Jump to content

User talk:JzG/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:JzG

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:34, 14 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

WP:ANI#Lil Wayne Death Hoax

Another 4chan death hoax, and, despite the consensus previously reached on WP:AN, no one will block or even protect the damn page.—Kww(talk) 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:ED

Please consider pitching in here. I think you have highly relevant experience on such issues! If you have any doubts please e-mail me, slrubenstein at yahoo dot come Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for commenting, but I want to share these thoughts with you. I agree with you, but I am - with great respect - disatisfied with your posting on just two counts. First, seven as "descriptive," I think this thing can and needs to be much clearer in explaining how to identify a troll. You and I have been around long enough to smell them at a distance. As we grow exponentially many users have no clear, even some new admins, so I think we need to try to "operationalize" the concept and develop some useful diagnostics. Second, while I agree with you that trolls should be blocked or banned quickly whether this is an essay or a policy, you know full well there are some admins out there who will not only unblock the troll but threaten to block the blocking admin! I have been criticized heavily, and several times with the insinuation that I should be di-sysopped, because I called a troll a troll. The value of a clear policy is not simply that it may help people identify and block trolls. It will help protects admins who do. I hope you see I agree with you entirely, in substance. But this is also a question of tactics. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
You can't legislate Clue, I'm afraid. In some of these cases the admin will share the troll's POV, but in others it should be sufficient to give a really clear explanation of the block, which identifies the problem being solved and the issues to be resolved. And of course posting on the noticeboard for review. The debate over WP:BLP has been won largely because of a series of well-supported, carefully explained, thoughtful actions, not through the appalling mess that was the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. Civility lacks this driver; though I think standards have improved I think it's largely in spite of the Mary Whitehouse types, and the result has been tension and strife. With disruptive editing we have something which everybody agrees is a problem, but people do not always agree on exactly where on the continuum one crosses the line. For my money any single-purpose account with a history of Wikilawyering and circular argument is fair game for reining in, but as always the consensus as to what precisely constitutes disruption will be resolved at the margins over time. What I am saying is that we should be somewhat more ready to block single-purpose accounts, somewhat more ready to block editors who cause strife out of all proportion to their productivity (the ones who are on the noticeboards every week) and then pass the ball back to them: they can be unblocked when they have identified how they will resolve the issue. If they don't recognise the problem, or refuse to abide by their resolution, then there is no ambiguity. Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was one such. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Justin Marler set to auto delete

I am curious why there are no articles about Justin Marler and why articles about him are set to auto delete. I want to submit an article about him but I can't because of this. He meet all notable criteria, and is in fact notable as he was a founding member of Sleep, one of the founders of Stoner Rock music. In addition he is a published author who has had a tremendous impact on the lives of many through his writings. Adiostexas (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

S&P 400 and S&P 600

Hey JzG: I say you just deleted S&P 400 and S&P 600 under G12; I don't think they qualify, particularly since both articles had old versions with non-infringing material (a situation specifically described in the G12 procedure). Also, I don't think the creator was notified, as is also suggested in the procedure. Could I ask you to restore both articles so we can salvage the non-infringing content? Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thiel Audio

You're not supposed to delete articles without first putting a warning on it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

voices in harmony

Hi, you deleted my entry on voices in harmony, the philippine competition for blatant advertising. although, i will not be attempting to rewrite again the page in the near future i would like to inform you why your reason for removing it is not fair. i wrote about the competition because it has been existing for a decade and is considered as one of the most presitigious chorale competitions in the philippines participated by the top high school choirs. it is also supported by government institutions like the national center for the culture and the arts and national youth commission. and to add, this competition is organized by a non-profit organization. now, half of what i am writing here may not make any sense to you since you live accross the globe, but with the reasons stated above - voices in harmony deserves a place in wikipedia. The competition does not need wikipedia for adverstising since it is already well established with a ten year record with the schools and very well known filipino chorale arrangers, conductors and singers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybba82 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The article was written in promotional terms, using weasel words, with the website linked inline in the first paragraph, and lacked reliable independent sources, by a user with no prior edits. Deletion of such articles is absolutely normal, as is restoring them to user space for rewriting if people feel so inclined. It's got nothing to do with where the thing is, who is involved, what other stuff exists or anything else other than our criteria for speedy deletion exactly as stated. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)

