User talk:JzG/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



I'm moving house, don't expect an answer before Monday :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck :-) Stephen B Streater 19:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Diana Irey[edit]

A new user (MRMKJason (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)) has taken it upon himself to remove your semi-protection, and say it wasn't controversial. MRMKJason (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is probably the IP that has been hitting it, both focus on only one article. There are two sources from the political spectrum offered that it is a big deal. C56C 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

MRMKJason has been involved with that article on-and-off for a very long time; his involvement predated both yours and mine. Before you ever started trying to inject a pro-Democrat POV in the Irey article, I was struggling against him over wording that I regard as pro-Republican. And, since you have attacked three of the articles on which I work (and made reference to the other two (on Madge Oberholtzer and on D. C. Stephenson) in lodging a bogus complaint), you are plainly lying when you claim that I edit only one. — 23:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"I have a dream ..."[edit]

Note that MarkGallagher does this every so often. I try to do it, too. See also Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. Uncle G 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are two that you can help with:

Please double-check my reasoning that it is not a sound application of our verifiability policy (given Aladin (AfD discussion), Jamie Kane (AfD discussion), and many other past examples) to take a band's own web site at face value and not to look for sources other than what a band says about itself, and that it is not an application of our verifiability policy at all to accept as a source a book that is not only an autobiography but that hasn't even been published. Uncle G 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


...I probably would, haha. Yes, I disagree with the reasoning and your snow close onn the silly Backstreet thing (at least stop linking the thing, sheesh, heh), and I actually think that it might have been the second AfD pertaining to this meme, and that the first one was under a different name, but I can't find it. Also, with Learn about Easter, I'm pretty sure term papers aren't speedyable yet. Either way, do as you must. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of what is better for the editor and the encyclopaedia: a week of people poking fun at their article, or quietly deleting it. On the other hand, I am a wicked rouge admin... Just zis Guy you know? 17:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Remember the bad Bowser move you made a few days ago?? Please note that the Nintendo character, not the tanker truck, is the primary meaning. Georgia guy 13:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

False. The fuel tanker meaning predates the Nintendo character by several decades and is probably the predominant meaning worldwide, whatever Nintendo fans may think. Bowser currently redirects to the dab page which is fine. Just zis Guy you know? 07:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol. --kingboyk 08:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Is there any way to speedy the school and state redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 19? CaliEd 21:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I applied a little rouge. It came as no surprise to find that this user's other work includes creating a disparaging category just for Michael Moore, and work on Hyles-Anderson College. Just zis Guy you know? 22:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I made the above redirects, but I never made any "disparaging category just for Michael Moore". Quit making things up about me. You really appear to be acting like a bully. What does Hyles-Anderson College have to do with my redirects? And why do you bring it up? I notice that you have made many edits to that article.
You have also deleted other edits of mine without giving any explanation. --Kalmia 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OIC, so you made up a disparaging category and purely by coincidence put only Michael Moore in it. That makes all the difference... Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You may call it a "disparaging category", but it was really factual whether you liked it or not. I guess you think this is a disparaging article. And it wasn't "just" for Michael Moore. I put many others in there including Jerry Falwell, Dennis Hastert, King Henry VIII, Walter_Hudson and William Howard Taft. Michael Moore wasn't even one of the first to be added, but I guess that is the only one you could read. Why don't you use your admin. tools to go back and look it up. Log is here. --Kalmia 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
And what about Category:Overweight people? And what was the reliable secondary source for Moore being obese? Just zis Guy you know? 07:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I made Category:Overweight people then figured that Category:Obese people would be a better category, so I made that one and left the other alone. As for sources, I googled for a list and put some people in there and left it for others to finish. --Kalmia 19:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


The irony is that if our thousands of investors knew how much time I spent here, I'd probably get the sack. Stephen B Streater 18:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 :o) Just zis Guy you know? 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

External links - and others[edit]

