system. A Steak house in Vail /Beaver Creek? You come on. End it, please? You can Google: Lee Nysted 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounddogs

Based upon your prejudice in deleting Audiosparx, I ask that you review Sounddogs and at least weigh in on the page? Autocracy 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prejudice I clearly share with others, since I'm not the only one who deleted it as spam :-) Guy (Help!) 19:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman 2000

You might want to tell him that isn't the best thing to do. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Remember World energy resources and consumption and the convoluted FAC? Mierlo (talk · contribs) has moved, archived and redirected his user page and talk pages so often I can't find the pieces (similar to the FAC). The article was just listed GA by Mitgeek (talk · contribs), whose only edits to Wiki hvae been to pass the GA. I seem to recall that Mierlo's older talk or user entries also indicated he attended MIT and Stanford—two institutions I have reason to remember. Anyway, just a heads up re: ongoing article ownership issues. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitgeek is self-evidently a sockpuppet. I have left a warning. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Something tells me that won't be the end of that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is one of these. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I hope not ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back as User:Arcticdawg

All the signs:

baiting

baiting

Nazis stuff

Baiting again

English bulldog

accounting stuff

Canada stuff

False utilization of WP:AIV here against User:Chacor (formerly NSLE) -this is a classic SirIsaacBrock ploy to get those he's in a content dispute with blocked-

Would you indef. this latest sockpuppet Arcticdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Guy, you might like to review what's written in SirIsaacBrock's sockpuppet category to help refresh your memory about this guy. (→Netscott) 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you could nab his other sockpuppet Headphonos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Check the contributions, same pattern. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist. (→Netscott) 14:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete my account

I was trying to make a real contribution, all my edit on wikipedia have always been in good faith. I certainly have not used multiple accounts and the awards of the World Energy articles by the energy portal etc were genuine, some people did appreciate the contributions....... I don't understand why you could not assume good faith. However at this point please delete my account as per Wikipedia's policy. Mierlo 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well, but you haven't vanished, have you? Guy (Help!) 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will vanish - There is little point in contributing free labor if it is not appreciated. So please delete all my user pages and history. I should have used an alias, like most editors, I guess I was a little too optimistic when I joined the project. Mierlo 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it isn't appreciated, just that you display a lack of willingness to collaborate and to let go of what you have done. You also have very passionate views about the subject, which clearly colours your judgment about the article. To be blunt, you come across as obsessive. When gathering research data that is good, when assembling it with other people into a collaborative and dispassionate encyclopaedia article it is not so good. There is nothing broken about that article right now, and it may well be best to just leave it alone for a bit, to see what happens and how the state of the art moves on. Why not click Special:Random and find a neglected article in need of your attention to detail? Guy (Help!) 18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable suggestion. By the way, although I am an MIT geek, I am not MITgeek, nor am I Gralo, and deleting the GA passing is not right. If you can revert the talk page I will follow your advice. Mierlo 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, MITgeek is a single purpose account so the views of that user are not a likely reflection of the community view. GA status is worthless anyway, having pretty much no quality control. I'd forget about it. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The frustrating thing about these continuing antics is the time it takes away from other editors, "just trying to do their job". I work on updating articlehistory templates; three days ago, there was clearly a peer review at Talk:World energy resources and consumption and it clearly had input from Mierlo, using two different names. Now it's gone without a trace. I don't understand the moves, redirects, archives and need to obfuscate posts and pages that other people need to archive. I 'spose I should just delete the peer review (which is also malformed now at WP:PR) and not worry about it, but I really don't understand why this continues. I guess I need an admin to explain how these pages can disappear without a trace, without an admin making them disappear.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what he did; it looks as if the thing has been moved at least half a dozen times, and he might have done a {{db-author}} along the way. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I just delete the peer review from WP:PR and the article talk page, since it's gone? Normally, it would be archived and listed on {{ArticleHistory}}, which is where I come in. It's still a mystery to me how it (and Mierlo's edits to it) can be gone from history; I need to learn how to make that happen :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing is to collect up the various bits of abortive debate, delete them, remove them form the talk, and then start again. The FA review is worth keeping as it generated some good input. In a year or so with some more eyes and input it may be worth trying again. I think it's a pretty decent article on its own merits, and I'm strongly inclined to do not much. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, deleting the PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement on the article. It was a lot of work to gather all that information and to create the graphics. Please delete my my user pages and history as per Wikipedia's policy Mierlo 03:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheaters page

Guy, I took the liberty of removing an uncivil and somewhat abusive sentence from your page on the fisheaters spam issue. It was originally added by an anonymous IP, probably the owner of that site, as some sort of rebuttal to your page. I am alerting you to this because I know that editing others userpages is generally frowned upon. Apologies if you would rather have it stayed. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, better to fix. I don't WP:OWN anything around here :o) Guy (Help!) 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/Laura Man, first the completely illogical "defense" on the Spam Blacklist page (I mean, just read it! She can't even write in complete sentences, and everything she said was obviously untrue because -- well, just because!), and now this. What an unreasonable, vicious person going about breaking hidden rules about writing on userpages! If she had an account, she should be banned just for that! She should know that it isn't "abusive" to call a site "spam" or to publicly mischaracterize a Roman Catholic site as one that rejects Roman Catholic authority, but it is abusive to feign to "defend" oneself against it. I think she should be called a dick and told to fuck off, myself.

That was not the Fisheaters woman, that was User:ParalelUni. And we did tell that one to fuck off. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was the "Fisheaters woman." See the bottom of the contact page.

Which contact page? Guy (Help!) 09:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contact.html#patrons (note the date mentioned in that sub-section). That page is the same page that indicates very clearly the site's stance on Vatican II, and that stance is quite different from what you write on the User:JzG/FishEaters page, Talk Pages, spam pages, etc. That's all.

