User talk:JzG/Archive 24

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User Talk:JzG/Archive-Sep. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

I have moved house, am doing masses of real-life type stuff and will be below normal wiki-activity levels for a while.

Evolutionary musicology merger

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musilanguage

I'm happy to do the merger, by the way. Uncle G 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Robertson article

Tyro nominated Chris Robertson for deletion and it was then speedy userfied by you (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Robertson). I was the orignial creator of the Chris Robertson article - and the article I wrote was about the sqaush player Chris Robertson, a former professional player who was once the world junior champion and ranked No. 3 in the world. I suspect that what happened is that Urbanaddict then changed the article to one about a different Chris Robertson (who may well be himself). I've now recreated the Chris Robertson article in a similar format to when I orginally wrote it. I think it should stay as the squash player is, in my opinion, encyclopedicly notable. But the page may need monitoring to stop Urbanaddict tinkering with it. Zaxem 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no deadline

I am proposing a merging with this article and WP:GREAT due to the similarity in content. Agree? Please reply on my talk page.

RFA thanks

File:IMG 3666border cropped.jpg

Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs[reply]

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I just came across the Arbcom case concerning ParalelUni and I would like to offer you my support. Comments like the ones he made have no place in Wikipedia, or in real life and I hope his ban will be endorsed by the Arbcom. Anyway, I hope this won't stop you from editing. If you ever need any help to get through a rough patch let me know. I'd be happy to share my recent Esperanza-ness with you. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries

What are these two countries?? Georgia guy 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies

Crazy nut is talking about his lawyer and adding uncited things about this accreditation mill.[1] And while this person is trying to pass off this accreditation mill as real, see what he did at the criticism of alternative medicine.[2]

Mitch Modeleski

There has been no activity on the talk page for over a month, and there's little precedant for keeping articles protected indefinitely without WP:OFFICE action. I'm tempted to unprotect, but I'll wait another week or so. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More fake med schools on wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/UHSA The purportents of this seem to be role accounts.

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia.

With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you.

(Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp ^laudare 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Your thoughts welcome. Arbusto 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual erasure

Do you have any evidence of its being "commonly used"? The very low unique Google count indicates otherwise.
When will you learn? People don't need to provide evidence for stuff like this. They just know what they're saying is fact. -- Steel 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

Possible merge of Henry Willis and Henry Willis & Sons; also possible merge of Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell and Organ of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell. Both subjects indivisible and ocntain significant redundancy. Guy 14:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ChoralWiki

I fixed your request on Template:ChoralWiki just to let you know. —Jared Hunt September 10, 2006, 20:17 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks. Guy 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki on a Stick

I wrote this article since I think the concept of wiki on a flash drive deserves to be widely known. I have nothing to do with development or promotion of this software. In my view wikipedia has a lot of articles about far less useful software, but that’s only my opinion which is not enough to suggest article deletion. I checked wikipedia policies and didn’t find anything obvious that this article violates. Please compare this article with others listed here List_of_wiki_software#Desktop and here List_of_portable_software#Wikis. I'm really confused why this article deserves deletion while say MyWiki is OK to keep. Please clarify the reasons for deletion. Thanks Abune 11 September 2006

Wikipedia does no, I'm afraid, exist to promote thngs which deserve to be known, but to document that which already is known. Wikinfo may be the place you are looking for? Guy 08:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words on LBU Entry

Come and see the weasel words on the LBU entry. Your input is needed. - JD

Bazzajf

About the stalking allegation, he's reminding me of someone. I may try and get a checkuser request performed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you, JzG, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wpittman

The first thing he did was apparently create an article about himself, then he created an article about his unaccredited Bible college alma mater by copying promotional text from the website. I left a non-newbie-biting message on his talk page, but it's a just-slightly alarming pattern. So, you know, have your mop ready, just in case. A.J.A. 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Hi, I gave some more examples as requested. Thanks. -- Ekantik 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hey Guy!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Avoiding critical mass

Hello Guy. I'm Joel from Wikia. I do not edit articles here, but I am very interested in the process as it relates to the collaborations at my site. Several of my fellow Wikians and I have created a project to investigate the critical mass of vandalism at Wikipedia in order to avoid it on our pages. To aid us, we are asking several dozen administrators about their blocking and support of blocking decisions in regard to other editors who have significant positive contributions and who are acting in good faith. My question for you involves a decision to support SlimVirgin's indefinite block of User:Xosa and decline the unblock request that he made on User talk:Xosa2 after SlimVirgin locked the User talk:Xosa page. In this case, an indefinite block was created by an administrator who was involved in a content dispute. Do you feel that your support of this block moves Wikipedia toward or away from critical mass? --24.10.172.236 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion either way. I looked at the block of Xosa2; the account was clearly created to evade a block. A block of Xosa2 allows for debate to continue on that Talk page, but not for the user to edit. The editor is in dialogue with SV and others, I am choosing to accept two findamental premises here: first, that SV knows what she's doing and is prepared to be open-minded about the possibility of an error; and second, that Zephram Stark is indeed a serial vandal who should be excluded from the project. If I am wrong in either of these assumptions I would like to know about it.

One thing I would say: Wikipedia has now achieved a critical mass in another sense. It is now big and significant enough that it is a primary target for people aggressively promoting fringe theories, and for the vainglorious vandal. It is probably the prime attraction for both classes of people. That fundamentally changes the dynamic, I think. I was very taken with William Pietri's comments, which I worked into an essay at WP:TIGERS. Sometimes you have to keep the tiger on a chain, other times you have to shoot it. Guy 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Tigers is a very interesting premise. I’m sure most people, vandals and administrators alike, agree with it. The only dispute would be over which editors constitute the tigers. At Wikia, we assume a premise that there is a little bit of tiger in all of us. As such, we need to be aware that all “truths” are opinions. WP:Tigers says it best with it’s quote from WikiEN-I:

You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.

I think that quote can apply to anyone who adopts “the truth” of another person just because she is established. Avoiding critical mass, something we have been able to achieve so far at Wikia, is primarily a function of assuming good faith. In the context of assuming good faith in Xosa, everything he has done is for the betterment of Wikipedia. Since Xosa has broken no policies or guidelines, it takes assuming bad faith in Xosa to think that his obviously positive contributions might have an ulterior motive. For SlimVirgin, however, we don’t have to assume bad faith to see that she has permanently banned an editor with whom she was having a content dispute.

Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback on my question. You have shed much light on the reason Wikipedia is having so many problems with vandals. --24.10.172.236 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, SV blocked a sockpuppet of an already banned user. Maybe she should have asked someone else to do the needful, but there is credible evidence that this was indeed an abusive sockpuppet and thus a righteous block. But I have found this exchange illuminating, thank you. Guy 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a righteous block and it might not be. Observers only see that SlimVirgin has broken policy, and the person she effectively banned has not. Anything else, we can only assume on faith. Are we to presuppose that everything SlimVirgin does is righteous? This goes against the Wiki concept of peer review. In fact, the only neutral conclusion that observers can reach in this matter is that they better never disagree with SlimVirgin. If that is what Wikipedia is trying to portray, why have open editing at all? --24.10.172.236 22:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one, though. If an admin is an active editor on an article and a sockpuppet of a banned user appears to insert POV for in a manner for which they were banned (which is what I understand happened here), then it is not unreaosnable for them to block, but in such circumstances openness is important and posting on WP:ANI is clearly a good idea. I've been beaten up for this before myself, in the case of egregious violation of WP:LIVING; in that case I was very much convinced of the validity of the actions because defamatory content was being added to an article on a serial litigant. If you want to take it further I can't stop you, but I don't see this as a big deal. Maybe I'm wrong, the identity of the user means I really don't care sufficiently to get wound up by it. Guy 22:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in fixing Wikipedia in the slightest. However, the ramifications of letting the same type of self-reinforcing vandalism movement happen at Wikia are repugnant to me. I desperately want to get to the bottom of it. People are naturally going to rebel against authorities that make secret judgments that appear to only serve their personal interests. Secret judgments are naturally going to increase in a system that allows them, especially when vandalism is growing. So my root query is: why does the system allow them? How did Wikipedia go from being a peer review environment to one of grunts and incontestable authorities? How can we keep the same thing from happening at Wikia? --24.10.172.236 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy, I've not seen any plausible evidence that User:Xosa is a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. As such it is undeniably bad form for SlimVirgin to be blocking him when she's involved with a discussion over a content dispute with him (or her for that matter). (→Netscott) 05:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First up, I don't see Wikia as being particularly likely to suffer the same problems. It's not as popular or as widely discussed, it doen't have the policies regarding original research and neutrality which underly most of the really vicious content disputes, and it doesn't appear to encourage schoolchildren to replace images in Wiki templates with penis.jpg. It's less of a target. In reply to Netscott, the diagnosis was, according to SV, supported by one of the original arbitrators in the Zephram Stark case. They know more about that than I do. Guy 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough vandals to try a random test on the effectiveness of different approaches. I suspect some new users come here with only a mild inclination to be vandals. There are only so many times adding a swear word to an article can be interesting. This is magnified by the negative reaction they receive at the start. Stephen B Streater 08:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem stems from the fact that people who aren't vandals are being accused of being vandals in order to control content. Take Xosa, for instance. His contributions clearly show a shyness about contributing unless everyone is in agreement. There isn't anything in his edits that could remotely be considered vandalism. He appeared to spend most of his time making suggestions on the talk pages, changing articles only when everyone agreed. Xosa didn't make a single edit to the article where he had a content dispute with SlimVirgin. He only made suggestions on the talk page. His suggestions seemed to be centered on parts of the article that he thought were better suited to another article. Looking through the 7 pages of archives and 2 pages of mediation arguments, we find that the same dispute has come up many times. I can understand how SlimVirgin might be tempted to simply accuse Xosa of being a sockpuppet instead of going through all that again, but I believe her actions have much broader implications for the vandalism movement in general. While it appears that Xosa has quietly slipped away, other people might take extreme offense at being called a sockpuppet or a vandal with no viable recourse. After all, how would one prove that he isn't a sockpuppet or vandal when there is no evidence that he is in the first place? Instead of falsely accusing contributors in order to avoid rehash a common dispute, this problem could be solved by creating a Frequently Addressed Disputes page summarizing and citing common issues with a delicate article. --24.10.172.236 03:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Talk:Roman Catholic Church you will see that frequently addressed disputes will be dragged up frequently until the people with very strong opinions get their own way. Some people are absolutely intent on righting great wrongs, User:WikiWoo being an example. There is no way we can accommodate that within policy, nor should we aim to. User:Xosa engaged in behaviour which caused SV to diagnose it as a sock of Zephram Stark; this was backed up by a member of ArbCom; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark applies - the problem here was tendentious editing, not vandalism. Incidentally, I don't see any credible evidence of the supposed use of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute in the case of Xosa, so perhaps you could provide diffs.

There are users who are falsely accused of vandalism. My Talk archives will show that several POV pushers have accused me of vandalism in the past for removing their biased edits. Can you cite diff evidence of admins falsley accusing users of vandalism? Guy 08:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite diff evidence of hundreds of cases already and I am still continuing my investigation. I intend to post it at Wikia and at Meta when I'm finished. I would be happy to post a copy of it here as well. However, you may not find it very flattering. I use your actions as an example of how Wikipedia has failed to avoid critical mass. There are "tigers" in the administration and they are quite easy to spot. They are the ones that ban editors with whom they disagree and get their friends to back them up with secret evidence. But that's not where Wikipedia fails. Wikipedia fails when the administrators looking for tigers turn a blind eye when its one of their own, or actually accentuate the malfeasance by denying an unblock request based on technicalities. --24.10.172.236 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Seriously, if all your examples turn out to be trolls as disruptive as Zephram Stark then I'll not be too worried. I think you have failed to allow for the extent to which Wikipedia is now a magnet for every fringe theorist, vainglorious opinionated idiot and troll on the Internet. The higher our profile gets, the more we're going to have to fight off determined, intelligent and extremely persistent people who have an agenda to hijack parts of the project for their own ends. Blaming the janitors for the tiger shit is missing the point somewhat. Guy 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guy, for the time you have taken to answer our questions. My name is Virginia and I have been heading up the task force to research the causes of vandalism at Wikipedia. You have been more forthcoming than most. The Wikia members involved with this project and I appreciate that very much. We are in the process of compiling our results. We will provide you with a copy of the report when we are finished in a day or so. Thank you again for your time and honest opinion. --Virginia from Herndon, Virginia 24.106.36.98 18:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Whitlock Porter