Hi, you commented in the recent AfD for the above article. I have done some work on tidying up the article, but Mr Ross is unhappy with several aspects of present article content. There is an RS/N thread related to the article, concerning the use of self-published sources whose removal Mr Ross appears to object to, and you're invited to comment. Cheers, Jayen466 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you still following the RS/N thread? There has been some further discussion, and your input would be appreciated. Jayen466 21:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Some more discussion has occurred, would value your input. Cheers, Jayen466 14:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Steel

Hello, I am interested in creating an article on Doctor Steel, an American public entertainer who's website can be viewed at this external link: [1]. I feel I can create a worthy article from a neutral point of view which explains and highlights the entertainer's unique stage persona and notability. How can I go about getting the page unprotected? Also, what sort of things were posted earlier which caused repeated speedy deletions and protection? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Northstar42 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Go back to the toy soldiers and tell them that Operation Wikipedia failed again. Guy (Help!) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand that reference. I know his fans are called Toy Soldiers, but I am not one of them. I do feel that the subject deserves an article, at least a stub, but I'm not looking to cause any trouble. Have there been problems in the past? Could you please explain for me? Thank you. Northstar42 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the quick response. I can see that it has been deleted more than once. I am very curious to know why, exactly. I feel the subject is article worthy, as I have said, but can't imagine what people have been doing to it to warrant complete banishment from the Wikipedia project. I really don't want to be a bother, but could you clue me in to what has been going on? Is there no way that I can start a simple, neutral POV article? Thanks again for your time. Northstar42 (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • D'oh, never mind. Did more research on the deletion log and read other comments. Looks like I stepped into the middle of something. I will graciously step back out again. :) Northstar42 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry Guy, I'll sort him out 217.39.5.223 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that in the article Park Güell, could be this website as external link:

http://parkguell.net84 .net/eng/

Because it's a park from the Barcelona's Concil, and it hasn't got any official page (only for the park), they are all about Gaudí and it's works, it's not as for example "Sagrada Familia" another work of Gaudí which has a religions organization which has a website.

For this reason I'm asking administrator to say what you think. Thanks--RobCatalà (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Two administrators have already told you what we think. I'm fairly certain JZG will tell you the same thing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I will tell you the same thing :-) Guy (Help!) 21:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes one administrator, Ohnoitsjamie, and now, you too (influenced by him) but there is another administrator, Stifle, who don't think as him. For this reason I asked you to look it, as an impartial person, pleas, if you have time, could you look the article page, and the website, because this is the only process to demostrate to him that some people think that it's not as bad as he say. And I only want to add a think if you look in the Spanish wiki you will see another person who think that it's not so bad. So if you think there are two different people who think that it's good, and Ohnoitsjamie and you (that I don't know certainly but I don't know If you look it) who think that it's not useful. Thank's--RobCatalà (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I already looked. The answer is that I do not think it is a good source, not good enough to overcome past issues anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't answer. (I won't delete it, but as I've done it)--RobCatalà (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Shouldn't an exception be made in certain instances where information from a blog would illuminate something about the subject? For example, the blog of someone working at a politicians office - you are saying that we would not be able to use that info? In this case, I was using comments made by someone who is part of the executive committee of Citizens for a Canadian Republic about another member of that committee, and also his views about merging Canada with the US. I would think that would be significant.

Asking for reliable 3rd-party sources about this group and its internal workings is next to impossible because it is a totally insignificant entity that is ignored by the media except for a few protests and 3 lawsuits made by 3 of their members (and not on behalf of the group). So blogs are really the only way we can find out what on earth is going within the organization itself.