A heads-up

Just thought you should know, Jeff is trying to resurrect Emmalina again. Wondering what your take is, since you protected it the last time. WarpstarRider 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I brought it to RFPP after discussing it with a few people as to how to handle it. As the reprotection was against the DRV closure, it appeared that was the best route to go. AfD/DRV is always an option, although it does meet the standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I know you have a deep and abiding love of crap off teh internets, but I still don't think this is the place for it.I read te article, which at least has the merit of being a serious attempt at an encyclopaedia article this time, but for the life of me I still can't see what is significant about this subject. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What measure of importance are you using in this case, then? This has ntohing to do with any "deep or abiding love of crap off teh internets," I haven't been involved with web memes in over a year. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The measure of importance I attack to any subject, specifically, after I've read the article I am still wondering why I bothered. This individual's claim to fame seems even more tenuous than that of Paris Hilton. Famous for what, exactly? Guy (Help!) 13:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What now, brown cow?

File:Inquisition2.jpg

Auto de fe 1475

'B R Y N O' hath R E T I R E D

Does the RFAr proceed ? FaAfA (yap) 10:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. DeanHinnenFromPalatine is not the only party. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ubiquitous computing

I strongly suggest you withdraw this and spare us all the time on the AfD debate. This is a very major area in human computer interaction. The article is messy now, but there are hundreds of thousands of reliable sources for this which could be added in time. The article needs a clean up, maybe a re-write, but not a delete.--Konstable 11:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, would a decent article contain any of the text from this one. I did not think so. And it is absolutely riddled with spammy links. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find too many spammy links. In fact I found just 1, everything is is relevant. The writing itself is not too bad either, and it is referenced (though the referencing was a mess, I juts cleaned it up).--Konstable 12:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you would help?

I had to switch archiving bots. Someone else did the switching for me and I do not understand the code. I noticed you are using the same bot, but I like the message at the top of your page so much better than the one that is transcluded on mine. I tried to copy yours unsuccessfully. Would you be willing to take a look at the top of my talk page and see if my bot message can look like yours? (If you don't have time, that's O.K.) Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll have a look. It took me a couple of goes to get it right, so you'll need to watch and make sure it's working. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't know why I can't figure out these things -- dumb I guess. Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's a bit like looking at the railway track and trying to work out which way the train went :-) Guy (Help!) 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion in the Karel Plíhal article

Hello JzG, I noticed that you deleted the link to the Karel Plíhal's songbook. Please be more careful and check links before deletion next time. By the way, the URL was added to the whitelist on my request. --pabouk 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did check it, it looked like an offsite copyvio, but it's not in English and I don't read Polish. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks more like Czech. Afaict, the website calls itself ‘unofficial’. There is a copyright note attributing the lyrics to Plíhal, but I haven’t found any comment on whether they have his permission to publish all that stuff. —xyzzy_n 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Without unambiguous evidence it's clean I'd not link it anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know that "copyvio" means copyright violation :-) Yes, the website is unofficial and there is no notice expressing a permission from the author there. You were right. BTW it is in the Czech language. --pabouk 21:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxies

These two anon IPs have edited in way that might bear watching after the ArbCom is finished. Not sure what the connection to Plano, TX is.

--Tbeatty 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, what a giveaway... [10] Guy (Help!) 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted link?

I noticed that you removed a link from the Shinobido: Way of the Ninja article, citing that it was blacklisted. I'm not sure I understand, and as I added the link, would you mind elaborating further? Gamer Junkie 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

totalvideogames.com is on the spam blacklist. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How in the hell did you find the site in question amongst all of that nonsense? Most of them look like porn websites, not gaming review websites. Gamer Junkie 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for it in Firefox. Trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivially easy. Gamer Junkie 21:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration

Just to let you know that I have begun a "Requests for arbitration: "Bad"ministration" in which you will be involved. --Iantresman 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous title for a frivolous complaint. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Ukrained

I know very little about Ukrained. Some of his greviances seem quite reasonable, but some of his behaviour is not. I will look into it if time permits, soon.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the case and based on diffs and discussion at the bottom of his page, I have to take Ukrained side. While his behaviour is not most constructive (calling a group of editors a cabal), it does not warrant a block: many users have called WP:PWNB a cabal, and demanded my desysoping for mostly not-admin related power abuses, yet they were never blocked for it (and I never demanded a block for that, only review of accusations by the community, and an apology if (when) those accusations were proven false). Further, any user has a right to ask for a review of any admins behaviour. Khoikhoi block for refusing to denounce his claim of cabalism looks to me like abuse of admin power, particulary as he is supposedly 'in the cabal' (there should be a DR case, mediation probably, filled to discuss this, and the losing side should apologize or take the matter to next steps of DR): this is what has happened here and with Ghirla case. Or are you telling me I had a right to block Elonka and Ghirla for their comments about me being a cabal leader, and WP:PWNB being a cabal?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block was based on the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Personal Attacks by User:Ukrained. No more, no less. I said within that very thread that I am against WP:NPA and WP:CIV blocks too. However, blocks for general disruption are sometimes called for. A couple of spilled incivilities do not qualify as a general disruption. But if user posts vicious attacks in every single talk page entry see the thread above), if he starts every wikiday with resuming edit wars and attempts to recruit more editors to help him in that with calls that incite ethnic hatred, finally if talking, warning, repeated warning, again warning and several last warnings do not work and trolling and disruption continues, I simply don't see what else but the block may be done.

I am all for being careful with blocking. I am also all for being extra careful when established editors are involved. Seeing the talk page history of the user, his entries and reactions to calls for cool down, could anything else have been done?

Ukrained is free to start an RfC of course, but I must say that Piotrus managed to surprise me again by his reaction. --Irpen 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

How are external links usually sorted? By relevance? Alpha numeric? I have added my link on the wiki Kristi Snowcat page “KristiSnowCat.com” and it has been moved down into the middle of the links. KristiSnowCat.com has the largest amount of information about the Kristi Snowcat on the web (424MB of content, to be exact), shouldn’t it be at the top of the list? The accurate history of the Kristi Company is done and posted on my site, there should be some merit to the site as an external link.

