Comments on this page might get missed (but hopefully won't). Sorry, I preferred to do a wholesale move with the history.

Feel free to reactivate any discussion by copying it complete to the live talk page.

It's cool for cats

Hey there. I think Steven M Scharf (aka scharf.steven aka 69.12.152.174) could do with reading your discussion page - especially the bits about not being a dick and not mounting personal crusades :-) || Just zis Guy, you know? 20:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "Not belong to wikipedia..." is based on wikipedia policies. Applies to all. :)

I would suggest you to use one account, as multiple accounts tend to cause problems. --Cool Cat ^Talk 20:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do only use one account, and have only very rarely made any edits as anonymous. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Penny-farthing (temp)

I reverted that move because it didn't quite make sense. To propose this move, you should follow the instructions at the top of Wikipedia:Requested moves to set up a support/oppose discussion at Talk:Penny-farthing in the standard format. One problem is that most people today would understand "ordinary bicycle" to mean, well, the opposite of "extraordinary bicycle". -- Curps 01:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most people would understand it that way - but it is still wrong, as the article says. I am not suggesting we excise the referen ce to penny-farthing, merely that we exchange the arrticle and the redirect to reflect correct terminology Just zis Guy, you know? 08:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is with the way you set up the move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves... it's incomplete. There are some standard steps to follow at the top of that article that describe how to do it. -- Curps 16:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Clueless Newbie Syndrome :-) So, have I (now) done all the necessary or not? Just zis Guy, you know? 18:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not quite exactly, see Wikipedia:Requested moves#To request a page move.2C follow this three-step process: if you want to get all the details right. The link at Wikipedia:Requested moves should also link specifically to this talk page, see some of the other requested moves. -- Curps 18:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to say

Oh, I know. Saw your name and just thought I'd tell ya. Keep wearing your helmet. It could save your life. Cheers. --198.185.18.207 15:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or not. But it's always good to hear form the faith community :-) -Just zis Guy, you know? 15:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shit_sandwich

Hello, i find shit sandwich rather disturbing and that it should be removed. I honestly believe it serves no purpose by being on wikipedia.

I have no opinion either way, but it is occasionally vandalised and when it is it gets restored by whoever may be passing.

Vandal

I see you gave User:60.231.117.163 a warning. Lets see if that works before blocking. If you spot any more vandalism, just post another alert or give me a shout. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work

on VfD, have this

Take care, Molotov (talk)
22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like your user name a lot too.

Thanks :-) When I have a slow afternoon or am waiting for some long builds I fire up CVF and watch the anonymous users. Maybe I'll watch new pages too, I like Wiki a lot and hate to see its usefulness diluted by crap and (especially) spam. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on Clarecraft

I noticed you voted Delete in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarecraft for the very valid reason that it was simply a copy-paste from the company's website. I was not the original creator of the entry, but I've rewritten it, and I would appreciate if you'd take a look at the new article for Clarecraft and consider changing your vote. Thanks! Polotet 03:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP YOUR VANDALISM!!!

Please stop vandalising articles by adding them on AFD for the most minor of things. If you don't understand them, you should probably add Template:notenglish and add it to Pages needing translation and then wait for them to translate and then decide whether it is non-notable or not. Also, adding articles on VFD because they are very short is considered vandalism. Either expand, these articles yourself or add a stub message. I was very close to adding an WP:RFC against you. Though your edits may be in good faith, maybe you should check out the deletion policy to get to know when to AFD articles and when not to. Please look through all the articles that you have added to AFD and remove the tag from wherever applicable. Thanks.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it: one man's Barnstar is another man's vandalism. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just to let you know, I enjoy reading your votes on AfD. A sense of humour goes a long way. Ifnord 06:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good Thinking

Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warhammer objects, people, and minutia

I speedily kept Ghal Maraz on AFD, but don't think I don't agree with you. I've been actively trying to reduce the number of overspecific gamecruft articles; want to help me get merging on some of these overspecific WHFB and WH40K articles? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse, but I don't know much about 40k, only LotR gaming (which my kids are into). - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nothing else, if you could see what you could find, I could merge them, as I used to play WFB and WH40K, once upon a time. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look around and link them for you. As well as watching for new ones. Really, we ought to have all these in a separate space. The problem is not so much with allowing fiction to creep in, as some of it has strong cultural influences, but it's the sheer volume of the stuff that gets me. There is more on Warhammer than on any of the great composers, and if we were honest the appeal of Warhammer is limited to a small subset of society, and it's not even that important to most of them. I used to wargame and RPG as a lad, fashions came and went. Dungeons and Dragons was the thing back then, these days it's regarded as very old hat and really quite limited in scop. Games Workshop has almost exclusively WH and most of that is 40k. Ah well, obviously I'm just an old fart :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myma Seldon

Please consider reviewing your vote on this one. It is not just a radio presenter as I laid out in my vote just a few ones above yours. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still not convinced. She may have a loyal fan base (based in no small part on her looks, it seems) but I can't see anything much that persuades me she's notable in the Wiki sense. But don't despair, there are enough Keep votes to keep her in there whatever I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She's notable according to WP:BIO and has done various media work, all this and still only 26 - that's notable, no? --Gary Kirk 09:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely which crierion under WP:BIO are you saying she satisfies? - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If presenting for 3 different tv channels is not worth an article then what is? Xchange (for which she presented) is a children's BBC program similar to Blue Peter be it less old, but still quite popular within the UK. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what value of "presenting." My kids watch CBBC and have never heard of her and don't recognise her picture. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

responsible use of the {afd} policies

You voted to delete List of high value detainees on the grounds it was unveriable/inherently POV.

