User talk:JzG

I am almost certainly not interested. Really, I'm not. Is it about Robert Hooke? No? Told you so. Not interested. If you want to know where I stand on the climate issue, see this: User:JzG/Climate

G'day Guy

I wonder if you'd mind withdrawing your deletion nomination? - It's pretty much a 'snow' keep, I think? Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Wanders along cobblestones twirling truncheon) 'ello, 'ello, 'ello..what's this then? A pommie using aussie lingo? Hmmm...just because you live in a nice aussie city and have a tan doesn't mean you can missapropriate an Australian welcome. (opens notebook to write out ticket for country of origin fraud. Fine: Privatemusings buys first round at next Sydney meetup...). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just arrived in Melbourne today. Haven't heard any "g'day"s yet -- quite disappointing (I've been listening out). But plenty of "mate." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

bad luck that you got Melbourne, not Sydney, short brig ;-) - and cas - if I have to buy a round for everytime I've said G'day on the wiki, the next meetup is going to be an incredibly boozy affair.... actually - that sounds about right :-) - make sure you've the 29th of this month in the diary - it's the WMAU AGM (I'm sure Guy and Short Brig. would be most welcome too)..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

SBHB? PS: Bainre is in Melb - if you come to Sydney, we can take you out for a beer. Tony1 is in Sydney too ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone can snow close it if they like, the title was obviously the problem since that's what apparently caused the shortage of ghits. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the title was the problem: "Kohs block"-"Wikipedia" gets almost 12,000 ghits. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

IThe search term is in the document. Regardless, my previous statement applies. Guy (Help!) 09:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Skip banned

As you may remember we had a lot of problem regarding the technocracy page and Skip. The problems were taken to arbitration and it went against the majority of editors and in favour of Skip. Since then skip has cause more trouble on Wikipedia and has now been permanently banned (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive75#User:Skipsievert_talk_page_postings). As a result I would now like to start work on the technocracy pages and try and get them back to something resembling academic standard. As step towards that I would like the NET web site removed from the banned list. Thanks. Dr. Wallace PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Skipsievert was certainly not the only problem, the NET site was blocked due to relentless spamming by your fellow NET members. en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=65 is you, right? Guy (Help!) 17:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Skip was vandalising the page time and time again. There were a number of us trying to get it back to a good standard and we even took skip to arbitration. However, the arbitration went against us. It finally took 2 years before he got banned. Now we would like to start work on the technocracy pages again, remove Skip's POV and try and get it back to an academic standard if we can. That means we should also include NET. NET is an official legal organisation registered in Sweden. It is the only technocratic organisation in Europe and it is one of the longest running technocratic organisation outside of Tech Inc. as such any article on technocracy should mention it as well. Therefore, we will need NET removed form you spam list so we can include it again. Thanks. Isenhand (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• So you think your bias is neutrality, and you want to go back to linking your site in support of it. Why do I feel there is something not quite right about that? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me chiming in. With regards to the Technocracy articles, I've been cleaning up some of them over the past week, and my main interest is in making sure that the articles remain NPOV (see WP:NPOV) and have reliable, published, secondary sourcing (see WP:RS). I'm not associated with any particular group and have outlined a few thoughts and my recent involvement at Category talk:Technocracy movement. Perhaps that could be a good place for some centralised discussion... Johnfos (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever. The NET site was blacklisted due to spamming by NET members, and here we have an NET officer asking for it to be removed so he can start adding it again. I'm not going to see that as anything other than the usual nonsense. I have no interest in the technocracy movement itself, and I don't think the NET website is a reliable source for anything other than NET, which was deleted as non-notable and has been re-deleted a couple of times since due to re-creation and in one case copyright infringement, Network of European Technocrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Isenhand was involved in this nonsense, and did not as far as I can recall mention his WP:COI. Isenhand is also a WP:SPA and I would not in the least regret sending him to join Skip on whatever external forum they choose to continue this off-wiki WP:BATTLE. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• • OK, I think we should move this over to arbitration. Isenhand (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Feel free to ask, don't forget to mention your external agenda and conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review close

Guy, I agree with you about the deletion of Adamantius, but you closed the deletion review after only a few hours, despite several comments by reliable eds. partally supporting the journal. I think this clearly wrong--there needs to be time for discussion. What can you possibly be thinking of? DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no article right now, if anybody in good standing wants to create a new, different (i.e. sourced) article there is nothing stopping them; they could almost certainly get the deleted text just by asking if it would help (I have no opinion on that). The review was silly, and was not actually necessary in order to fix the problem. The way to fix it is a decent rework that addresses the reasons for deletion - IMO that review was not actually addressing the reasons for deletion and given the other surrounding issues was quite likely to degenerate into an AFD round 2 fight, as so often happens. But, you know, all actions on Wikipedia are unilateral and can be unilaterally reverted as long as good faith is assumed by all. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I interpret that as no objection to my reverting, and I have accordingly reverted your closure. I think normal discussion the best course. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Diff on workshop