I still have a serious problem with the history page on wikipedia, it is full of jargon, opinionated statements, and just false information. What is the definition of a reliable source? The information on the wikipedia is vague and there is nothing encyclopedic about the article.

I do not wish to debate the history with the author, all he does is steal other people’s hard work and post it everywhere else on the web as his property. All I ask is the external links be ranked according to content of the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caroth (talk • contribs) 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Two things: first, adding your own site is not allowed, second, adding it at the top of the list is almost always an indicaiton of spamming. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please answer my question, how external links are sorted. Why is adding KristiSnowCat.com site considered spam? I did not "just" add the link, it has been there for a while. All I did is add the description of the link. Someone else keeps editing the external links.

- I am not the author of the wikipedia article, but the KristiSnowCat.com has the most content on the web about Kristi Snowcats. Eliminating this link does not make sense. I do not agree with you decision, who is next in line? I do not think you are being a fair admin. Please let me know what are the next steps to resolve this issue. User:caroth

You may not add links to your own site. How links are sorted is a matter for the editors of the article, there is no fixed rule. The only fixed rule is: do not add links to your own site. Every admin, from Jimbo down, will tell you the same. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- So what is the point of having the external links and the wiki process? If a user who has had copyright problems cannot participate in the process, then the wiki model is not working. You are effectively defending a thief. There are still copyright issues with the article and now you removed valid information internal links area. Have you visited the KristiSnowCat.com site? Have you reviewed the history content there? How are you reviewing the reliable source? There is still information that is incorrect on the page. Please remove it or correct it. user:caroth

You can participate in the process by commenting on its talk page, declaring your conflict of interest. I know who you are, I know of your external disputes with User:Melensdad, I know you claim copyright on certain facts, which claim is not supported by our attorney's interpretation of copyright law. We have very limited patience with people who come to Wikipedia to pursue external disputes or promote their websites. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I was not aware you are part of the legal team. I will consult with legal directly. It sounds like you are threatening me, is that the case? I am not promoting my website, I just feel the link should be in the external links and that your article on wiki should be factually correct. I have added content to the talk section, have you viewed it? It appears you are taking a side in this dispute, I was not aware an admin took sides when they don't have all of the information. How do you know of the external disputes? You have never asked me? Having only one side of the story does not entitle you to "know" about any dispute. If you want proof of the previous copyright violations, I will be happy to provide them. I now understand your position, thank you for finally answering some my questions.

- Unfortunately, you still did not answer one my questions, have you taken a look at the KristiSnowCat.com website? After you look at the history and other content, I would think you would want to add the website to the external links yourself. The link is creditable and provides value to your wiki article. If not, please tell me why you feel the site should not be part of the article. I trust you will act as a non-biased admin. Thank you. Respectfully...user:caroth

I am not a member of the legal team, I am a member of the team that handles email complaints (including yours). Our attorney is Brad Patrick, and I did consult him about this. I am not taking sides, I am telling you what the problem is: you may not add links to your own site (and especially when you add blatantly promotional link summaries, as you did). It's a very simple rule, introduced for a very simple and obvious reason, and it does not require me to visit the site (although of course I have during the course of our earlier exchanges). You are free to suggest the link on the relevant Talk page, that is entirely unproblematic at this stage. And I have no intention of taking sides - either side - in what is clearly an external dispute, there is nothing on that article which seems to me to require urgent administrator attention so I am happy to let you and any other editors work it out via our dispute resolution process. I said I know of your external dispute - I have made no attempt to go into any depth because quite frankly I have more than enough disputes to manage here on Wikipedia without going out looking for others to take up. Please be assured that I do not care what your dispute is with Melensdad, as long as it does not disrupt Wikipedia. Really. As to "finally" answering some of your questions, I have done my best to answer your questions at every stage, please do not confuse not giving the answer you want, with not giving any answer. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have searched the wikipedia site looking for an official policy on posting links relevant to an article. I find no such policy; could you direct me to that policy so I can review it? I understand where posting a link for a product could be an issue, my website I posted does not sell anything. The site is a historical site for the Kristi vehicles and contains content relevant to the wikipedia article. Did you look at the website before deleting the link?

What really doesn't make sense is the fact that you leave the link "All About Kristi Snowcats, Kristi Snowcat History Website" which does the same thing, promote a website. In this case, the link is run by the author of the wiki article. I do not understand why you only apply the "You may not add links to your own site." rule for some people and not others. It does not make sense and from the outside it appears you have some sort of bias. Please explain.

I reviewed the arbitration link you posted and do not think it is appropriate to take it there yet. Please explain your actions I do not understand them. Is there another admin that can review this before arbitration?user:caroth

I already pointed you to the conflict of interest and spam guidelines, suggest it on the talk page and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, please point out the official policy where a user cannot link their page. Conflict of interest does not apply: editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors. The KristiSnowCat.com does not sell anything, is not an organization, it is simply a website with details of the history of the Kristi vehicles. SPAM does not have any relevance, the KristiSnowCat.com website does not sell anything, it is not commercial, there is nothing self promotional about it. Simply put, the webpage has a ton of information related to the history of the Kristi vehicles.
- You really have me confused now, why do you allow the author's webpage, isn't that self promoting? By removing all of the other links and leaving the author's link, it appears you are harassing me, is this the case? Please answer my questions from above, why do you only delete certain external links? How do we engage other admins? Do admin review external links? If not who does that?user:caroth

How many times do I have to tell you this? I have been around this project for a while, linking your own sites is viewed by the community as spamming, WP:SPAM and WP:COI apply, don't do it. WP:SPAM absolutely is relevant, because Wikispamming can be promoting a website as well as promoting a product. As to policy, we have very few "official policies", everything else is consensus and "how we do things here". I know what the consensus is regarding adding external links to your own site: don't do it. You seem unwilling to follow the course of action I recommended, which is commenting on Talk, so I did it for you. Quite why you prefer to argue with me than go and engage in discussion on the article's Talk page, which is how Wikipedia works, is not entirely clear to me. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'revenge of Bryno'!