What's your point in deleting and blocking CWP article? As an adminstrator you have, I believe, an obligation to act responsibly and explain yourself. You are not the only person on the planet whose opinion merits credibility. Proskauer 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for butting in, but I was dropping by to see if Guy had responded to a question above. If you look at the delete log you'll see that the page has been deleted by three different administrators. If you think the page merits inclusion, you should start by assuming good faith in your discussions with fellow Wikipedians; civility is the fastest way to get things done here. For a biography, you should gather citations for reliable sources that have enough verifiable information that we can write a biography, one that complies with our policy for biographies on living persons and hopefully with our notability guidelines for biographies as well. You may want to present this information at deletion review, so that you get a number of perspectives at once. And as you read these documents, make sure you follow the spirit rather than arguing the letter; to do otherwise is not appreciated here. Thanks, William Pietri 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Good faith" would include a discussion by adminstrators doing the deleting. I have now seen the record you mention and find only terse remarks. This is not "good faith" discussion. As far as the merits of the article are concerned, it's all relative. Proskauer 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking into this one, I saw no assetion in the article that this is a notable person per WP:BIO and saw that two other admins had come to the same conclusion. Feel free to take it to deletion review. I also looked in detail at many of your contributions. They leave a nasty taste in the mouth. You appear to admire some extremely unpleasant people, and promote some exceptionally vile ideas. Guy 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that other people are not acting in good faith because they aren't doing what you think they should is not assuming good faith; it's just the opposite. If good faith were immediately obvious based on somebody's actions, we wouldn't need to make assuming good faith part of the core of this enterprise. Perhaps you could try it out for a while and see?

As to the merits of the article, that a standard is relative (and I don't think WP:V particularly is) does not mean that you don't have to do the legwork to meet it. If your goal is actually get the article back, you'll need to show that it lives up to the policies and guidelines I mentioned. If you fail to do that, people will suspect that you are here for some other purpose than building a good encyclopedia. William Pietri 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I don't care about the bad taste in your mouth. And the fact that two other administrators agree on the issue is absolutely irrelevant, in my book. The article had just begun, and I see many other stubs that are not deleted. POV and double standard. Proskauer 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that other articles of questionable significance exist therefore this article of questionable significance must exist, has never been persuasive. Neither has accusing admins of bias, strange to relate. Take it to DRV if you like. Guy 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I let my interlocutors have the last word, if only to give them the sense of having won the debate whilst others have the chance of reading the discussion. In this case I have one word for you: "What-everrrr...." Proskauer 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If William Pietri believes that to have good faith one must assume it in others, then what about the editors who peremptorily deleted the article because they found it to be distasteful. Were they assuming good faith in me? There are thousands of wiki articles on two-bit, third-rate actors, writers, and various other players on the world stage, which remain unmolested. THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED AND BLOCKED BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER. Claiming anything else is hypocrisy. In any case, it is sheer idiocy to talk about whether an argument is "persuasive", as Guy does. Administrators have the POWER here and I do not. Power does not equate with quality of intellect or consistency of principle. It never has and never will. And, by the way, this whole thing is pretty much par for the course on Wikipedia. Proskauer 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've looked into your claims and find them to be without apparent merit. I agree that people are more likely to delete bad articles that they don't like than ones they do. This, however, is a volunteer effort, one staffed with people, not saints or robots. If you would like to put in the time deleting those articles you think unworthy, then please do it. But absent that, inclusion is not an indicator of notability. We already have a number of articles on notable holocaust deniers; see Holocaust_denial#Notable_Holocaust_deniers_and_revisionists. I've looked for evidence that Carlos Whitlock Porter is notable under the appropriate standard and found nothing. If you have some so that we can construct an article with facts verifiable from reliable sources, then post them here. If not, I (and likely all the other serious editors) will continue with my belief that he's in the 99.99% of humanity that don't qualify for an encyclopedia article. William Pietri 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi. I've looked into your claims and find them to be without apparent merit." This is fairly typical of the narcissistic rants found among exalted wiki administrators and editors. Utter claptrap. It purports to be a serious discussion but has as much substance as a cupful of deep outerspace. "Without merit" is legalese. Are you a lawyer? Have you been abused by too many judges or senior partners? I'm not interested in deleting articles, but apparently you are. Proskauer 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, calls may be monitored for training purposes. The grounds for deletion are as stated: no assertion of encyclopaedic notability per WP:BIO. Feel free to work up a new version in your user space, including references from reliable secondary sources to allow others to verify the neutrality of the article. Alternatively if you feel you are being hard done by you can go to deletion review, dispute resolution, the administrators' noticeboard, or, as far as I am personally concerned, hell, because personal attacks from people who have failed to get their way are as unpersuasiveas they are common. And that, I think, concludes our little chat; I'm off to delete some articles. Guy 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm still wondering what your stake is in this deal and why you found it imperative to cut the article. Certainly, currying favor with your American counterparts will earn you some badges. Or is the Holocaust a particular interest of yours? I'll admit that CW Porter is a minor figure in the vast panoply of Holocaust revionists. Did you know that Dr. Johann Paul Kremer recanted his testimony about Auschwitz once he got out of Soviet-Communist controlled Polish prisons, back into Deutschland? I know, I know, these are all minor irrelevancies in the gigantic scheme of the Holocaust. But just humor me for a moment and "consider the possibilities" as Woody Allen's pal in Annie Hall once said about a pair of vixenish twins. Proskauer 06:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn that around shall we? I'm wondering what your stake is in this deal and why you find it imperative to recreate the article on what you freely admit is a minor holocaust denier - it was, after all, deleted three times by three different admins. I outlined your options above, I don't believe that imputing motives - while ignoring the rationale I gave you more than once - was on the list. Guy 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, you are answering a question with a question, and you are repeating your original argument, which I stated I didn't agree with and that I think it has to do with power rather than any rationale. However, in answer to your second question first, I find it imperative to have the same rights that other people enjoy, to wit, free speech. If three people with a shared agenda can get together to shut down my right to free speech on no more basis than taste and opinion, then I have suffered a loss and defeat of sorts. As to why I care about the Holocaust, perhaps it is something inborn in me that when I see untruths being touted and expounded as history, I feel the need to question the record and point out the discrepancies.