By whose judgment of "high value?" What level of value is considered "high?" What are the criteria for establishing "value?" - yes, I think that is inherently POV. I see that it is now a substantially different article, and it notes "this article needs a name change". So, it is no longer the list of high-value detainees which had a stonrg smell of soapbox about it, but a completely different (and much better, if still tainted by the smell of soap) article. This may or may not be encyclopaedic (depending on how good the evidence is for the allegation) and if the article had been presented in its present form or with a better title (reflecting the aims of the writer) I would not have voted to delete it (and in its current form I do not vote to delete it).

I believe that the article now sufficiently documents the existence of a small group of terror suspects who remain in CIA custody.

Yes it does - it is a different and much more valid article, and sets out its stall in a more coherent way.

I asked you to check Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see that the perception of POV is not grounds for deletion. You responded that it was. I double-checked. I can't see where it is. I told you so. You haven't responded.

Yet you have responded, at some length, in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs in triple meter.

I am not bound to respond - just as well, since it is easy to miss individual contributions to individual AfD debates especially when a single Wikipedian is responding to many people in a short time. According to my understanding of the deletion policy, the article as submitted in AfD was unencyclopaedic in concept and execution. The current article seems to me to have a different concept. But in the end my vote is my personal view, nothing more, nothing less, and it's a judgment call. Nobody is infallible. That's why we have a voting process where consensus is required, rather than allowing individuals to delete pages on a whim.

I assume good will. I show good faith. I did extensive work on the article to take Malo's comments into account. And I will continue to take other people's concerns over POV, verifiability, etc, into account.

So I see. I still think it smells of soapbox, but I, too, give the benefit of the doubt.

I don't believe any topic is "inherently POV". Could you please make the effort to identify more specifically what you consider POV?

By "inherently POV" I mean something which is unencyclopeadic, incapable of independent verification. For example, The 10. The list of songs in 3/4 metre is a great example of the sort of thing I don't think should be on Wikipedia. Consider it's real title: "list of songs in an arbitrary, if unusual, metre, written after an arbitrary date, and which the people who realise this page is here have heard of and are prepared to spend the time to add". It makes no comment about why 3/4 metre is notable, what makes it unusual to have songs in that metre, the kinds of genres in which it us usual or unusual. It gives no information to inform the reader what efforts have been made to find songs, it is out of date every time a new song is published (something which happens many times on an average day), and it misleads by giving the impression that those items not on the list are not in 3/4 metre (or not notable, or not something else which the article does not specify).

And, if there is some place that specifies that POV is a valid criteria for deletion, that I have overlooked, could you please point to it specifically enough that I can find it? And if, when you double-check, you can't find POV listed as a valid criteria for deletion, will you reconsider your delete vote? -- Geo Swan 16:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views with significant support fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". Anything which is not capable of being stated as NPOV (such as The 10, should not be here. Actually I am still unconvinced about the high value detainees article on the grounds of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sure, the US Government may be "widely believed" to have covert detention centres, but then it's "widely believed" that Elvis was abducted by aliens. Define widely, and cite documentary evidence to support the belief. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD vote vandalized

Your vote to delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen's Shaving Club was vandalized by a user changing your vote to keep. I reverted the page but it might be worthwhile keeping an eye on the page. ♠DanMS 02:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on list of songs in triple meter

Hi. I'm so glad we had such a civil conversation on that thread. It's not often that that happens to me! (Maybe AfD's making me a little jaded.) :) In any case, thanks and keep up the good work. Jacqui ^★ 15:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, it's the nature of AfD votes that they often inspire strong passions. The schools inclusionists wind me up, for sure - but then, I went to a thousand-year-old school which boasts The Venerable Bede and Francis Bacon as benefactors and Pope Adrian IV as an old boy, so I find it galling to see massively larger articles on schools with no real history and no notale alumni. Ho hum. I am steeling myself to take the plungs re triple metre, but not tonight. Choir practice: Mozart, Jenkins, Holst, Handel and Vaughan Williams - nice and civilised, and of course great swathes of triple metre :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the conversation on my talk page: the triple metre page already looks somewhat substantial. It's great, really; I learned a lot. There's isn't a lot about contemporary works yet, of course, but if the people on AfD decide to be constructive, that will hopefully change. Jacqui ^★ 14:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RealPlane page has been updated since your AFD vote. Tr9ccc 03:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erustication

Hi, Thanks for tagging this - a couple of us have been testing a script to help automate the Afd process and it looks like it failed partially in this case. I'd have tagged it maually eventually but was waiting to see if it automagically appeared. Dlyons493 Talk 00:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullett

I've pitched an alternative solution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullett. Let me know what you think! BD2412 T 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

JIP would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact JIP to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG/Archive 1. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Aww I've been reading lots of your contributions kinda by accident, you just kept popping up, so when I saw the box I thought "yay he'd be cool as an admin". Give me a shout if you get renominated in 3 months and want to accept :) GhostGirl 12:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) I'm doing a bit at the moment since I'm stuck at home recovering from minor surgery; normally I'm more active in RL than on Wiki. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

afd helper

You seem to make a lot of votes on WP:AFD logs. I think you'll find my afd helper tool useful. It makes voting on AfDs a much shorter process. See its page for more details (and if you know anyone else who would like it, please let them know). jnothman ^talk 13:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! shiny! I like that a lot, thanks - let's see if I can manage to use it without screwing up :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you

I see that you did a couple of edits on the Motorized bicycle article. Great! My question though is...is the Derny considered a motorcycle or a motorized bicycle? I ask because we're trying to very hard to keep those 2 things separated. I figure you would know more than I would. :) Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a motorised bicycle, I'd say. It has a functional chain drive with pedals and is based on a diamond frame; although the name is now generic, it was called a cyclo-moteur or vélomoteur in the early days, and "un Derny" can occasionally be found as a term applying in general to vélomoteurs other than the Derny type. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chindia

Hi, I noticed that the above article was on afd - I've expanded it. Can you have a look and let me know if it is ok? --Gurubrahma 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A7 expansion proposal

I think this is a great proposal that could use more feedback:Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expansion_of_A7. Lend your 2-cents when you can. Cheers. PJM 01:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for name of article input

Pls help at Talk:List_of_high_value_detainees - thanks! KC

Your essay on {afd}

I just read your essay on {afd}. Interesting. Would you like comments? And, if so, here, or on its own discussion page?