Make sure to follow the links !Free Republic Funnies

"Jayjg - LIBERAL - notorious left wing point of view pusher, close friend of liberal political activist Chip Berlet. No identity given, other than that he edits with a liberal bias."

Uh - oh! Snookered again! FaAfA (yap) 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack

Do you see a JB196 type duck? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy shooting another duck? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Game

I noticed that the article for The Game had been deleted and that you said that you couldn't find any reference to it on Google, apart from Wikipedia. may I suggest that you are searching for the wrong thing. 'The Game' as a search term is pretty ambiguous, but a google search for "you just lost the game" brings up plenty of relivant references.

I think that the article should have not been deleted.

--Aiyda 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of them, however, are reliable sources. The only source we ever found was one Flemish newspaper, and we never did prove that their statement about its prevalence was sourced anywhere other than Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course

Hello Guy, My name is James Miller, and I posted the article that you deleted today. I wanted to cite references that this is not an advertisement, but instead a documentary film (which happens to teach filmmaking), as catalogued on IMDb [11]. I propose that this is no different a documentary than say, The Fog of War, which although is more famous since it deals with more political subject matter and has greater historical draw, is still the same category, and is still sold on Amazon like the Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course. What I would like to request from you is help in not making the entry sound like an Ad, because I assure you it's not. It is a documentary that is the subject of great debate in this public forum: DVXuser: [12] Also, I am an avid wikipedia enthusiast, and I struggled to make the DCFTC article as clean and well-linked as possible. Please help me make it even more reliable. Less photos? More of something else? Thank you for your effort on Wikipedia. Sincerely, James. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Proof of existence is not sufficient. You would need to show evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the producers. I can't think offhand of any other articles on training films, although I'm sure there must be some. It's been deleted before for the same reason, I notice. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. However, I am at a loss as to how to show proof of multiple non-trivial coverage of an Independent Documentary film other than IMDb, a Film Chat Forum, Amazon, and an Official site. Generally, there really aren't any other venues for an Independent documentary film than those. It is not going to air or release in theaters because it runs too long and is not affiliated with a major studio. That is the purpose in my mind for a home like Wikipedia, indpendent of major studio budgets. I did a search for "The Fog of War" and noticed that aside from the Sony Studio site and the author's site, it only appears on Wikipedia, IMDb, Amazon, and Rotten Tomatoes. The Film chat forum ought to take the place of Rotten Tomatoes in my case, since it is not sponsored by the producers, but totally independent. Please suggest some other nontrivial means of establishing coverage. Thank you sir. PS: The only portion of the article that was deleted before was a photo that I did not properly subtitle. That is all.

James T. Miller 01:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)James T. Miller[reply]

Precisely. Generally, there are no other venues. And Wikipedia is not a directory. So we typically do not have articles on traiing films. I think even the ones made by John Cleese, which acquired a degree of external coverage, are only discussed in his article, but I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I just want to stress that I am not trying to promote these people's product. I just happen to own it and think that the world should be aware of it. That said, my question is, why is there an entry for The Fog of War when it has the exact same amount of nontrivial coverage. Whether or not the Digital Cinema Course is a training film, it is still a Category "Documentary" film that is of international fame and importance. Can we make the course made public to the world through Wikipedia simply as a means of reference to a documentary film without any external links to its official site or pictures? What I mean is that, this isn't an intra-company training film to teach plumbers how to properly plumb. This has become a phenomenon among filmmakers because it is the only one like it created in Hollywood. It has personally inspired me, as have other films about making movies in Hollywood. So as a documentary, documenting the current trends of filmmaking, such as Visions of Light with serves the same purpose, why can't it exist on Wikipedia? Thank you for you patience, sir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't use obviously invalid comparisons. The Fog of War is a documentary which won an Academy Award, and has an original score by one of the world's foremost living classical composers. Digital Cinema Filmmaker's Training Course is an independently produced training video. See also WP:INN and arguments to avoid. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the DCFTC has won no academy award and has no famous composers, but the core theme is still the same. It is a famous documentary out to teach something, just as Fog of War is out to teach the rules of engagement in war (Rather than a training film for Generals). If you ask the average moviegoer "what is Fog of war?" they will have no clue, as opposed to "what is Snakes on a Plane". So both documentaries are famous to certain people. It is still a phenomenon among filmmakers. As a documentary, documenting the current trends of filmmaking, what needs to be modified on its page to exist on wikipedia? Thank you for your time. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James T. Miller (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Famous? Cite sources. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy, here are cited references, and there are more.

DVXuser "The online community for filmmaking" [13] - forum posting
IMDB "Earth's biggest movie database" [14] - user-edited directory
Credit given to Rush Hamden and DCFTC for inspiring modern filmmakers working on the show "24" [15] - trivial passing mention
Cinema Treasures gives credit to DCFTC for inspiring young filmmakers (temp article) [16] - not mentioned on that page at all
Amazon.com Page [17] - sales drectory
MySpace [18] - creator's MySpace page
Digital Cinema Course at SIGGRAPH 2000 [19] - no mention of this product on that page
YouTube (Thousands of views) [20] - creator's YouTube video
Filmmaking.com "The film and video industry's most trusted resource" (Front Page Pixel Directory) [21] - advert
Sell.com [22] - advert
DVinfo.net "The digital video information network" DCFTC present at a national Camera Test [23] - forum post
2-Pop "The digital filmmaker's resource site" [24] - forum
Creative Cow [25] - news listings

Those were the sources already present. None of them qualify as non-trivial, none are primarily about this product, some do not mention it at all (at least not by name) and most are not acceptable as sources anyway due to being forums or not independent of the creators of the work. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD

Hi, you probably have the user page on your watchlist. But to be sure see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Laura. Garion96 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG/Laura nominated for deletion

