Jump to content

User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:Bircham: replied elsewhere
PSSS108 (talk | contribs)
3 edits
Line 236: Line 236:
==Hello==
==Hello==
You recently chimed in on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination)]]. Since that time, many 3rd party sources were found and added. This is just a note to see if these additions would alter your thoughts on the articles Deletion nomination, as you indicated sources were your concern. [[User:HooperBandP|Hooper]] ([[User talk:HooperBandP|talk]]) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You recently chimed in on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination)]]. Since that time, many 3rd party sources were found and added. This is just a note to see if these additions would alter your thoughts on the articles Deletion nomination, as you indicated sources were your concern. [[User:HooperBandP|Hooper]] ([[User talk:HooperBandP|talk]]) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

== I Am Not Sbs108 ==

It has come to my attention that some administrators (you included) have ridiculously accused me of being [[User:Sbs108|Sbs108]]. I am '''NOT''' Sbs108 and the arguments made by admin that I am are '''wholly absurd'''. I was banned for exposing [http://www.saisathyasai.com/wikipedia/wikipedia_admin_mel_etitis.html Mel Etitis and his Wikipedia Sockpuppet]. If you look at that page, I provided a screencap that shows my IP. If you compare that IP with my IP here, you will find they are '''the same''' and they not anonymous or proxy IPs. I think it is really quite pathetic that I have to be pulled back on to Wikipedia to defend myself from stupid rumors started by conspiratorial admin who apparently have nothing better to do than play psychic instead of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF assuming good faith] like they are supposed to do. '''Practice what you preach, Admin!''' Why don't you now perform a check user? Since I cannot make comments using my SSS108 nic, I had to create a new one. Nevertheless, this same comment was posted on my [[User_talk:SSS108|SSS108 Talk Page]]. If you want to talk to me, do it on my SSS108 page. Thank you. [[User:PSSS108|PSSS108]] ([[User talk:PSSS108|talk]]) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:11, 14 October 2009

I am almost certainly not interested. Really, I'm not. Is it about Robert Hooke? No? Told you so. Not interested. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Hello from me anyway. Did you know my pic of Puffing Billy got featured in a hungarian railway magazine? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the asylum. ObHooke: a form of Hooke's Law can be used to describe the oscillation of a particle in a stratified fluid. (Yeah, that's lame but it's the best I can do.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back?

Looks like you're back after all these months. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're still editing after the above post, I'll take that as a yes. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Graham Spanier

I've proposed that this talk page, which you semiprotected in April, 2008, might be unprotected to see if the problem has gone away. The last vandal edit to the article itself, which is unprotected, was in April this year so there seem to be good grounds for the hope. --TS 23:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also review your protection of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine in August, 2008, to see if it's still needed? --TS 23:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I would be astounded if that article ever survived unprotected for more than a few weeks. The banned User:ParalelUni is responsible for most of the ED page on me, go and look at that and you will see how the place feels about having an accurate article on them. They want it sanitised to conceal the fact taht its degrees are effectively worthless, and they will go to great lengths to do that, as has been proven every time they have come back to it. And when Doctor Steel was unsolted a WP:SPA immediately popped up to pursue "operation Wikipedia" and set up a huge new article all sourced from the subject's websites and blogs. I am pessimistic right now. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Steel and "Operation Wikipedia"

I think you're being overly pessimistic about Doctor Steel. While the article does seem to have been created by SPA's, the edits they've made have been largely in good faith, especially those by Jonnybgoode44. There's been a lot of effort to cite sources correctly, and to comply with style guidelines (although there's still some way to go). In the article as it stands now, there are nearly a dozen references to trustworthy and notable independent sources, including Wired Magazine, Suicide Girls, MTV News, Steampunk Magazine and the LA Times.

I believe notability has been established, and the place to combat over-eager fans is in keeping the article encyclopaedic (something I've had a stab at), not in keeping it from appearing in WP at all. -Kieran (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe they have been attempting for years to abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Actually, no, I can prove that because we have the deletion review debates and the multiple recreations at multiple titles to prove it. Pessimistic is right: I am pessimistic that these people give a toss about Wikipedia as anything other than a vehicle for promoting their favourite act. I have always thought that Steel would make more progress if instead of concentrating on viral marketing and image, he worked on the music. He has a good schtick, but the music is pap and completely fails to live up to the image. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It just makes me a little uneasy that deletion is chosen as the solution to this. The guy seems sufficiently well known to warrant an article, but we've been preventing any article from existing for the past two years. Even if it has to be stripped down to a stub to remove the promotional aspect, I still think there should be something there. Also, remember WP:FAITH and WP:BITE; Jonnybgoode44's been making a real effort to bring the article up to standard. -Kieran (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because initially and probably for most of that time he unquestionably was not sufficiently well known, and they were trying to use Wikipedia to fix that. I have an intense dislike of people who abuse Wikipedia for their own gain. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the consensus at the original AfD was that he passed notability. The admin deleted it because of fair use violations (which seems strange to me, since I thought the solution to that was to remove the infringing material from the article, not to delete it outright). Since then, admins have acted as though the consensus was that it didn't pass notability, but I cannot find any such consensus.