Your article on triple meter is an interesting one, accessible to non musicians, like myself. -- Geo Swan 19:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, please do comment, on its talk page or on the page itself. It's not so much an essay as a statement of what I think, so perhaps the talk page is better. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article Defense

The reason I'm defending the article "Contact Consequences" is that those that are religious believe that these UFOs/Aliens are "of the Devil" and there is the matter concearning the media chaos about a meteorite that came from Mars and it has fossilized organisims in it. Suppose that these bugs were live, and while travelling the US, I have ran into these religious people. Should there be alien contact, these may revolt.Martial Law 21:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See responses over at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contact Consequences page. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is undergoing clean up by the clean up task force. It is not a hoax,etc. or they would'nt even mess with it. Will you reconsider your vote ?Martial Law 08:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that when the Spanish made contact with the different civilizations in the Americas, they destroyed them, and this could be considered "alien contact", since the Spaniards were the "aliens" in this example ? IF ther's alien contact, will the aliens treat US as the Spanish treated the native civilizations ?Martial Law 22:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See that word "if"? There's your answer. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Surajananda

Good job! Trollderella 02:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. I do my best :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network

Hi! As per AfD suggestions, I rewrote the ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network article. Since you voted there, I thought you'd like to know. --William Pietri 03:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You're the sole remaining delete vote on this. I am absolutely not trying to lobby, but since this is my first time rewriting an article, I'm wondering what more might be done with this to make it a keeper. Thanks, --William Pietri 16:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Research in ireland

Hi, I've re-written this article and done a Move to Expertise Ireland as per Isotope23. I'm now notifying Delete voters accordingly. Would you mind having another look and seeing if you think it's keepable at this stage? FWIW, I was involved in setting up the data feed from one of the Irish Universities to this site. Dlyons493 Talk 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. Vote amended. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Prussian Blue (British band) for deletion

Hi, I have some comments to make about your nomination of this article. First, please use edit summaries for your contributions, especially when doing something major like nominating a page for deletion. Second, please look at the talk page of an article before nominating it as there is often relevant discussion there (as in this case). Thanks, --Apyule 01:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And in response, if you think there is a relevant AfD debate, please link that on talk page as well (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (band)). FWIW I disagree with keeping a non-notable band just because there is a barely-notable band with the same name. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the various moves and splits that have happened to the article, there was relevant discussion spread over a few pages. I have put links for all of the ones that I could remember on the AfD page. --Apyule 10:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, thanks. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated deletion of large parts of Simon Wessely

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. doq 17:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC) pobidoq[reply]

I thik you'll find that what I'm doing is reverting a massively POV addition by an anonymous user. Read the content. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I did not read the new content reflects badly on you. I did, repeatedly. But this is not about content or opinions, it is about your not following Wikipedia procedure. Like I said on the article's talk page, if it's defamatory, improve it, if it's POV, please add the other point(s) of view or mark the article as controversial and let others discuss it. doq 18:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC) pobidoq[reply]

Like I said, I did not have time to NPOV it. And yes, it is entirely about content. Around 1/3 of the text was essentially defamation and spin. My view was (and is) that it is better to have a short but neutral article than a long rant. Clearly we differ on this. I have now spent 45 minutes removing some of the worst excesses. And before you write me off as an establishment lackey (which I'm sure you would not), you might want to look at the work I've done on cycle helmets, seat belts, seat belt legislation and road safety. I am disposed to be sympathetic to those who have good evidence but it is ignored by Government. I am disposed to be unsympathetic to people who cannot deomstrate the falsity of another's position without resorting to innuendo and defamatory language. Especially when those people are anonymous editors with no history of editing on any other topic. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to your being anyone's lackey - you are clearly your own person. FWIW, I don't think our take on most things is that different (I did have a look at your other work here, read most of this talk page and your main web page before butting in). But we may have a different perspective on all things ME/CFS/etc. Unfortunately I do know quite a bit about the overlapping conditions CFS, CFS/ME and ME, Professor Wessely's role, and its politics. You would probably be surprised to discover how many people actually consider the new content, however irreverent, a good starting point for a full article on Prof. W. But agreeing to disagree with you on this one is fine with me. I'll update the SW Talk page to point to our short discussion here. doq 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC) pobidoq[reply]

Yes,I suspect we would agree on most things. But what the anon user (and I believe he and User:The One Click Group are one and the same (and the name The One Click Group is clearly linked to one of the groups which is opposed to Wessley) has written is not "irreverent", much of it is outright defamatory. Whoever they might be, they will make theior case far more powerfully by following policy and sticking to verifiable, documented fact, stated in a neutral way. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is broken

You open a <span> tag but close it with </span>. The result looks really ugly in Firefox at least. Just thought you might like to know. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I fixed that once! Thanks. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're boxing up everything. AfD looks terrible. Reyk 23:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now, or rather refixed (before it was the curse of copy & paste, I don't know why it reverted ot the borked one, you'll see the unborked one was crrent for some time). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

Could you please correct your signature. A missing closing span tag is causing AFD comments after yours to be boxed which is very annoying when you try to read it. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:HD. You are apparently relying on HTML tidy to make your sig work properly. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See above. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wessely

