User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:26, 2 March 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JzG/Archive-May-2024. Some may be manually archived earlier than that, if no further action is required or productive debate is at an end.

Happy New Year!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

To-do

List of episodes for The Nick Cannon Show - dozens of one line articles need merging into the list. Shw cancelled due to low ratings, unlikely that there will ever be sufficient interest to justify articles on every episode.

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article B. B. King, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Bottle Square

Thanks for explaining the situation to me. You did much better than anyone else who tired.

Most appreciated, may Wikipedia be with you

J19086

RobJ's comment on sockpuppetry on LMP8mgs AfD

Should this comment on sockpuppetry be struck out before the AfD closes? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 16:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Bowsy and Henchman aren't sockpuppets, that was proven. But nothing was ever proven against meatpuppetry. Them saying "I'm not a meatpuppet" and other things doesn't seem like enough, when they share the same opinions on a few things... and seem to try to make AFD and RFCs go in their favor. RobJ1981 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or they might just be friends. You know, people who hang out together. And go to the same school. Remember that? Lighten up! Guy (Help!) 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: User:Lee Nysted continues to removed a talk page post I added to his talk page. Isn't that a form of vandalism? He doesn't agree with what I posted: so he removed it. Erasing comments solves nothing. RobJ1981 06:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he's gone around and removed the sock tags from the socks confirmed by CheckUser; he's asking them all to identify themselves and saying they're innocent victims, or somesuch. He's also saying he's "investigating" the CheckUser (or, as he refers to it, Checkloser) system. *head asplode* Tony Fox (arf!) 19:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I think it is time for drastic action because it appears that RobJ is not going to put this behind him anytime soon. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic action? Get over it already, I have. RobJ1981 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's Comment:

The issue is now cleared up and JzG reverted the sock tags. Yamla explained what I must do and I am fine with that. I have done nothing wrong since my unblocking.

There is no question, to me, that Checkuser can be destructive toward (collateral damage) users with common IP addresses. It has changed the way I will work here. I have places to go, all over the world and that means I will be at different IP addresses. I have 4 places in Illinois, alone. I use Comcast wireless, quite frequently. I use Starbucks WiFi. I am also looking at the policy in SOCK about editors using multiple accounts.

Thank you for your concern; cheers!Lee Nysted 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:GordonWatts

Thanks for closing this, but I don't think he gets it, still. --Calton | Talk 01:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it will require the cluebat. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you

I have initiated WP:RFAR action against you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

--GordonWatts 02:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious! Guy (Help!) 09:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Admin rouge night.jpg

Very nice, and extremely clever! Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon's community ban result - which option did you select as the community decision?

