User talk:JzG/Archive 8

Archives
Archive Archive 2: The Sequel Archive 3: Return of the Archive Archive 4: The Revenge - This Time It's Personal Archive 5, Jan 2006 (general archive) Archive 6, Feb 2006 (general archive) Archive of discussions pertaining to Jason Gastrich Archive of discussions pertaining to adminship and requests archiving policy privacy policy

Guy Chapman? He's just zis Guy, you know? More about me

---

If you need urgent admin help please go to the incident noticeboard. To stop a vandal, try the vandal intervention page. For general help why not try the help desk? If you need me personally and it's urgent you may email me, I read all messages even if I do not reply. If next time I log on is soon enough, click this link to start a new conversation.

---

• Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science
• JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

RFA Thanks

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

Sam Sloan

He's my Jason Gastrich, except that I'm not being condemned to hell for my actions. :) howcheng {chat} 07:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

zap!

I've replied to your note, on my talk page, and am now totally negating the efficiency of that by telling you this here ; )

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Hi Guy,

I hope you're well.

I'm writing a couple of Wiki users because I feel that I may have offended some people. I apologize if my past contributions made you upset. I see that you value making contributions to Wikipedia (although I don't agree with them) and that you have a passion for this place and getting your input into various entries.

The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing. Although I disagree with your viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong, I haven't been contributing under the huge number of impersonators we have seen, lately.

Please consider reconciling with me. It could do us some good. I wish had something tangible to offer you, but I don't. All I can do is apologize for the past edits that were deemed inappropriate by you, although I still strongly disagree, and forgive you for the misdeeds I feel you have done. For what it's worth, I see this place as hostile to what I believe in, and even the truth in general, causing me to have serious reservations about even inviting others here and certainly about promoting this place in any way.

My most important goal is to glorify God and to lead others into a relationship with Him. I've been working hard and doing this online, although some may not see these efforts reflected on Wikipedia. Therefore, I need to go where I'm needed the most, because that is where the fruit is at.

Thanks for your consideration and God bless you.

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't be offended that I'm sending a similar message to a handful of others. I feel the same way and wanted to say the same thing to them, too.

After the "apology" he had enough time to fix the promotion links on his page[1]. Arbusto 02:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Only the one I think. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This is fascinating. I can't help but notice that Gastrich's reply came only after a fair number of arbitrators already voted against him in the proposed decision. Unfortunately, I don't think it works the way he thinks it does ... once people have made up their mind, they've made up their mind, and late apologies really aren't going to help anything. --Cyde Weys 02:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was in the middle of the apology pasting.

BTW, Guy, here is a request that you archive your talk page, you're over 100 messages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Be bold :-) Cyde Weys 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

roflmao, Cyde, you are a bad, bad boy! KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a lone voice, but I don't see anything wrong with his user page*, and I'm happy to see him editing under his accepted user name. *It might be better if the bio with links were moved to a subpage as is the norm for userfied articles, however. --kingboyk 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy to see him edit? You mean till ArbComm finalises things? Color me jealous I didn't get one of these (collectible, trade and save!). ++Lar: t/c 03:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...as opposed to the latest sockpuppet. It's good to know he hasn't forgotten his password! --kingboyk 03:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to take this page off my watch list, if I keep laughing like this I'll hurt myself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I use the SAME password for ALL my sockpuppets. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 03:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to the several above:

1. I am actually very pleased that Jason has chosen to acknowledge fault, that is a positive development. My view is that the original ArbCom remedy of editing restrictions and rapid escaaltion in case of future repetition was adequate and proportionate; I am convinced that a lot of the disruption was not Jason himself; even if it was meatpuppets, that may be a case of having let the genie out of the bottle - hard to get it back in.
2. KingboyK, go back in the history and loko at prior versions. They had way too many external links. They have been pruned, and Jason has apparently decided to leave that be, which is good.
3. I think we should stop poking fun.

As you know, I never did want Jason blocked, only brought into line. Just zis Guy you know? 09:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with all points, and I was serious in saying that I considered it a welcome development. --kingboyk 10:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Gastrich has a way with words. While I don't necessarily think that his apology is insincere, neither does it particularly interest me. An actual change of behaviour is the only thing that will be of any importance; doing a few spelling corrections on articles unrelated to Christianity would have said far more than the appeal above. I'm still not convinced by either the impersonator or the meatpuppet defence - the socks are too knowledgable about Wikipedia to be new users, his ministry is almost certainly not that large, and there is no conceivable reason for anyone to impersonate him to this extent - maybe one or two people playing silly buggers, like Mrs Gastrich, but the majority of the spree makes no sense in that context. I can't remember offhand who it was that suggested applying Occam's Razor, but I think they were right. To refer to Arbustoo's post, the fact that his first real step on the road to reconciliation is to insert another spam link on his user page is not encouraging. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Malthusian. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion on Arbustoo's talk page which was started by Gastrich after his supposed 'apology' makes me even less inclined to consider this a genuine attempt at reconciliation, hence the strikeout in the paragraph above. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh FFS. I try so hard to WP:AGF, but this guy really works at it, doesn't he? Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Jason's apology does not appear to be sincere. If you look for the subtext, he is basically saying: "I'm apologizing because it's the only thing I can do in the face of your injustices towards me." Although I am entirely surprised that Wikipedia has held his attention for this long, I do not doubt that he will continue to push his point of view into the knowledge base. Even though this is my first posting here, I have been a "fan" of Jason's for a couple of years, and have been closely watching this latest round of antics. Generally I find his silliness to be harmless fun, but it's an entirely different matter when his righteous arrogance steamrollers other people's sincere efforts. Grinder2112 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Background, I have seen some of the discussions that Grinder has had with Jason. He has a high degree of patience and is one of the few who has managed to engage Jason in a productive discourse. Grinder is no troll, in case people are wondering due to his limitied activity in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• I have a Bible verse for those gathered here today. It's Matthew 7:6. Regardless of who your swine are. AvB ÷ talk 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have a sneaking suspicion the pearls here are fake, but the authenticity of the swine is in little doubt at this moment. Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My page has been vandalized, [2], comments deleted, and JG sock tags removed. Arbusto 08:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Hey JzG, FYI [3] [4] regards, FloNight ^talk 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Alien Abduction RE.:

I was referring to one Whitley Strieber. I've encountered things myself that would scare Stephen King, Clive Barker and Wes Craven when I was a kid, and on top of that, had to contend with trigger happy idiots at the same time the former was going on. While travelling "Out West" as a gold prospector, people had told me that IF there is alien contact, the whole planet will erupt in rebellions, some for religious reasons, such as "Its the Devil comming to get our souls and the Govt. works for Satan !", some will rebel out of revenge due to the protocol initiated by the Robertson Panel protocol and/or the Brookings Report, both of which are still in effect. Part of the Robertson Panel protocol uses psychiatrists, so that people who spot UFOs and/or aliens, and the like, have a interest in these "forbidden" matters look like fools and idiots. The Robertson Panel was initiated by the CIA to "reduce", if not eliminate any and all interest, suppress any and all UFO and/or alien reports.I have some police and military contacts as well who have told me a few things. Martial Law :)