As you say, some are valid but many are linkspam. I put up a list of User:Tom harrison/Pages with questionable external links. If I figure out how to do it, I'll put up a page of Sites with over 200 links. Beyond that, what to do? We could say that any website to which we give that many links should have its own article, and then we link pages to that article instead of to the site. We could globally add a nofollow tag to every occurance after the first fifty, or maybe tag them as nowiki. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom, I was beginning to think it was just me :-) I can't think of an easy way to deal with it other than link pruning one by one. I think it is fair in any mature article on a mainstream topic to include only those links which are legitimate sources for the article, or which represent the mainstream view in a given religion. So: Catholic Encyclopaedia is good, SSPIX is not good (unless discussing an issue directly related to traditionalist Catholicism). Ditto here: Jewish Encyclopaedia good, Chabad questionable unless the Chabad-Lubavich POV is explicitly discussed in the article - otherwise it's kind of like an offsite POV fork. The spam Wikiproject might be able to help, otherwise I will get on it when I get my broadband link back. It would certianly be very helpful if we could get a list of websites ordered by number of external links in WP, but I have no idea how to do that. Guy 08:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, with regard to Catholicism, etc.: traditional/traditionalist Catholicism is a fully legitimate approach to Catholicism, JzG. Read John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei [1] and please stop punishing what is a mainstream, if (quickly growing) minority, means of worship. For an overview of the traditional Catholic "movement," see "that site," specifically /traditionalcatholicism.html and note the objective stance taken with regard to how various traditionalists approach the documents of Vatican II, and Benedict XVI. There are Catholic parishes -- fully and without doubt in communion with Rome -- all over the world in which the traditional calendar and Missal are used (in addition to SSPX and other chapels who follow the same Missal and calendar). The FE site is one of the only, if not the only, site that stays out of the FSSP/SSPX type debates (though such discussions take place in one sub-forum of the discussion board) and just presents, in a very comprehensive way, what all traditional Catholics have in common, making clear what the new Code of Canon Law says and what many trads do voluntarily, etc.
It seems that you are lumping all traditional Catholics into one group -- "not mainstream" -- and depriving them of any kind of "voice" at all. I know of a lot of Bishops -- fully in communion with Rome -- who'd be surprised to know that they are allowing what amounts to a "POV fork" in their dioceses by allowing priests of the FSSP or ICK to operate there -- priests for whom, for ex., the Feast of the Visitation is on 2 July, not 31 May (as it is, obviously, for their thousands and thousands of parishioners, and also for the thousands and thousands who attend Masses offered by such fraternites as the SSPX). The fact is that Rome allows two Missae and two calendars to exist side-by-side, often in the same parish (as it does at mine). I truly wish you would at least consider the possibility that this issue is beyond your area of expertise, and then loosen up a bit, perhaps turning over the "FE issue" to another admin who can look at it all fresh, without past baggage getting in the way.
I never said it was not legitimate, only that it is not mainstream (which is undeniably true). Where we link the Catholic perspective in a general article, the trad view is not likely to be relevant; it would be like representing the Continuing Anglican Movement's view as the Anglican perspective, or representing young-earth creationism as a majority opinion in the Christian world. This much should be clear from my original comment, I think. We already have a policy which says that we should not give undue weight to minority views. That does not mean we "deny them a voice", it means we discuss them in the appropriate context and do not misrepresent them as being more prevalent or influential than they are. In this case the chabad site appears to be linked from many more articles than is justifiable by their minority status, which is what Tom and I would like to fix. Guy 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I sent you an email, please take a look. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But Catholicism, unlike Judaism, has a Pope, and the Pope makes traditionalist views and aspirations "mainstream," even if they are still a numerical minority (and, as said, that minority is growing all the time). I agree that the traditional means of worship shouldn't be misrepresented as being more prevalent than it is, but it is, indeed, and is perfectly legitimate and increasingly popular (full seminaries, a rare thing these days). IOW, neither should it be ignored or misrepresented as less prevalent than it is. A sample listing of such Masses in the US and Canada [2], and another one for the same areas [3] -- and neither of those lists includes Masses in Europe, Australia, etc., or Masses offered by SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, and Independent Priests, most of whom also use the 1962 Missal and calendar. To wit, we are legion out here, even if we are a numerical minority (50% less 1 is a "minority," as far as that goes); I think you are underestimating the "trad movement," both numerically and in terms of influence.
When I edited Wiki, I went through many pages of Feasts, for ex., and edited to note the different dates on the different calendars -- a perfectly legitimate thing to do (even if just for historical reasons if nothing else) and something that could only make Wiki more complete. Why it would be wrong to put an external link to a webpage about such a Feast as it is celebrated in the traditional way by Catholics perfectly in communion with Rome, and when that link is clearly labelled "traditional" (or "traditionalist") --- well, I am just puzzled.
Oh well. Have a blessed Tuesday.
This looks like yet another attempt to confuse traditional and traditionalist. This argument belongs on Traditionalist Catholic (where indeed it has been raised many times). The reason it would be wrong to add the link is, of course, that it is a site which you own; per WP:ELthat is not on. Again, this has been pointed out to you many times. Guy 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me whether traditional Catholics are called "traditional Catholics" or "traditionalist Catholics," or whether links to a site such as mine are labeled "traditional" or traditionalist." I use both terms, mostly depending on sentence rhythm, quite frankly, though the former is more common among trads. I "get" the bit about not adding links to one's own site, JzG (a rule which was not in place when I added links, other than those added "to promote a site"); as it is, however, no one can add links.
Of course it doesn't matter to you if dissenting traditionalists are misrepresented as traditional, that much you have made abundantly clear by now. The rule against adding links to your own site was in place at the time of your edit war last December, which is why an admin eventually blocked you back then. Guy 14:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
In that trads refer to themselves as "traditional Catholics," there is no misrepresentation. I was blocked for "edit warring."
No, there is misrepresentation. A traditional Catholic follows the Catholic tradition. A Traditionalist Catholic follows a partticular version of the Catholic tradition, with an arbitrarily declared break which is not recognised as such by the mainstream Catholic church. You were blocked for edit warring and spamming. Rewriting history does seem to be a bit of a recurring theme with you. Guy 08:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Then by your definition, I -- as a Catholic who hasn't broken away from the Church and who worships in a regular parish -- am not a "traditionalist" Catholic at all, but a "traditional" one with a site that should be labeled "traditional" not "traditionalist." Since this is the case, why have you been calling my labeling the site "traditional" a "misrepresentation"?
I was, to my knowledge, blocked for edit-warring one night in December, and on that same night I asked that my user page be deleted. The "edit war" involved my replacing links that Dominick and, later, others, took down. Whatever was in the Admin's head who blocked me is what the "official crime" is, and in that there were no rules in place against having "too many links," nor were there any rules in place against linking to one's own site other than those added by a webmaster "to promote a site," the "charges" were made up on the fly anyway -- especially since I was trying to get clarification as to what the rules were and was trying to get arbitration for that very matter since Dominick would follow me around and take down any and all links, calling the site a "blog" and such in the process. "Edit-warring" (which Dominick could do) vs. "re-adding links that you consider 'spam'" -- six of one, half a dozen of the other, one would think that something that happened one night late last year wouldn't be such an issue at this point in time.
Or not. Your arguments are not persuasive however many times you repeat them. The solution is to bring better arguments (or go away, I don't mind which). Guy 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Likewise in what way? The fact that y arguments were persuasive is amply demonstrated by the status quo. Guy 07:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Likewise in that your arguments are not persuasive however many times you repeat them -- "edit war," "spam," "misleading links," etc. You simply ignore things you can't refute (e.g., you said links to my site were "misleading" because they were labeled "traditional" even though, by your definition, my site is "traditional" and not "traditionalist"), ignore the facts concerning what rules were in place when I (and others, BTW) added links, insist on punishing on an ex post facto basis, and accuse anyone who has added or wants to add a link of being me. Naconkantari asked that this matter be discussed off the Spam Blacklist page and that we return with a resolution [4]; I maintain that there can be no resolution made by us as we simply repeat ourselves and because there is too much "bad blood" between us, sad to say. I think it would be a good thing if an objective, fresh-to-this-issue third party were to look at the site and consider whether a few links ("Further Reading," not "Resources" -- labeled "traditional" or "traditionalist" or whatever) on relevant pages would be a helpful thing or not. Maybe Naconkantari herself could look into it if she has the time. But as it is, you repeat your same old arguments, and I rebut with my same old arguments, and on we go for endless paragraphs that only the intrepid and exceedingly patient would want to wade through. You're an Admin; I am not. She will naturally and understandably listen to you over me, not having the time, I'm sure, to investigate every quibble that comes her way, esp. when such a row involves the pages of arguments that we produce and comes down to such things as debating what "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" mean and how Ecclesia Dei (What??) plays into it all. A simple, "This woman and I have bad blood between us and want an objective third party to investigate and decide what, if anything, should be done with regard to removing the site from the blacklist" -- all without year-old stuff about "spamming" and "edit wars" and what rules were in place at the time links were added, and with no talk of ex post facto judgments and Dominick and blah blah blah, etc., ad nauseum. This would be an easy thing to ask for, and fair all around. At least it could be if it were handled in a "This is Day One. Here's a site. Is it an OK site to link as "further reading" on relevant pages? If so, in what manner should any links be added, how should any links be labeled so they are not misleading, and how many links are 'too many'?" way -- and with no behind-the-scenes monkey-business. I don't see why this is too much to ask.
Last time I checked your site was still blacklisted, which suggests that perhaps my arguments are persuasive after all, despite your assertions above. You can stop the endless arguments by simply stopping arguing. And as I have said more than once in the past, if you are looking to inform people then the way to use Wikipedia to do that is to add content, not links. The fact that you constantly agitate over links to your site appears to indicate that promoting your site, rather than informing people, is your primary goal. Guy 12:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I spent months adding content, much of which was erased by Dominick. I choose, therefore, to inform people through my site as opposed to having to debate people like Dominick for weeks over a single paragraph. I won't stop arguing as long as my site is trashed on the Spam page.
Your site is not "trashed", it's simply listed. Your assertion that you spent months adding content which was reverted by another user is unverifiable since you seem unwilling to register and thus provide an audit trail; given that Dominick is a long-term contributor with a history and you are not, Dominick's view is likely to get more weight in any content dispute even if the two viewshave equal merit, and who knows if your contributions were tendentious or not? We can't tell because you only registered anb account when engaged in your edit war over links to your own site, so adding links to your own site (and then arguing endlesslly about it afterwards) is effectively all you are known for on the project, because it's all we can actually trace to you. Guy 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC) -- and that doesn't include the months I edited before registering. Go through the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry Talk Pages for October - December 2005. All I did for months was waste my time trying to make that entry a good one. Your impression that I only registered an account "when engaged in an edit war over links" to my site is 100% backwards; I stopped using that account on the very day of the edit war, out of total frustration with what was going on (because, once again, to my knowledge and acc. to the rules then in place, I wasn't breaking any rules and was seeing my site stripped away while being called a "blog" and such, and the person who was doing it repeatedly was getting away with it while I was accused of "edit warring." That I did not truly believe I was breaking any rules should be evident in the RfC I filed against him, in which I, myself, listed a boatload of entries to which I added links to my site -- all for Admins to see in the course of resolving our dispute [5].