          I agree that it's irksome (and threatening to the project) when people try to use Wikipedia for promotion, but I have a feeling that in this case, that intense dislike is what motivated a lot of the actions by admins rather than policy. That said, if any of the "Operation Wikipedia" types had actually shown good faith before, they would have gone through the relevant policies and brought the article up for deletion review, rather than leaving it salted for over a year and complaining about it to the Internet at large. -Kieran (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • How many times was the deletion reviewed and endorsed at different locations? I lost count. Anyway, fuck 'em. I don't care any more about their tawdry viral marketing campaign, the music is dreadfully mundane and image can only do so much. The curse of the internet age: the terrible composers and musicians of the classical period are decently forgotten and now only the good remains; by contrast Wikipedia absolutely must have an article on every single Christian rock band who are notable because they are on the GodZone label which is notable because the band are on it and so ad infinitum. In twenty years' time I am pretty sure that "Doctor Steel" will still be obscure. It's a shame that people fight so hard for such junk whereas we have to dig around for sources for people like Vincent DeRosa whose playing is prominent on movie soundtracks over four decades. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want "how many times?" discussions, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim.

On the other hand, if you want something entirely different to bring you out of your funk, come and work on some articles that are not involved with self-promotion or organized campaigns by people on WWW discussion fora. Help to expand heutagogy or accountancy profession in Bangladesh. Give us your thoughts at Talk:Multiangle Light Scattering (MALS) and Differential Light Scattering (DLS)#Move discussion. Or work on further expanding a biography of a very-much-dead person at Benjamin W. Crowninshield (AfD discussion). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, Uncle G, one of the people I miss when I'm not here. All good ideas, but as it happens I have decided what to do next: I am waiting for a copy of Margaret 'Espinasse's biography of Robert Hooke to arrive, I already have Jardine and Cooper, and I have 'Espinasse's old copy of Gunther (which is rare and quite valuable). I am going to see if I can get Robert Hooke to FA. I've also got an unlimited training license for EMC product so I've spent all week at EMC in Brentford - just in time for the budget cycle. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is all a bit boring

Nah, you don't want Dr S, you want to know who cares about you. And you stack up well (though not, it must be said, as well as me :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 27.7 centijimbos, over a quarter of a Jimbo, and nothing interesting ever happens here! I love the speculation about why my userpage is redlinked. I thought the reason was obvious, certainly to any long-time Wikipedia user. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vore

Someone's back trying to re-add the forum link again into the Vore article. I doubt they plan to give up. Personally, I don't like it when someone insists on adding their pet website to an article. In this case, they're justifying it because it got a mention in an article about a movie. To me, that's no justification. I took it out, but they're trying to add other crap as well, and a fresh eye might help. Rklawton (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone's back trying to re-add the forum link again into the Vore article." Rklawton, you're either deliberately lying or you're confused. This has never been about adding the forum link to the article. Although I'm not surprised you came straight here to sollicit help -and lied to do so-, I'd appreciate you at least presenting the situation honestly. I have no wish or intention of getting the link to the forum into the article. I've made it quite clear that I don't even want to get the name of the Portal into the article. If you won't acknowledge what the actual discussion is about, no wonder that discussion is going nowhere. 83.199.173.109 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in your assumptions of bad faith, I am interested in maintaining standards. You appear to be accusing everybody who disagrees with you of being biased. Actually to me it looks very much as if you are the one who is biased. 14:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not try to "re-add the forum link again into the Vore article", so Rklawton's accusation was either dishonest or mistaken. For the rest, please see the article's talk page. I've replied to you there. 83.199.173.109 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a spam blacklist, the page keeps getting drive-by links to unsuitable sites. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been further developments in that AFD discussion. It's the same last-minute pile-on of non-sources as was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (4th nomination). Uncle G (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I am a little distracted right now, I just found out my friend pastor theo was blocked and lost his adminiship for being a sock. But I think you really deserve this, so I will focus on this right now. so here you are:

The Barnstar of Peace
The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia.