I stumbled onto this through Man in Black's talk page. I'm not an admin, but could you use an additional set of hands/eyes/ears/etc.? --Martin Osterman 12:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. I am sure these guys are sincere, but it is very wearing. I am genuinely doing my best to help them present what is obviously a controversial topic, but since they see anything other than The Gospel According To The One Click Group as unacceptable hagiography, it's proving difficult :-( - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'll have a look at things when I get to school here in a bit; though the threat of severe weather in my area may cause me to have to abruptly curtail my activities for periods today. At any rate, I'll see if I can help clear up any confusion that they may have with regards to things. I didn't want to step in without first making sure that my help could be used. :) --Martin Osterman 12:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. If you could just persuade them that my sole concern is WP:NPOV and trying to knock the thing into encyclopaedic shape before it gets nuked as a hatchet job, I'd be grateful. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Already made my first comment over there. We'll see how they respond. BTW -- is there a Wikicode that can be used to determine the identity of a person who posts but does not leave their name? I've seen it in use before, but can't seem to find the coding. --Martin Osterman 13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked the most difficult user there for 7 days and encourage you to get the article in ship-shape form by then. Professor Wesseley is (quite rightly, IMHO) incensed about the article. It's worth noting that the crap being posted is not just critical of him, it's actual apparently contains major factual errors. Anything from the one-click side should be treated with extreme skepticism.--Jimbo Wales 15:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll start work on a proper encyclopaedic article (having now become interested). I'm guessing he contacted the admins by email; if possible could someone forward my email address to him (guy dot chapman at spamcop dot net). I only came across this by accident during a routine scan of anon edits looking for vandalism - I'm glad I did. Mostly :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jimbo. I'd be more than happy to assist with Guy in trying to get this article up to form. Unfortunately, I'm a bit annoyed by the fact that the person making the accusations/reverts refused to read the material that they were requested to read and, furthermore, insisted on disputing our neutrality even after discussing NPOV with them a dozen times. I probably sound incredulous, but this is my first real time in an issue like this, and having someone claim that I am not being neutral, when in fact I'm doing everything in my power to be neutral, tends to irk me a bit. Ah well, comes with the territory and all that. LOL Thanks again for stepping in -- I hope we get to work together again in a bit of a quieter setting! --Martin Osterman 17:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, my compliments for your hard work. Here's a barnstar for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia neutral. The contributions were biased and awful, and I found Jimbo's revert most dramatic[1]. Sometimes it takes Jimbo to solve festering POV disputes like this one. I'm not directly familiar with Prof Wessely's research, but I may be able to help interpret his published work in medical journals. Let me know if there are any issues. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! A twirly one! Thanks :-) I was amazed when Jimbo came to the rescue of little me. Who'd have thought it? Anyway thanks, I'll try to build a proper article (it's hard, all the searches are heavily polluted by The One Click Group). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want help with this entry, please let me know and I'll make every effort to lend a hand (I know that I stepped in more to try and break up the fighting than anything else, but I figure that if I can be of any use then you are welcome to make use of me). At least things are (hopefully) quieting down again. Best of luck! --Martin Osterman 01:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Power

Hi, would you mind changing your vote on this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Littledale_Power to delete, following on from my proposal? Thanks Arniep 17:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, it's just I'm a little paranoid as some admins on cfd are being really picky about counting exact votes by type, disregarding the fact that deletes often mean the same as a merge (i.e. on a vote with 9 merges 2 deletes and 5 keeps they judged no consensus). Arniep 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S. N. Goenka

Could you please comment on what you feel is missing from the article S. N. Goenka in terms of its importance. The major points seem to be covered and apart from being a stub the article seems to be heading in the right direction and does not IMHO warrant a large notice. Thanks, Solar 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies, I lost my session and missed the Talk page. Comments now added on Talk:S. N. Goenka. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Consequences

...if you genuinely believe that belief in alien abduction is a religion rather than a psychosis.

I am insufficiently wise to distinguish between religions and psychoses. If one person believes that a woman rose up into the sky in a flash of light, I might think it a psychosis. If a few million people over many hundreds of years believed the same thing, then I might think it a religion. Alien abduction is somewhere in between. No disrespect intended to any beliefs. My point is that a certain credulity is accorded to faiths, and the concept of alien abduction is clearly a faith rather than a science. As an encyclopedia we should report on it, summarize it, and catalog it, but not judge it. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thsi is well covered in Abduction Phenomenon, I think. My view is that it falls short of being an actual religion, is what I was trying to imply. It has similar status in my view to the kind of SF fandom which leads to people learning Klingon. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, then we can just merge any usable stuff into Abduction Phenomenon. Thanks for your patience with your fellow editors. No, I don't think that alien abduction is like Klingon. Klingon was developed by some screenwriters. Alien abduction concepts, though heavily influenced by popular media, are a spontaneous folk belief, more akin to Vampires than Klingons. -Willmcw 11:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Half of what I say is intended humorously. I keep forgetting that "on the internet, no-one can see you smile" :-) I am also quite variable. Yesterday I had a migraine hangover and felt like death, today I am my usual sunny self... You make an excellent point re vampires, actually - I had never thought of it that way before. I suggest you incorporate that into Abduction Phenomenon in some way of you can. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You", you mean me? Heck I couldn't care less. I'm just trying to see this handled right. OK, maybe if no one else does it I'll sort through the debris. The fact is that for many of these unusual topics Wikipedia may be the only NPOV source available. It's better to handle them scientifically, anthropologically if necessary, than to just dismiss them. Did I manage to keep a straight face through all of that? -Willmcw 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized bicycles

I'm going to stop working on the article because I'm tired of babying CyclePat. You've done some good edits and I know you are somewhat of an expert on bikes, so I'm entrusting it to you. :) Just please try to keep it focused on motorized bikes. Pat tried to add an entire paragraph on the CCM's history. Why I don't know. I tried to remove it and he had a fit. I'm just burnt out on him. So any help you can give would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's a monomaniac. But mild by comparison with what I had to deal with on Simon Wessely! On the plus side, I just had a one line email from Jimbo: "wow, you rock!" - which was nice :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized discussion

Please check out Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Legislative_candidates and its talk page. If you're OK with it, please add it to Template:Cent or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Mwalcoff 00:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I put the talk page in the wrong place. Please take a look at it and make sure it's OK. -- Mwalcoff 15:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Corley