Hello, Guy, I've just been looking at GordonWatts's talk page, the Requests for Arbitrtaion page, and the Community noticeboard. I hesitate to raise this, because I'm a bit tired of the whole thing, and since it has now been referred to the Arbitration Committee, there's probably no reason for you to do anything at this stage. But I'm puzzled at the outcome you declared. As far as I can tell, the two options that got the highest number of "votes" (if I'm allowed to call them that) were a limit to one post per day on Schaivo-related talk pages with no restrictions on editing the Schaivo articles, and a ban from Schaivo-related talk pages and articles. I haven't examined them to see which option "won", because it's so complicated, with first choice, second choice, etc., and I'm sure that Gordon shouldn't actually have voted. The option of a ban from the Schiavo articles and restriction on the Schaivo talk pages was not voted on at all, so I don't see how that can be the outcome. Someone said that his edits to the article were not a problem, as long as he stopped adding the links, which he had stopped even before Calton brought the case to the noticeboard, I think, though I doubt if anything will stop him from arguing that he's right and that everyone else is wrong. If he stops adding the links, I don't see that his edits to the articles are problematic. He sometimes corrects spellings or improves the wording. I'm just a bit concerned that you've declared that the outcome is that he's limited to one post a day on the talk pages, and that he can't edit the articles at all. Those two outcomes were not found together in any option. Could you take another look, please? If the Committee accepts the case, it will probably be out of your hands, but you might modify your statement, to bring that to their attention. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted to one edit or so per day on Talk, no edits to articles, no pressing for his links. More or less, anyway. That seemed to me to be the most supported view, but I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the whole community agreed that there's to be no pressing for his links. There might have been one dissenting voice (before the vote started), but I'm sure you'll understand if I don't feel like going back and re-reading the whole thing! But, I'm positive that there were a lot of people who supported "one post per day on Schiavo talk pages, and no restrictions on Schiavo articles", and there were a lot of people who supported "no edits to Schiavo articles or talk pages". There was no option for "no edits to Schiavo articles, and one post per day to Schiavo talk pages". Nor was there any case made that his edits to Schiavo articles were disruptive apart from his inserting of the links, which is not something that has been going on continuously, and it had stopped. Would you mind taking another look, and either modifying the outcome on his talk page or making some addition to your statement at the RfAr page. (I don't blame you for wanting to close it quickly: it was getting quite unpleasant!) Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find the middle ground. A lot of people simply want rid of him, I don't think we've got that far yet. Let's see what transpires. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of people just want to be rid of him, but I think that people would overwhelmingly agree that the disruption is in his talk page posts, not in his article editing, especially since he has stopped adding the links, and had stopped before Calton asked for a ban. But I can't help feeling it would have been more proper to have selected one of the options (obviously the one that people had supported most) rather than creating a new one and declaring that to be the result. However, if you were going to invent a middle ground that had not been discussed, the discussion results indicated (to me) that a full ban on talk page posts and a restriction on article editing would be closer to what the community decided than the other way round. (I don't think you should do that, by the way, just that it would be closer.) Since he has brought this to the arbitration committee, it may be out of your hands, but if they reject the case, perhaps you could take it back to the community to see what they actually want. As far as I can see, there was not one single person who felt that he should be completely banned from editing Schiavo articles AND that he should be allowed one Schiavo talk page post per day. Some people wanted something more severe; others wanted something more lenient. But this result completely overlooks the fact that the disruption is in his really, really lengthy arguments on the talk pages, and in the fact that he's not prepared to stop when he's told it's disruptive. His article edits aren't a problem, as long as he's not promoting his links. Regards. ElinorD (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's moot, per the ArbCom. Let's see what happens there. I'm not averse to reopening the debate if it is worth the effort (i.e. if ArbCom bounces this back to the community). We now have more active arbs, so I don't think that will happen. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cube World article?

While watching tv, a comercial appeared for a toy/product called Cube World. When looking for more information on something specific of which I already know the name, I now -- not too surprisingly -- come to WP rather than doing a Google search first. To my dismay and surprise, the article not only had no information, but had been blocked to prevent any further creation. Wiewing the log (How can I type that without making it an exteral link?), I notice it has been deleted several times due to Noteability and blatent advertizing. My question is this: given the fact that it was advertized on Court TV, a nation-wide popular channel, and the fact that enough people have cared to re-re-re-re-recreate the article, exactly how notable does a product have to be before it can be accepted? As I said to start off, I came here hoping to find information about it with no evail due to the deletion and block. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the product has now attracted sufficient external coverage for an article. Please try writing one in your user space and take it to deletion review. Previous versions lacked any reliable sources and some were undoubtedly spam. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I'm at my wits end here, could I please get some help with this situation? [1].--Crossmr 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only offer advice: leave them alone. They are obsessives. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Steel and the Toy Soldiers

Dear Sir,

I am curious as to why the many attempts at creating a page for the artist Dr. Steel and his growing fanbase have been deleted. I see no reason for such material to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safer Sephiroth19 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 22. Wikipedia is not a venue for viral marketing. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signal article deleted?

Just curious, but if you don't mind me asking, why did you delete the article I wrote for Signal (subscription service)? Sure, it might of been an obscure service at the time, but I'm sure there were quite a few financial industry people/brokers/traders/etc. that used it, so much to the fact that Signal's data was carried on the VBI of three cable TV networks in its heyday (WGN, C-SPAN, and AMC). It was practically a Quotron or better yet, a predecessor of the Bloomberg Terminal, for the home or small office. There are other articles on Wikipedia that are probably more fitting of an A7 speedy deletion for far more lesser-known subjects, IMHO... misternuvistor 06:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the matter with you people?

From DeanHinnen

Allegations of off-Wiki harassment are alarming

1) Allegations of off-Wiki harassment and stalking are very alarming. Disclosures of personal information, particularly by an administrator in circumstances that can appear retaliatory, can enable this harassment and are also disturbing. Any involvement, enablement or encouragement of off-Wiki harassment will be subject to sanctions from the Arbitration Committee and all admins, up to and including a permanent ban. The matter may also be referred to the Wikimedia Foundation and law enforcement authorities for further action.