This barnstar is awarded to JzG. For his almost unique ability to bridge divides and accept a novel idea, no matter who it comes from. Wikipedia needs more maverick editors like yourself, who will look at an idea critically and embrace it if it holds out even the slightest possibility of working. Ikip (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you jzg. :) Ikip (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, JzG. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboards

Remember what was said about the correct noticeboard? Whilst you were away two things have happened. We've got a whole lot more proactive about WikiGnoming discussions at WP:AN and WP:AN/I to the proper places, and preventing the two from becoming either indistinguishable or dumping grounds. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199#Use of this page. See also the rename discussions of WP:AN/I on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard and elsewhere.) We've also created the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard.

In light of the former, and the pointer to NPOV/N as the correct noticeboard, I recommend that you visit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"far-left" and "far-right" at English Defence League and elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Nice to see you more active around here again! (or maybe I've just been looking in the wrong places) Best wishes, Verbal chat 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany for deletion/User:Abd/Cabal

Guy, as you started this deletion discussion, I thought I should point out that I've proposed to move all the pages on this list to subpages of the case pages and to blank them. They are a series of evidence and response pages from both sides of the case, which overflowed into userspace quite a bit more than is usual. I was waiting for the MfD to be closed, but thought your views as the nominator might help here. If you would prefer to let the discussion close normally, that is, of course, fine. I have asked all three people involved, and they have all agreed to this. [1][2][3]. What do you think should be done here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is bizarre. You (Ca) are clearly treating the "courtesy" blanking as a fait accompli [4] even though on the admin board you're pretending not to stonewall. You clearly don't give a toss what I think about this, but for the record I strongly disagree William M. Connolley (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I had better go and find out why you disagree, William, since I agree with you about most things, but for me the problem with Abd and his one-sided userspace pages is the attitude of "I'm right, only I am allowed to edit this page, and the balance of opinion reflected on this page that only I may edit is conclusive proof that I am right". The history may well be needed since his behaviour after the last arbitration in which he was involved did not change at all and he gave every impression of thinking he had been vindicated when he hadn't - after the case he did not even pause for breath before carrying on his campaign. As such, I expect to see him back in front of ArbCom, probably repeatedly, until he either gets it or gets a community ban until the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't much care about Abd's pages to be honest (they are trash, but easy to recognise as such; if they are terrible, how come they've been allowed to exist so long; etc etc - this is all over the arbcomm baords but has not been answered there) - the problem is that Ca (etc) seem to have decided on a "blank one blank all" policy, and appear to be using blanking of Abd's pages as excuse for blanking the arbcomm pages. That is the fundamental problem that needs solving I think William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I set a low bar to blanking, myself. I've seen too many people writing hurt and upset emails to OTRS (along with the occasional outright lunatic, of course). I also believe that Abd will continue arguing his side as long as there is anything anywhere on Wikipedia that says he's wrong. The history is there, everybody who matters knows the facts, I don't see the harm. But that's just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. And now we disagree about civility too (your last post to ANI). But I've been quite active enough there for one day. Since I'm here: I started User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/On_civility but I haven't got very far yet William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a good thing, but I don't think that impatience with bureaucratic nitpicking should result in an inevitably drama-inducing block of a prolific contributor of exceptionally good content, that's all. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Capricorn58

I don't see how an account created two years before the NZ On Screen controversy could be construed as a sock of Filmtvfan. I don't see that you made a checkuser request. Furthermore, you left no message on User_talk:Capricorn58. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Filmtvfan (talk · contribs) has denied any connection with Capricorn58 (talk · contribs). I don't see any significant overlap in editing patterns, but you might have some information I don't.-gadfium 06:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: User:Wildhartlivie/Charles Manson

Hello. This is in my userspace, I edit on Wikipedia daily. I am aware of no Wikipedia policy that says I cannot maintain an article in my own userspace that I have preserved to work on when I am so inclined in anticipation of working this up to WP:FA. That I haven't worked on it in a while is beside the point. Please withdraw this nomination. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Captain Smith