Hey Guy, (or should I call you Beeblebrox?) I just wanted to give you a heads-up. I plan to submit Mike Corley for AfD. He posts to UseNet, has a website and is paranoid. Does that make him notable? I don't believe so. I wanted to ask why you believe he is noteworthy before I go ahead with the AfD. Thanks for your time. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know me, I'm all for rigorous testing of inclusion criteria. My reason for creating the page is that he is a long-standing Internet personality, and his presence on uk.* has taken on a life of its own. I'd not bother with any other troll on the groups I frequent (with the sole possible exception of Mike Vandeman), but Corley has been widely discussed and debated over an extended period of time. I remember my first Corley spam, back in 1994 or 1995 in the days of modems and click-and-wait. Back then he used to spam some of the Compuserve uk hierarchies as well, and even then he was well known. As a spammer he's no Alan Ralsky, but probably better known in the uk.* hierarchies than Ralsky is. It's not easy to find all his posts on Google Groups (he uses munged addresses and subjects to avoid spam filters - I beat him by using a regexp filter in my newsreader). Pop over to the shed and see what I mean. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and google groups for uk.* MI5 +persecution too.

Wodehouse

I strongly disagree with any sort of merge; the list you suggest is simply a counterintuitive place for information on these characters. A person searching for information on Anatole will type "Anatole" into the search box; in accordance with the principle of least surprise, the article should likewise be located at Anatole. Finally, putting minor characters into lists is by no means a universal practice. — Dan | Talk 19:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not universal, I said common. Anatole should go to the DAB page anyway. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly common either, and you haven't addressed my observation that merging them makes no sense. The articles on whose talk pages you placed notices are of perfectly acceptable length. The sort of articles which require merging are those about whose subjects no information exists beyond a sentence or two. This is not the case by any means with Anatole, Anstruther, Pongo Twistleton, etc. As for the disambig - Anatole is by far the most common of the three possible usages, and hence recieves "primary topic disambiguation" by means of a notice at the top of the page. — Dan | Talk 19:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I'd addressed that in the commen ton the Talk pages. The articles differ widely in style, coverage and length. It seems to me more useful (to the reader) to accumulate them in one place, and polish them to a common style. At present there is some effort involved (click - back - click - back) in reading up on these minor characters. One thing a paper encyclopaedia does better: oce you've found something it tends to be covered in a logical and systematic way without having to jump too much. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to the differences in style is to fix them. The difficulty in reading about multiple minor characters is negligible. The cost of combining them in a counterintuitive manner does not exceed the very minor benefits you have mentioned. — Dan | Talk 22:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Weate

Hi, Appreciate the support you gave on this. Dlyons493 Talk 21:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not a huge fan of the systemic bias argument, but where the bias is working against the article on Google as well as WP it seems harsh to judge by the usual Google test. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motorized Bicycle

Nice addition to the article!!! Conversion vs. built-for-purpose. Kinda makes me want a take away my last comment about electric bicycle having it's own article. (I still think it should though... eventually) You seem to be quite knowledgeable on the subject. b.t.w. What region are you living in? :) --CyclePat 21:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my website] :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template for musical importance you say?

I agree...and I went and did just that:

What do you think? RasputinAXP T C 21:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, shiny! Smart man. Yes, it's great, and I'd say add it to WP:CR soonest. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now implemented as {{music-importance}} (see WP:CR). Well done Rasputin!

motorized bicycle: CCM manufacturer

The information for CCM was taken from the Museum of Science and Technology of Canada. This information is in the bibliography section of motorized bicycle, however the [link here] will provide a better insite on the subject. --CyclePat 03:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comments (in the motorized bicycle discussion), as well as seeing you didn't respond to my questions (just above, "History of this article", in the discussion) leads me to believe you might have overpassed one of my comments for you. --CyclePat 03:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, but I will have another look. The WP conversation format is not always easy to follow, especially where a conversation is happening in multiple places at once. Also remember we live in different time zones... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How did you end up with the music category?

Hey there, I was just wondering how you ended up with the music category at the bottom of your talk page? Are you a music student also? --CyclePat 03:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a test of a proposed new template for music articles which do not contain enough information to assess whether they pass WP:MUSIC. But I am a singer and a music lover. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you come from?

--Bonaparte 18:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC) Reading, Berkshire, UK. There's more about me at my website, which is in my wikisig as (W). Any particular reason for asking? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on Timeline of Motorized Bicycles

I'll take a look. Not sure I'll vote but I'll take a look. As you saw, I basically left the main article. I figured he'd try to set up a bunch of "sister articles" eventually. It's what he's always wanted. He refuses to accept that he's not part of the consensus on this issue. it's why he decided that I was the only one "fighting" him. I wasn't. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PUS

I've changed my vote on this AfD to keep, based on evidence of radio play, record releases, and tours that leads me to believe that this band is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I changed to abstain; I don't have enough knowledge of that scene to make a judgement. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD votes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists

Here are some more clone jewish-lists that are up for deletion. As you can see, there are some people that are taking this way too seriously and we need as many opposing votes as we can possibly get to counter this list from having to go on renomination again. Antidote 04:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the link to timeline of motorized bicycle history?

Why do you keep removing the link to timeline of motorized bicycle history? That's 2 times. I sugested we wait until the decision about the delete arrives. --CyclePat 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons as stated:

it adds nothing (having only three entries, all irrelevant)
it's up for deletion
there is still plenty of room in the main article for the history
we have no verifiable sources for significant moments in the history
anything relevant can be placed in the transport timeline anyway

I might just as well ask why do you keep reinserting the addition the CCM light delivery, against clear consensus. If a change is reverted, as I reverted your addition of the timeline, it is not good practice to reinsert it without consensus (which you did not even attempt to achieve) in that case. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a momment please take a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I expect you will agree this subject as well as the deletion of the timeline requires mediation. --CyclePat 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC) I keep putting it back because,[reply]

it adds something (to the history timeline and show a little about when it was being used)
The article may be up for deletion, however it is still possible to update that page. (it might even pass)
As I indicated in the deletion discusion. Repetition is unavoidable in a timeline.
Anything relevant could be placed in the transport timeline, however this is a sub-category that is specific to motorized bicycle. (The enormous amount of information that we will include in the timeline will bog down that article). Concensus? I think we need to go to mediation.