For the record, you are not in a position of outlining my options. You are not an authority over me and it is offensive for you and others to suggest so. Proskauer 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out that you appear to be interpreting your own bias as neutrality, accusing three admins of gross bias as a result, with no evidence to support that claim, and not listening to anything you don't want to hear. You also appear to share a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia: it is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. Your rights in Wikipedia are limited to the right to fork and the right to leave. You have no other enforceable rights, this is a matter of simple fact. Your assertion that conventional wisdom on the holocaust amounts to untruths is a classic case of tendentious editing; Wikipedia does not exist to Right Great Wrongs, it exists to reflect what is known form reliable secondary sources, in neutral terms, without giving undue weight to fringe theories. Your options at this point are: deletion review, dispute resolution, or go away. Contrary to your assertion, I am in a position to enforce these options by blocking you from editing, just as I prevented you from re-creating an article which several individuals had agreed made no claim of significance for its subject. This, also, is a simple statement of fact. Now, if you would be so good as to pick one of the three options above, we can all get on with writing an encyclopaedia. Guy 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listening, believe me I'm listening. Can you block me from ALL editing, or just editing here on your space? I'm genuinely curious, since I don't know. Can you block my entire address, or just this incarnation thereof? Do you have to go to a higher authority, some guy in Tennessee or in the Silicon Valley? Jimbo himself? Anyway, Wikipedia, like all egalitarian efforts, is quickly becoming an oligarchy (see Animal Farm) and again I'm not surprised. What I am is concerned and possibly disappointed because I earnestly hope that products of the British educational system such as you will maintain an objective and critical viewpoint, since most Americans are incapable of doing it. As far as evidence, ain't no evidence here, bro, ain't no evidence anywhere where the Holocaust is concerned, ain't nobody here but us chickens. (That's cultural reference which I don't expect you to get.) I don't see you offering evidence. Oh, I forgot ... you're an editor, you are under no obligations to adhere to any strictures with regard to reality outside of Wikipedia itself. "Fringe theories": ah yes, Galileo and the like. Rest calmly, good sir, Wikipedia will soon become all of reality and there will be no fundamental challenges in your life. Soon we will all be immortal in cyberspace. Proskauer 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can indeed block you or any other editor, block your IP address, lock your user and talk pages so you can't ask to be unblocked, delete any article I like or lock it to prevent editing. But most of the time I don't, because Wikipedia is not actually an oligarchy at all, it's a very egalitarian place where editors who earn the trust and respect of the community are given the ability to do these things and generally respond by using these tools only for the the benefit of the project. Three such trusted members of the community have deleted the article on what you admit is a minor holocaust denier, and others flagged the article for deletion. The only common point here is you, so asserting that the bias is on the part of multiple others not yourself cleary violates Occam's Razor. The idea that I would be ignorant of there ain't nobody here but us chickens is somewhat odd - for the record I prefer the BB King version - but I would remind you that throughout history there have been many, many examples of individuals or small groups who thought that they were right and everyone else was wrong; almost all turned out to be completely wrong, and those who didn't mainly pre-date or were part of the scientific revolution of the 18th Century. These days when every reputable authority in the world says you are wrong, it's probably because you are. To say nothing of holocaust denial being a criminal offence in some countries. Guy 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrightalready. You're one up on me since I never knew it was a song. I heard it in the form of a joke from my uncle out in the country many years ago. I can guarantee you he never heard the song either, but it's quite possible the joke was popularized by the 1940's song. Anyway, I'm not particularly concerned about being blocked, but I suggest ALWAYS viewing ALL evidence from a fresh viewpoint without preconceptions. Just spend some time, actually a lot of time, looking at the photgraphs of the gas chambers and let the evidence wash over you. Allow yourself to come to your own conclusions. Proskauer

I have already spent all the time I can bear to spend looking at the pictures, thanks all the same. And please do not be tempted to try and convert me to your way of thinking, just accept that you would be wasting your time even trying. Guy 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, what you should also keep in mind is that Proskauer's biographies of Holocaust deniers are all copyvios. For example, the Porter article was a direct copy of this. His François Duprat article was a direct copy of this. His Mark Weber article was a direct copy of this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all surprising. He does not strike me as the sort to go beyond the superficial in this matter. Neither am I for that matter, but I'm not trying to rewrite history. Is it time for an RfC? Guy 20:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's at the stage where I personally think a community ban is in order; on the other hand, he mostly edits as a dynamic IP, so I'm not sure that this will help much. What do you think? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eatonsh=Continueddonations=Returnoftheman

With literally no break at all, permanently blocked user Eatonsh aka Continueddonations is back, this time exclusively focusing on the main Schizophrenia and the Talk:Schizophrenia page. That they all are the same user is obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that IMHO it does not need any further proof. However, I am not sure how to deal with it any further; I admit I am somehow involved in this by now (he has called me a Nazi perhaps once too often by now), and reverting him all the time is a drag and looks, in spite of my explanations, odd to some other users on the page in question, some of which are helping him. Thus, I am herewith asking some of the users, admins and ArbCom members who were involved in this case previously to check and to either suggest what to do or to initiate some remedial course of action. Many thanks in advance. Ebbinghaus 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note that this user is still engaging in violations of Wikipedia content and conduct guidelines using the sockpuppet Cestlogique (talk • contribs); Icankeepthisupforever (talk · contribs) is another probable sock. --Muchness 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Please report on WP:ANI for faster response, though. Guy 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do so in future. Regards. --Muchness 09:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe/Tchadienne/KI/Republitarian/NOBS etc

I thought you might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing community impatience ban for Freestylefrappe as I think you were involved with him (as Tchadienne) at the same time I was. Apologies if this is of no interest. --Guinnog 12:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich

[3] Arbusto 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. My favorite contrib was this [4] KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, linking wikipedia to personal attacks on other websites is always a good way to get unbanned. And at least, he had the guts to use his wikipedia username because if he didn't that would be something a weasel would do to hide his tracks. {Sarcasm} Arbusto 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I wonder who this "maleboge...@yahoo.com" could possibly be? Let me think, now, where have I seen that kind of crap before? Guy 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's mad he's spam was removed[5]. Rick56505 (talk · contribs) Arbusto 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who Ccirulli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This new user created an article for an unaccredited school president. Russell H. Dilday is not notable at all. Arbusto 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What more serious punishment can be done? Today Gastrich just posted a user's, name, address, and phone number.[6] This must be taken to a higher level. Arbusto 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the links wherever you see them. That hits Gastrich where it really hurts - his pride. Guy 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.77.215.178...BenH sock?