I wouldn't have even bother trying to add the information in the first place but it looks obvious that the article will be kept again due to "no consensus" which is ridiculous because all the sources out there say the same thing, and all those sources get 99.9% of their material from the organization itself. It isn't notable enough in Canadian politics to warrant an article (like the website [2]) and yet the existence of the article and the way it is described trumps it up as if Canadian republicanism is some kind of force in political circles like Republicanism in Australia or the Quebec sovereignty movement. Laval (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy, I see you commented on this situation; could you please look over the contributions of both this editor and User:Freshacconci with regards to their actions towards one another? I'm having a cranky afternoon, and the block button is looking really tempting right now. I'd appreciate an independent view. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barresi full-protection

Hi, is this full-protection still necessary? It's been protected since April. Have the GFDL issues been worked out yet?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Advocacy

Something like this might be helpful: Wikipedia:Advocacy. Jehochman Talk 18:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Cold fusion is going to arbitration. You have been mentioned, so you'll probably want to enter a statement at WP:RFAR. Regards, Jehochman Talk 15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

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:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy, there are a few typos in your evidence ("her ein", and another right after). Normally I fix any typos I see, but that big do not edit is scaring me, so I just thought I'd point them out :) Thanks for your input there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A couple of other unfortunate ones in the missionary section: "off" (should read "of"), "has on effective" (should read "has no effective"). Cheers-LeadSongDog (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone should always feel free to correct my crap typing. I ahve bone-deep burn scars on the fingers of my left hand, and that means that although my spelling is unusually good and my vocabulary extensive, I cannot type to save my life. Bah. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ouch! Feel free to call on me for copyediting any time. I just copyedited the current version of your evidence at Arbcom and stored it at User:Dank55/Sandbox/2; feel free to upload it there if you like. I'm not sure how medieval the Arbcom clerk is going to get if I try to edit your stuff on that page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a significant problem other than for typing, and the fact that the scar tissue occasionally splits due to being inflexible, which is painful. Thanks for the offer of help, though :-) Guy (Help!) 19:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Link?

Jehochman's assertion that "most scientists" amounts to unverifiable WP:WEASEL words is objectively false in this case

When and where did I say that, and how many drink had I had? Jehochman Talk 22:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Best summary of problem I've ever seen

Your submission at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence – though apt to be refactored for length reasons (booooo!) – is undoubtedly one of the clearest and most thorough expositions of the problem of civil POV-pushing I have ever seen. Bravo! I hope it makes a dent an impression — the ArbCom needs to forcefully acknowledged that the persistent insertion of bad content isn't a content issue but a behavioural issue, and well within their remit. My fingers are crossed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is bugging me

To start: thanks, Guy, for your summary at Arbcom, which is quite good. But I want to talk about your comment at the GAR review for Cold fusion, where you said that the article should never have been promoted (in May, by me), and you hinted at this in your Arbcom comments. Olorinish said something similar at GAR, so I've invited him over here to discuss it. Thanks, Olorinish, for your very helpful participation in the GA review during May. Guy, Olorinish and I had this exchange today at the GAR:

My memory is not rusty at all, Dank55. This article had a messy mediation and one dissenter to Good Article status (me), which should have been enough reason to delay Good Article status. Similarly, it should be delisted now due to the ongoing disagreements. Olorinish (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. My sense is that no one here is blaming me for the way things turned out with the article ... please correct me if I'm wrong. Certainly, everyone who expressed an opinion at that time ... including Olorinish (209.253), Seicer the mediator, and Pcarbonn ... thought I had done an excellent job. As I said at the time, Olorinish, your input was very helpful all during the review. But it's bugging me a bit that JzG/Guy is implying in his Arbcom statements and you're implying here that I ignored an active controversy and passed the article over objections. I've re-read the whole archive, and I'd love to talk about it, but it's not relevant to the current List/Delist question (that I can see). I'll meet you guys over at User_talk:JzG. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I've searched the whole Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_15 (which contains the entire review, from May 18 to May 28), searched for "209.2", and I see no hint that you were requesting that I not grant Good Article status. Am I missing something? And I was the primary person making the skeptical case during the review ... despite the fact that I was leaving messages on talk pages of the people who participated in the mediation, trying to get more participation from skeptics ... so I don't know who it was that I was supposedly ignoring when I promoted the article. You said, Olorinish, in that archive on 28 Apr "I think the article is pretty good right now", and at the wikilink above, you said that the article had improved as a result of my participation.