Do you have a resolution or compromise?

Yes. You stop pissing all over the consensus in order to make your WP:POINT and start playing nice. It's not as if I have failed to explain precisely why I have made each change I've made. If you can find any other subgenre as trivial as motorized bicycles which has its own timeline, when wider and related genres which encapsulate it do not, then I'd be pleased to see it.

Thus far I have yet to see any justification for this tiny subcategory to have its own timeline - the number of pivotal events is very small. A wider timeline of powered two-wheel tranport might be appropriate, but then we get other issues like what to do with cyclecars. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see what the lack of precendences has to do with this? However, if you could find me a juicy discussion, related to any other subject page, to support your idea that might be helpful. keep in mind we are talking about the deletion of the sub-category timeline. (maybe something similar, I really don't know) But like I said the lack of precendence here doesn't really justify deletion. I am however, interested a little about this wider timeline of powered two-wheel transport, but I would need to a little more. And unavoidably I think it would get even messier (bicycles, roller skates (with 2 wheels?), and someone that is trully doing research on mopeds or motorized bicycles might find himself with a less pleasing and harder selecting relevant info. Plus there really is enough information just for motorized bicycle. Isn't motorized bicycle, global enough? Question: What really stops from having a timeline about Elvis Presley life? But I do understand your concern: Any usual wikipedia might come along and think... lets add the history dates of Harley Davison Motorcycle (recent motor bikes)(dunno... but that would be edited out obviously) Plus I think it's pretty clearly explained on the top of the timeline article. B.t.w. Is a cycle car not a motorized bicycle? (sorry I couldn't think of any resolutions right now except but to talk about your ideas) Please let keep at it... I'm sure we'll figure something out. --CyclePat 16:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missing the point. These discussions don't exist because the timeline documents for the tiny subcetegories do not, as far as I can see, exist. We don't have a timeline of Elvis Presley's life because in general (and unless there is good reason otherwise) the preference on WP is to discuss the history sequentially in the article, rather than create timelines. Timelines exist mainly to link large numbers of articles on milestones in the development of large subjects. As to the problems or otherwise with widening the scope, that's best left to the relevant talk page, don't you agree? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humm... Maybe Elvis wasn't a good example. Actually it propably is a good example... I've seen some timelines that are totally bogged down with dates. (such as Timeline of Canadian history) but I've also seen short timelines. If you notice though Canada has sub-categories. For example 1932 in Canada has 3 sub-categories. Events, Arts and litterature, births. Back to the elvis example, sub-category: would be... songs and records, movies, relationships and life. (based essentially on the history of the Elvis Presley as found with the wiki article.). All this to say. Perhaps, then a larger, broader timeline, might incorperate this timeline... however I would not go as far as to disolve the current motorized bicycle history page, I would simply put a link to. --CyclePat 18:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2nd dispute, The CCM bicycle

Asside: Another one of our disputes: Perhaps we should talk about that later? The relevance of a facts to a timeline. You might dispute such facts the CCM bicycle subject. So... we would need to be careful in chosing, what are major categories. And we would need to resolve that CCM dispute (I added some recent comments in the main articles discusion page)Where we were arguing about)... We're not arguing legibility right? Just the facts and what is important? --CyclePat 18:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: the dispute here is about the verifiable significance of the event in the context of the global development of the motorised bicycle. The point of timlines is to record the milestone events, and collect together a number of articles on a large subject into a logical sequence so that readers can follow the thread of development.

This also goes to the heart of my problem with the timeline article: not only is the history of the motorised bicycle quite short, and blessed with relatively few pivotal moments, it's also all documented in one article already, so a portmanteau article collecting together the various threads is redundant. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now you see, when I created the article I was thinking the contrary. This Timeline would be a place to put all the specific or non-specific inforamtion concerning motorized bicycle. (even the odd ball, mimicked (kinda like a clone computer) motorized bicycle). An extensively abund amount of links to all the moped we can find. (That's at first) But asside from maybe... or something we would have though of. Byt why the key moments? And who will decide this concidering (I don't think there's really to much info for the earlier motorized bicycleS? (b.t.w. it's 1h15 am here, so goodnight)(humm! I'll fix the typos and coherence of this statement tomorow, sorry for the inconveniance) --CyclePat 06:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The CCM Light Delivery Safety has an indisputable place in the CCM article, but unless it has some verifiable significance to the global development of the motorised bicycle it would be at best an irrelevance and at worst a red herring in either article. The fact that you created the second article to contain trivia which, by consensus, was removed from the first is in line with what I suspected, but if anything the bar is higher in the timeline as timelines are lists of pivotal events. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A timeline is defined as: a) "chronology"... but it may also be b) "representation or exhibit of key events within a particular historical period, often consisting of illustrative visual material accompanied by written commentary, arranged chronologically."[2] I think that's where we where differing in opinion. If we take your interpretation of the definition, then you would are possibly correct in saying CCM bicycle doesn't deserve a spot. However, what is a key event? (I think you said the answer to that somewhere else, already) I've indicated elsewhere, that it feels almost like original research or (bias selections) being able to pick and chose. (devils advocat here!) What make you able to discern what information is worthy of notation. As you have said you don't have enough information on the subject. (I don't either, which is why I didn't want to try and speculate if that information was worthy of inclusion). I put the information in as per the a) definition. (and good faith, assuming this information must have some type of influence on the motorized bicycle since it is from a notable source such as the Museum of science and tech of Canada). Chronology could have 3 meaning according to this dictionary. The 3rd one says: "A chronological list or table." (Which make me think... perhaps the name should be Chronological list of motorized bicycles ?) And we know what chronological means right?[3] So please don't consider this me trying to prove a point, I was trully trying to get some usuful information into an appropriat article. Now, what to do? Who's definition is better? (it sadens me to see my information disapear because of some difference of interpratation)