Hello. I noticed that you have already blocked one of BenH's IP sockpuppets. The style and contributions of this particular IP in the headline look just like the contribs of BenH and the other sock. Could you please check if my hunch is a correct one, because I have never reported anyone like this and have no idea how else to do it except asking a familiar admin like you. Thanks. Thistheman 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, characteristic. Blocked, deploying rollback. Guy 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 01:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion's cage

Well you seem happy to put your head in them from time to time <g>. If you are bored and can't find anything to do (I know ok) there are some rumblings (ramblings?) similar to logo in Talk:Old-time radio. It does seem that there are some people that think Wiki should work their way whatever happens. If you'd rather I hadn't put this here sorry & ignore it and me. Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thank you for your kind comments. I did try, as instructed on the block page, to cut and paste the message, but I think that the software is corrupted. When I clicked the link, I found a pink page superficially as I expected, but it said I was blocked by "someone" (quote) and the reason given was "being cool". This did not seem right to me.--Anthony.bradbury 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Let me have a look. Londheart has been using sockpuppets, incidentaly, which is not going to help here. Guy 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page abuse

Please have a look at this:

Talk:Orkney_Islands#Independent_Orkney_and_Shetland_wiki_site

I believe that this is a crystal clear abuse of WP:TPG, WP:SPAM and, indirectly WP:NPA. The fact that it is being made by a blatant and exposed sockpuppet just makes the situation even worse. It is my belief that that sockpuppet account should have been banned after exposure, under Wikipedia policies. Why wasn't it?

Please look at the contributions of Orkadian (talk · contribs). Mallimak (talk · contribs) has used that account to post the identical spam at Talk:Shetland Islands and Category talk:Orcadian Wikipedians.

I raised this at WP:ANI#Talk_page_abuse, but was just subjected to totally unfounded snidey remarks. I demand that Administrators take a far more adult, and informed, approach to this situation. Please look into this case, because I feel that this idiot is making a fool out of the whole project. I am very angry and upset with how numerous Admins have just let this situation run away. It ought to have been nipped in the bud some time ago. --Mais oui! 08:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't demand stuff, ask nicely. We are all volunteers and frankly there is blatant POV pushing on both sides here. Guy 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLF (again)

Guy. It has been brought to my attention that Gregory Lauder-Frost is currently suffering from a very serious illness. Not wanting to cause undo distress to himself and his family at this difficult time I wonder if we could consider reducing the article to a stub on compassionate grounds, at least until such time as he has made a full recovery. Sorry to bring this matter up so soon after it was seemingly sorted but I thought you should be informed. Clearly this article has caused a great deal of upset to GLF and seeing as many of us don't see the need for an article on him in the first place I really don't see the point of kicking a man whilst he's down.--Edchilvers 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind deleting it altogether. The one thing that is not an option is telling half the story. Guy 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed. Do you have more information on this?

My first reaction: I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to be compassionate. On the other hand, request of the subject is not normally cause to delete an article. I think I'm going to run this by some journalist pals to see how the pros handle this sort of thing. Were we to go for deletion, I think we'd have to do it through a full AfD process; if we're going to make precedent here, we'll have to do it right. I also confess to a little suspicion at the timing; after pro-GLF partisans have abused all and sundry for months, it makes me wonder if this is something heartfelt, or just a change in tactics. Thanks, William Pietri 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets do the AFD process. I do not wish to betray the confidence I have recieved but suffice it to say that I trust 100% that what I hear is the truth. It explains alot, not least the aggresive behaviour by certain anons towards this article. We are talking about a very minor politician, one who has never even stood for Parliament or even a County Council seat. I dont think Wikipedia would be worse off if this article were to go altogether--Edchilvers 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A degree of scepticism is not entirely surprising under the circumstances but I'm content to trust what you say, Ed. I will start the AfD now, if you wouldn't mind including a statement to that effect it would probably help. Guy 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I may stay out of the AfD, as I'm still chewing through the implications. But I'll follow it with interest. William Pietri 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

Hi there; your last posting appears to indicate that I got autoblocked yet again, and that you cleared it. Thank you. I was at work and did in fact not notice this one. I see that in my distress I posted a comment just below another editor's article without creating a fresh heading. If you want to tidy your talk page please do not hesitate to move or delete my earlier comment.--Anthony.bradbury 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Guy 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message from the Paris Caped Crusader

Hello, I just noticed your message on the Administrator's notice board. I'll try not to take too much of your time.

I am most certainly not alone. john k, Captain scarlet, Bob, all knowledgeable on the subject, have all made it very clear that the present title is wrong - and this wasn't a "hmmphyes" agreement, all have taken the time to lengthily lay out precisely why. Knowledgeable contributors on Paris things are all too rare on English Wiki, but all the same, the jury's in on this one.

I can understand your exasperation with my insistence on this, but publishing fiction is wrong. Perhaps to the limited knowledge of some the present title is acceptable, but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia based on existing fact. The two wikipedians opposing the move, especially one, has done his best to paint any opposition to their "reasoning" - shared by no reference at all - as a bad-faithed fool. This is not at all the case, and this is one of the very reasons for my resolve. I can show you concrete proof of this person's antics that have been going on for over a year now. Wiki, thanks to this person, has unverifiable information seen nowhere else in the world. You can see a concrete example of case-in-point Original Research - here. The "Tallest structures" super-spat is just more of the same. This is what happens if anything "fiction" is corrected that turns out to be a certain editor - revert, oppose, oppose oppose, even without fact, and it all becomes a big wear 'em down campaign. So after a year of this I've decided not to give in for once, and thankfully it seems that I am not alone.

In light of the above, I'm sure you can imagine what I think when I see a) Hardouin making completely false and unfounded allegations on administrator talk pages and the same on the administrator's notice board and b) you indicating that I will be the one "in trouble".