So. What ongoing objections did I ignore when I passed the article? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, between May 18 and May 28 I did write this [3] and this [4]. Olorinish (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying you or anyone else did anything wrong individually, the problem is a systemic failure. The article was hijacked yb single-issue obsessives who drove away just about everybody else, leaving an impression that theirs was a consensus position whereas actually it was just that nobody else had the energy to fight them any more. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
That was what I thought was probably going on at the time. However, as the GAN reviewer, it wasn't my job to figure out why only Olorinish was showing up on the skeptic side and why the article was stable ... only to note that they weren't and it was, and it continued to be stable enough through the early morning of 28 May to merit GA. (Pierre was relatively well-behaved during the review, but he pissed me off when he changed the lead within 24 hours of promoting the article to change the tone completely.)
Saying at GAR that the article "should never have been GA listed in the first place" sounds to me like a claim that the article reviewer screwed up, not a systemic failure, although I don't know how others are hearing it. I don't mind people disagreeing with my opinion at all, but if you're going to do it, I'd prefer you do it at the time rather than 6 months later when our memories are hazy, and I'd prefer you bring it up with me first rather than bringing it up at GAR and with Arbcom first. Olorinish directly says that I screwed up. Olorinish, there's a weird bug here that I don't understand; when I search Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_15 for "209.2", I don't pick up your comment "I feel very strongly that this article does not fit the definition [of GA]"; I have to search the edit window to find it. So, I missed that. But note that I hadn't even finished reading the background material at that point; virtually all of the work was done after that comment, and since you made several comments during the review that didn't express dissatisfaction with the article as a whole, I thought we were good to go. At the time I passed it, the article reflected, as far as I could tell, the mediation from April and the comments and edits that had been made during the GAN review. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Now I do hit the "I feel very strongly" comment on a search; I'm positive that the search failed last night and this morning. I have no explanation for that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not wait six months to say that the article should not have Good Article status. Just after it was done I wrote this [5] and [6], and I also warned of very serious problems with the article [7]. Olorinish (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Olorinish ... yes I know, I meant that for Guy. I completely agreed with you, and I brought it up at the time, right after pcarbonn changed the lead on the day that I promoted the article, at Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_16#Regarding last night's changes: "The question is, will Wikipedia ever be a good place for people to come for information on Cold fusion? Until today, I was hopeful that the answer was "yes", but I don't know the answer now. Pierre/Pcarbonn and I were the only two editors who were looking at this article very carefully, sentence by sentence and ref by ref, during the WP:GAN, and now he's saying that he's fine with shifting the lead". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding that last quote, Guy makes an excellent case at Arbcom that, for purposes of what's best for Wikipedia, it's flat wrong to say that "cold fusion is undecided". Given the mediation, the comments and edits during the GAN review, and the wording and interpretation of WP:NPOV then and now, that was the right approach at the time. It's high time for a clear shift along the lines that Guy is advocating. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation privilege