Oh yes, I remember now: you originally registered in order to try to stop people from removing your original research from traditionalist catholic, as per [6] (one of your first edits). You then went about a brief campaign of POV-pushing, such as this [7], interspersed with the odd spelling and grammar un-correction [8], and then you started the edit war about removal of links to your own site. Yes, that makes all the difference. Guy 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You obviously didn't compare the versions in the first link. As to the rest, pretty selective, eh? And you are obviously seeing it all with your POV. If this is the kind of stuff you come up with after looking through records of months of my editing, then tell me what could possibly be a good reason to sign up and edit again, will ya?
You know, your animus could easily be mistaken for a mad crush. Is that it, JzG? Is it that you really, really want me or something? Jeez-a-loo. Pass this matter on to an objective Admin; you just proved your lack of objectivity big time.
You know, your animus could easily be mistaken for trolling. Oh, wait... Guy 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Disclaimer pages[edit]

Hey; thanks plenty for filling the editprotected on the disclaimer; if you could do the same for the risk, medical, legal and content I'd appreciate it quite much (also remember to repoint the header template and remove the first colon from the category upon each copy; take a glance back at my original post if you forget exactly what they're supposed to be). Thanks again. ~ PseudoSudo 13:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I see; you made the change, just lost track of which page was which. Better. ~ PseudoSudo 13:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Last bits! Category in general; category in risk; kill extra newline just under {{Disclaimer-header}} in risk. Should leave them good to go. ~ PseudoSudo 16:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ees feex. Just zis Guy you know? 16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You'rethebestthanks! ~ PseudoSudo 16:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongo Arb[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Generally once a case is opened, statement by the involved parties stay on the main page and comments by uninvolved parties go on the talk page. Do you consider yourself "involved"? If not, you should probably move your statement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to stuff some evidence in. As a party to the ED deletion and reviews, and one who has tolerably civil relations with both Jeff and Mongo, I wish to participate. This has not been a problem in the past for me, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Just zis Guy you know? 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You can be involved if you want to. I was just checking. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Yes, my problem here is that a couple of people I respect - MONGO and Jeff - appear to be engaging in a schoolyard brawl where at least one has a conflict of interest, and I'm concerned that Jeff may end up censured as a result. I do not think this would be a good result for the project. Just zis Guy you know? 18:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns[edit]

Hello JzG, recalling how you were relative to the Lance Armstrong article I was wondering if you could take a look at this BLP noticeboard discussion? Thanks. (Netscott) 01:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Moot, since it's now archived. You did piss SlimVirgin off, though, which is probably not too smart. Just zis Guy you know? 08:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

bolt-free fitting?[edit]

Hi. If you're triaging your messages, put this one on the bottom of the pile. I was revising the cage nut article and the phrase "Although most modern rack-mount servers have bolt-free fitting", which first appeared in your revision of 23:09, 14 March 2006, caught my attention. I have never seen, or before now even heard of, any such servers. Before editing it I wanted to check with you and see why you think something is commonplace that I've never heard of. Presumably it has to do with our working in different parts of the business an ocean away from each other, but I'm curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xela (talkcontribs) 04:40, August 30, 2006

Compaq, Dell and IBM all now supply snap-in rack mount rails which require no bolts for at least some products in their range. Some which do require bolts have the threads attached to the rails. I find that when I build racks these days the only things which require cagenuts are switches and UPS. Just zis Guy you know? 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
While those are certainly three major manufacturers, I think you'll agree that "most" overstates the case. I'll change the page to say "some". And if you happen to come across a web page with a good picture of one of these boltless rail kits, I'd appreciate a pointer. I'm curious to see one.--Alex 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Potters House[edit]

That's fine, but what about Feldspar and his harrasment, is there somewhere I can get help? Please also state exactly whaere I am off, because feldspar accused me of manipulating the deletion vote and also said I was a liar. Potters house 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have annoyed Antaeus by your part in the incessant recreation of what is largely a vanity article on Johnny Lee Clary, and by your argufying, and by your rather strong and evident biases, but the comment which caught my eye was actually your unsigned comment to User:Ohconfucius. Not the first time you have used ad-hominem in a deletion debate, either. Absent good and credible evidence of bad faith (of which you present none), you must take all comments - delete or keep - at face value. Just zis Guy you know? 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't speak Latin. I am not sure what you are trying to say. I guess that it means you are having a go at me because I added to someones post? I didn't know you couldn't do that. Feldspar was adding at the bottom of many posts, so I just thought that I could?

Ok I just noticed this -

This one seems like a deletion bot see: Also - why the POV? Johnny's Ego has nothing to do with it. It is not a case of whether you like the man or not but an examination of fact - Is he notable? Yes! Why put delete if you really mean merge? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potters house (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm going to trim and interleave here, as there are two separate threads to this.
You are correct in thinking that I warned you because you accused another editor of being a deletion-bot. Ad-hominem is a sufficiently common expression that its use does not assume familiarity with Latin (I have no Latin myself either). So: please don't do that, whatever your personal issues with any other editor. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
He called me a liar basically and claimed that I would go as far as decieving people to get votes. I am a Christian and aspiring to be a minister, this persons Job is to discredit ministers! I am not making this up! See Rick Ross They make 2500 -5000 dollars each time a person leaves a cult and needs "deprograming."
Sorry if the about seems off base but this guy has been on my back for months now and no one cares. I try to mediate but he refuses. Because I can't speak the Wiki language yet he wins over me and gets everyone off side. Although you have stated that it is POV etc and against wiki policy, did you even look at the evidence I provided? Is there such a thing as wiki stalking or wiki bullying? Do you even care? Potters house 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well now. If I didn't care, why would I be warning you about making baseless accusations against another editor? If you have an issue with Antaeus, the correct response is an RfC, citing evidence (in diff form). Reference to your aspiraitons for ministry will not, I'm afraid, cut much ice: we have had bad experiences of people who come here on a Mission. Just zis Guy you know? 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Nick, you claim that you have not been lying to people here on Wikipedia. You also just claimed that you had some sort of knowledge that I had a "Job [sic] ... to discredit ministers!" Now, can you please explain what evidence you have of this alleged job of mine? Can you please spell out for us what proof you had in hand before you launched that smear on my reputation, asserting it as fact? Because if you in fact have no evidence whatsoever that this is the case, but asserted this claim anyways, that is in fact what we call a lie. And you are, indeed, a liar. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I got you mixed up with Tilman who is basically a ross crony like yourself, (be honest). I was wrong like you also were wrong about me and that I was Kev. Shake hands and make up? Potters house 09:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

... I am dumbfounded. In one sentence you not only launch yet another unsupported accusation against me, compounding it with an admonition to "be honest" -- as if you had caught me in lie after lie, rather than vice-versa. And then two sentences later you want to "shake hands and make up?" -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Please don't mess like that. You may think it's okay but I think you're just being cute. Aqua should display as a light blue or cyan tint. There's no reason for this standard color to cause you physical pain; if that's the case, I think you should avoid the risk and surf with colors overridden entirely. I'd be more tolerant of your bashing my hard work if you didn't have an excessively cute sig; if your complaint is genuine I think you can select a tint more pleasing to your eye. Please do not rm the functional backgrounds. John Reid 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

John, it hurt my eyes, literally caused physical pain. Who asked for coloured backgrounds? Not me. Where's the consensus for that? Who defines them as "functional" backgrounds? The new tint is better, BTW, but even so, where is the backing for this change? Just zis Guy you know? 18:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go on like this. It's very rude. You've invested nothing in the effort; it's in poor taste to come in whinging. You can't possibly be sincere. I'm trying very hard not to be rude myself in return and I'm sure I haven't got much patience left. This is a serious tool for a serious purpose. Don't try to justify yourself; just let it go and so will I. Move along, please; nothing to see here. John Reid 04:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and assume good faith. You made a change to a template which is very widely used, it caused me a problem, and now I'm asking some simple questions: where was the debate? what of accessibility issues? This is perfectly reasonable. I have "invested" a massive amount of time and effort in the project, and I am as entitled as anyone to have a view, to express an opinion or to ask a question. Just zis Guy you know? 08:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not much of a diplomat but I don't like to give unintentional offense. You may really not have any idea how offensive you've been; from skimming other comments on your talk page, I think that may be the case. I'll make some comments and you can take them for what they're worth; ignore them or not as you please. I don't want to get into an argument. You pretty much blew any hope I might AGF but I'll give you one more shot.