I may be a pain in the a*s on this, but you're targeting the wrong party. THEPROMENADER 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to disagree, but it still seems top me to be a very heated argument over a trivial and pedantic issue. Guy 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what to say to this.

Hmm, so in my RfA I'm described as part of the "scientistic cabal" but that I'm one of the more reasonable members so I get a support vote from that, then you think I'm Christian, and now this. I don't understand. I know I'm not this NPOV. JoshuaZ 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well prove him wrong and help out on that wonderful page he is writing. Explaining WP:OR would help. Otherwise we'll have to assume you are an undercover employee of DI. Just because you make a plethora of logically improbable edits leading others to complex assumptions which could not logically occur over a long period of time because the processes would require multiple concurrent subprocesses (sockpuppets?), and the transitional stages would be disadvantageous to your success in the natural selection of wikipedial editors.....pause for breathe.... does not let you off the hook. What was my point again? David D. (Talk) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Bed now. Will try that in the morning. JoshuaZ 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parody. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua is obviuously either very neutral or the holder of more conflicting biases than all other editors combined :-) Guy 11:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hammond

I've reverted at least five cases of vandalism to the Richard Hammond article today and thats just me. Mostly they are 'get well soon' messages or links to charities. I think we need a 'semi-protect.'--Edchilvers 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected. Guy 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck salt!

WTF? why are you so against tourettes guy? I mean, even if you don't think it's funny, everyone i know has heard of him. It's more notable than most articles on this website.

Deleted, deletion reviewed, end of story. Guy 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Sorry. But thanks! Drahcir^{my talk} 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) (well, I removed the image)[reply]

Sure. I've toned mine down over time, it gets duller by the month :-) Guy 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Nandini_Rajendran

With reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Nandini_Rajendran I gind that your ONLY contention seems to be verifiability. Since I have given citations from leading news papers, I expect you to revise the vote as the article is verifiable at present Doctor Bruno Talk 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

I am concerned with the situation on Old time radio and related pages. You have been an uninvolved contributor with more experience in Wiki than I have. I am left with a feeling that there are some factions here who are following their own agendas rather than Wiki's. In the case of Dnyhagen he is not helping towards any positive agreed solution while working extremely hard on the page that is for his website (the page on Wiki nows comes second on my google search which makes me consider the rationale for it). Into this throw OldRadio who wants his website linked and Wikiotr whose comments suggest a (bad) history with Dnyhagen to say the least.

There are already rather too many external links on the page (in my mind & I've removed some) and I can see that, in trying to compromise, we may end up with a page of links rather than a quality article.

While not as involved as some editors it looks to me as though this may require some outside assessment by a broader body of Wikipedians to try and draw it to a conclusion as soon as possible and allow people to use time more productively. I hope you do not mind me contacting you but I am not sufficiently experienced to know the best way to settle this in a lasting and positive way (& no I have NO interest in any old time radio type sites!). Thanks & regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see here a campaign by Dnyhagen to promote his own site, without doubt, and the removal of his self-promotional links has led him to remove other links (acceptable) but only those related to sites supported by other users with whom he is in dispute (unacceptable). This needs to stop.

Yes, the article has too many links; as a rule of thumb any link with a ~ in it or on a free web host can generally be removed unless there is credible evidence of authority. Domains are cheap. The best way of addressing the spam event horizon is to ruthlessly prune the list to a couple of reputable authorities and then take the entire list to Talk, discussing each in turn with the rationale for removal or inclusion. Links are there to support the content, not the other way around.

Keep up the good work, Guy 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice. I'll get back to your re my talk page soon - meanwhile you have mail --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I can understand you getting frustrated over the Kept woman et al discussion (you aren't be the only one!). Be careful with your comments and particularly edit summaries though. I don't have any problem with "Oh FFS." but just make sure that that is as far as you go - the last thing this needs is for tempers to boil over and accusations of personal attacks to start flying around!

I'm about to put a note at WP:AN about it - hopefully some more people expressing an opinion will help things progress. Thryduulf 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: in your latest comment, you linked to WP:IRA. If as I suspect you meant WP:IAR you may want to go back and correct it. If you do, feel free to delete my comment about it. Thryduulf 21:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above for endless argufiying over these sub-trivial one sentence "articles". Perhaps I did mean WP:IRA - blow them up wioth ANFO :-)

If you can contain any collateral (sp?) damage, then go for it - it would certainly give him something new to complain about, if nothing else! :) Thryduulf 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on this. I really am not complaining, I just don't think that the right decision was made here. Isn't it normal to debate these things? Trevor Saline 15:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ...for Dummies books

Revert war[7] over cruft needs some attention. Arbusto 22:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced allegations

You, again, made an unsupported allegation of violation of Wikipedia guidelines against me, removing two of three links under discussion on the article's discussion page. The discussion was underway and the proposed links on their way to obtaining consensus one way or the other. Please provide me your rationale for disrupting that process. Thanks. Dnyhagen 10:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bring your battles to Wikipedia. Guy 10:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law of the playground

You seem to have forgotten the AFD discussion page for this nom (unless you are working on it now). Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD helper script crashed, I think. Done now, thanks. Guy 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal

OK - which page or pages would you particularly like me to review the links on. I will get to it as soon as I can. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old-time radio is a good starting point, being the core of the problem, let's start there and see how it progresses. Guy 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely for me - using head first & will act tomorrow. A plan is forming, I'm sure you will let me know what you think of the outcome - regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 19:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel? Guy 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Street Commune

No, it wasn't created verbatim. I expanded the suggestion of notability slightly. Creating very short stubs may not be the preferred approach of everybody, but I am doing so with good intentions. I am not vandlising or putting nonsense into Wikipedia. Why are you so concerned with these being added? What problem is it causing? Trevor Saline 21:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's causing a problem of very sort and unreference articles. A red link might invite someone to create a full article, wehrea s avery short sub seems as if an article is there when in fact there is not much beyond a restatement of the title. In this case particularly you created two articles about the same subject. I have redirected 144 Piccadilly. I have nothing against articles on 1960s London counter-culture (my mother was a Young Socialist in London in the 60s) but you really should include enough information to make it obvious why we should care.Guy 23:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the people who don't know about it and are just looking? Surely there are far more of them than people who would actively create or edit an article? If there is no article at all, then there is not information for those people, hence just a sentence or two is better than no article Trevor Saline 15:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ytmnd