Thought I'd let you know that User:Alkivar nominated your subpage for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Laura. —Doug Bell ^talk 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henchman at it again

Now he is saying I acted like a corrupt admin: User_talk:Henchman_2000#Stop.2C_please. Is there something that can be done about this? First he edits my comments (and acts like it's fine) and now he attacks me once again. I have a RFC about his behavior open already, but it's not helping change his ways. RobJ1981 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

You will want to take a look at today's MfD's. Newyorkbrad 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to delete info from talk pages

This is in regards to your edit to User talk:SPmilkshakeGuru8. Also, you used the f-word which is generally considered to be in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. I know it is easy to get frustrated, but it helps everyone if we can all manage to remain civil. If you don't trust your own words, you can use any one of numerous templates to warn users about vandalism. That's what I do, goodness knows it can be hard to put things in your own words and remain civil! Thanks, and good luck with your editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barber - User:JB196 - has been blocked more times than I can count, he is banned and that account was yet another sockpuppet. He can, in short, fuck off. Trust me, I have a very good command of the English language, and what I said was exactly what I mean. The talk page is nto relevant to building the encyclopaedia, consisting as it does only of warnings which are superseded by the account's indefinite block as a sockpuppet of User:JB196. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying the kind of thing I wish I could, Guy. :) Dealing with Barber is annoying, the other day he buzzed my user page to try to taunt me into losing my temper. Your work is much appreciated. SirFozzie 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Guy - when you gonna stand up for your pal FaFfA for acting similarly aginst Bryan Hinnen's sockpuppet 'Dino'? That poor sap FaAfA is getting railroaded ! - FREE FaAfA! (yap) 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge I have no pals called anything like Fairness And Accuracy For All. That kind of username tends to be associated with the kind of behaviour that gives me more work to do. I have said what I have to say - I think a restriction and probation is merited, not an outright ban - but it's now up to the arbs, and you can't pretend they don't have plenty to go on. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't listen, did he? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU AfD criticism

We can either exchange views all over Wikipedia, we can ignore each other, or we can discuss this. I'd prefer the latter. *You had suggested [26] that you would have banned me from the EU AfD.
Here is my AfD comment,[27] that was removed to the Talk page. I'd be grateful for your criticism; do my comments contravene any policy or guidelines, especially those concerning the Deletion policy: "A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment" (my emphasis).
Concerning the removal of my comments to the Talk pages, how does this stack up to the Deletion policy statement "Normally you should not remove any statements from any deletion discussion."?
(I'll watch this page for comments so the discussion is complete) --Iantresman 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, your comments were disruptive and argumentative, moving them to the Talk page was perfectly reasonable. It doesn't happen often, but it certainly does happen. Pitching in and describing the nomination as "misleading" was rude, and we do not have article advocates' "corrections" to nominations in that way. You can argue keep, with a rationale, and engage in a limited amount of discussion directly relevant to points individuals make in the debate, but what you did was to harangue everybody who argued for deletion, based largely it seems on your personal conviction that the concept is important. The problem is, external sources do not seem to agree. The nomination was well-argued, and numerous editors supported it from their own knowledge of the field. I'd have thought by now you'd have realised that your views on these subjects lie in the "long tail", and it really is time you started to accept the midpoint being very different from your personal view is not something we want to fix. We have deleted articles comparable to Electric Universe, for exactly the same reason: no dispassionate review in reliable sources. Without that, we can't write a neutral article. We have problems with Time Cube because of lack of critical commentary in the literature, we get round that by describing it as a website which is widely lampooned rather than as a scientific concept. As far as I can tell Electric Universe does not score on that scale either. It seems to be the strange view of two people, unpublished in any credible journal, lacking peer review (other than the judgment of the journals that it does not merit publication). All of which is an aside: the problem here is not the article, which was adequately addressed in the deletion debate, it's your crusading behaviour. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to read in the guidelines on "Conflict of Interest", (a) the section "Importance of civility" where it specifically comments on using the word "vanity", and (b) the following section "Conflict of interest in point of view disputes".
I would also like your opinion on how one describes comments that suggest publishing in a vanity press, but is not a vanity press. --Iantresman 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, those guidelines describe editor-to-editor comments, not editor-to-publisher-of-delusional-theory posts. Wikilawyering is just one of the ways in which you can disrupt Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I assume that although I can here in good faith to discuss this matter with you, that you have no intension of address my points? --Iantresman 00:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may safely assume that I have heard what you have to say, reviewed the debates myself, and concluded that due process was followed. You may further assume that I have addressed your points to the extent I am prepared to do so. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Complaint Against PocklingtonDan

Why did you remove the complaint? I had been thinking about complaining since I saw it but could not complain because I was blocked. It also involved an election. John Wallace Rich 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no sockpuppetry. You may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. What you are looking for is dispute resolution, try one of the mediation groups. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already contacted the mediation groups, as well as the AMA and RfC. So far, I'm very disappointed in the response, not to mention defensive. I filed a legitimate complaint, and getting attacked by one administrator seems to lead to the whole inner circle keeping an eye on me, not to mention keeping its now Newspeak article killed in action. John Wallace Rich 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's legitimate, but others think it's retaliatory. Your own actions are problematic. You need to show a bit more sign of accepting the community view of your conflicts of interest; you also need to ask nicely rather than demanding. AMA is a dead loss in my view, go to the mediation cabal or mediation committee. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

Why is there no page on the Tourettes Guy? Afterall, you have pages on numa numa, not nearly as popular as the tourettes guy 1B6 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, endorsed, endorsed some more, endorsed again, and then the endorsement endorsed. No credible non-trivial independent sources, end of story. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, dont talk to me like that, secondly, "non notable"; he gets over 300,000 hits a month, that to me is notable. 1B6 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

FYI: User_talk:Bradles_01#unblock

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems like the user is contrite, as long as he can clear up who Jane01 was then he can be unblocked. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