Is that a grassy knoll I see over yonder? Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good one, Ever hear about the "Magic Bullet" that hit JFK in the head(Seen the tapes) from the front, then circled around and hit the Texas governor ? While investigating a bigfoot incident, some idiot threatened to shoot me IF I was one of those (polite) "skeptics". People see strange things, they do not appreciate other people implying they're lying. Due to WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Profanity, I can't state what I've found here. Martial Law 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Have you seen/encountered something strange ? Did you report it ? If you did, you'll see what I'm referring to. I've investigated the Roswell Incident, the Phoenix Lights matter, the Fouke Monster matter(where some armed idiot thought I was a "skeptic"), the Gulf Breeze UFO incident, and some not so famous paranormal matters as well. Wikipedia Protocol does not allow me to list here what I've found at all. Martial Law 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The thing that has always amazed me about the Roswell Conspiracy is that the Government have supposedly somehow managed to keep it completely leak-free, something they have failed to do in so many other cases (from Watergate on up). I apply Occam's Razor: when absolutely everybody in authority points to a prosaic explanation, why theorise something for which no credible evidence exists? Of course, Douglas Adams had another take on it: teasers, rich kids with nothign better to do than land in some uninhabited spot and strut up and down in fonrt of some poor sod who nobody is going to believe making "beep-beep" noises and wearing silly antennae on their heads. Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Where I'm currently located at, you dress up as a alien, Bigfoot, and come to a rural area, you might as well make out your Will. Out here, people will shoot at something like that, and at all intruders. I'm in a rural area at this time. While I was monitoring a Bigfoot incident in the Ozarks in Arkansas, a news person asked a local about it being someone in a Bigfoot suit. He (polite) said that had better not be going on or the (polite) idiot will end up dead. You'll be amazed when hoaxers report that some "redneck" tried to shoot at them, and the hoaxer is in some kind of costume, be it alien or bigfoot. Martial Law 02:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Wiki-Links

If you are referring to my collection of Wiki-links, they allow instant access to various Wiki protocol, incl. WP:NOT. Martial Law 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Thanks for the messages

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for the messages you left on my talk page. The amount of reaction my little post created astounded me. I actually think it's poorly written (it was two am and I had taken NyQuil for a cold earlier that evening), but thanks again for what you sent. I'm putting the tutorial info to good use, and I'm gonna start out as a real live contributor as soon as I figure out the ropes.

I also think its funny that, just because I mentioned I'm Christian, and that I wrote a mild rebuke to Jason Gastrich that was actually polite, people think I'm one of his sock puppets. Right now, I find it funny, but I hope it stops soon. It seems like the kind of thing that could get real annoying REAL fast.

Anyway, I'll stop my ranting now; thanks again!

Commander Cool, part deux 04:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the RfC talk page get deleted?

I was wondering if the talk page on the failed RfC that a Gastrich sock started should be deleted? Arbusto 05:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Articles

Can you help with Dhimmi , Jizya , Rules of war in Islam , People of the Book , & now Kafir. Its one user with a severe anti-Islamic POV , who is insistent on pushing his POV . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 13:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Who's the problem? There are a lot of strong opinons in evidence on those pages. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:The Million Dollar Homepage

The problem was that in the list you left there were 2 articles present that had been consistently added by the same vandal, namely numbers 12 and 15. These had been consistently readded so I took the action of removing the whole list to try to make it less likely for people to put their own knock-off sites on there. Just felt that my actions needed explaining, my problem wasn't with the list per se, so much as what it invited people to do and what they did to it. Mallocks 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's hilarious that they were adding their sites to a list demonstrating the futility of the knock-offs on the Talk page of an article; I guess nobody expects a spamming copycat to be especially bright :-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is somewhat mystifying what they expected to achieve, they got my visit to the page to see if it was linkspam, but other than that I shouldn't think they've had a single hit. Mystifying. Mallocks 16:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Rouge admins

Our of curiosity, why Rouge not Rogue? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

From some past comments - as a mis-spellign it amuses me :-) See some examples Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A little help needed....

I just finished my first contribution (found here), but the title is not what I wanted (It should be Todd Michael Schwartzman, with all names capitalized, not Todd michael schwartzman, as it currently is). How would I fix this? Thanks for your help.

--Commander Cool, part deux 20:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I feel stupid. I went back to the page and immediately noticed the whole "Move" button. Huh. Well, at least I get the sweet satisfaction of having figured it out by myself, if only to accompany the bitter disappointment in my personal powers of observation.

Thanks anyway,

--Commander Cool, part deux 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's common enough - there is even a Wiki folklore around it, Geogre's Law :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiked

On what do you base that a "self-published book" is somehow inferior or that I am the writer? Thanks for the compliment by the way. There are many of us in our reading group who enjoyed reading this book. You cite no credible rationale for deletion. To the excellent point made by Xoloz re. the notion of a self-published book like Spiked being popularly Googled. Beck's readers seem to endorse the book if their comments at various on-line booksellers are to be believed. American Library Association interview appears to us more impartial source than much consumer media publicity generated by commercial interest groups. See if a careful consideration of the evidence suggests not just withdrawing your notion of deletion but supporting Spiked as an entry. Malundi 8 March 2006

Who said you were the writer? It's a self-published book, though. I checked the publication details. And that alone is credible rationale for deletion. Just zis Guy you know? 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bible Colleges

New white washing at Oxford Graduate school[5] (no relation to the UK school). It seems the person doesn't want it to be known that the school is unaccredited and has 100 students via the US mail service. Making this drama more interesting is this[6]. Arbusto 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New Wiki

Hello JzG. I was wondering if you would in interested in a new wiki I'm working on about depression. I see you mention depression on your user page, so you might like to know about the Depression Wikicity. It's part of Wikicities, a project of Jimbo and Angela, but quite a new part so there is a lot to do! I'm hoping it will be come a real resource for people with depression. If you are interested, please come along and see if you can add to the site, it would be great to see more names there. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'll be along. Just zis Guy you know? 12:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And I'll bring my Dosulepin hydrochloride with me :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not for school