It's probably unwise to tell anyone, graphic designer or not, that his work "hurts your eyes", even if that is literally true. Social conventions demand that we couch our criticism in more diplomatic terms. "I think that color may be a poor choice." It's usually a good idea to offer alternatives, too. "Wouldn't pale green be better?"

You may or may not have done much on this project but I've never seen you lift a finger around Cent. Courtesy demands that if you feel it absolutely necessary to ram in a stick of harsh criticism, you lubricate it with a dab of recognition. "You've invested a lot of work on <foo> but..." This is not only courtesy; by showing that you know who has been working in a given area, you don't come off as a fool.

Some editors object to sigs such as yours. We don't like images (now, thankfully, forbidden), colors, special characters, clever formatting, and unnecessary links. Some of us object strongly to sigs that display something other than your true username. Policy is drifting toward increasingly tight restrictions on sigs; I have spoken against prohibitions but I feel very strongly about the matter. Every time you sign a comment, you come off badly in my eyes. What makes this worse is that you're commenting on a visual improvement. If you, like I, had a severely plain sig you might have some leverage. You might say, in effect, "I really don't like anything beyond the bare minimum." I don't agree with minimalists but I'm not in the baroque camp, either; I see both sides of the debate. Your comment would seem legitimate, even if only a knee-jerk reaction from a well-defined position. Instead, it just reads like petty whinging.

I feel you became truly annoying, though, only when you started in with Who asked for coloured backgrounds?... Where's the consensus for that? Who defines them as "functional" backgrounds? and I'm still curious as to the basis for this change. To answer your questions directly, I asked myself for colors; no prior consensus existed (nor was required); I define the backgrounds as functional and I can, at need, elaborate; most similar directory templates have similar colored-background headers. All of these answers are more or less obvious to most people and by asking them at all, you force a reader to make an unpleasant choice. Either you, too, know these answers and therefore are simply whinging for the sake of being annoying; or you do not. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, assumed you were of average intelligence, and thus only annoying and not stupid. If you accept the first label you avoid the second; if you keep hammering away in this fashion you invite one to reconsider.

You had one thing to say that rose above whinging. How well does it fit in with accessibility guidelines... If you'd said nothing else, you might have gotten a fair hearing. As it is, I'm moved to comment at WP:ACCESS. For now, I'll just say that if CSS aqua causes you physical pain, you need to go into your browser preferences and force your own text and background colors. I frequently stumble on web pages with unreadable color combinations; this is how I handle them: I force all text to black and all backgrounds to white.

I'm a professional graphic designer; check out the UBX. That certainly doesn't mean I'm always right about graphic design issues but it does mean that people pay me Cash Money to make these kinds of decisions. You have a right to criticize but if you don't show at least some token respect for my years of experience then you will be hard pressed to get a civil reaction. If you don't care how I react, then what's the point of engaging in a discussion? Just make the change and when I revert, file with ArbCom. I'd rather you did talk things over with me but I'd also rather you did so in a civil fashion.

Now, life has taught me to expect little from other people. Some take this kind of heart-to-heart talk well but many ignore it completely or take it the wrong way. I have no idea what you are going to do but I do promise that unless you seem to be taking this well, you are not going to get anything more out of me. What would be the point?

Last suggestion: Find something you really like to do and do it. It's much more fun than telling other people what they're doing wrong. John Reid 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

John, you are taking this far too personally. I am asking questions, prompted by my previous work on websites for B&Q and Woolworths, as well as being friendly with the webmaster of my local talking newspaper. Your post above appears to assume complete expertise on your part and complete cluelessness on mine. Actually one of the biggest problems we had with B&Q was that the graphic designers initially came up with a layout which did not work for visually impaired users. Just zis Guy you know? 09:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi[edit]

Can we move to close the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • User claims that I "literally made hundreds of such inclusions of defamation into the articles. "[9] These personal attacks need to be ended. Arbusto 22:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Please do not blank messages on Wikipedia talk pages without a reason. It is considered vandalism. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Very droll. Actually I clicked one too many "rollback" links when undoing your reversion of my link fixing on King Bowser. Just zis Guy you know? 08:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you move Bowser?[edit]