He's a goshdarned lawyer and he's making one legal threat after another and you people aren't doing jack. He's edit warring and violating WP POINT and insulting admins at Peter Roskam, but I got a 24 hour for 2 edits? It's clear that threats from a lawyer, and accusing others of 'Wikistalking' DO help you 'get over' on Wiki. Refactored with less vitriol. My new project helps. Who can give me a hand with formatting? Do ya' know? FaAfA

If he wants to dig an elephant trap and then jump up and down on top of it, that's his business. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Guy, you wouldn't believe what I found...

Uh, Guy, you wouldn't believe what I found... I am not notifying everybody and their brother of this new truth I found, but since you were the poor admin stuck with "doing something," I feel I owe it to you to let you in on the latest:

Even though I don't see how you could honestly claim that I have violated any identifiable policy (just stubbornly insisted that I have a right to voice my opinion), I will not reargue the case here -out of respect.

However, since we last "spoke," I have noticed that no actual WP:CONSENSUS existed against me - since, of course, only a minority of the votes went against me -and a minority is NOT a "consensus." Observe:

There were 33 parties who participated in the Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, but no more than 14 of them endorsed ANY one type of community action against me -as shown by this perma-link diff.

The reason was, obviously, that NO WP:CONSENSUS existed to penalize me. Also, other than having a minority opinion, I committed no crimes -at all -so censorship executed by you, User:JzG, here (based on LESS than a majority of the participants) was certainly inappropriate, and if you allow this matter to stand, then you are implicitly endorsing this behaviour.

Don't feel bad: We all make mistakes, and I am the 1st one to admit that I mistakenly thought consensus existed, but hey! I was wrong.

In conclusion, the fact I have not actually done anything against the policy (did not edit war, did not vandalize, usually did not post excessive long posts, accepted consensus even when it was against me, etc.), if no consensus exists against me (not even a slim majority, mind you), this is the sort of thing that would prompt an email to Jimbo: After all, isn't it against policy (and also quite wrong) to pretend a consensus exists when it, in fact, doesn't?

By the way, in spite of the fact we had some disagreements hither and yon, thank you for your weak support for ArbCom to take this case -and actually look into ALL the facts.--GordonWatts 10:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in another interpretation of the community ban consensus. ChazBeckett 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, I did look into *ALL* the facts. The consensus is that you should be actively restricted from your disruption. You want to email Jimbo? Go right ahead, but as with the ArbCom case you raised do not be too surprised if it has the opposite of the desired result. Jimbo knows my name, at least. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gordon, I did look into *ALL* the facts. The consensus is that you should be actively restricted from your disruption. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I initially posted, I had said there were 32 participants, and I was wrong (there were 33!) -yes, I make mistakes, and I own up to them (I am sorry about that), but notwithstanding this, how can 14 (out of 32 or 33) be a "consensus," Guy? That is not even a majority -not even a "slim" majority. What now? A "Minority" of votes can somehow translate into a "consensus" (and, BTW, even a "super majority" is not always a consensus -look at WP:Consensus to get the actual facts.
- Things like this make me want to call up Jimbo and tell him his project sucks -and that either he bites you -or you bite the other users, or I will tell the project to "bite off" because of this utter foolishness.
- Let me point out, I am not trying to be a dick or anything -but if the actual consensus went against you, why not just say "hey, I was wrong." -- Guy, did you know: I, myself, accept consensus when it goes against me (sometimes it does) -even were this consensus-supported, no actual violations occurred by me, but you are in violation of WP:Consensus. your move, but remember: I'm not trying to be a dick, as you would call it.--GordonWatts 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point so eloquently. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That statement makes absolutely no sense. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, more than half (17) supported NO sanctions stiffer than limitations on the amount of talk page discussion. So, less than half supported ANY type of article-related editing restrictions. I am just letting you know that, since the action against me is closed, no "new" votes can come in, and, by the numbers, there exists no consensus against me, (BTW, my patience has fully expired) so you are in violation of WP:Consensus. Figuring out that less than half does not constitute a concensus is not a harsh task.--GordonWatts 13:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, Gordon, it will make sense to everybody else. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Trust me, Gordon, it will make sense to everybody else" From your dictionary: "Everybody" - noun - Less than half. --- Another entry: "Less than half" - noun - Consensus. ... uh... right. - All snipes aside, I appreciate the difficulty of your task -and do not envy it. However, "life isn't fair" is well exemplified by this debacle.--GordonWatts 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "everybody else" means, as usual in discussions involving you, everybody other than you. Now drop the stick and step away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GordonWatts, please get a clue - most people didn't want you here PERIOD. You should be thanking JzG that he even let you stay around. My interpretation of the consensus was "banninate with fire". ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were careful to put in the small tilde in your edit correction, but you missed the "big picture." I am fed up with people like you (learn to count already) who don't even realise that less than half is NOT consensus -not even close. Yes, it was close, but close only counts in hose shoes and hand grenades. -and even then, Consensus never trumps policy -even imagining it did somehow exist here. Now, be off, and I wish you well in your retirement.--GordonWatts 03:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guess what? We are fed up with you! Specifically, we are fed up with your endless argumentation and assertions that it's everybody else who is the problem. It's not everybody else, it's you. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "assertions that it's everybody else who is the problem" no - it is a minority who are the problem -a minority who have the support of a rouge admin.--GordonWatts 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it's been awhile since I've seen "rouge admin" where the misspelling really was unintentional. You've made my day, Gordon. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel stupid -that was a BAD "rogue" misspelling on my part...--GordonWatts 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have offended you -I guess we're even now (all sides are fed up at each other), but I stand by my statement: At least I know how to count, and you do not. The only thing for which consensus MAY have existed (and even this is tenuous at best) is some type of restrictions regarding talk pages. If you don't agree here, then obviously I can count, and you can't, so being fed up does not alter the facts: You have NO consensus for MOST (or all) of the illegal actions you sanctioned. You remind me of a bad police officer: You think that authority (admin or police bobby) allows you to violate rules -and in this case, you violated the WP:Consensus rules -and maybe some others. Be fed up -or don't -but you must comply with the rules.--GordonWatts 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been repeatedly editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration I am sure you have seem this analysis of why you are wrong about the consensus. You really have an outstanding ability to ignore anything that might be inconvenient for you. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 04:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ObiterD, I think that maybe some slim consensus existed in regards to one of the 4 "sanctions," but no matter how you spin it, no consensus existed on all four -at all. (That's even when I went looking for extra "oppose" voters -who may have opined -but failed to sign on the poll.--GordonWatts 07:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any chance