Guy, you have removed links from the Israel News Agency stating that they were "propaganda" and "spam." I took these links from Google Newswhich defines the Israel News Agency as a news organization. I also looked a little further and confirmed that the Israel Government Press Office recognizes the Israel News Agency as a news organization for over ten years. For the sake of arguement even if the INA was propaganda, then why does Wikipedia allow Aljazeera and censor the Israelis? That would be blatant discrimination. Await your kind response. Mhltv 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Leyden is banned from this site, the article on Israel News Agency was deleted, and the community discussion which surrounded that makes it clear that it is not a suitable source for attribution since it is largely propaganda and has no proper formal editorial policy - it is not a news agency, as it claims, and the fact that it reprints as fact the Israeli Government's press releases is a part of that. Yes, I know he got himself added as a Google News source. Lots of unreliable sources have done that. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the relationship between Leyden being banned from Wikipedia and the FACT that the Israel News Agency is formally recognized by the Israeli government, let alone Google News. From what I see the INA works rather closely with the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the IDF and the Israel Government Press Office. Again, if you stand by stating that the INA is propaganda then why do you allow Aljazeera to have links in Wikipedia? Mhltv 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read what I wrote properly, I think. The FACT is that Leyden's website is not a news agency, it's no more than a glorified blog, and it publishes uncritically anything the Israeli Government chooses to push its way. Everybody knows about Al Jazeera's bias, INA is much smaller, has a title which makes it sound legitimate, and we generally have a much better source for anything INA says. And if we don't, then we should not be saying it - just as we should not cite as fact anything that Al Jazeera says. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Hi, you still have not addressed the question. If you proactively pursue the Israel News Agency for what you state is "propaganda", then why do you not remove the links of Al Jazeera? By not doing so you are establishing a double standard. Mhltv 12:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not mistake not giving you the answer you want for not addressing the question. INA is not a relibale source, there is no obvious merit in linking it. Period. If you want to start proposing removal of links to Al-Jazeera, you are free to do so, but do be careful you don't violate WP:POINT. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkquill unblocked

Hi Guy, I think you mistook InkQuill (talk • contribs) for Matt Duh Rienzo (talk • contribs) over the non-NPOV edits to Journal Register Company. -- Netsnipe ► 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Hartal's recent legal threats

Thank you for your response on AN/I. Perhaps I should have formatted my post better - Mr. Hartal has made two legal threats in the past 24 hours:[28] and [29]. I would agree that a RFC and/or community ban would be the appropriate course of action if these were older threats, but the recent deletion discussions on Rochelle Holt and Roger J. Geronimo have put a bee in his bonnet, so to speak, and I really don't like editing under the threat of a defamation lawsuit. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is about to climb the Reichstag, I have left a firm but hopefully helpful note on his Talk, if that doesn't work we'll just show him the door. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I hadn't read that bit about Reichstag ascents. Thank you for your intervention. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hartal

If you look at the difs given, you will see that the most recent comment on the BLP noticeboard was yesterday. JoshuaZ 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Not an overt threat, but inappropriate. I have left a strongly-worded message on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again?

"... Eventually I managed to get most of these biographies reinstated by waiting several months and then trying again, when Louis Blair was not looking. ..." - Sam Sloan (Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:12 pm)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_frm/thread/7d8fd30b87dcbe95?scoring=d&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=68693060#Sam_Sloan

(This is posted here by Louis Blair (March 13, 2007))

Spam blacklist

Your input is requested here. I would add my own two-penneth, but I can't see the opinions of anon IPs carrying much weight over there. In my opinion regardless of the opinions of the people complaining about the blacklist, a wrestling fansite is not a credible, reliable source for an encyclopedia. It's well known among internet wrestling fans and has a domain name, but in reality that doesn't make it any more a reliable source than any number of geocities or tripod sites. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sloan RfAr

Please be advised that Sam Sloan has filed a request for arbitration against you. It appears that he has failed to notify you of this and, in the interest of time, as a Clerk, I am advising you directly rather than prodding him to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Trainer

Hi Guy, Firstly thank you for unblocking my account, it's great to be back on, and secondly i was wondering why it is now not possible to create a sports trainer article? I think it is blocked or something, why is this so and can it be undone so that the article can be re-created (to wikipedia standards). Thanks, (Bradleigh 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Try making a version at User:Bradles 01/Sports trainer and then take it to deletion review. The last one was pretty crummy, especially with the generic pictures and "sports trainer" slapped on the subjects' backs using cheap image editing software. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TBeatty is now 'wikistalking' me on a SECOND article

I just posted this to Tbeatty's talk page.

In the past two days you have followed me to two seperate articles that I have been actively editing, that you had never edited before. Zombietime and Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_scandal When I did that a few weeks ago I was charged by an Admin with 'wikistalking' and given a 24 hr block. I encourage you to stop wikistalking me. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