I'm not sure where to express this on the talk page — I'll work it in later — but removing the {{Wikipedia subcat guideline}} from the page eliminates the air of official policy, and cuts the ferocity of my opposition dramatically. Thanks. ×Meegs 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it belongs as it was started, as a gentle and mildly humorous way of pointing out that, well, Wikipedia is really not for things made up in school one day. The edits after UncleG's last seemed to em to be trying to turn it into WP:NOTABILITY, which we already ave, and subverting its intention of addressing a certain clearly identified class of bad article ideas. Just zis Guy you know? 12:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Question: Deleted Edits

Just wondering if you knew what exactly counts as a deleted edit? It is editing a page then having the page deleted, or having a edit reveted? Mike _{(T C)} 02:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A deleted edit is where you delete the page and then restore it minus the disputed version. This does not, as far as I know, allow the deleted edit to be picked out of either the edit history or the deleted history. Just zis Guy you know? 08:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm so I have 88 deleted edits? Would this be because of newpage patrol and CSDing articles?? Mike _{(T C)} 07:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Most likely, yes. Where did you get 88 from? Just zis Guy you know? 08:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The edit count tool: Deleted edits 87, you have Deleted edits 453. I just thought it was high, after seeing yours it is defently not! Thanks! Mike _{(T C)} 19:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability

Hi! You mentioned in another discussion that you didn't think FORscene was notable. As it does meet the current notability guidelines, please can you let me know what else you would be looking for. Stephen B Streater 11:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My personal notabiltiy threshold is above community norm. Like I said, feel free to create the article, if you do it may be nominated for AfD - which is no big deal because if it does meet the guidelines it won't get deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. You can see what happened last time in the AfD. You can see the article for yourself, as you are an admin. People didn't like me writing the article, because I wrote some of the software (VSCA) - you are not the only one with higher standards than the guidelines! If you have time, I would appreciate some criticism of the article itself though. Stephen B Streater 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the article's Talk page.

Trying to end the war before it starts

I would like to register my disappointment at your last edit to the Association of British Counties;

1. Owain may agree with their agenda, but the material included was referenced and sourced at the end (and not all from the ABC website either); unless you can refute them, they have right to stand.
2. the references given at the bottom were useful for the entire article. Even if you did not agree with the edits made to the body, you should have let these stand, or incorporated them otherwise. Please check and be able to justify each individual sub-edit you revert.
3. wholesale reverts on controversial topics should be preceded by discussion on the talk page. In your capacity as admin, you try to discourage edit wars - the best way to do this is by example. I'm doing my best to get mediators involved/get discussion going/..etc, and offical support would be incredibly welcome.

Overall, a partial edit of Owain's work was needed, but that is not what was given. Please could I ask you to go back and reconsider and re-edit as appropriate?

Also in your capacity as admin: the anonymous user editing this page is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Irate=User:IanDavies=... (earlier edits from similar ip's from Bulldog, Manchester were blocked as such by User:David Gerard). As you are taking an active interest in this particular article, please could you watch out for these sockpuppets and use temporary bans as appropriate? It makes more sense than trying to get otherwise unrelated admins involved every time via the admin incidents noticeboard.

This is a small and fairly insignificant issue in British politics, but it is an issue all the same. I'm trying to edit usefully, within the editing rules and with rigorous citation and justification; I just don't want to see the good work getting drowned out in avoidable edit battles.

Many thanks, Aquilina 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the content, and it seemsd to me that Owain had replaced a number of statements which were fair comment with some uncritical admiration for ABC, an organisation whose significance I am still unable to verify from any reliable sources (there has been, as far as I can tell, no significant coverage in the British national press, for example). It was that simple. The significance of the issue is not the same as the significance of the group, this much should be obvious.

I am still waiting for some details on what my agenda is supposed to be here. Given that Owain has an interest in Monmouthshire (form his contribs list) it seems highly likely that the two hits on the BBC for ABC, [7] and [8], both feedback comments, both pushing ABC, calling the archaic counties "the real counties" and so on, may be more revealing of Owain's bias than mine. Meanwhile there is still no verifiable evidence of significance, no evidence of coverage in mainstream media, and two BBC stories specifically did not mention the group, it was Owain Vaughan who did that in the feedback. Some might think that significant. Just zis Guy you know? 18:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Owain actually removed very little material - most of his edit was in addition to the standing article. You have added a significant amount of WP:OR to the article, which I will challenge you to find sources for. As you have not replaced the links to sources, but not justified your deletion of them, I shall do so myself now.

You may disagree with Owain's POV, and there isn't an abundance of evidence - but in the few cases where he can back up his POV with citation, his edits should stand.

Most of my comments about your edit still stand, whatever the group's significance Aquilina 18:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I read both versions. It is not OR to mention that they were namechecked by one MP (it's in Hansard), that their membership is unstated (check the website), that the counties movement exists (see County Watch), that their impact is unknown absent media reports (give me the media reports, Owain hasn't managed yet), that the movement will not achieve its aims in the present climate (no party has it in their manifesto, not even the more quixotic ones like Goldsmith's mob). All this is verifiable. Unlike any claim to notability of ABC, which scores not significantly better on Google than I do. Just zis Guy you know? 19:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between not stating something on a website, and not stating - you have not proved it isn't available elsewhere, and I've changed the article to reflect this.

I have challenged several points of fact - if we can get inline references for these, then the article will be much more difficult for anyone to challenge. It's a slightly more rigorous standard of proof than is set for most articles, but seeing as its contentious it is necessary.

But as regards

The traditional counties movement is generally recognised as having little chance of achieving its objective in the current British political climate.

- it's a statement I fully agree with, but I also know it's POV/OR. I was going to delete it out of hand but realised the following: if it's that generally held a belief, however, there'll be no problem finding evidence to back it up...

We are not arguing about notability here (that if anything was partially settled by the AfD...) I just want both sides backing upclaims with evidence - and on the rare occasion this happens, but gets deleted, some good reasons why. Aquilina 19:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, there is absolutely no credible evidence that this organisation is in any way significant and if we don't say that in some form then the article will be seriously biased. As to the fact of their having little chance, it is not POV, it's a fact. We can re-state it as "no political party has taken it up" or whatever, it remains vital context. How else will non-British readers know that this is never going to happen? NPOV absolutely requires that the article make it clear that this is a fringe view with little or no mainstream support. I am open to any decent suggestions as to how best to state that, of course. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the point needs making, but we can't resort to OR to do it. I just want both sides to explicitly cite as much as possible - it's hard to edit war when every arguable sentence has a source link at the end of it! As it is though, the edit you made (saying it isn't referred to in any manifestos) works really well - it's nice and easily verifiable, and makes the point without any editorial analysis from us.