Space Captain Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hey. You deleted the Space Captain Smith entry claiming it was a recreation of a previously deleted version. This was not entirely the case. Reliable, third-party sources had been added, making the article notable. I ask you to reconsider your deletion of this page in light of this fact. Thank you Ottens (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm the guy who created the page. As per the speedy deletion notice, I contested it and posted my rationale in the talk page. The book's{ been featured in SFX and on the BBC. It's clearly notable. There are two sequels. Benvaughan (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 07:40, October 2, 2009 JzG (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Space Captain Smith" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) (view/restore)
  • 12:04, August 28, 2009 Deb (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Space Captain Smith" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)
  • 10:52, May 18, 2009 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Space Captain Smith" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Captain Smith) (view/restore)
  • 12:21, July 16, 2008 Gnangarra (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Space Captain Smith" ‎ (AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Captain Smith) (view/restore)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Captain Smith. You might want to work it up in userspace with two or three non-trivial reliable independent secondary sources that are primarily about the book, then go to deletion review. Re-creating deleted articles on things you like is not a good idea. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had the page saved in my user space, with which I could have demonstrated that the latest version, recreated by Benvaughan in fact contained sufficient, reliable and third-party sources, but you also deleted that one! Ottens (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Space Captain Smith

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Space Captain Smith. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ottens (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ottens/Gatehouse Gazette

Why did you delete this page? It was in my user space. Ottens (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because Wikipedia is not your advertisement hoarding. Please read WP:COI. We're happy to have you making knowledgeable contributions about steampunk, but self-promotion is simply not on. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second time I recreated the Gatehouse Gazette entry is was nominated for speedy deletion and removed very quickly, supposedly because the page was a "recreation" of the third version. This was obviously not the case, however I lost the hours of work I put into writing up the entry. So this third time around, I saved a version of the page in my user space, so that, in case it got deleted again by what I still consider a mistake, I would have the saved entry to show that this latest version was no more recreation of a previous one. That is why I saved the page in my user space, not to advertize or anything. How hiding an entry behind two layers of non-encyclopedian content constitues "advertizing", I don't know. What I do know is that you do a great job at discouraging people from contributing to wikipedia. Ottens (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you any idea how often people come here and create articles on their webzines and websites? It happens very often. We don't like it. Don't create articles on yourself or your endeavours, high on the list of bad ideas for an article. Arguing with the judgment of others on the importance of your article on your website is very often a shortcut to the door. Creating an article on your own webzine is a bad idea, arguing about it is a bad idea, recreating it is a bad idea, trying again a couple of episodes later is a bad idea... are you seeing a pattern emerging here? Guy (Help!) 16:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view on that matter and that's not what I'm contesting here. I'm asking you why you deleted part of my user space. I'm not asking why you deleted Gatehouse Gazette. I'm asking why you deleted User:Ottens/Gatehouse Gazette. Ottens (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am not as up to speed on the rules as you are, so please, let me ask you: is it all right for an administrator to delete part of a user's user page, without an AfD discussion, and without demonstrating that any rules were actually broken? I have explained above why I saved the page in question, so let me repeat what I wrote earlier: How hiding an entry behind two layers of non-encyclopedian content constitues "advertizing", I don't know. Ottens (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, I'd ask you: how can be the subpage of a user page be considered advertizing? How would anyone ever found their way to that page but me? Ottens (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appear to be listening? I've asked you the same question twice now and you still haven't answered me! Look, I simply think you've been overzealous here. You deleted references to my websites under Wikipedia:SELFPUB even though I didn't add them; you deleted the Space Captain Smith article probably because you thought I had something to do with it, failing to regard the improvements made to the article which demonstrated notability; and you put me on the Noticeboard but haven't bothered to respond there anymore, although I think it's obvious that you've made some mistakes here. Altogether, that's not exactly befitting a Wikipedia admin, to say the least, so I hope you'll find the decency to correct this. Ottens (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinstate Page "RAKEOPS"

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

Please do not delete the page "Rakeops." If I need to produce more information about the organization and it's significance in history to Luther College to make it an eligible topic, I will. The Rakeops were the first fraternity at Luther College, were the first organization founded solely to produce "School Pride," and also were one of the founding organizations to start the school's rugby club. Additionally, Rakeop alumni (after the organization has been disbanded) continue reunite at two historic (and well known) locations in Decorah, Iowa- the "Henry Bridge" which is listed within Wikipedia as an historic site (where the Rakeops are mentioned within that Wiki page) and additionally at the "Cascades" which is another location attributed to Rakeop use. There are multiple authors of the Rakeop wikipedia page, additionally, a few alumni members have begun to post their historic roles within the organization.