King Bowser, bowser

There was a debate, and a consensus in favor of moving to Bowser already. Why should we have to go through a new consensus because you decided that the previous one was invalid? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the previous "consensus" seems to have been between Nintendo fans and other Nintendo fans, and because the term bowser is the generic term for mobile tankers, the local term for fuel pumps in Australia and New Zealand, and is the main meaning of the word in dictionaries and treeware encyclopaedias, with around a century of usage to back it up. I said all this already. Having bowser as a dab page is the obvious answer, which is what we do for Hoover. Just zis Guy you know? 08:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I forgot, Nintendo fans' opinions are of no worth. And will you stop using a dictionary entry? The dictionary covers NO FICTIONAL CHARACTERS WHATSOEVER. That is a horrible argument that holds no weight, and is essentially saying that being real is more important than being more deserving of the main article title.
Now, see - apparently, it is not agreed that it is the "right thing to do". Yes, I know, it's just Nintendo fans, and they're less worthy of being Wikipedians than Almighty You, but hey, it's always possible that you might stop thinking that you own Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not that Nintendo fans' opinions are of no worth, it's more that you are completely ignoring the established usage in favour of a neologistic one which is hardly a surprise given that all the discussion thus far apears to have been on Nintendo-related pages, there has been precious little input from anyone else. Having bowser as a dab page is a perfectly reasonable solution. I'm not insisting on the century-old term being at bowser, so I fail to see why you are insisting on the Nintendo usage being there, especially since I have fixed not only the links but also the links and double redirects which were broken by the move last year. Please do go back and read Steel's comments. Just zis Guy you know? 08:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This type of discussion comes up frequently when people with a particular narrow area of interest meet up on the relevant Wikipedia article. Lots of people agree with JzG's decision on this one. This encyclopaedia is written in a timeless manner. So consider some time in the future - Nintendo characters will have been long forgotten, but the more general meaning will still be in use. Stephen B Streater 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Correct. And ask the average person on the street - not the technophile average we have on Wikipedia - and they won't give you "nintendo" as the meaning of Bowser. Indeed, I think having a dab page there is actually generous, as far as I'm concerned the word has a primary meaning which should be in that slot - and it's nothing to do with Nintendo! --kingboyk 08:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if Nintendo is not forgotten in time, I suggest that historical perspective will not elevate the arch-enemy of the Mario brothers to the status of an everyday household word, which bowser is in Australia, with mainstream news reports like "Are Australian drivers being ripped off at the bowser?". But the most compelling arguemnt for me is that the term is a genericised trademark, like hoover or armco. Just zis Guy you know? 08:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe, JUST maybe, they, like the rest of the people with the exception of a minority of people, DISAGREE ON THE MATTER. Christ, can't it be that they have their own opinions, instead of them being a bunch of stupid Nintendo fans voting to move "kuz dey luv bowser"? Just because you got to the vote late does not mean you can say that it doesn't count. Are you going to do that with every article that you're upset you didn't get to speak your mind in? Wait for people who get a consensus, and leave it at Bowser where it was in the first place.
And maybe - JUST MAYBE - we think that because the video game character is the most notable and recognizable usage of the word Bowser? You argue that being more recognizable in Australia as something other than Bowser is more important than the fact that across the world, Bowser is a video game character, not some gas crap in Australia.
And to you two guys - how the Hell is video gaming a narror interest? Christ, again with you people! At what point does being real overpower the fact that the fictional one is more notable?! Christ! It's not even the debate, it's you being an ass and deciding a consensus is invalid because you happen to think you're the God of Wikipedia. You can't freaking say you disagree with a keep result in an AfD and delete it, so why the Hell can you decide that the consensus is invalid because you weren't a part of it?!
Cliff's notes: You're an elitist ass, and the consensus was valid, and you should be blocked for not even bothering to have a discussion before you decided that your way was the only way. I wish Wikipedia would have less of you people.- A Link to the Past (talk)
Lol, it's not wise to rant and rave like this on an admin's talk page - see WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't have to respect "votes", only arguments and the resultant consensus. As Guy pointed out to you, the "vote" was held amongst editors of the Nintendo page so you're not a representative sample. You now have 3 Wikipedians with no special interest telling you they disagree. If you still maintain that the Nintendo article should be at Bowser you can take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves where the wider community can discuss it. On that note, please refrain from cussing or there will indeed be a block issued - and it will be you my friend that gets it. --kingboyk 09:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This is true. But once again we have the asserted "fact" that the Nintendo usage is more notable. No credible evidence has yet been advanced to support that. Much evidence has been advanced to contradict it. Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, Mario goes straight to the plumber. I was kind of surprised that Bowser went straight to the Koopa, but yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to believe that if you asked a random sample of people what Mario meant they's either say "don't know" or reference the video game. If you asked the same random sample what bowser meant, I think you'd not find anything like as many who would reference the character in the video games. It's possible to have heard of Mario and never played it; that would include in a lot of parents, for example. To have heard of individual characters without having played the game is less likely. Also, there is no dictionary definition of Mario (other than as a proper noun). So: I think we agree. Where's the bunting? :-) Just zis Guy you know? 10:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hah! But yeah, pretty much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I like to think I'm on the technical side of average, and "Mario" to me is either an Italian name or a computer game. Bowser is a tank or tanker of some description. HTH! ;) BTW, what's bunting? --kingboyk 11:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A string of small flags used to decorate streets and large structures at times of particular celebration, m'lud. Do we have an article on bunting? Aha! I perceive that we do. Just zis Guy you know? 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that per the lead of the article, the character's name is actually King Bowser Koopa. Shouldn't the article live there? --kingboyk 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Haven't a clue, mate. If it should then I will do the needful, it will be easy now all links are consistent. Just zis Guy you know? 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pissed off at the group, Just zis Guy. It is nothing personal. I do not have anything against you. It's your group of people, elitists. I bring up the fact that Mario is the biggest icon in gaming and highly notable all around the world (and by extension Bowser, also known as King Koopa), and you tell me that's not good enough, and your only arguments are awful. You argue that because Bowser appears in the dictionary as the real-life usages and not the fictional character, that they're more notable, which is more an argument that being real is more important than being more notable. And then the fact that it's likely more notable in Australia, yet you fail to understand that the Mario franchise is huge in Australia, as it is in Europe, North America, Asia, etc. While you have select notability and being real, I have worldwide notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt but you haven't established much notability at all. You've made some very broad, sweeping comments about the Mario series in general, but (amongst other things), you haven't said anything about how that applies to Bowser. By association or extension isn't good enough, I'm afraid. Mario may well be a well known name, but that doesn't automatically mean that one of his antagonists is equally as well known, which is what you're saying. -- Steel 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to be blunt, but pointing out that Bowser isn't in the dictionary is an even worse argument. Bowser appears at the end of world 1 (consisting of four levels) in SMB, the best selling game ever made. In all likelyhood, people will have noticed him. Your arguments are that he doesn't appear in the dictionary (an argument that attacks his fictional status, not his notability) and that in certain regions, Bowser is known as gas pumps or something. But Mario is a huge franchise in Asia, Europe, North America and Australia. The majority of people who have played a Mario game likely will have heard of King Koopa or Bowser, but people in NA won't know what a bowser is in reference to a gas pump, neither will people in the EU. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We're not talking about the Mario series, we're talking about one of many characters within it. You say that Bowser is very well known, but a Google search says otherwise. The fuel pump thing is used in everyday language, and not just in Australia.
One thing I would like to emphasise is that we're not suggesting that the fuel pump term is given the Bowser page. We're suggesting that Bowser is made a disambiguation, where each of the many uses of the word are given an entry. You are acting as though we're trying to remove all mention of the Mario character from the entire encyclopedia. -- Steel 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not even that the debate is going on. You know why I am so pissed? It's because Just zis Guy is such an asshole by looking at a consensus and deciding it's invalid because he couldn't input his opinion! I've already dealt with another case of assholery where someone decided to ignore a keep result in an AfD and turned it into a redirect. I am so sick of people like you (not Steel) deciding that they have the right to ignore all rules and be completely disrespectful to people who disagree with them. I'm not showing you any respect because you've chosen to not respect others, and you thusly do not deserve any in return.
Additionally, Bowser (Nintendo) was at Bowser in the first place. Why the Hell should we have to jump through hoops to change it back? If you want to make a change, then you should freaking discuss it, not decide that Nintendo fans are too stupid to acknowledge that Bowser is the name given to a gas pump. The fact of the matter is that no only do more people probably know of Bowser or King Koopa as the video game character based on the fact that most people likely do not even know much about the gas pipes in the first place, but I assure you that there are more people who are going to search for Bowser looking for the video game character on Wikipedia, not search for a gas pump or some aviation thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
And you, JzG, you are such a hypocrite. you decide that the move of Bowser (Nintendo) to Bowser is invalid based on the fact that you and your buddies couldn't chime in, but you then turn around and say that there cannot be an overturning of an AfD despite there being a good reason to do so, based on the fact that I was not able to present an argument, an argument which convinved a few people who voted delete to then vote keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy, please note that I have blocked A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours. I gave a gentle warning to refrain from incivility and maintain a collegiate atmosphere at penalty of such a block, to which he responded with incivility on my talk page. Please note also that I've temporarily protected the two pages in question from moves. --kingboyk 08:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See, that is what I'm talking about. You're as biased as anyone possibly could be! You're on his side, and you attempt to keep the article how you see fit, not how the majority sees fit. It was at Bowser originally, why should we have to try to get it put back? Why shouldn't he have to discuss it? Why shouldn't it be moved back to Bowser, protected and then unprotected when a decision has been made? Why did you decide to protect in favor of one party (coincidentally, the party that you are a part of) as opposed to the opposing party? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not about sides, it's about writing an encyclopaedia, and in this case specifically about writing an encyclopaedia which reflects the wider world, rather than the narrow locus of geek obsessions. Just zis Guy you know? 08:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
That came off as kind of nasty... RN 08:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it; it was not meant as such (I am a self-identified geek, after all). I will confess to a degree of irritation at the use of proof by assertion in this case. Multiple credible references were provided for the longer-standing usage, and not one single reference showing that Nintendo is unambiguously the most common. Along the way I was accused by this and at least one other user of vandalism, which is plainly false since even if you disagree with it there can't be much doubt of good faith, given the reasons advanced then and now. And when the argument was clearly going against him, A Link to the Past responded by becoming more aggressive and often outright rude. Every now and then we all need to turn off the computer and remember that the world continues to exist outside. This is one of those cases. Just zis Guy you know? 08:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I came off as nasty whenever you declared nothing wrong with what you did, which is the most laughable notion I've heard in a while. And of course, to a lesser extent, what you did right there - said we had absolutely no evidence while you have a treasure trove. You have a Google search, and I have the fact that Mario is a huge franchise, both in the 80's, 90's and the new millennium. What makes you think this doesn't say anything about Bowser's notability? People who watch the movie see King Koopa, people who watch the cartoon or read the comics see King Koopa. And people who played SMB saw King Koopa four levels in. Just because it does not prove it for absolute fact does not mean it cannot be used for him. So, if you drop your crappy attitude, you'll have much less conflict. And no, my attitude isn't crappy, it's "assholey". What you do is subtly attack people buy disrespecting him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I always try to avoid getting into arguments with people with that much spare time. But I think there's consensus to move the page to King Bowser Koopa. If you could do the honours? Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hrm, now I that I am catching up on this debate it doesn't seem that bad compared to some of the other comments :(. Sorry you got involved in such an unfortunate situation... perhaps one way to look at it is that is can be very hard for someone to change their view. Personally, I agreed with the non-disambig side until I took a calm look at the debate a while ago on the grounds that it was popular usage, and it is completely understandable to me why someone would still think the other way, despite the lack of evidence. It can be hard to change one's mind without something that is completely obvious... RN 09:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