If you could link to something showing there's been little/no media coverage, that would be good too - however, proving an absence of information is quite hard, and I'm not a fan of google news whatsoever - its coverage of UK regional media is pretty awful - I've tried to use it to catch up on big events in places I used to live, with no success. (Most of the local sites it links to only receive the small amount of regional feed that the big (inter)nationals like AP/Reuters/... produce. I'd love them to link to some of the smaller local newspaper sites)

On a related note, could I ask you again to please block sockpuppets of User:Irate which edit this article? It makes a complete mockery of the ruling (the strongest possible in WP) if it's not enforced where possible by the admins. Assuming good faith as much as possible, Owain does provide some useful stuff, even if some of it requires rephrasing and npoving, and is trying to find sources to back up this and other articles - I don't want to see editors like him hounded out by the personal attacks and reverts of someone who shouldn't be editing at all, full stop. Thanks for your help, Aquilina 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it seems to me that the article (as I last saw it) is becoming acceptably neutral. Owain seems to be co-operating in that - albeit his last edits I saw were to assert that two parties had adopted this agenda, when neither has it in the manifesto; that means the wording might have been sloppy, so it now says it's not in the manifesto of any British party, and that is unequivocally verifiable, so a brief wrangle has ended up with a watertight and factual statement, which is a good outcome when people disagree over something. It gets reduced to what is verifiable. I have no problem with that.

Yes I agree, the explicit in-line quoting of sources is going to be a prerequisite for further additions to the material. Incidentally, the English Democrats do mention on their website that they are in favour of the reinstation of the pre-1974 boundaries for administration purposes, but I have seen no evidence that they have acted on this at all. Moreover, lukewarm completely-latent support from the mighty English Democrats is hardly a credential worthy of the article(!)

Are the socks the anon IPs? I will go and look into that. My tolerance for sockpuppets is somewhere betwen zero and none at all. Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes they are, mainly the ones beginning 84.9.xxx.xxx, but the odd other too. User:David Gerard blocked a few after his last name account (IanDavies) was blocked eg [9] and [10], but the time it takes longer to get a response through AN/I than it does for him to change IP (understandably, there's a lot of stuff on AN/I to deal with!). Aquilina 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Tricky, there's a mixture of edits. If it happens much more I will think about sprotecting it, but the vandalism seems to be at a low level, albeit irritating. IP blocks are more problematic than account blocks. Just zis Guy you know? 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The edits themselves are irritating, but the personal attacks and allegations are distressing. Sprotecting does help, that would be very welcome. However, most of the time he just waits until it's lifted and starts again, and in-between he shifts on to his other favourite articles. Temporarily blocking the ip's for short periods (<24hrs) works just as well as sprotecting at protecting the ABC article, and stops him editing and causing trouble at other articles too. I understand there may be problems with other editors on the same ip, but there hasn't been before, and that could be dealt with as-and-when. But the call's yours - thanks for your help either way! Aquilina 00:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please be polite

Your comments on Talk:Simon Wessely are not up to the standards I like to see on Wikipedia. Remember, we are Wikipedians. We do not engage in fights with outside groups. We just write the articles. If anyone behaves inappropriately towards us, we should respond with graciousness and kindness even under extreme provocation.  :) --Jimbo Wales 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, they published my personal data on their website, spammed me and all but called me the Antichrist, it got under my skin a bit. Just zis Guy you know? 22:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I find your comment to be somewhat patronizing here. First of all, we as Wikipedians do much, much more than "just write the articles", and you of all people should know this. Secondly, you failed to point out precisely which comments were "not up to the standards I like to see on Wikipedia". If you can't be more specific, how do you expect this person as a contributor to improve? His reactions were well within the realm of reason if you ask me. Silensor 22:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to step in to make it really clear that JzG is an excellent contributor who has in fact done excellent work on helping with the One Click article. I also emailed him privately to commend him on his fine work. My comment was simply about one particular negative statement, he knew the one I was talking about. I don't see any reason for JzG to improve in general, it's just that all of us, even me of course, can use feedback when we are a bit too harsh. JzG is great and I didn't mean my comments to reflect negatively on him at all. --Jimbo Wales 21:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, now you've gone and embarrassed me... Just zis Guy you know? 21:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's right, I was tetchy. But actually I was just admitting to a POV, which is allowed, it didn't occur to em that it was wrong to describe what they did as being offensive. One Click are not nice, even after you've made allowances for them being ill. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nourhaghighi

Would you please take a look at Nourhaghighi and related AFD? There surely has to be a speedy deletion criteria which covers this but I'm not sure what. If there isn't there should be! :) --kingboyk 23:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, that surely needed to be gone. I left some comments, hopefullly the author will read them. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD/List of ...For Dummies books

Hi, JzG. You voted to support my AfD nomination of List of O'Reilly books. There is a similar, and much more contested nomination for AfD/List of ...For Dummies books. Would you be willing to vote for deletion there as well, to help turn the tide? Much apprecitated, Rynne 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't claim to be a fan of solicitations to participate in AfDs, but that list does really suck! Just zis Guy you know? 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on the use of the title "Dr."

How do we create a policy that wikipedia abides by the academic standard usage of the title "Dr" so users can reference this during controversy/editting wars? So users know that honorary doctorates and unaccredited doctorates do not get to use the title "Dr." Arbusto 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It would need to go int he manual of style, I think. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How do I go about doing that? Arbusto 23:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk page at WP:MOS I guess, or raise it at the Village Pump policy page? Guessing here, mind. Just zis Guy you know? 23:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just added my comments[11]. Arbusto 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Guy, I have noticed your work on AfD before and would like your opinion on Workplace networking. At first glance it might seem to be a legitimate article, but I believe a thorough reading shows that it is some kind of elaborate joke. I haven't done the AfD myself, but I would like your opinon on the article. Thanks. --Hetar 04:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a thinly disguised attack page. Now cleaned up. Just zis Guy you know? 09:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice

I've initiated a user conduct RfC (my first and, I hope, last). You had some contact with User:Dzonatas at WP:3RR. What's the proper procedure for notifying other editors that an RfC has started? I've posted this as a query to the RfC talk page and another administrator's talk page and received no guidance. The RfC needs cert

ification from at least one other user in 48 hours. I don't want to be accused of canvassing for opposition to him (if that's a bad thing) or of failing to notify appropriate people (if I'm supposed to do that). Please advise. Durova 17:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to leave a note on the Talk page of the affected user, and I would normally think it appropriate to bring it to the attention of any other editors who are named in the RfC as part of the dispute (on either side). It is also reasonable to note it on the Talk page of any articles which are focal points of the dispute. You will also see that some people may come along and endorse the complaint because they watch the RfC page. Stick to the facts, link diffs wherever possible, be fair at all times and acknowledge your own faults if such their be. State up front any biases you may have. RfCs can get very heated, do not be drawn into slanging matches.