Hey, Guy, I think your diff here:

Florid rhetoric exaggerating the importance of your own favoured text ([1]) is disruptive

was meant to be something else. It's the same as the next one. Regards, Bishonen | talk 21:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

• No, it was right: one part is the the proposed finding, one is my commentary. I think it is particularly egregious. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		Awarded for giving me a good laugh with this edit. Thanks, mate! ;) Paradoctor (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

View or restore 4,770 deleted edits?

Hey Guy. Just clicked a diff for an old edit to your talk page, it errored, and then I noticed that you have nearly 5,000 revisions deleted. The deletion log doesn't really make it clear why this is, but would you mind if I restored the revisions? I've only seen deleted user talk pages for certain right to vanish cases (and even then the practice is fairly controversial). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Please mail me about that. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've gone through and checked a good portion of the edits. Your user talk page history is... colorful, to say the least. A lot of banned users, vandalism, and general nastiness, though most of it isn't what would be considered "outside the course of business" for an admin. I left a about 60 revisions deleted. If you see any other revisions in the page history that are problematic, please contact an oversighter (no normal admin will be able to act here, the page history is too unwieldy). Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your diligence. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

OTRS ticket query

Could you briefly summarize OTRS ticket 2008030210009128 referenced here? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I dropped access months ago, far too busy IRL. Is the user requesting unblock? If so, my immediate response would be no as she has never shown any sign of understanding WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, just persistantly talking about some conspiracy on my talk page. No skin. Hipocrite (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:CharlesJohnson22/JohnBambenek

You should definitely see the comments made by The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) before the page is inevitably deleted because Bambenek cannot help but try to get an article on him written.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This and this are also particularly rich.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would take that to the noticeboards, that and other comments indicate a serious case of WP:ABF. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is he allowed to do this?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP:POINT, take it to the noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Polanski ANI exhaustion

re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski

FYI: I'm momentarily exhausted from most recent ANI against *me* (dismissed) brought by supporter of the SPA. (The last ANI was my first—it reached strange conclusion which will be addressed— not about POV, but text formatting and number and size of messages — note: which were required to counterbalance SPA's behavior.)

I arrived as BLP/NPOV "current events wrangler" around 10/4 and have knowledge of patterns of all participants since arrest brought influx, and article locking.

SPA ANI has devolved into content dispute, but yes there is problem highlighted by topic title. Problem may also be visible in response at ANI by SPA. Combat. If my input is needed, I'll try. But need rest from ANI. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up: Very sleepy, but felt situation did require me being available for comment if desired. Posted such. In any case, happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk)

yOU D OFUNNY THINGS :-)

u r disruptive! Are yuou drunk????? We have collected over 70 legitimate source and we are going to have a little Bamabanecky-necky. there is nothing u can do to stop us. we are legion. Bambenek will be on Wikipedia, and he will rule all of us.  :-D LOL. J/k. but we will be creating an excellent article. FEATURED STATUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't care if someone does write an article on Bambenek, as long as it's not him doing it (as it has been every time so far in my experience). Certainly he seems to have a certain notoriety, having been voted Wanker of the Year by Daily Kos. Whether he's a notable wingnut or just a wingnut with a certain gift for self-promotion I will leave to others, the only absolutely certain thing is that the independent evaluation of his importance falls well below his own and always has. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediator?

You might have to walk me through that idea, I'm still kind of new with the whole Wikipedia business. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah sorry, about the above message I wasn't thinking totally straight when I added it here I did pretty much just wake up, but I get ya and I don't think theres much reason to continue that discussion. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Norry

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norry, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Japan Focus wrong protection

Can you remove protection at Japan Focus or replace it to a redirect with The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus to correct your mistake for AFD. The magazine is a WP:RS since it is a peer reviewed scholar journal and have a separate article of its own. Kasaalan (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this request and created the redirect. --Orlady (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Now maybe you can explain what the hell the OP is on about. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you get a chance

Could you add your twopenneth here and here. Some editors believe that Nick Griffin is a reliable source for claiming the owners of national newspapers are attempting to start a civil war in Britain followed by a nuclear war against Arab states, other editors disagree. I'm sure you can work out which group I belong to before even looking at the discussions. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nasty. I will make a comment or two. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know