A concept used by U.S. Supreme Court Justices in their decisions for County of Allegheny v. ACLU can hardly be called a neologism. (You can read Blackmun's opinion here, for example.) Supreme Court Justices don't have a reputation for coining neologisms. ☺ Uncle G 11:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It rather depends on who else has used it, I'd say. Just zis Guy you know? 11:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. From what I found when I went looking for sources, that would appear to be ... <cough> ... a fair number of people. ☺ Uncle G 14:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Doesn't stop it being a neologism, mind... ;-) Guy 15:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Use Your Naugin (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Hit his diploma mill article and two of my AfDs. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Naugle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Underwood. Arbusto 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Expect socks to come out of the woodwork for my recent AfDs of old Gastrich-cruft. And check out this never closed AfD from Jan. 2005. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Stanley. Arbusto 02:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I know of no other Christian who makes front page news in almost every town he goes to. Also I don't know anyone who can get on local ABC radio wherever he goes either. That is notability. When he came to our town look at the response: Potters house 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to get on radio, especially in the silly season, but you miss the point: what you assert is original research. Who's the reliable secondary source for him being "one of the most notable"? It's easy to find one for, say, Billy Graham or Rowan Williams. I used to know Eric James, I think he's very notable, but we only have a very short article on him and it is not padded out with the kind of hyperbole seen in Clary's article. I knew Robert Runcie as well, his influence was very strong and is still felt, but his article is both shorter and less like a fan piece than Clary's. Guy 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Bowsers and stuff[edit]

I think we've reached a consensus on Talk:Bowser (Nintendo). Feel free to move the page to King Bowser whenever you get the chance. -- Steel 10:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Guy 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

BenH back with another sock[edit] (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been making the same type of edits as BenH, and has the same ISP as the previous sock and BenH. I think a block for this IP would be in order. --CFIF 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Please post on WP:ANI as well next time, you'll get a quicker end to his stupidity. Guy 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures - "Paris area"[edit]

A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Might be better to let it lie for a while. There is no deadline. Guy 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I did let it lie for most of a month, but in the meantime a few of us actually managed to agree on something. The vote has been cast; let's ride it out. THEPROMENADER 09:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Could you explain to me what is going on on the Diana Irey page? Some users on my page seem to be arguing and I don't seem to have all the facts. JoshuaZ 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can make out it's a small but heated content dispute between C56C and a couple of others including one anon, who was doing a lot to heat things up, so I sprotected it just to get people to be a bit more reaosnable - but there is so much argument by assertion on the Talk page that I am unable to form much of a view as to what the rights and wrongs of it all might be, so I left it at telling them to play nice. There are names there I recognise, but I think most of them have a dog in the fight by now so I can't really ask them for an unbiased view, as that would be unfair. If you can make head or tail of it then you are doing better than me, althogh to be fair I might have a better handle on it if I had more spare time right now. Guy 17:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia Deleted?[edit]

Hi... I'm very confused as well as the other people who pointed out the inconsistancy of deletion of pages here (I'm a regular wikipedia user, but not regular editor). As someone else pointed out, why did you delete lostpedia, but leave up fan wikis such as Wookiepedia, which is much smaller and I have never mentioned in major magazines (Lostpedia is discussed in Entertainment Weekly, the NY Times, and there is something coming out in Time about it). How does one renominate for an article to be recreated?

PS: Here is a whole list of fan wikis which have their own articles on wikipedia, most do not nearly have as many users or traffic: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • I regularly patrol the list of wikis and have pruned and deleted many other insignificant examples. Lostpedia is covered as a footnote in Lost, whcih is just fine. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a web directory. Guy 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd still have to question your quality control. Wookiepedia? Tenchipedia? Lostpedia has millions of pageviews and is one of the largest wiki communites on the web, and yet isn't allowed its own page. The above two have VERY detailed pages, yet who has even heard of them? Have they been mentioned in national magazines or pop culture resources? The other writer is right who said there is a double standard and favoritism here. You should be consistant about your inclusion and exclusion policy. If you are saying that fan wikis should not be allowed a page on wikipedia, that's fine, but those other two pages should be deleted, along with a slew of others. --Vix
  • Two things: first, it's not my quality control; you make the mistake of assuming that I think Wookiepedia is notable, which is a big assumption. Second, the argument that some foo articles exist therefore this foo article should exist has never been persuasive. Guy 11:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks.[edit]

Do not post personal attacks towards members of Wikipedia.[10] Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack, it's a mirror. Look in it and see your own reflection. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point [11] Guy 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You were telling me that he has an opinion that is not in favor of CVG, as if that is so rare among CVG editors. Just because you didn't call me an ass does not mean that what you said was not insulting. I look into a mirror and see an unbiased Wikipedia editor. I'm the starter of a project devoted to cleaning up all cruft in fictional works, mainly gamecruft. You act as if CVG editors operate under a hive mind, and you have implied exactly that on numerous occasions - you first stated that a vote was invalid because of who the voters were. Would you say the same if the vote didn't have any game page editors at all? I doubt it. The connotation that CVG editors are inheritly biased is insulting, and if you don't see it, I hardly could think of you as unbiased, either. What could you be insinuating when you belittle CVG editors like you have?
I'll drop this if you sincerely apologize for belittling and insulting CVG editors. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't have to apologize for anything; you'll stop being disruptive or you WILL be blocked. --InShaneee 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Damn, I just spent a good five minutes penning a civil response and Inshaneee said it all but better in sixteen words. Guy 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC closures[edit]

  • There is no need to close a case like the one you linked above, it can be left open until the problem user goes away> Alternatively it can be moved to long-term vandalism. I think the point here is that the proposal would allow closure, not enforce it. But the illustration is a good one and I will address it at the VP page. Guy 10:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


That's really weird...Ralbot made the edits, and I do have a bot flag for that account...are you sure you're hiding bot edits? Ral315 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to note- when you go to your watchlist, you have to hit "hide bot edits" every time you visit it. MediaWiki doesn't save your preferences. Ral315 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Mystery solved: loss of session data on the new privacy-enhanced environment in the office. Sorry about that; I think I lost a Clue somewhere if you happen to see one... Guy 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I never had a clue in the first place. Wasn't aware at all that bot edits could be hidden in the watchlist! (And I run a bot! :)) --kingboyk 20:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why did you block me when I did not violate WP:3RR?[edit]


I am appealing my recent 3RR block on the grounds that the following three questions are not answered by somebody--I don’t expect them to be answered because to the best of my knowledge the accusation that I violated 3RR is not true, but if you can shed some light I may not pursue this matter any further. Thank you for your consideration.