On closer inspection, much of the meat of the fC seems to be founded on the assumption that Dzonatas and Jhballard are one and the same. I don't think that is necessarily proven (unless I've missed some evidence somewhere) so I have requested a CheckUser. Just zis Guy you know? 19:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi its Slayerx675 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

the script which i put on is my gcse drama exam, which i need to get on my account at school, so i decided to host it on wikipeia beacasue a lot of websites are disalloed but wiki isn't. so i just need it to put on da comp in skool tnks Slayerx675 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'm glad it was worth the effort of userfying, thanks for stopping by :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your warning on my page

Sorry, but could you please explain better what you wrote. I am not sure I understand what you mean by "neutral". Please use the Holodomor discussion page for this. Thanks.--Andrew Alexander 02:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A gift for you

...from Arbusto - Mark_Wallace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll give you the honour of reviewing and extending my block :) --kingboyk 08:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see no benefit frmo allowing that one ever to come back. I put the requisite tags on the User and Talk pages, you should try to put the {block} tag on the Talk page and note the exiry tiime when you block accounts, even blatant vandals. Just zis Guy you know? 08:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Righto. That's the first one I've done which wasn't straightforward {{test5}}, in all the excitement I plain didn't think about formalities. --kingboyk 09:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

List of list songs

Enjoy! :) --kingboyk 11:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gah! Why do these people never start by defining what constitutes a list song? We had no article on list songs to act as a definition, so we can't possibly have a list of them because we haven't defined what constitutes an entry for the list, or indeed why anyone should care. Why does nobody ever start with the encyclopaedic content and then start discussing examples and finally a list? Just zis Guy you know? 12:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you'd like it. --kingboyk 12:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you online?

If you are and if you could spare a few minutes, could you review this for me please? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Knox (flash artist). Sorry to bother you. --kingboyk 14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Rouge Admins

I laughed myself silly again. Makes me want to be a Rouge Admin too :P  RasputinAXP  c 17:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ras... I didn't know you were a Gilbert and Sullivan fan. Well played... er, sung. I wanna be a rouge NON admin... ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This week I are been mainly singing "When I was a lad I served a term"; also the Major-General's song. :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not a fan, but I'm certainly aware of it, and have been involved in a few productions, but The Yeomen of the Guard is my favorite ;)  RasputinAXP  c 21:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review

Your comments at deletion review regarding Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) are confusing, and also fail to address the issue of whether there was a deletion consensus in the original deletion. I happen to think the process is wrong on this one, and that a nationally published cartoonist is notable. No arguments to counter that were made, and it seems unreasonable to delete on such a basis. I would hope you reconsider your comments, and I apologise for hassling you in this way. Steve block talk 12:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'm always happy to discuss my reasons. I read the deleted article and the AfD; it strikes me that very little has changed in respect of the subject since the AfD closed, whether or not you believe the AfD debate considered the additional data you provided (which in my experience it likely did). There is quite a bit of history here of pushing by User:DollyD, which account has virtually no history outside of this one subject so is likely either connected with the creator, or a sock or role account of someone. So I think the best thing to do is wait a while to let the dust settle, then create a new and encyclopaedic article and note on the Talk page that this is a new treatment of the subject with additional data. There is no rush here, no deadline to met. If Alexander really is notable then he will be doing new work all the time, and the more of this is verifiable from reliable sources the clearer the decision becomes. Otherwise all that will happen is that someone will come along and AfD it again, which is not a good result for anybody. Just zis Guy you know? 12:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair play. I agree with the wait a while more than the rest. I'm of a mind that the eventual answer is a List of Australian cartoonists and comics creators. Thanks for discussing, and happy editing. Steve block talk 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retraction appropriate?

Here are my posts in the software notability debate which all declare an interest in software I have written:

8<--- snipped, is at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (software) (sorry, but my Talk is getting big again and I only archived last week!) --->8

Response also at Wikipedia Talk:Notability (software) Just zis Guy you know? 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. It's resolved OK (and lost its formatting when I copied it anyway). Stephen B Streater 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I knew deep down you were a reasonable person :-) Stephen B Streater 18:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh damn, now you've gone and blown my reputation as a rouge admin.... Just zis Guy you know? 22:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

With tag lines like "that anyone can edit", I don't think you'll be short of work. Stephen B Streater 08:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

John Bambenek deletion review

I thought this might interest you: User:Alpha269 has spammed the most recent group of brand-spankin' new admins to come and vote on the deletion review for John Bambenek. Even more interesting is that this editor is explicitly asking the newest, least experienced administrators (myself included) to come weigh in on this issue. I, for my part, am staying out of this, as being cold-called to weigh in because of my lack of experience seems too fishy for me. But I thought this should be brought to the attention of someone else involved in the discussion. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't call on me! Is that a compliment or am I not worth the time? hmm... --kingboyk 05:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It backfired a bit :-) Just zis Guy you know? 09:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, most amusing! --kingboyk 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I think you're pretty well known by now in spammer/foamer circles as "DS", so why would he bother? Either that or you're thought to be no longer among the least experienced (queue Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced)... When do you start flying the Rouge admin flag, by the way? ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Once I've found a criteria to speedy delete Lego, that's when! :P --kingboyk 01:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see you in hell first, mate. They're the most notable thing I've ever met the owner of. ++Lar: t/c 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not for school, again, sorry

Guy, the Wikipedia subcat guideline template was recently restored to the page. Before contacting the editor, or starting another discussion on the talk page, I wanted to ask you two things:

1. Is there a process or centralized discussion for the use of that template? I can't find any, and guidelines are not strictly official policy, so I guess disagreement over its use boils down to a regular-old content dispute. If this is to be labeled as a guideline, it seems to me that it needs to receive much wider scrutiny than it has. WP:Notability has gone a long time without this stamp.
2. As it is, what would you think of tagging it with Template:wikipedia essay? A void at the top may continue to attract edits.