(Maybe we can come on a concensus to define a little bit better what a timeline is?) --CyclePat 22:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also I just realize, (as you mentioned on the talk page of timeline) it will be hard to create such a... visual, graphically inclined timeline... that is why I assumed it was the first definition. --CyclePat 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia in general, the insigificant does not get a mention (anywhere). WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. As to the purpose of the timeline, you went to the themed timelines article to add this one, did you look at any of the others? They are either generally long articles covering a few centuries, with events divided into decades, or they are a list of milestones in a long development, linking multiple articles which need pulling together. Or so it seems to me. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 23:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand. However, I do understand what you are saying about wikipedia not having a collection of indiscriminate information ("that's stated at the start of WP:ISNOT (Consensus, policy)"). I did find the most logical choice you would argue upon would be that of #7 of WP:ISNOT. Seemingly this may support your idea, but I can already see some refutations coming. Again, the question... according to you, what makes the fact about CCM bicycle non worthy of mentioning? It is a motorized bicycle, it's importance be of something. Just like a distant star that might be discovered, it is a star. We might not comprehend its significance in the universe but surely God or (if you believe in Aliens) some Aliens might consider it significant. What if that star was the one I wished upon. Or what if it was a star that had such a gravitational pull on the earth that it kept the universe aligned, except, at the present moment our feeble minds can't calculate that. CCM bicycle with an attached "Pixie" bicycle motor is a well documented motorized bicycle that can be found in the Museum of Science and Technology of Canada. So how will we according to "you", pick and chose, discriminately which motorized bicycles influence what culture the most? ~~the attack~~ (Aside: rule #2, from [[WP:ISNOT] ("Lists or repositories") ~~does~~ supports the idea that we may have this timeline.) ~~(might have some typos... pretty tire again)(sorry!)~~ I did notice some lists, what you say sounds right. I also noticed these lists (not timelines) where simply a list of various items ~~(I'll have to get back to you on this one)~~ Thank you. (gnight) --CyclePat 04:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, I'm a little tires... I'll re-write some/most of the comments later on. now you have a heads up.~~ --CyclePat 04:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Now I remember. What about a list of motorized bicycle? That could be subdivided into addition kits, and manufactured... meuh? (Goodnight) --CyclePat 04:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the above 2 or 3 comments by me were quickly re-edited and corrected --CyclePat 21:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Pat, if I've said it once I've said it a dozen times: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. OK, it's not paper, but we have to draw a line. And the line here is drawn well above the point where you can insert pet examples without any evidence of significance into an article on the global history and development of the motorized bicycle. The list you suggest - essentially your third attempt to insert this trivia into the mainstream, is even more useless than the last attempt. It is what is called listcruft on AfD, and dozens like it get deleted every week. I urge you to devote your energies into something demonstrably significant instead. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Just zis Guy, you know?", please read over the WP:NPOV. In particular I think the section good research [4]. I've told you time and again my sources. Good "facts" should be mentioned to maintain the NPOV of an article. Also might I suggest you read over WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy or an Anarchy. There should be no Wikipedia:Straw polls --CyclePat 17:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's like this: I know your sources, and they do not address the question. I have said this before: the source is a museum description, museums collect all sorts of curiosities. These often have a valid place in the articles on their manufacturers (as this one does), but if they are not releavnt to the global history of development, they should not be included in articles dealing with that. If you want the CCM in the article, all you need to do is show some verifiable evidence that it was significant to the development of the motorised bicycle. The article is already quite long, has several significant examples, discusses history, technology, some regional issues and much else. It would be like adding the manufacturer of a single one of Elvis's suits into the Elvis article. See what I mean? I really thought we had reached agreement on this some time ago and I am seriously disheartened to find you are back down the same route.

I wish I could understand why you are so hung up on this one, apparently trivial item!

As to the comment on NPOV, of course I understand NPOV! I showed that on Simon Wessely. But this is not about NPOV, it's about inclusion criteria. And in any case, do you genuinely think your point of view as a Canadian with a fledgling business manufacturing motorised bicycles and an acknowledged interest in their classification due to a legal dispute, is neutral? I have no interest in this fight, other than as a bicycle enthusiast. I am trying to help, I was and am trying to help with the process of turning what seems to have started as a wrestling match over the electric / non electric issue into what is now, to my mind, quite a nice article. Ditto the timeline: you created it in what I still have enormous trouble not seeing as bad faith, but K-111 has done some good work, and he and I seem to be working out a way in which the article can be useful in drawing together various related strands. I'm sorry that neither of us sees a place for the CCM, just as others have disputed your perspective before. Now I'm happy to go with a consensus (I have had articles deleted, I've withdrawn AfD noms, and I've changed AfD votes in response to substantial revision of the source article). Look at the other work I've done - some of which has POV issues, which have been toned down by others and Ive respected that.- Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this conversation should be linked to from the delete page

Do you agree that this conversation should be linked into the delete page?