I trust that you will deal with TBeatty's 'Wikistalking' the same way you dealt with mine. Thanks FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop de do! hip You were not an 'uninvolved admin' on Feb 21 either. ocrisy With the blatant favoritism displayed 'round here on a daily basis, It's no wonder people are leaving Wiki in droves, is it? Sorry for assuming that you were a fair admin who would treat equal actions by different editors the same. My mistake. it won't happen again. - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was uninvolved enough then, and you are ignoring the rest: TBeatty is a decent enough editor and you are headed for a ban, at the very least a serious editing restriction. I have nothign further to add here, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get it! Wikistalking is only Wikistalking when its done by a 'mouthy' editor who doesn't bow down and say 'Master' to the Admin ruling class! Civil POV pushing editors get a free pass, as 'decency' and subservience are the overwhelming concerns in this colonial tea-party where ediquitte and 'knowing your place' reign supreme! You don't have anything further to add. FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to tell you this for some time now. It's not your politics that is necessarily getting you in trouble, it's your attitude and bahavior while pushing those politics that is killing you. - Crockspot 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but no banana. We are the Rouge Admin Cabal, our marching song is "We Will Block You", and you are at our mercy. Plus, checking the edits of biased editors is legitimate, but you could always try making less biased edits and that way you won't get reverted as often. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty's 'honesty' on display.... After admitting to 'Wikistalking' me to two articles including the US Attorney article: "You are a disruptive and tendentious editor. As such, I check up on your edits." diff he actually claims on the talk page of the article in question, that I Wikistalked him to said article ! "The other editor came here jjust to revert me. He's about to be banned." diff He was entirely civil in his fallacious and specious claims though, and we know that carries much more weight around here than a mouthy truthful editor ! - FREE FaAfA ! (yap) 19:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't fault his reasoning. You could always try not being disruptive and tendentious of course. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be having a hard time following along. "The other editor came here jjust to revert me." is an outright LIE, as he followed me to the article - but THANK GOD HE WASN'T INCIVIL, OR DISRUPTIVE ! Only dishonest and that's AOK around here, and as long as lies are cloaked in courteous civility! (like when CWC falsely claimed that you called DH a 'Neo Nazi') No PROBLEM ! - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the fundamental point here: you have never been anything but disruptive. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administorial dishonesty again, as can be expected! The FR archives and Mediator Jossi's own statement confirm substantial good faith nondisruptive efforts on my part, before BFP's sock puppet invasion. Of course you ALL chose to completely ingnore this DOCUMENTED PROOF in the findings of fact. Not enough Admin ass-kissing on my part is my guess. - FaAfA 'Mistakes were made' 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA controversy

Why did you revert my edit? Is this not a part of the political reaction? --KarlFrei 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not promote online petitions. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this cannot be mentioned? It is still a part of the political reaction. How about if we don't add a link to the website? Of course, that goes against the policy of sourcing everything... --KarlFrei 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Whitelist Review & Cleanup

Dear JzG|Guy - I am not sure this is the right place to bring this up but I noticed you have cleaned up the whitelist here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Review This cleanup is much appreciated and must be very time consuming. However the website 'online-casinos.com' used to be on the whitelist for a reason. It was linked to from the external links in blackjack. The link has now been removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackjack&diff=113831845&oldid=113149890 Please add this website back to the whitelist as it is referred to from within the article - quote: "This version is much more advantageous to the player, but requires a slightly modified basic strategy table (such tables can be generated using the external links)." Please add the domain 'online-casinos.com' back to the whitelist and also add the external link to the blackjack strategy calculator located on online-casinos.com back to the blackjack article. The website 'online-casinos.com' is not blacklisted - but the frase 'online-casino' is on the blacklist - there is a difference:-). Thanks you for all your hard work and contributions to Wikipedia, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The domain online-casinos.com was blacklisted as a spam domain. We already have online calculators which are not hosted on widely-spammed sites. I don't see a pressing reason to include that link, and almost any url with casino in it is probably inappropriate per WP:EL. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can the domain online-casinos.com be blacklisted for spam when it is impossible to add a link containing 'online-casino' to wikipedia - unless the domain gets listed on the whitlist by a senior edotor? It's impossible for any website containing 'online-casino' to spam should they wish to do so. Clearly the domain online-casinos.com must have been added to the spam list by mistake - this is not a spam site. I am aware that the blackjack article offers external links to two other blackjack calculators - however none of these calculater offers to make any customized strategy tables. Qoute from article "(such tables can be generated using the external links)" - as the link has been removed the article is now incorrect. online-casinos.com offers much usefull information for gamblers and would in my opinion add value to the article. A domain containing 'casino' is in my opinion not a reason to remove a link - there is already another link in the article with a URL containing 'casino'. In my opinion adding the link back would be the right thing to do - the whitelist could make a specific exclusion about the specific subpage in case you are worried about SPAM, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

You can't add a domain including online-casinos because online-casinos was blacklisted in response to it being spammed. You can't now, because people did, so it was blacklisted. Every site on the blacklist has been spammed at some point, and can't be any more, that is the whole point. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand this perfectly clear. However in the whitelist there used to be a specific line allowing a single link to 'online-casinos.com/blackjack/basic-strategy-calculator.php' - this link overruled the general 'online-casino' (without the 'S') i the blacklist (the entery into the blacklist has absolutly nothing to do with the specific site online-casinos.com). The line in the whitelist allowing the link was then removed (I guess while you did the whitelist review/cleanup). This entery into the whitelist made it possible to add a single link from the blackjack article to this specific page on online-casinos.com - but only to that specific page. This was approved by a senior editor in the gambling catagory. I think what happened was that you removed the line in the whitelist (I presume) and then you removed the link from the blackjack article adding the comment "Two is enough, this site is blacklisted so removing". The site was specifically not blacklisted before 'someone' decided to remove the line from the whitelist allowing the link in the first place. Two links is not enough - since the other two sites dont offer any tables. The blackjack articel promiced people that they can find such tables using the external links - but now they can not because the link has been removed. I am sure there has been a lot of spam from sites with url's containing 'online-casino' but I am also sure that there has been zero spam from the site 'online-casinos.com'. I find it a bit unfair to remove the link to this site for spam when there has been no spam. First of all there has been no spam second of all the witelist and the blacklist combined made it impossible to add any new links to online-casinos.com apart from that single link from the blackjack article. , 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The link does not seem to offer anything that is not offered by other, less spammy links. In general we should and do avoid linking to overtly commercial websites, and it's hard to think of anythign much more overtly commercial on the web than online casinos. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that online casinos is very very commercial - but so is blackjack. Furthermore all the other external links in the blackjack article have information and links to online gambling sites - so they are no better or worse. In my opinion the url alone should not be the only factor that decides what can be linket to and what can not be linket to. I don't agree that the othere sites offer anything remotly similar to what this specific page offers. The tool on online-casinos.com can make perfect strategy charts for any rule variation with a few clicks - none of the other sites offer this. In my opinion this is a very usefull tool for people interested in blackjack. Furtnernore there is absolutly no banners or links to online gambling sites on this specific page and this makes i al lot less commercial then it could be. Please concider giving your decition a second thourght., 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fys