Thanks. ×Meegs 20:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, guidelines are supposed to go through the proposal process. This has not, so it should either be tagged as an essay, a proposal, or nothing. ×Meegs 20:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an essay. Look at things like WP:BALLS, WP:VSCA and so on. It's not to be taken seriously, it's a way of defusing the pain, a clue-bat wrapped in a joke. Just zis Guy you know? 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hi JzG, I've replied over at Depression Wikicity. I don't know how I missed your message until now! Sorry about that :) --sannse (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Hi there. I can't work out what happened to my recent request to have my user page restored. Can you help point me at the right place to look, as I seem to remember that you took an interest. Thanks J1838 23:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your best bet is to go over to User Talk:CesarB and ask for unprotection. If you can satisfy CesarB that you won't re-create the attack page, then you might get to have another go in calmer and more neutral terms. Long-standing editors in good standing get a certain amount of slack when putting contentious views on their User pages, but brand-new users whose first edits are to create rants attacking other editors get pretty short shrift. Just zis Guy you know? 23:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Chief Marshal Of The Air Force of the Russian Federation

Thank you for speedy deleting the article, but it seems you did not protect it so editing is still possible... --DmitryKo 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Server was not responsive at the time. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:1998 Volvo V70.jpg

Please add a source for this photo. Thanks! -SCEhardT 03:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Just zis Guy you know? 08:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:69.196.139.250

Hey this guy has done it again. Apparently your warning was not enough. He has posted numerous other messages on my talk page and elsewhere. Aucaman^Talk 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Speedy merge

Would it be okay to merge University of the Nations and University of the Nations at Kona together? Arbusto 04:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Probably a bit of a mess, I'm not terribly good at these things yet, but at least there's only one article now. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[12] and see the Maybe, but it is unaccredited talk at the WR Uni page. Arbusto 11:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I would have thought leaving a stub at University of the Nations at Kona would have added value, particularly regarding categorisation, ie Category:Education in Hawaii. -- Paul foord 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That can be added to the existing article anyway, since it acknowledges that as its largest base. The two were very similar, and right now there is enough pain keeping the whitewash off one article without making it two. Just zis Guy you know? 18:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you describe me what exactly is considered as spam and what is not ?

Hi !

you have deleted my edits about PIM and contact managers. I agree my edits can be considered as "promotion", buit in my opinion it is not spam. For example in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_personal_information_managers, there is a list of PIM. why can't OD4Contact be listed there ? why are some products listed there and some are banned ?

Most of my edits are simply describing what OD4Contact is: a professional PIM. I've never written something like "this is the best software ever, the others are crap" ... i just want this product to be listed, like some others (MS Entourage, Act! which are *direct* competitors)

Because i'm not very familiar with Wikipedia, would you mind replying by email too? please reply at altimac@carrafix.com, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.253.167 (talk • contribs) 17:55, March 17, 2006 (UTC)

See WP:SPAM, specifically the section on external link spamming. You added a web link (not a Wiki link) to eight articles, many of which have no other web links at all, only wiki links. This is generally considered a Bad Thing. Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the link, i'll avoid direct linking to the website, but open a new WP section, with an external link at the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altimac (talk • contribs)

This may not be the solution either. People don't like you creating articles about your own products. Things must be famous before they get here - in which case someone else will write the article at some point. If it gets deleted, don't take it personally! Stephen B Streater 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Just zis Guy you know? 18:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hattrick

I've closed this as a speedy keep citing WP:POINT. The nominator's sole edits were to that AFD, and it would seem to be a response to the recent deletion through AFD of two other articles. I hope this is agreeable. --kingboyk 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I considered doing the same. Normally any AfD with many keeps and no deletes other than the nominator can be closed as speedy keep after a decent interval; in this case there was at least one good-faith delete (albeit weak). But the article patently passes WP:WEB, the nomination was as you say WP:POINT and I would say an early close is uncontentious. Just zis Guy you know? 19:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Aajonus Vonderplanitz

Why on earth was the article deleted?? SouthernComfort 00:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the deletion log and I have to say, I am appalled. You had no cause to delete an article about an actual person started by an experienced WP editor. I had no idea that an article about him had been started before and that it had been deleted (which I most emphatically disagree with, since he is a verifiable human being - enough reason on WP to keep the article). It will have to be restarted and if you want it deleted then, it should be put to another vote since I did not do a "repost" as was claimed in your edit summary. SouthernComfort 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Previously deleted by consensus. If you have new evidence of notability over and above what was debated really quite recently, please take it to WP:DRV. Some of us are getting a bit fed up with subjects that are endlessly re-created until eventually a no-consensus AfD keeps them. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it is common enough. Just zis Guy you know? 10:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

WebEx

Guy, I added content to WebEx article re: Zeleny/Zhu dispute and other legal disputes. I tried to write as FM and I discussed. May need some rewording to cover everyone's issues. Look at it as see what you think. FloNight ^talk 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Just zis Guy you know? 10:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of registered charities and patient organisation names

Guy, could I ask that you clarify on the discussion page which organisation you are refering to on Talk:Simon Wessely where you say "...the mainstream groups 25% and ME Action"? I assume the first refers to the 25% ME Group, however, there is no patient group or registered charity called "ME Action". Please clarify whether you mean the registered charity patient organisation AfME (Action for ME); the registered charity patient organisation The ME Association (MEA) or the internet campaigning group which maintains a website and discussion forum, "MEActionUK" which is not a registered charity? MEagenda 08:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll be right over. Just zis Guy you know? 10:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the clarification to Talk:Simon Wessely. I was also pleased to see that you are comfortable with the registered charity the 25% ME Group as being a valid source of evidence of opposition to Wessely and the "Wessely School". MEagenda 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've struggled all along with this: it seems to me that there is a depth of animosity towards Wessely which is unexplained in the article, but which we seem unable to explain without recourse to sources which (a) fail WP:RS and (b) go along the lines of "given that this view is wrong, and given that it is Wessely's fault, then Wessely is evil." - when actually neither statement is proven. I long for a proper review of the controversies in the medical press which mentions Wessely by name and actually gives some substance to the thing. In the mean time it is really hard to say, within policy, anything much more than that some people do not like him. You know, of course, that I have a particular problem with One Click, since they saw fit to attack me in a very unpleasant way simply for trying to restate their case in less blatantly biased terms. I also have a problem with their air of wronged innocence, it is very apparent that I am not alone in finding their approach to be unnecessarily combative, and I am very glad that you are still around and contributing to the article, because the only way to get balanced coverage of an issue is for people form all sides to work together. Sometimes I wish I'd never clicked the link - I was only looking for a spelling error! Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement, Guy, but I'm not intending to be around any more; I have said on Talk:Simon Wessely that I wouldn't be contributing further to the discussion - the only reason I posted additional comment was because I needed to correct an Admin for a misplaced accusation, and while I was there... It's a sine qua non that an in-depth review of the "Wessely issue" by the broadsheet press or medical journals is long overdue but you are aware of the bias in medical journals and you are aware of Wessely's position and influence and it would take a very brave editor, indeed, to run such an article; it's unlikely to happen and most likely not until research into aetiologies and treatments has caught up (and you are also aware that there is precious little funding being channelled into ME/CFS research). So since Arie's gone, too, the development of the Opposition and Criticism section will be left to you and to "JFW" and whoever else comes along in the future. In terms of medical politics, you will have realised by now that ME/CFS is one of the most controversial arenas - there is a very great deal at stake for those whose research and medical careers have been built on the biopsychosocial model and significant financial implications for the NHS, DWP, social services, for the provision of education for sick children and for the insurance and pensions industries. Opposition, and vehement opposition to Wessely certainly exists and has done so for years and not just amongst the more "extreme" members of the ME/CFS community and their advocates and the forums and websites which provide them with platforms. With careers and research grants at stake it is a brave medic or researcher who is prepared, in the UK, to stick his or her head above the parapet but there a few: Dr Abhijit Chaudhuri, Dr Margaret Cook, Prof Malcolm Hooper. Given the known bias of medical journals and the reluctance of the press to carry criticism of Wessely, his colleagues and his followers it is inevitable that finding sources of evidence which both adequately expresses the depth of opposition and fulfils Wiki requirements was never going to be easy.