Why? This conversation is aminly about CCM. The delete page links to the main article, and voters will read its Talk page before voting. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronline for Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ronline and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ronline . I have nominated Ronline to be Administrator for English Wikipedia. Let's vote for him! Bonaparte talk & contribs

Dear Guy! First of all I would like to thank you one more time for your help. It was very good to make direct contact with you while I was blocked illegal by Mr. Mikka. He used against me his rights of Admin in an abusive approach. I've send you also today an email with all the aspects concerning his abusive manner and I'm glad that you helped me and now I can defend myself. I really hope that this was his last abusive approach and he will stop doing illegal measures like he did to me and others. Bonaparte talk & contribs

No problem, I think that overall in this case you are right that Mikka was a bit harsh. But I think you also need to recognise your own fault; you have not in the past been beyond reproach (neither have I, we all have off days and we all have issues on which passion can sometimes outweigh judgment). I have sometimes adopted the technique of a voluntary cooling-off period, where I leave things for 24 hours before responding. I have also sometimes created a user subpage stating my point of view or vision. Don't be too quick to "defend", it may well escalate matters again. Remember that regional usage of English varies, that some people use irony or sarcasm without real malice. Feel free to come back here and vent your spleen before going back and making a much calmer statement :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guy! It is so good to have a friend like you. I'm happy that I read your answear here before I was just to make the click on my huge defense report. As a second thought I think is better to follow your advice and give 24 hours cooling-off period. But anyway this doesn't mean that I will just pass over, what he did is illegal and inacceptable. The problem is that untill recently he kept a monopol there and he censored after his own good will. Indeed that was too calmer statement :). Best regards, dear friend! Bonaparte talk & contribs

I know what you mean, sometimes things feel unjust - I have been there, too. The thing is, as far as the "other side" is concerned, the same applies. There are a few ways out of this: one is the RfC process, another is to write up both sides of a disputed case. Sometimes this can be done in the main article, other times you need to create a new article on "subject (controversy)". In some cases this means swallowing your pride and letting the majority view stand on the main article: luckily I've not been in that position, I don't know how well I'd take it. Badly is my guess...

I looked in a bit, but I couldn't really make out how the dispute started. I think I'd rather not know. Above all, though, state your case in NPOV. This is not always easy, especially for those whose facility with English is below Shakespearean levels. English is a wonderful language for jokesters like me, one word can often be given many different meanings - which is an elephant trap for those who tend to write in the heat of the moment.

If you want my advice you'll go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mikkalai and Bonaparte|the administrators' noticeboard article, thank whoever unblocked you and ask for advice on how best to come to an acommodation with your opponents. As I say, you are not blameless in this, but I do think Mikkala acted somewhat precipitately in this case. I am given to understand that Mikkala, whether he sides with one group or not, originally set out to help resolve the problem, and it seems to me that to offer an olive branch here might be a good option.

Finally, I have the monoglot Anglophone's natural tendency to assume that the whole world understands idiomatic (British) English. My phrasing is considered mildly eccentric even by British standards, so I will not be offended if you ask me to clarify anything I say. In debate with Americans this has often led to misunderstanding. I apologise in advance :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guy, I would like to assure you that I've taken all what you told me in the most serious way, so I will consider my future actions in that manner. All started when this Admin started to revert our edits without any explanation. Even now on the talk page the majority agrees with my point of view. There is not a Moldovan language only Romanian with a different name. It is like the "Austrian" and German. Or Flemish. But on the Austrian_langauge(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_language) it is stated clearly that there exist not a standard official Austrian language. And mr. mikka was originally on the other side, and only after Ronline told him that he is also a sysop at the romanian wikipedia he calmed down and started to be more neutral. And about the case we are talking about if you are curious I will tell you just few words. A country named Moldova (Moldova is a historical romanian region populated by romanians, along with Transylvania and Wallachia) was split in two parts and one part in 1940 was annexed to Soviet Union. In 1989 they started the process of indenpendence from Soviet Union. Since the collapse of Soviet Union it gain independece. Between 1989 and 1994, there were officially recognized that their official language was romanian. After that they changed to "Moldovan". A very interesting report is made of State Dept. of USA who describes very accurately ([[5]]). I will cite them: "Stalin justified the creation of the Moldavian SSR by claiming that a distinct "Moldavian" language was an indicator that "Moldavians" were a separate nationality from the Romanians in Romania. In order to give greater credence to this claim, in 1940 Stalin imposed the Cyrillic alphabet on "Moldavian" to make it look more like Russian and less like Romanian; archaic Romanian words of Slavic origin were imposed on "Moldavian"; Russian loanwords and phrases were added to "Moldavian"; and a new theory was advanced that "Moldavian" was at least partially Slavic in origin. (Romanian is a Romance language descended from Latin.) In 1949 Moldavian citizens were publicly reprimanded in a journal for daring to express themselves in literary Romanian. The Soviet government continued this type of behavior for decades.". Now is very debately since our President Basescu said that there are two romananian states with the same people. And yes Romanian is a latin langauge, not slavic. And it is a wonder how survived more than 2000 years like an island in see of slavic people. The most similar language with romanian is italian (almost 2000 km far away), a romanian can understand about 85% italian without any kind of italian lesson. E.g. Eu sunt student.(RO)-Io sono student.(IT). That's why there are more than 1,000,000 romanian in Italy and Italy is economic partner no. 1. Please forgive for my "few words" that eventually became so many :-). Bonaparte talk & contribs

Cleanup on D&N

Thanks for finding that stray sig I dropped into the first vote -- I thought I had hit the button twice, but wasn't quite sure. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 15:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article has been cleaned now. Please advise

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature

List of villains

Hey, Zaphod. (It's easier to type than your actual name!)

I noticed that you put an AfD notice up on List of villains recently. You might not have noticed that a previous AfD had just concluded a few days before yours went up, with the result of keep. I'm not sure what the official Wikipedia policies on this are, but it seems silly to me to renominate a page that's just been reviewed for deletion. Another user removed your AfD notice, because the previous one was finished; again, I'm not sure what the protocol is in that situation, but thought you'd like to be made aware.

(Incidentally, the page is undergoing a slightly painful transition at the moment, and isn't at its best right now.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice, and withdrew the AfD - when I looked I picked up a much earlier one (2004?) - or I misread it. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated template substitution

This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Tawker 18:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]