The sole definition of a “Revert” - as stated at WP:REVERT is “To revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time”

The accusation made towards me by you is that I reverted the Vic Grimes page more than 3 times over the course of 24 hours. The following were the edits I made to the page on September 5: (3:20) (2:54) (2:42) (2:35) (2:33) (2:27)

If my edits meet the criterion for constituting three or more reverts, then somebody is obligated to provide me with AT LEAST FOUR links to past versions of the Vic Grimes page (PRIOR to September 5) where the page is “identical to how it used to be at some previous time.” In this case, “some previous time” refers to - as I said just a few lines above - “past versions of the Vic Grimes page (PRIOR to September 5). I am not asking for four links that make the page look NEARLY identical to how it used to be; that is NOT the definition of a revert. I want you or somebody to provide me with AT LEAST FOUR links where the page is EXACTLY, 110% the SAME as it was at any of the following times on September 4:

3:20 2:54 2:42 2:35 2:33 2:27

If AT LEAST FOUR links cannot be produced, I will continue to pursue this matter because that will indicate to me that my account was wrongfully suspended for WP:3RR despite my not violating the WP:3RR policy.

Thank you for your consideration.

JB196 JB196 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the policy: three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement; wikilawyering about precisely which reverts may or may not count and whether the reverts happened over a period of 23 or 25 hours is completely ignoring the intent of the policy, which is unambiguous - just as your behaviour was unambiguously disruptive. This has been a public service announcement from your friendly neighbourhood rouge admin, please take it to heart. Guy 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Awbrey's projects[edit]

Thanks for the note. After being signed-on for less than 24 hrs I'm convinced he's less interested in promoting an earnest project and more interested in tweaking the community's nose. Feel free to delete the one I joined as well... Please. FeloniousMonk 21:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought you might agree :-) Having met Jim in person (all too briefly) I'm guessing he'll be of the same mind. Guy 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Guy. The purpose was to keep Awbrey in check, but since FM and I have had too many encounters with him, deleting wasn't an option for a few reasons. However, if you as a fold-up-bicycle-riding independent observer and fair-minded Admin want to trash the whole thing, GO FOR IT! In gratitude, &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

review of process request[edit]

You may be interested in Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church. The page was moved after a small 3 to 1 consensus back in May (to a name that had RCC in the title). 3 months later, the 1 person who opposed the move, reverted the move against the consensus, without coming to talk, or requesting a move or anything. I asked an admin to revert that out of process move because I couldn't do it myself (not sure why, but the move tab wouldn't let me do it). This lead to a vote that seems to support the out of process's move's name. I think its messed up that there is a move first, vote second thing going on, and I thinkk going against a previous consensus is sneaky. However, now that there is more of a community to support the move, perhaps everything is fine as is. I just thought I'd bring the situation to your attention so you could review it if you have the time and feel it may be necessary. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 22:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in case it wasn't clear what I wanted you to review, because I was blocked from moving the page, I imagine the previous "out-of-process" move was probably a copy and paste move that f'd up the page histories, so perhaps that needs to be 'fixed', if that is indeed the case. Thanks again.--Andrew c 22:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned that a lack of interest from the "silent majority" might allow Vaquero to portray a majority of those with a vested interest as being a consensus, and start moving the whole lot wholesale. There are so many potential problems with having things at Catholic (need for disambiguation, need to ocnstantly re-explain which parts of the Catholic tradition and so on) and so few with having it at Roman Catholic (actually only one as far as I can tell, which is that some really committed RC editors feel it is their church's right to be at that title). I've said it before, I know no RC who is offended by being addressed as RC rather than just Catholic, and a good many state their religion as RC.
The move history is a complete mess. Once again Vaquero has moved an article and now argues, days later, as if it was always there. But the history is in the current article, albeit with some history split elsewhere (not much, though). It has been through several homes including Sacraments (, mostly at the hands of Vaquero. Guy 23:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Hi Jz. Are you aware that you closed the debate at Talk:Roman Catholic Church prior to the notified closing. This is what is says: Voting ends 0600 UTC on 8 September 2006 This is a highly emotive debate. --WikiCats 07:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more appropriate for an admin. who has not participated in the debate to close it. --WikiCats 09:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The debate is shedding more heat than light on the subject, and given that the debate has already been had several times in the recent past I am at a loss to understand why it was started in the first place. It sounds awfully like a case of keep asking until you (TINY) get the answer you want. Guy 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Moves of RC by country[edit]

On AN/I you said that only Britain and Canada are out of step with convention. There are quite a few articles in Category:Roman Catholic Church by country that are not in the form Roman Catholicism in Foo. I was going to list/move them as a group when this conflict settled down. The Canada one is important because there are two articles. Other articles out of step: Roman Catholic Church in Australia, Catholic Church in Mexico, Catholicism in Indonesia. It looks like most categories are going by Roman Catholic Church in Foo, so Category:Roman Catholicism in Korea is out of step with the category naming. Gimmetrow 12:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Thanks for the comment. If you need help / backup with the move let me know, I'm certainly no expert on this one but I do find that the past move warring has left a lot of multiple redirects, which clearly needs to be addressed. Unfortunately it looks to me very much as if a small coterie of poeple who can't bring themselves to allow the word Roman are going to keep asking until they get what they want or get sent packing. The whole naming question at Roman Catholic Church was settled after yet another lengthy debate only recently, and of course it's been re-opened because the answer was the "wrong" one according to them. Guy 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of CRM vendors[edit]

I am not necessarily saying that the article should be kept. But there are a bunch of other lists that are similiar to this one. If the list of crm vendors is deleted, so should all the other lists. Also, I don't think the article is a spam magnet since each entry must be a wikipedia article. it is no more a spam magnet than other lists. --Sleepyhead 11:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care enough about it to take action on my own behalf. Sounds like you don't either :-) Maybe those other lists should also be deleted; if they are bare (i.e. no added informaiton other than the name) then perhaps they should be. Guy 12:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ron Slanina[edit]

If I may ask, does briefly being the instructor of someone who is notable confer enough notability upon the teacher that he deserves his own article? Google only brings forth hits for an actor named Ron Slanina [12] not the person this article is about. IrishGuy talk 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In a word: no. Being the teacher of many famous poeple might (see Ifor James) but one person? Not really. Guy 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Emission inventory[edit]