There are a couple of points I'd like to leave you with and I'll try to be brief (you may rightly feel that if I still have comment to make then the place to make it would be on the Wessely Discussion page, itself). Firstly, it might be "shorthand" on your part, but I don't consider it helpful to continue to use phrases like "depth of animosity" - this reduces the issue to the personal level whereas the issue is political. Please maintain the focus not on the man himself but on the opposition to his influence and that of the "Wessely School" and the perception of its downstream impact on access to medical care, social care, shaping of DWP policy and the type of tests and treatments offered to ME/CFS sufferers, whether adults or children. Is it not possible to develop a paragraph which would encompass these concepts and includes links to a selection of sources of evidence which have already been provided? I know you're not comfortable with this but I would like to see the link for the ONE CLICK article "The Psychiatric Paradigm" remain; I'd like to see the patient group/charity organisation the 25% ME Group cited as a source of evidence for opposition, likewise the MEA; Prof Hooper and also the Countess of Mar cited as prominent individuals who have (for many years) publicly expressed their opposition to Wessely and "The Wessely School" (Hansard: or does Parliamentary Privilege negate Hansard as being a reliable source?); possibly Dr Eleanor Stein as a psychiatrist who rejects the "Wessley" construct of "CFS".

Secondly, some thought needs to be given to the consideration of whether there is an agenda behind wishing to cite only ONE CLICK as a source of criticism and opposition when it is evident that opposition to Wessely and the "Wessely School" exists not only amongst the more political and vociferous ME/CFS advocates but also amongst the charities who represent the ME/CFS patient community, amongst the academic and medical community and amongst members of the House of Lords. In offering only ONE CLICK as sole source of criticism and opposition, the degree and extent of opposition may be marginalised to just this one "voice" - a "voice" which may be dismissed as being nothing more than an "extreme" view held by a very small but vocal minority; this will grossly understate and misrepresent the true extent of the opposition but perhaps this is precisely what "JFW" seeks to achieve. MEagenda 11:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is difficult for dissenting opinion to get in the medical press, but not impossible. The BMJ will shortly be publishing a review of bicycle helmet laws showing that they have failed in every case to reduce injuries, which is a giant leap for those of us who believe that the monomania for helmets is a distraction from the cause of danger, negligent driving. Dissenting opinion can usually get published somewhere, unless it genuinely is just cranks, which I don't think is the case here (although it does seem that some at least oppose psychological palliatives oin the grounds that they refuse to accept that there is any mental element whatsoever, which as a depressive I find disquieting - I am well aware of the stigma which attaches to "mental illness" despite the fact that many mental illnesses can be directly traced to chemical imbalances in the body and other "physical" causes).

One Click are a very poor example of patient activism. Personal attack is an abysmal way to get your point noted and given proper weight in a political context.

I'm sorry you don't want to continue to contribute. I think that there has been some productive dialogue, and moderate and well-informed voices are always welcome. It is, of course, your choice in the end. But do take a look around the project, there are many other subject areas which need work, and anything which counters the systemic bias towards adolescent male interests is most welcome :-) Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a danger here that you are missing the point: the "Wessely School" promulgates the theory that whilst there may be a physiological trigger for the onset of CFS that the perception of continued illness and its maintenance is due to psychological factors, faulty beliefs, "secondary gain", faulty parenting, "deconditioning" et al which can be cured by "rehabilitation programmes" using CBT and Graded Activity/Graded Exercise. CBT may be of help to some sufferers in many types of illness used as an adjunct to other treatments. The issue, here, is that these are not being offered as palliatives but as "cures". GET is known to be detrimental in many sufferers of ME and ICD CFS - it may help those suffering from "fatigue" or from "chronic fatigue" but "fatigue" and "chronic fatigue" are not ME or CFS (unless we are talking Wessley's version of CFS as per Oxford Criteria). And I'm not convinced yet that you see the difference or the implications for the ME/CFS sufferer. I have contacts whose condition has deteriorated significantly following GET programmes. There are children so severely affected by ME that they need to remain in darkened rooms, in silence and tube fed. What are the parents of some of these children told - that their children suffer from "pervasive refusal syndrome". I have adult contacts who are doubly incontinent as a result of severe ME - is CBT going to cure them? No, it is not. It is not the "stigma" of the association of CBT with mental illness which is the issue but the lack of acceptance that an underlying disease process exists and persists in the first place. But all this has been covered already by others in the (now deleted) archives. If you would like copies of any of the research papers or articles I have refered to in the last few weeks - let me know - I'll be more than happy to email them to you. I very much doubt that I would have the time to look at other Wiki stuff, I have a number of committments and I am also the carer of a young man who has lost all his adolescence to this wretched illness - whose 24/7 hyperacusis and "hang over" type headache is still so pronounced, seven years post onset, that he cannot comfortably open a packet of crisps let alone go clubbing or do any of the other stuff young men are into and so I'm a little out of touch, in any case, with adolescent male interests. MEagenda 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Ottoman Sultan/Wikipedian Vote for Montenegrin Independence

The above page was userfied from mainspace (Special:Undelete/Wikipedian_Vote_for_Montenegrin_Independence). It seems to me to be divisive and not at all helpful towards our goal of building an encyclopedia. However, I can't find any applicable speedy deletion criteria. Any comments? --kingboyk 10:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Even as a userpage it's terrifically dicey, IMHO. I see JzG popped in and asked nicely... if that doesn't work, try putting it up under WP:MfD and see what happens. I'd pop in and plunk down my two cents for you. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I was gogin to give it a day or so and then go over. As long as it's not being linked, it's not causing an immediate problem, but I don't see it has much potential for good. Just zis Guy you know? 15:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good move. Thanks for handling it. --kingboyk 16:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Becky-RE-fan

I was about to slap a warning on her, but you beat me to it! It's sad it's even been going on for as long as it has. --[[User:TonySt|Ton<FONT COLOR="#003366">[[WP:ESP|y]]</font>^{[[User_talk:TonySt|St]]}]] 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber

Hello : ) This might be of interest to you. There is a content dispute around the use of a tabloid image in the biography of a possible rape victim. Nightscream brought the case to arb comm because Tufflaw keeps removing the image. I removed the image and asked that it not be re-inserted without consensus from a large number of experienced users. Generally, I follow a 1RR and almost never remove except for clear copyright violation or libel. I won't remove it again, but will depend on like minded editor to help figure out the best course of action. I can't see any attempts at dispute resolution. I know you have some experience dealing with these matters. Hopefully this will not turn into a long drawn-out community-wide dispute. FloNight ^talk 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a copyright violation (the fair use discussions on the email list are confusing and leave me uncertain) and there is not libel, so I'm outside my usual zone for insisting something immediately stay out of an article. I think it doesn't meet WP:BLP so I went with the do no harm rule.