Wknights proposal was supporting the shorter name. SM's was proposing we tack on player to the end of word etc. But probably doesn't matter since you removed your comment. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I worked that out after I waded through SM's comments and such but actually the whole thing will likely fix itself. It would be much better if the effort were devoted to removing the unnecessary forks at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). If there are really specific variations for given genres then have a subpage at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/specifics that details only the differences. Actually I can't see any significant differences other than repeated attempts to legislate either a POV or the blindingly obvious. I suspect that nuking the forks would cure 90% of the problem. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Completely agree. I can't speak for the baseball page as I don't edit that project alot so not sure how it got created, but the sportspeople one sprouted out of SMs last attempt to legislate the obvious and ended up supporting the view opposite his through consensus building on the page. Frankly most of us would rather the discussion just be left alone and left to clue. Thanks for your input though, definitely like more people to see the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response for WT:NCP

I typed up a response to your note at WT:NCP - so I might as well paste it here: We already had the page name shorter. SMcCandlish is trying to remove the exception part of the line and then force baseball bio articles to have (baseball player) or (baseball coach) or (baseball player and coach), rather than the simple (baseball) that we currently use. I propose that the entire line be stricken - not just the exception portion - so then we won't be forced into using a "description" noun at all. The only guideline should be that whatever is shortest and simplest while still accomplishing disambiguation without confusion - and that is implicit without the line above. Wknight94 ^talk 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Understood, see above. I made a start: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Guy (Help!) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Best wishes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding SPA

It's increasingly looking as if I never will (my next action, described on the talk page, was to clean up the corrupt references at Technical Analysis). I created an account on Wikipedia in 2007, after having spotted problems in an article when reading it. I've never been especially active, but I've made contributions to talk pages and articles in completely random subjects after having seen the need (eight different subjects, in total). After two and a half years I make the first contribution I'm proud of, removing incredibly bad sources from statements that hasn't even got support from those - bad - sources, and replace with a consensus in the correct section and with good sources. After that I went back to other completely non-climate related articles. Now you used that edit, which I was proud of, as something negative about the (single) article edits I'm currently involved with. I feel incredibly put down by this. Again. This account is my only account. In my real name. Created in early 2007. Has been used for contributions on various subjects unrelated to what you claim it's a "single purpose account" for two and a half years. But as I understand it, if that's really how you want to characterize me there's nothing I can do about it. I just wanted to express my sincere disappointment. :( Troed (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's very simple. People who edit only in support of a single POV on a single subject tend to be treated as agenda accounts and given less latitude than people who have a broad spectrum of contributions. There is endless work to do on Wikipedia from typo fixing to new page patrolling, if you're interested in helping Wikipedia then it's all good. If you're interested in helping the climate sceptic POV by fixing Wikipedia then you're an agenda account and I'm afraid I have very little time for them. No big deal, plenty of other people will help you, just not me. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at my edits and talk page suggestions? If anything, I'm extremely WP:NPOV and the only thing I've ever done on Wikipedia is to make sure statements are supported by WP:RS. My account is neither created to enforce a single POV (which is what SPA is meant to describe!) - nor is it a correct description of what I do on Wikipedia. Those eight areas I've contributed to were not selected by or for anything, I just happened to visit the pages and saw something I could help out with. If you really look into my edits, that's true for both the Sahara and CRU incident pages as well (I had just watched a National Geographic broadcast on Sahara when I visited the page and saw the errors - and there was no "arguing" over climate as you stated). Labelling me incorrectly as an SPA or claiming (wrongly) I'm editing with a single POV feels extremely out of place and I don't really understand why you're even doing this. It's simply not true. Troed (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, but there again it's not my call. All I'm saying is that without wider topic interest you're going to be seen as a single purpose or agenda account. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight

Did you intend to just close the last section of the GoRight discussion, or the whole discussion? Woogee (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that he closed anything. He was making a WP:POINT. --GoRight (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:POINT isx "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" - which is what you're doing. What I was doing was noting that you've now shopped htis about everywhere it can go and the consensus is clearly against you. Do we have a WP:STFU, I wonder? In any case, WP:STICK covers it nicely. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear on what it is that I am supposedly "shopping". Please elaborate. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If you can't see it, experience indicates that I won't be able to explain it to you. Try editing an article on something utterly different. For a week or so, try not touching anything even remotely related to climate change. It will do you good. Seriously, it will. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Acupressure