For these reasons- and I can probably produce more- the Rakeops fit as an eligible, real organization worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Please let me know if there is anything more that I need to do. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Andrew Olson Olsonandrew1 (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organization was founded in 1953 and was founded (not "made up") like any other respectable organization with a charter, a board of directors, an executive committee. We have meeting minutes and treasurer's reports that date back to 1953, along with the original signed charter. There are 473 members of the organization. The organization holds significant historical value to Luther College and the city of Decorah, Iowa. This is beyond "things made up in school one day." Please reinstate the page. OleOlson 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonandrew1 (talk • contribs) OleOlson 14:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)OleOlson 14:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there are hundreds of other similar organizations included in Wikipedia, hence there is precedence. From Zeta Chi at Baker University to FarmHouse at University of Missouri to Triangle Fraternity University of Illinois-Urbana- there are several other similar groups on Wikipedia. The Rakeops signifance and history is as significant as any of these groups. Additionally, there are many other groups utilizing the "Greek Letter" naming format. The Rakeops fall under this same category but are one of the rare few that did not use the Greek naming system. They all fall into the same category and hold merit and significance worthy of a Wikipedia entry. OleOlson 14:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonandrew1 (talk • contribs)

P.S. I don't know why my posts are showing up as unsigned. I am typing the four tildes after every edit. OleOlson 14:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonandrew1 (talk • contribs)

Please refer to above posts- I adamantly oppose your decision and believe that you have unjustly and incorrectly deleted the page "Rakeops." I am trying to resolve this issue with you directly, as is the protocol, but intend to use all means and all actions necessary to have the page reinstated. If you are unwilling to reinstate the page, please tell me so that I can move on the the next step/authority to overrule/challenge your decision.OleOlson (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment. A7 or G1? You decide :-) 18:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
g1 includes blatant hoaxes as a form of vandalism. But A7 is easier because some people don't see hoaxes as vandalism, allowing hoaxers to exploit their good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.167 (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. G1 is the nonsense CSD, where you thinking about G3? And even there it's not deletion due to the article beeing a hoax that's the important part, it's the fact that the article is written as an avt of vandalism. Hoaxes in general should be subject to discussion since it's easy for a single editor to be wrong. Taemyr (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I stuck to A7. You know well and good that an article claiming a school society has fictional characters as past members is patent nonsense but we both know that someone would argue the toss because it is comprehensible bollocks rather than in comprehensinlr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.129 (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only would, someone should argue the toss. G1 simply isn't for that sort of things. Patent Nonsense in CSD refers to text that it is not possible to understand. Taemyr (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and having hoax articles hanging round while the hoaxers yank our chains for a week is a really great result for the encyclopaedia. Which is why I used A7, to stop the kind of foolish argument over whether, strictly speaking, this nonsense should have been deleted. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely unfair characterization of me and my intents. And you have wrongly judged me as a hoax. This is completely unfair and wrong. There is no "foolish argument" here. You have jumped to conclusions without giving me or my editing a true examination. I am asking for your patience, as I am new to Wikipedia. I am asking for your fairness to please be thorough- because you have not been. I am asking you to refrain from falsely judging me and my intents and to stop labeling me as a hoax, or as foolish. This is certainly not the true spirit of collaboration that Wikipedia is designed for. I am shocked and dismayed by the sort of reactions I have received in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonandrew1 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC) OleOlson (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy- I have posted more than 50 years of third party references on my user page. They all corroborate the page for the Rakeops. I could post more if you'd like. This is not a hoax- as you will see. To be accused of vandalism and of a hoax is absolutely horrid. The fictional names- are pledge names/nick names. These are also corroborated by the references I have cited. Again, the organization was founded in 1953 and survived until approximately 2003. My pledge name/nick name was "Ole." However, there was another pledge name of "Ferris Beuller." These names, again, are corroborated by the references I have cited- by your request. Please reinstate the page.

OleOlson (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If there are questionable/non-verifiable items on the page, I will do whatever editing I need to do. However, the whole page should not be deleted. As much of it is now verified. I am new to Wikipedia. So, I'd appreciate any help in ensuring that the historic organization of the "Rakeops" is included in this forum. In other words, I'll take whatever advice you can give me. Please respect the more than 50 years of existence of this fine organization. OleOlson (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy- Please-- search the archives at the paper. Please. I am really not trying to "yank you around." For real, I am a respectable person and have only treated you with respect. I don't understand why I am being treated as such. I am aware of scholarly research guidelines (I have my Master's from Boston University- I am not flaunting it, but am just trying to tell you my background) and am in all respect trying to do the right thing. OleOlson (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy- you did not search the archives for the term "RAKEOP." If you do, all of the references I cited will be found. OleOlson (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded accusations of SELFREF and SELFPUB