I think the whole article is badly named. The article is not about the person, it is about the case. Maybe it should be re-named or merged with an article about the case if it already exists. : ) FloNight ^talk 17:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind it is already encyclopaedically covered in Kobe Bryant, we do not need an article on Katelyn Faber at all. What has she ever done apart from appear as witness and plaintiff in two court cases? It's pointless celebrity-at-one-remove trivia. We ought to campaign for a change to WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not The National Enquirer. Just zis Guy you know? 17:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The image was in Kobe Bryant until I removed it! I left the same stern warning not to put it back in without consensus. : ) Instead of discussing it in both article, lets focus on getting it out of Katelyn Faber first. Then get the image deleted! Can't go back in any other articles that way. Agree about WP:NOT. No female that I know would choose that image for their article. Yet, it is exactly the type of image a tabloid uses to be provocative. --FloNight ^talk 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree up to a point: it's not our job to flatter a subject. But neither is it our job to collude in tittilation and sensastionalism, especially when that is apparently designed to bolster the reputation of another subject. Just zis Guy you know? 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ben

One more spelling issue, you have "an y" which I think should be "any" JoshuaZ 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice

Hi. I left the following message on another admin's page, and he directed me to you, saying that you had more experience in this sort of thing (edit: and it looks like you really know where your towel's at!).

Mate I'd like to make a complaint to administration against this guy's use of his user page. For a start, it is offensive to me. It contravines WP:NOT and, I'm sure, many other policies. One particular part borders on incitement. He is using his userpage as a sounding board or soapbox and is quite obviously bigoted, full of hatred, and small minded: not a person I feel that is likely to submit many NPOV edits. I appreciate the recent debates about userboxes etc, but this guy goes much further than anything in the use of userboxes that I've seen.

I am not looking to get the guy banned (although my personal opinion is that Wiki would probably be better off without him). And I would note to you that if I ever come across a user who has similar (though politically opposing) beliefs, I would be just as quick to complain about them too.

I debated in my mind as to whether to put the name of the person here, as I don't necessarily want you to get involved - I just want your help in the actual complaint process (direct me to a page or whatever). Anyway, I figured you could always delete the link later, which is: User:Fenian Swine. --Mal 12:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any advice you might have to offer me on this matter, as I've never felt the need to take action like this against another editor before. Thanks in advance, --Mal 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is tricky for me, as a Brit - User:Fenian Swine will not see any contribution I might make as being neutral. I think the best bet is to sak at WP:AN whether this violates the username policy, and whether an admin who is not British could ask him to tone down his user page bya few orders of magnitude. I'll also post this to the mailing list. Just zis Guy you know? 10:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llamacon (2nd nomination)

Good morning. You participated in the Deletion Review discussion of this page. The page was relisted on AFD. I noticed that you don't appear to have commented in the AFD discussion yet. So far, there has been scant participation and it may have to be relisted. If you feel it's appropriate, please join the conversation. Rossami (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich and check user status on his socks

I'm no expert but for a while I have suspected that Gastrich is using some kind of software or IP provider that hides his IP address. My main reason for suspecting this was that so many of the sockpuppets had no known IP"s rather than being a different IP. The following edits by Fred Bauder makes me believe that Gastrich knows full well that any check user against his socks will be inconclusive. It may also explain why he thinks he can use them with impunity despite the fact he does not hide his editing interests or cloak his syntax. Sorry to dump this on to you but you were the one that instigated the RfA so it seems appropriate to voice these concerns to you. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Above makes little sense since I was confusing Fred Bauder as being a Gastrich sock (confusion with User:FredTaylor?). Nevertheless, it is surprising that so many of his socks come up with status unknown with regard to check user. David D. (Talk) 17:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Unknown means not proven, that's all. A lot of them are meatpuppets. Just zis Guy you know? 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So there is an IP, but not one associated with Gastrich? I wonder if they all come from a similar IP range (i.e. a known anonymiser service)? I lean towards Gastrich rather than meatpuppets since I would expect meatpuppets to make; 1) more edits, 2) have some region of interest out side Gastrichs sphere (as is the case for usenetpostsdotcom (talk · contribs)). I will also point out that Uncley Davey is probably not a meatpuppet in the true sense since he has only commented in favour of Gastrich and has not actually been involved in the revert wars, unless he is also using sock puppets (he says he is not and this is my response to that claim). David D. (Talk) 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I bet they do come from one anonymiser. Arbusto 19:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge request

I think List of recognized accreditation associations of higher learning and Nationally recognized accrediting agencies should be merged together. One has a list and the other a description of the groups. Arbusto 19:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please help merge articles

In relation to the following arbitration case, which is nearing completion:

• SimonP and the King James Version

And in relation to the following completed centralised discussions:

• 200 verses of Matthew
• Verses of John 20
• Whole bible chapter text

Some assistance is requested, once the arbitration case is closed, in merging together the following articles

• Matthew 1, Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
• Matthew 2, Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23,
• Matthew 3, Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
• Matthew 4, Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
• Matthew 5, Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
• Matthew 6, Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34
• Matthew 7, Matthew 7:1, Matthew 7:2, Matthew 7:3, Matthew 7:4, Matthew 7:5, Matthew 7:6, Matthew 7:7, Matthew 7:8, Matthew 7:9, Matthew 7:10, Matthew 7:11, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 7:13, Matthew 7:14, Matthew 7:15
• John 20, John 20:1, John 20:2, John 20:3, John 20:4, John 20:5, John 20:6, John 20:7, John 20:8, John 20:9, John 20:10, John 20:11, John 20:12, John 20:13, John 20:14, John 20:15, John 20:16, John 20:17, John 20:18

And any other such articles that may currently exist

I have already prepared example merges of some of these articles

• Merge Example 1 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 1:1 to Matthew 1:17 -> should be merged to Genealogy of Jesus
• Merge Example 2 is a merge of verse articles from Matthew 3:1 to Matthew 3:17 -> should be merged to Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or similar title)

For titles check out List of New Testament stories (many are currently redlinks)

--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)