I think we're ready to blacklist it. Could you whitelist www. and wiki. before we proceed? MaxSem 07:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Input at the blacklist talk page, thanks. Guy 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats at Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine

Legal threats posted on the St Christopher page, with more specifics than usual. Note that the most specific recent threats have been reverted, but can be found in the history. Not sure whether to assume it's already taken care of, leave this with you, post on AN/I, or refer to the Office. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I think. Let them contact OTRS if they must, but this is not a WP:LIVING issue. Guy 09:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think FloNight has given Brad P. a heads-up just in case. Generic legal threats generally don't come with the name of a specific lawyer, etc. Newyorkbrad 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xosa

Guy, just to let you know that I've reprotected User:Xosa's talk page. There's almost no doubt that it's Zephram in terms of the writing and the edit pattern, and a check user has returned that it's "likely" in terms of the technical evidence too. He's made only 47 edits to articles; any innocent editor would just have set up a new account by now, but instead he's calling for a United Nations inquiry into his block, which was always what Zephram did, aiming for maximum disruption. Hope that's okay with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that I couldn't create a new account as long as I was blocked. Which is true? --Xosa3 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using admin power to solve content disputes

I find it objectionable that the two people who were involved in a content dispute with me blocked me, removed my unblock request and locked my talk page: User_talk:Xosa. If I did something wrong, I ask that an administrator not involved in the content dispute decide what appropriate measures should be taken. --Xosa3 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but without credible evidence to back your assertions, and given the discussions on your Talk, especially in respect of the apparently non-existent Wikia user, I'm afraid I am no longer interested. I will leave this to other admins. Guy 08:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Advance Fee Fraud article

Regarding [8] - The blog link here is my reference for the fake escrow stuff. WhisperToMe 04:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks,  Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a wikipedia policy on copying other peoples userpages in their entirety?

I stumbled across the user page of Hitman990 (talk · contribs), an account that was made on the 13th of September, who has amassed a fair few warnings on his talk page. However his user page seems to be copied in its entirety from Deepujoseph (talk · contribs) and did this edit. I'm pretty sure this is a vandalism only account but for future reference I was querying about does the copying of user pages constitute vandalism? –– Lid^(Talk) 10:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No policy against it, but as it's a vandalims only account this is moot anyway. I have nuked it and blocked the user. Guy 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date correction

Hi JzG, sorry if my phrasing was not accurate enough. Hopefully it's clearer now. Thanks, Crum375 12:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review on those four articles

Hi,

You know, the CSDs weren't written by dim-wits. Every one of the deletions you did was arguably covered under a CSD; as long as you make an argument, most sane people will support you. Citing IAR just confuses people and/or excites tempers. The debate would have been a lot simpler if you had kept Wikipedia's own Pandora's box out of it. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining patiently, it didn't work. I'm pretty convinced this is one or other of our resident trolls come back for another poke at our collective hot buttons. Who else is going to go to DRV and start citing policy so early in their editing career? Guy 15:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think somebody's a troll, ignoring everything they say is always the best option, right? Best wishes, Xoloz 16:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only it were always obviuos from the outset... Guy 21:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that I am "troll", because I have argued about these deletions? Incidentially, the deletion policies are not hard to discover. Do you believe that you really presented any valid arguments to support the deletion criteria, other than SNOWBALL, IAR and "fuck process"? If I am completely without justification, why did some other editors say that the deletions should be overturned or "didn't technically match the criteria" and why was one recreated exactly as I created it? Is calling me a troll just a way to dismiss my arguments? Trevor Saline 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. Guy 13:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

This Vic Troy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) person has been removing controversal elements from Republicans in close election races. Could this be a bot? Arbusto 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Town Traffic Test

I have changed this name to Audit methodology for sustainable transport. Perhaps this is more acceptable. The format needs work, the need is undeniablejwgardner

Mindy Kaling

Hi. Could you look into why and how and under what rules Mindy Kaling's bio was deleted for several days a few days ago? It didn't meet CSD criteria. I think someone was trying to get rid of some negative comments permanently, which I support. I just want to understand the reasoning behind the deletion, and since I don't have the tools, I'm asking you, an adminstrator. Thank you so much. Billy Blythe 10:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a WP:OFFICE action, I think, to remove defamatory content from the edit history. You need to ask User:Dannyisme for chapter and verse. Guy 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of TaskJuggler entry

Hi,

I believe the deletion of the TaskJuggler article was a mistake. It is a widely used software. On UNIX/Linux it is _the_ MS Project equivalent. The project description language that was developed for the program is a major innovation to break out of the limitations that commonly used GANTT chart editors impose on their users. It is shipped with almost all major Linux distributions and has a Freshmeat popularity ranking of around 830. It has been covered multiple times by the international Linux press. Articles in English can be found at [9] and [10]. So, I kindly ask you to undelete the article again. There are equivalent articles in the French and German Wikipedia as well.

Thanks, 85.214.61.61 11:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to take this to deletion review, let me know if you need help jumping the hoops. Guy 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

I need a second opinion on an admin ruling, and I wonder if you would be willing to help me out. I know that you are an extremely reasonable man. The admin above removed my speedy delete A3 tag on List of insular languages, saying that the AfD should run its course. I think that's a waste of admin time and editor time. I've seen him do this before, and it's extremely frustrating. I've never seen another admin do this. I've found that it's customary to tag things at AfD with a speedy delete tag if they qualify. I'm going to put up the tag again, and maybe you could delete it. Thank you. If you would like me to contact another admin on the matter, I will. This is an unacceptable situation, as the article is clearly crap and speedily deletable. Billy Blythe 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean but it's not really an A3, any more than any other list (not that I'm a fan of lists), and it's already at AfD so I see no particular problem letting that process run its course. Guy 13:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments, and please see my response on Billy's talk page and ANI. Nothing here to get dramatic about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No indeed. Pretty straightforward, really. Guy 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are YOU doing?

Thanks for banning me for a week for wikistalking without even giving me a chance to defend myself. Okay, we can debate whether my comment on User:Kiand's talk page constitutes wikistalking but when you banned me you said "repeat offense". As far as I know I have never been banned for wikistalking before. Lord Chess 15:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil?