Thanks for your edit. It's going to be tedious if our collegiate editing has to follow this pattern. Chuckles. Kevin McCready (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• A fact of life unappreciated by many who come to the noticeboards to recruit support: savvy people look at both sides. Guy (Help!) 19:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor I have this pain in my lower back.....(chuckle - couldn't resist...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Try some pseudoscience and quackery, then. There's "fair evidence" (according to a good V RS) that acupuncture is effective for chronic low back pain. But I'm sure you savvy folks knew that already. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You think trolling my talk page is a good idea? Guess again. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Meant as a lighthearted and mildly sarcastic contribution, like Casliber's. Sorry if you took it as a troll. Later. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Te Dium

Re "how they glrofy the Lord" - did you mean to write "g rofl y?   pablo_hablo. 13:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think my fingers know something my conscious does not. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Godcruft"? *snerk* Great word. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack of Kent

Hey Guy. I just noticed this deletion of Jack of Kent's blog. He's a noted authority on the subject. He's a British lawyer. I believe this is one of those cases where a blog is acceptable as a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not being used as a source, it's commentary. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you possibly?

I don't want to have to fill out all the forms in triplicate so could you blacklist uniteagainstfascism.org.uk please? It's a spoof website (the real one is at http://www.uaf.org.uk/) being repeatedly inserted into the article. Article is currently semi-protected which will solve the problem for a while, but the link serves no useful purpose. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not currently linked anywhere. What's the issue? Guy (Help!) 14:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Being inserted into the article as an "updated link" by 79.72.88.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Freebbc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just thought it'd be easier to take away the opportunity for them to add the link in the first place? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please show you know what you are talking about

Please see AN discussion. I await your response. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reinforcing my belief that lifting this ban is a bad idea. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's about all it is. Your personal belief. See updated discussion on AN. Kevin McCready (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Who else's would I be stating? You are a very foolish person, I think. It should have been trivially easy for you to gain my support, given that we are very firmly on the same side in the never-ending WP:FRINGE battle, but instead you have reinforced my negative opinion of you. Never mind. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, attacking people isn't going to help your case. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT, WP:DOLT

JzG, in view of your comment at ANI – you discussed the issue around WP:DOLT and WP:NLT last year at the NLT talk page. I've started a new discussion at NLT talk basically picking up the same point that you were discussing a year ago. What are your thoughts on this today? There are many sides and many different potential scenarios to this, so more eyes would be useful. --JN466 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• The best thing to do is to contain the problem and to engage in civil discussion with the user. This may be best done via OTRS where there is no baying mob with torches and pitchforks (and no peanut gallery, for that matter). People should always be encouraged to start with provable errors of fact, fixing those tends to de-escalate the problem and obviously also remove any risk to the project. If other editors revert the removal of provably wrong material then the article should be protected and / or the editors blocked. Once the article is accurate, then you can have a mature discussion about tone and weight. That's been my approach in these situations. Usually the result is a happy customer, sometimes they are not happy but at least understand that we're trying to be fair, and sometimes, like Bircham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they still hate us but that's their problem not ours. If we do block people for threats in these circumstances then it's very important to keep an active watch on their talk page and for someone to take on the job of helping them to frame their issues in terms that we can actually deal with. Feel free to take this comment wherever you will, the discussion probably needs to be drawn together form several places. The bottom line is that just because someone behaves like an angry mastodon does not mean they are wrong about everything, we owe it to article subjects and their friends to be scrupulously fair, and the more negative the article the more scrupulous we must be about WP:NPOV. There are plenty of examples, Bonzi buddy being one, where the article is overwhelmingly negative because the sources are overwhelmingly negative, and this has real-world consequences for people. When people are hurt and upset they are hard to placate, and blocking them and talking them down off-wiki or on their talk page is an entirely legitimate way of handling things. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I hear what you're saying. I would like admins to (1) delete a legal threat, (2) speak to the editor on their talk page, explaining that talk pages are not a good place to raise legal issues; (3) tell them the appropriate channel; (4) advise them that if they persist making legal threats on talk pages, their editing privileges may be removed; (5) look into the complaint and delete any genuine defamation immediately.
  • Where people have a moral right to feel upset, because one of our editors was a dick, I would not like them to have a block on their block record forever. I would also like them to have a less nightmarish experience trying to address the problem if one of our editors caused it. Being blocked feels awful; where we are at fault, it is adding insult to injury. --JN466 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I basically agree, though the block record thing is not really that big a deal (the unblock should include a comment that exonerates them, I guess). I am all for redacting legal threats and helping people frame genuine concerns in a way we can help with. Let me look at what you're proposing when I have some time later. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Helping

Oh, he's been helping a great deal already. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• So I see. Let me know if we need to call the cavalry, I posted a heads-up on WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tonica Marlow

This article is up for deletion. If you are planning to present it as an evidence in Chabad arbitration, maybe nomination should be put on hold temporarily. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)