Guy, can I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Mediation#The privileged nature of mediation, a part of the mediation policy mirrored by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing: "Due to the privileged nature of mediation, editors' behavior and comments during official mediation attempts may not be used against them in any resulting Arbitration case"? I have redacted a part of your evidence in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion where you specifically direct people to a part of the mediation that occurred on that topic [8]. Please respect the fact that people agree to mediate and conduct themselves during a mediation on the understanding that what they say will not be used against them in later proceedings. Your evidence should be confined to comments that were made outside of the RfM. WJBscribe (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Every single word of that was released under GFDL. It is all visible to admins. Privilege would apply to any private communications, and it's fine to delete material rather than have it pollute Google and shed heat for ever, but here we are discussing, in detail, a problem in which a mediation case was a pivotal point, in that instead of fixing the problem it both enabled a tendentious editor and delivered an article that was measurably less neutral than the one it replaced. As such, the mediation absolutely must fall under the scrutiny of this arbitration. That is not about beating Pcarbonn up, there are hundreds of diffs direct from the article for that purpose and most of what I have said is probably redundant to much more succinct evidence: Pcarbonn is a missionary, and that is proven beyond reasonable doubt; it doesn't mean he's evil, just that we as a community should not bend over backwards to accommodate him. The problem is that we did exactly that. We allowed him to use synthesis form primary sources to whittle away the mainstream view demonstrable from numerous high profile secondary sources. Mediation is one of the community process that fell flat on its arse here, and that needs to be investigated. Not the behaviour of the POV-pushers in the mediation, which is well established from other venues, but the fact that mediation delivered measurably worse content, actively violating policy, and in the process handed the article on a plate to a single-issue POV-pusher. Wikipedia will never be free of POV-pushers and missionaries, what it should be free of is bias. In this case the processes designed to eliminate bias and enforce policy did the opposite. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Mediation will sometimes not be able to reach the optimal outcome. In particular, mediation is aimed at reaching a compromise between parties to the mediation. It is not a part of the dispute resolution process that will assist in all instances - for example if you believe that the views of one party are "totally wrong", then mediation won't help as that party is unlikely to throw their hands up and agree to a final version that in no way resembles what they are trying to achieve. Mediators are not meant to pick sides, or favour particular bits of proposed content, their goal is to help the parties agree on the issues as between themselves. Mediation is not designed to "enforce policy", but to build consensus between the parties who have agreed to be part of a mediation. I am sorry you do not think mediation helped in this case, but I think you need to give thought as to whether mediation could ever have delivered the result you seem to think necessary. In any event, mediation privilege is something that forms part of the relevant Wikipedia policies and you agreed to be part of a formal mediation on these terms. The issue is not one of copyright, but simply that statements used in the course of an RfM cannot be cited in arbitration cases. WJBscribe (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
In this case it was a compromise between original research based on primary sources, and secondary sources. That is a significant failing. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
To confirm - I, personally, would not usually use statements made in the actual course of a formal mediation process (including a formal request for mediation), in other parts of dispute resolution. The value of mediation is that users can feel safe to admit things, explore things, and feel it won't be held against them in future if they do. That's worth a lot for dispute resolution, even if it doesn't always help with some cases. The principle is strongly held. There are circumstances it wouldn't hold (seriosuly bad faith, abuse, harassment/threats, are some examples), but if those exist then the mediation committee would be more than able to say if they feel the bounds of mediation were pushed that badly, if some user asks them for an opinion, and I would be extremely wary of accepting evidence where medcom had said they're happy for it to be privileged. If medcom felt there was an issue, they would be fine to post a formal comment as one of the statements, which would carry weight, and would surely be willing to have a user make the case to them, that they should do so (and accept or reject it). FT2 (Talk | email) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Then I would like you to ask them, please. I feel that in this case the mediation delivered a very bad result for the encyclopaedia, in that it resulted in serious failures of content policy while bolstering an individual who has very obviously come here for purposes of inappropriate advocacy. I don't think this is necessarily Seicer's fault, but something went very badly wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Schwartz PR

I have restored this page User:Schwartz PR because it is specifically authorized by WMF Office. For documentation, see meta:Role account. If you have concerns about the page, it would be best to address them to Cary Bass. I am sure he will be quick to remedy any problems. Thank you for your understanding. Jehochman Talk 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cough

Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, You deleted "infringing content" from the articles S&P 600 and S&P 400 [9]—these were lists of the components of the indices. You referred to the infringement as "blatant", and I'd like to ask if you have this on good authority. There are a number of other "lists of companies in stock market indices" here; are they to be treated similarly? Are we not to list the 30 components of the DJIA? I ask because I would like to see this issue addressed consistently among all articles of this type. Can you provide any background on what is and what is not "blatant infringement"? Thanks, –Outriggr § 02:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • It depends how they are created and what the selection criteria are. But it's better in any case to leave the listings to the company websites, since they are always up to date. An out of date mirror of a list which is available direct form the source is a poor use of server resources. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's funny 'cause it's true...

This brought a smile to my face.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember to sign comments.

You forgot to sign your Barnstar on User talk:Beetstra. ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hello! Your submission of Lucie Skeaping at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Skeaping + others

Hi, I've seen you've crafted a very nice article on Lucy Skeaping. Do you think you can apply the same treatment to the inimitable Sean Rafferty of the "In Tune" (Radio 3) fame, or do you think he's just not famous or important enough to be included in Wikipedia? Your input is appreciated. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Input

Hi JzG!