I'm trying hard to go by the rules here. I was just being descriptive, and I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I don't understand how that was uncivil. This place is very hard to understand, because there are so many people who claim that what someone says is uncivil to discredit their statement. It seems that it's up to the discretion of individual admins, and that seems very arbitrary. I'm really unhappy and upset about this. I was trying to save work and time and now I'm getting crap for it. This is very unsatisfying. If I wanted to be insulted, I'd go to USENET. This makes me so weary that I don't believe the page on editors should act like admins if they want to and be bold. It seems like that is a lie. God, I'm upset. Billy Blythe 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you weren't trying to insult, but you managed anyway. Tricky, isn't it? Happens to me all the time and you're right it can be very puzzling, and quite usetting when someone takes offence at something that was not meant offensively. As long as you stick to the articles and not personalities you should be fine. Guy 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very tricky, and I fear being blocked for a perfectly harmless statement that someone who is overly sensitive interprets as an attack. There are a lot of emotionally unstable people on this site, I think, and they have really short fuses. I'm sorry if I offended. I guess I'll have to speak like Lamb Chop or Barney the Dinosaur from now on. BTW, I don't understand why you added to my user page. It seemed like a prank, which was okay with me. I didn't consider it vandalism, because pranks are different. Billy Blythe 02:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you'll see from your talk page, you were in no danger of being blocked, it was a mild rebuke. I'm sorry you seem to have interpreted it as more than that. Please don't try to read more into the comment more than is actually there. Guy 06:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the Ales Hemsky talk page

I agree that revert warring is bad, but I believe that if you looked into this further, you would agree that I have good reason to revert it. Jaskaramdeep admitted that the Ales Hemsky page is one he "wrote from top to bottom."[11] On his talk page, he put the following at the top:

THIS IS HEMSKY'S WORLD; we just live here

it was said that a young hemsky would be entrusted with four labors of the hockey gods, the successful completion of which would culminate in the oilers' sixth stanley cup

Even after all the discussion, during which every outside opinion agreed that my edits improved the page, he still re-added quite a bit of unsourced, unverifiable, non-NPOV material. It wasn't even original writing. It was the exact same as it was before, just copied from older versions of the page and pasted back into it. Jaskaramdeep has stated that I am not allowed to edit his work (read above on the Ales Hemsky talk page), and put the following on my talk page: "If I need tips, I'll ask someone I respect." Jaskaramdeep has even criticized me for "refusing to work with" him just because I requested comments by outside users. I feel as though I am holding strong against an uncivil, biased editor, not simply "revert warring." --Muéro^(talk/c) 15:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I know. But rather than revert war I would suggest a request for comment. I absolutely agree that Jaskaramdeep is an editor of an incredibly trying kind. Guy 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

FYI, I've just sent you an email. JoshuaZ 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ...for Dummies books

Is listed for afd. Arbusto 00:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cardon

Hi, I saw you nominated Rebecca Cardon for deletion. Mike39, who seems a little new and may not be fully acquainted with Wikipedia's policies, removed the nomination. I have reverted to your last version, but you may want to add this page to your watchlist in case the nomination is removed again. Cheers, DRK 03:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think he's in the grip of fandom :-) Guy 08:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unblock template

I've replied on my talk page. Usually I reply on both talk pages but it's a long discussion so I'll just link to it: User talk:Thebainer#Unblock template. --bainer (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer Park Boys

Hi Guy. I've just noticed that the articles on cast members from the show Trailer Park Boys (although not the article on the show itself), and in particular Robb Wells and John Dunsworth have been cut and pasted, almost in their entirity from the show's official website http://www.trailerparkboys.com/. Isn't this a copyright violation???--Edchilvers 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed. Guy 21:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what to do??--Edchilvers 12:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as copyvio (have you found the template list yet, incidentally? I find it very handy at times). Can't be speedied as they've been around for more than 48 hours. Guy 14:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Almeda University

I can accept everything as it is now regarding Almeda except the part about the dog. If a person filled out an application using a fake (dog's) name, I assure you that the content of the application stated nothing about playing with children and wagging a tail. Furthermore, if someone did complete the application with enough fake personal details to be awarded the Almeda degree, with the sole intent of discrediting Almeda, then it violates several laws including fraud and entrapment. All applicants have to sign electronically that they are at least 18 years of age and all information contained within their application is true and correct. Furthermore, the dog story was not created by a news team investigation, but was an uncorroborated story told to the news – which they chose to print without verifying the details.

I do not understand why you refuse to print both sides on the Almeda issue, but have no apparent problem printing an uncorroborated news article that, even if true, was created by committing fraud. This is akin to sending a friend with your birth certificate in to take your drivers license test for you and then bashing the Department of Motor Vehicles for issuing you a drivers license when you can't drive.Veronica678 17:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have tried to print both sides. You've simply removed news sources. If you have sources for the "other side" present them, but removing sources is not acceptable. Arbusto 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request and explanation

First, I'd like to explain that when I used the phrase "sloppy long hair" with regard to User:Fut Perf, I was just being descriptive. No malice was intended. I'll apologize to him shortly.

Second, I wonder if you'd give a third opinion on a dispute on Mindy Kaling. It's with regard to a nipple slip. I don't think it's encyclopedic, and User:Eleemosynary, a troublesome user, has been inserting that info. The article was deleted by Danny, and I think it was for that very reason. I've been removing the info because it's negative. It was also poorly sourced, as the source was a blog. Would you help out, please? You're known for being extremely reasonable, and being rouge. Billy Blythe 18:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first matter, well done; in the second, I'll be along. Guy 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGAL

See [12], this IP is the active whitewasher to the article. Arbusto 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Institute of Hypnotherapy claims to be a legit UK school. Thoughts? Arbusto 04:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLF article summaries from history?

Hi. I imagine you're as relieved as I am that the drama around the GLF's article looks to be coming to a close. Just in case it reappears at some later date, I wanted to save my summaries of the news articles on him along with the articles themselves. Unfortunately, the talk page has been deleted. Would you mind fishing them out of the history for me? Just a quick copy-paste into an email is all I need. Thanks, William Pietri 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see your Talk. Guy 14:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eleemosynary

has been removing my perfectly legit comments from his talk page. Isn't that a big no-no that should result in an extended block? I've restored the comments. Billy Blythe 15:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]