Uh Guy, can't you guys just avoid each other say for the next 12 months or so? (→Netscott) 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love to. I don't recall asking him to stick his nose into a discussion between admins and a user Wikilawyering over a cxlearly appropriate block. Maybe you can persuade him to keep his hooter out in future? Guy (Help!) 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, because I see the both of you continuing down a rather disruptive path I'm making a polite request of both of you to try and make conscious efforst to avoid eachother whenever possible. Would you do that please? (→Netscott) 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Now go and see who was in that discussion first. I find it rather hard to let seasoned edit warriors get away with knocking policies which prevent edit warriors from edit warring, in an attempt to undermine enforcement against other seasoned edit warriors, previously sanctioned for edit warring, and apparently slipping back into edit warring again. Fys thinks edit warring is fine as long as you are right - which, in his view, he always is. He also perceives his bias as neutrality, a standard failing of politicians everywhere. What with him, Sloan, Watts, Leyden and others it feels like the trolls are all coming out of the woodwork right now. Guy (Help!) 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can think of is the RfC route. What I'm seeing is incivility on both sides here and that's just nonsense. I'm waiting on Fys to respond to my request... hopefully he'll agree to it and this type of draining and time sucking interaction can be limited. (→Netscott) 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, really. As you know, his problem is that he bears a grudge from a block some months back. Gets an official "so what" from me, but I find it unhelpful to have him pitching in to support other edit warriors. Of course it doesn't help that we both like to have the last word, and it certainly doesn't help that in Fys' view anybody who disagrees with him is necessarily and unequivocalkly wrong and should apologise for daring to dispute his judgment :o) Guy (Help!) 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Elephant block...

What makes you think they're a sock? Steel thinks they're RunedChozo, but I haven't seen any supporting info... Georgewilliamherbert 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed on WikiEN-l, where his trolling was incredibly blatant. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see such a discussion re PointCounterpoint, but what's the connection with One Elephant? Georgewilliamherbert 21:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See "Sharon, Lois Bram" <oneelephant@gmail.com>, who signs at least one post as user:One Elephant went out to play.... The "I'm leaving" thread on WP:AN also evokes memories of "Parker Peters" and other trolls. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were two threads; that one, with oneelephant@gmail.com, and an unrelated one by the counterpoint user. As far as I can tell, there's no connecting string between them. The counterpoint user was Checkusered as a Runed sock a while ago. Did you or Steel conflate the two cases, or is there an actual connection I just didn't see? Georgewilliamherbert 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel pointed me at a steward, who I'm emailing. Georgewilliamherbert 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OIC. No, I didn't block as a RunedChozo sock, I blocked for trolling. I think the elephant one is a different recurrent troll. It said it was leaving anyway (Parker Peters' MO). Guy (Help!) 23:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my already-stellar reputation...

...but about Butt pirate - was there ever an AfD on this? I can't seem to find one, and I noticed that it got speedied by you as a "nonsense" neologism? Leaving behind for the moment about speedying neologisms, it's actually a word that's pretty well in use in the States, and probably doesn't qualify for deletion anyway. Think you could restore it? I won't protest an AfD if that's the course you want to go, but still... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted five times for various reasons, was salted for a while and re-created shortly after the salt was deleted, so all I did was migrate it into the new system. It included such stallar writing as The term "butt pirate" is an offensive reference to a person who actively seeks anal sex, an activity homosexual and some heterosexual men are assumed to engage in and 1980's Hardcore Punk artist and notable Gay activist Keith Cayea is believed to have coined the term in his band The Buttasters 1983 Single "All My Friends are Butt Pirates (Including Craig Cocker)". We already have {{wikt:butt pirate}}, this added only nonsense and speculation to the dicdef. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh. I'll let you know if I pursue it further, then. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I know I don't have your full confidence in these matters, but for what it's worth I continue to advise that you pick your battles, and this is one you could probably let go. Newyorkbrad 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other guys

Guy, I'm going to be traveling for two weeks. Since TS is semi-protected, the TS guys have been hitting the daughter articles (Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome and History of Tourette syndrome. Causes and origins of Tourette syndrome not hit yet - beans!)) Maybe they can be semi-protected during my absence? Or if you want a belly full of TS guys, add them to your watchlist? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Thomas J.J. Altizer

I have reinstated this article in my own name. I recognise that it was written by a banned user but the content is valid. As the policy permits, I have re-made the edit and taken responsibility for it. This is not intended to show disrespect to you in any way, simply to make the redlinks you left blue. The purpose of banning users is to remove disruptive influences, not to anathematise all their works. Please consider not deleting articles on this basis in future. If a banned user is contributing in a positive way, there is no pressing need to further punish them. Grace Note 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shubbery

Hello JzG, I hope you are well. I would like to notify you of the following action I have taken:

Speedy deletion of Template:Shrubbery

A tag has been placed on Template:Shrubbery, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

TSD1 - the template is derisive and inflamatory. It is used to mock the arguments of other editors and is therefore unhelpful and counter-productive to building the encyclopedia

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Template:Shrubbery|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Johntex\^talk 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's that "do not template the regulars" essay when you need it? Sometimes those arguments need mocking. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be {{templater}}. Recommend you take this to DRV. It should at least get a listing on TFD. Had shrubbery on my shortlist for months now, and no one's ever complained the few times I've used it. I find it to be a mood enhancer. — coel acan — 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 582: / Line 582: @@
 Why is there no page on the Tourettes Guy? Afterall, you have pages on numa numa, not nearly as popular as the tourettes guy [[User:1B6|1B6]] 12:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted, endorsed, endorsed some more, endorsed again, and then the endorsement endorsed.  No credible non-trivial independent sources, end of story. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 12:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
+*First off, dont talk to me like that, secondly, "non notable"; he gets over 300,000 hits a month, that to me is notable. [[User:1B6|1B6]] 09:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 == unblock request  ==