Hello, JzG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here specifically. Ottens (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and the Rakeops issue is at this ANI thread. Regards, BencherliteTalk 10:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A person from New Zealand Department of Conservation has asked permission to fix broken links to their website. Given the mess around Filmtvfan, I am asking for wider feedback before we allow or deny this request. The request is at User:Conservation ranger. Please comment at User talk:Conservation ranger.-gadfium 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rodgarton

Your deletion of this page seems over the top to me. He's been shot, hung, and drowned. Must we now erase all trace of his existence. At least his ranting might serve as a bad example. Apparently you're an admin since you did the delete of this protected page, or else I would have restored it myself. My dear colleague, I think this is a situation where you might cool off and reconsider this. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Proveit

I have nominated Template:Proveit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion

I've barely skimmed the surface of the sources available here. You might be able to find more. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong

Thank you for your note. I have posted a response to the ANI. I am really at a loss in how to handle Ryulong who is a very stubbon personality. The edit summary was a result of an "edit conflict" where both of us were trying to update the page at the same time. Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the content disputes? Racepacket (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may be mistaking being right for being stubborn. You give the impression of WP:OWNing the article, not helped by forking it to your user space. The appearance fomr outside is that you have some personal investment i the subject. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock

Thanks for notifying me. You may be right about the block having served its purpose (we'll find out), but I think that unilateral unblocks are rude, and seek to avoid them whenever possible. Here's how I prefer to approach such situations: [6], [7], [8]. Best,  Sandstein  19:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I'd have done that except that I had to go and get my kids from band practice. No hard feelings, I hope? Guy (Help!) 20:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, though I fail to see the urgency. At any rate, he's not recommenced edit warring, so no harm done so far.  Sandstein  05:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. But people do feel a sense of urgency when they are blocked. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong is now trying to start an edit war with me in the Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight‎ article, as he reverted my removal of a character name that should not be in that part of the plot summary, he's saying my removal of the character name was original research. So I did not revert his revert and started a discussion on his talk page but he has not answered my question of how was it original research. What do you think about this? Powergate92Talk 18:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperdesk

Hi. Before this escalates, may I please ask you to review Hyperdesk and determine if it's spam or not? Thank you. - 17:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC) -- We did NOT create that page but it was filled with inaccurate information which i tried to change. It's ridiculous that you allow a page like Windowblinds to exist which was basically populated initially by one of their employees but you delete our page when we try to correct misinformation on a page about our product that wasn't even created by us. I was still editing to make it more informational when you deleted it. Once the information was correct i was going to leave it alone. Ridiculous. Of course a product entry is going to be promotional. But again I have to protect our product's public information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSkinsFactory (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN#Talk page ban proposal on User:Calton and User:JohnHistory

Sorry for the intrusion, but I'd like your opinion as an honest broker at the above. I absolutely do not regard the proposers, especially User:Ched Davis, as being honest brokers. In fact, I have my suspicions regarding Ched Davis and favoritism (see his treatment of ObserverNY, ChildofMidnight, and JohnHistory), though nothing that yet rises to the level of ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!1!!. --Calton | Talk 05:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honest broker? Guy is the one who always rushes to your defense, even Jimbo has commented on that. 67.76.14.136 (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You recently chimed in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination). Since that time, many 3rd party sources were found and added. This is just a note to see if these additions would alter your thoughts on the articles Deletion nomination, as you indicated sources were your concern. Hooper (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not Sbs108

It has come to my attention that some administrators (you included) have ridiculously accused me of being Sbs108. I am NOT Sbs108 and the arguments made by admin that I am are wholly absurd. I was banned for exposing Mel Etitis and his Wikipedia Sockpuppet. If you look at that page, I provided a screencap that shows my IP. If you compare that IP with my IP here, you will find they are the same and they not anonymous or proxy IPs. I think it is really quite pathetic that I have to be pulled back on to Wikipedia to defend myself from stupid rumors started by conspiratorial admin who apparently have nothing better to do than play psychic instead of assuming good faith like they are supposed to do. Practice what you preach, Admin! Why don't you now perform a check user? Since I cannot make comments using my SSS108 nic, I had to create a new one. Nevertheless, this same comment was posted on my SSS108 Talk Page. If you want to talk to me, do it on my SSS108 page. Thank you. PSSS108 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=319822031"