I thought that since you are already familiar with this particular user from Talk:Franz Liszt, I feel it necessary to point out a few of their recent edits, see [10] ; [11] ; [12] . I have a serious issue with a person going around and changing biographical information to suit their own predispositions (POV’s) or nationalistic views. From the very inception of this user account, this user’s purpose has been exactly this (in fact, if there’s any doubt to user’s mission, see the user page <– to me such “grand” ideas are very dangerous). Unfortunately this user has what seems very much like only one purpose in mind: edits directed against one particular nationality. It is one thing to improve articles relating to your own nationality but something entirely different to direct one’s time at depriving another nationality of its identity and inciting nationalistic-based edit wars (see here, somewhat reminiscent but, in fact, more disturbing than the Liszt talk page). To me, all of this just doesn’t seem to be constructive and, in fact, seems very disruptive of Wikipedia. On a lesser note, I should also point out potential sockpuppeting by this user ([13]). I have been an active editor for almost three years now and this is one of the most disturbing cases that I have come across. It would be a great shame if Wikipedia had no mechanisms to weed out such disruptive edits/editors. I do appreciate very much and look forward to your input. Best Regards, aNubiSIII (T / C) 04:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anubis3, I see that you have no idea what is going on here. I recommend to check the edits of some users (Squash Racket, Hobartimus, Baxter9, Nmate...), their discussion pages, their user pages (especially user:Baxter9. Hope you see that they are focused to only Hungarian and Slovak articles and mostly to nationality issues. They check it very carefully and want to make a feeling that everyone was Hungarian. This is all from me. I could also give you the examples how they delete the references that are other than Hungarian. --Wizzard (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S: an IP address may be a sock puppet? --Wizzard (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time User:Wizzard mentions my name despite a number of editors clearly complaining about his behavior, not about mine. I won't repeat my answer, you can find it here.
Hmm... and yes, feel free to check my edits if you wish. Squash Racket (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are not the biggest problem here, but I remember your edits to article Kingdom of Hungary. Now that article is quite good, but it was a problem to reach this standard. --Wizzard (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
After a number of editors have complained about your edits recently, your evaluation of who is problematic and who is not seems to be not very relevant now.
Would you be more specific regarding my edits at the article Kingdom of Hungary? Or this is the next false accusation? Squash Racket (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You remember, the date of existence. But do not spam this JzG discussion, please.--Wizzard (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
And if you want to discredit me, please show me my first "false accusation". But rather via ICQ, Skype, do not ballast other users, they have more important work to do. --Wizzard (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You started making false accusations (again) on someone else's talk page, not me. By "specific" we usually mean diffs.
Here is your first false accusation. Squash Racket (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that is NOT any false accusation. --Wizzard (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You forgot to provide diffs there too. Squash Racket (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Cough

I think that the currency is proven now. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Pierre

Hey, thanks for the backup on this issue. You're right, I tend to be a little nicer than really necessary when dealing with obvious problems like this one. Unfortunately, as I noted on the AN report, blocking Pierre's named accounts is more symbolic than anything. I've left a note on Thatcher's talk page asking for some guidance on how best to organize a checkuser request to determine whether we can rangeblock his favourite IP blocks; hopefully, Thatcher can take some time away from the current zOMGDRAMA to check that out for me and let me know if that's possible. If not, I'm fairly sure I can get him dealt with by his ISP through an abuse report. For now, it's whack-a-mole time. I'm getting tired of being called a conservative, if nothing else... Tony Fox (arf!) 23:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that once the main account is blocked, it should be easier to block the sockpuppets as evading the block - that is a bright-line rule, after all. His edits are, by the looks of it, fairly easy to spot. Well done for being patient, kind, thorough and un-BOFHly about it. The result is that when it came up for debate, it was, in my view anyway, a slam-dunk. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for McColo

Updated DYK query On 29 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article McColo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG/Archive_37&oldid=1087751325"