you can fix this? pretty much no one seems to care enough to respond. i finally managed to get mel etitis to look, but he said there's no block. i can assure you that there is. as i understand it, no one will at ANU will be able to create (or possibly use) an account until User:Mcderg's block status is changed somehow. i can route around the proxy as a privileged user, but many people here cannot. Derex 11:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That block should not affect registered users. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it does. Because that's how I know about it. Just re-checked it too. Thanks for looking into it though. Derex 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey can you give me some info on why the "fat beats" page was deleted? Dan 12:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

badlydrawnjeff

Do you have any remaining influence with badlydrawnjeff? I find myself in agreement with his philosophy more often than you do and would miss his voice around here, in spite of exasperating events of the past week or so. At this point, he seems to have finished climbing the Reichstag and is about to jump off the roof, and I don't know what if anything to say or do about it. Newyorkbrad 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you all to do lot for me, and the least I can do is try to help out in my small way; I ~~will~~ have put in a good word [2] (hey! I won't be around forever, so I will do what little bit of good whilst I can), but let me tell you that sometimes I myself am too busy to contribute, so if Jeff is too busy (he may be), it is simply self-preservation that motivates him to take "time off" in all likelihood -not harsh feelings on his part (my guess). (In spite of the hard stances I sometimes take, when I take time off to help my job search, etc., I hope to not make enemies.)--GordonWatts 16:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had two choices, brad - just leave semi-quietly and not get involved and irritated anymore, coming back on my own terms when I'm good and ready (if that day ever comes), or try to take down as many of the worst offenders as possible, since my reputation can't get any worse than it already is. I figured the former is better off, so I'll just stick with that. If you want to do something for me, get Peter Benchley to featured status, some guy at the talk page was looking for some help and it was going to be my next project. Thanks for your concern, but it's a little too late - the problems were pervasive before it was early enough for me to notice. Just bad timing on my part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenwood

Dear Guy, I have sworn a (fairly) solemn oath to keep off my wiki habit, and I am breaking it by even writing to you, but I wondered if you could please consider having a quick look at Kenwood House. (The article, not the place, though the latter is very nice too.) Feelings are running high because of the loss of the concert series, and I have some sympathy, but what is currently in there isn't really OK for an encyclopaedia, I feel, no matter how it's sliced and diced. Up to you of course and please feel free to tell me to Just Bog Right Off if it is of no interest to you. Thanks and best wishes, some long-dead Old Git 82.45.248.177 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Regan (talk · contribs)

...is probably a sockpuppet of a banned spamming user, especially based on this edit. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and is probably indef-blocked :-) Guy (Help!) 09:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question about image on Aerosan page: Ant4_1.gif

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly as I am fairly new to contributing to Wikipedia, but it looks like someone deleted an image from of a early 1900's Russian Aerosan snowcat/snowplane. The image file is/was: Ant4_1.gif I did not contribute this image, I am just questioning why it vanished? Melensdad 02:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)melensdad[reply]

I brought you this tasty and shiny apple

May I have permission to edit the Zombietime article, and talk page? If so please fill out a hallpass so no one complains to the principal. I don't want to get suspended again. I'll be back before math class. - FaAfA (yap) 04:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the content at Zombietime comes from user Zombiefan (talk · contribs), who admires 'zombie' a lot (could you guess?) and is very new to Wikipedia. As a result, the article was far too positive. Thanks to FaAFA,[3] some more experienced editors have stepped in to start fixing the article, and Zombiefan is now learning about NPOV. I would not like to see FaAFA scare Zombiefan away from Wikipedia. CWC(talk) 05:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Power Line talk page CWC. You know WP. The Zombietime article is a self-sourced hagiography, and The Red Cross ambulance incident has been refuted so thoroughly by so many sources (including Israel itself) that his clinging to that debunked Conspiracy Theory reminds some of the 9/11 truthers. If you don't want me there, I ask that you do some work on the article. A LOT of work - FaAfA (yap) 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a constructive way of putting it. But the article clearly has POV issues, so why don't the two of you see if you can work on it in harmony? Guy (Help!) 09:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I thought I was turning on the charm! Thanks for the OK! I'll try to be extra nice. I've been taking lessons from some of the Wiki Illuminaries. (did you see my work on the Rouge Admin page?) - FaAfA (yap) 09:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list jargon

What does "I think he was responsible for all new subscribers going on mod" mean? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at least one permanently blocked user, I think it was him, trolled the mailing list under several names, so the moderators changed the settings so that new subscribers are on moderation by default, and only taken off moderation once we are sure they are not trolls. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

New sources have been brought up in the DRV. If you could take a second look it would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 19:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyrights

We have been contacted by the rights owner of a number of images you uploaded. He is, to put it mildly, not happy. Please do not upload more pictures unless you yourself are the rights owner (i.e. do not upload images you find on the web, only those you take yourself). Guy (Help!) 13:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Which one was it was it? I get permission from everybody beforehand.--sonicKAI 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Unblock_of_Thekohser.3F --Calton | Talk 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I note that Watts is being deliberately contrarian again. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished myself, it being so out of character for him. --Calton | Talk 08:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheater.com

Hi, if you have time, please help me out here: Talk:Circle of stars. The article Circle of stars report that fisheater.com is blacklisted, but it does not exist in the article. I'm a newbee Wikipedian so this is new fo me. --Roberth Edberg 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reexamine.info

Guy, I just left this note:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Removing 279 reexamine.info links for copyright reasons

These links are both sensitive and urgent so I want to make sure the right message is conveyed. If you have time, feel free to look at it and correct or clarify my comments as you feel may be appropriate.

If you need help with link cleanup, I'll be happy to help once I get better Internet access in a day or two. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get a hand at Free Republic?

Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article? I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks - FaAfA (yap) 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 288: / Line 288: @@
 If you need help with link cleanup, I'll be happy to help once I get better Internet access in a day or two. --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
+== Could we get a hand at Free Republic? ==
+Could we get a hand from some Admins over at the Free Republic article?  I asked for an Admin to weigh in 6 days ago. The specific issue is if a Free Republic rally that they hoped would draw 20,000 people and only drew 100 (AP) to 200 (FR) should have that aspect of the rally mentioned. I say definitely yes - and cite for precedent politician [[Katherine_Harris#Staff_resignations]] who had a campaign rally expected to draw 500+. When only 40 people showed up, it made ALL the newspapers and news shows. If 500 people HAD shown up, and she hadn't said or done anything controversial, it would not have been notable, and wouldn't have covered outside of local media. The lack of attendance is what's notable. Same with Free Republic's rally in D.C. Also - if a quote from Natalie Maines should be separated from the body of the text and paragraph and put in the lead to give it extra prominence. Thanks  - [[User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All|FaAfA]] [[User_talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All|(yap)]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)