Please assume good faith. I would appreciate not being accused of wiki-lawyering (particularly wiki-lawyering at its worst). I know that many pages incorporate public domain material, particularly that drawn from early encyclopedia editions. If public domain material provides an acceptable source for (what I believe to be) an encyclopedic topic, I see nothing wrong with this. I am going to de-prod the article, but feel free to list it for AFD. Best, Irongargoyle 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Copy and paste is always a sign that you are doing something wrong. But actually I was accusing myself of Wikilawyering, instead of just deleting it! Sorry this was not more obvious. Guy 23:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. :-) Always is a big word though, per WP:IAR. Irongargoyle 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. But I stand by it: copying and pasting the entire contents of an article is never right. Even if it's from the 1911 EB, the state of knowledge has generally moved on. Guy 07:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich[edit] (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Jeremiah Now I am being harassed by (talk · contribs) who's first edit was to vote on four of my AfDs- and only my AfDs. I reverted these comments, and Vivaldi returned them. Now this IPs is harassing me, and Vivaldi stop editing. Arbusto 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure, I really think Gastrich is gone to ground for now. Might be better to take a few calm breaths and a dose of AGF, and see if perhaps you can't see where this user is coming from. Understanding people's motives can help to work productively towards those parts of your goals which overlap. Which is pap, I'm afraid, but it's the way things go. I know you are under pressure and feeling a bit isolated right now, but please remain calm and try to stick to what you do best, which is ensuring rigorous sourcing and neutrality in articles which otherwise tend to hagiography. Guy 22:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, very true. Advice heeded. Arbusto 20:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a new user used his first edits at the Louisiana Baptist University article, and added a link to Gastrich's website under the see also[13]. Arbusto 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Shady Side Academy[edit]

Why was the Shady Side Academy article deleted? Admittedly there were issues about page, and one or two users dedicated to vandalizing it, but I don't think deletion was the answer. Wouldn't it be better to fix the flaws than delete out right? "Country" Bushrod Washington 00:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Try making a version whicih has references and establishes the importance of the subject, in your user space. Guy 07:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what you mean with "estabish[ing] the importance of the subject." It's a school, and many other schools that are far less notable have their own articles (my own alma mater for example). Are you saying that there needs to be something more for it to be an article?
As to your complaint for lack of references, I agree. However, there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia which have no references whatsoever, maybe even more. Is the answer to delete all of them? No, the answer is to fix them. A better solution would have been to place {{fact}} tags where necessary, and start looking for citations, or deleting the individual un-cited points. Your response was, in my opinion, a cheap easy way out, and completely counterproductive. Why didn't YOU try making a version which has references and establishes the importance subject? Now we're without what was a flawed, but nonetheless useful, starting point towards making a good article. But now it's gone, and I haven't time to start from scratch. Thanks a lot. "Country" Bushrod Washington 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Whatever some people may think, simply existing does not establish the importance of any institution. The problem with the article was that it had been hacked to death. Maybe at some point in the history there was a version worth having, I will take a look. Guy 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank's for undeleting the page. The version you deleted is one that I've reverted multiple times. Note my comments on talk page. Someone has a vendetta against the school."Country" Bushrod Washington 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken Hearts On Ice[edit]


I was the creator of the Broken Hearts On Ice article. Why did you delete it? It is a notable article to have, as this producer is responsible for many innovative releases of progressive and avant-garde music. He is also an icon in his home town, Fairfield Connecticut. I severely disagree with your deletion and I suggest that you give it another read to see if you really think he is not worthy of archival. He is, and will continue to be, an important icon of underground, avant-garde music. You ought to have had a hearing. --Aman9090 06:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It failed to amke any assertion of notability, WP:CSD criterion A7. Please see the guidelines for music articles: aspiring producers on their own labels are rarely considered notable. Guy 07:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This one was. He invented a whole new form of aleatory music, which you would have seen if you had read the article. Aspiring producers can still be notable ones. And so you just delete the article, without perhaps asking for maybe better clarification or holding a hearing? Please put the article back up, at least pending on some revisions.--Aman9090 07:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the article. It made no credible and substantiated claim of notability, which is why Elonka tagged it and I agreed. Feel free to try again, though, remembering to cite references from reliable secondary sources. You will need some pretty extraordinary evidence to overcome the fact that it scores only six unique Googles, of which two are on Wikipedia and one is his own site. Guy 07:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And so I'm going to have to write the whole thing over again? Why did you have to delete this so stubbornly? Couldn't you have given at least warning, or better yet, an official hearing like you're supposed to, so that I could have SAVED all of my efforts? As an 'admin', I'm sure you know the effort that goes into making these articles on Wikipedia. It just was not very helpful at all to do that. You could have easily just informed me that you felt this way about the article, and then I would have made it clearer and this would all have been painless. If for some reason the invention of a new form of aleatory music is meaningless to you guys, I would have made it meaningful. Please, please, tell me how I can get all of that information back. Thank you.--Aman9090 07:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was tagged for speedy deletion as failing to make any credible claim of notability. I agree: it failed to make any such claim. Notability can be crudely checked by a Google test, whcih reveals that there are, as above, six unique hits, of which two are on Wikipedia and one is his own site. You can ask for undeletion at WP:DRV if you like, but absent some really strong evidence of notability it will not be undeleted, or if it is it will be sent straight to WP:AFD. So: if you try again, please be sure to include credible external references from reliable seconadry sources. Alternatively you could try somewhere where there is a lower bar to inclusion. Remember, Wikipedia does not exist to help the interesting become significant, it exists to document that which is already verifiably significant. As an admin, I have had articles of my own deleted on occasion. It happens. Not everybody has an entirely objective view of the things they like. Guy 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: you uploaded the cover art from the CD with a description that it was a picture of yourself. Please read the guidelines on writing about yourself. Guy 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bang (song)[edit]

I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. Thanks. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 14:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet more code... Ah well. I'm in favour of categories, I guess, so I will watch out for this apparently new thing. Guy 17:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a fairly recent change. The official policy is at WP:AFDC.

I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 19:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


I created the cycling proficiency test article... but support Paul Smith pretty much unreservadly... but proudly drive a 740...but am I a member of piston heads... but am a member of c+... but vandalise wikipedia constantly... but love cycling.

Therefore - am I good, back, ugly, or troll? Law of excluded middle applies.

P.S. Thanks for the tip about wiper jets on your site, very useful :D Space Vampire 1337 17:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the usual mix of good, bad, ugly, indifferent - and in supporting Smith, deranged ;-) Seriously, his arse-backwards statistical nonsense has been ridiculed by every statistician I've shown it to. Apart from that, everyone can live in peace and harmony if we want to and I'm sure if we met on uk.rec.sheds we'd share a BA and a PP and be quite happy :-) Guy 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement in the Vivaldi RfAr[edit]

"Arbustoo's personal views are hostile to this particular strand of fundamentalist Christianity, and as far as I can see to Christianity in general. This has not impeded a productive working relationship with other editors such as myself and JoshuaZ who are self-identified Christians" I don't know what gave you the impression that I'm Christian; I'm Jewish. JoshuaZ 21:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn! And I forgot to discriminate against you! You are better at neutrality than I thought. Should have guessed from the name. Guy 21:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

By his name? Tsk!  ;) Anyway, this was an excellent response, one of the best I've ever read. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, er, thanks! I find this case difficult. Arbustoo does himself no favours sometimes, sadly. Guy 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you call me a troll[edit]

In your defense of Arbusto and his crusade against Vivaldi did you call me a troll or were you referring to something else?Bagginator 09:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call anybody in particular a troll, I said that Arbustoo had been vigorously trolled in the past, which is undeniably true. Also, it's not a "defense of Arbustoo and his crusade against Vivaldi" since (a) I quite plainly state that I think that both sides have at least some merit and (b) unlike Vivaldi, I don't believe that Arbustoo is personalising it to the extent of a crusade. Is this question an indication that you feel uneasy about some of your past comments? Guy 08:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up.Bagginator 09:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Guy 10:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Is the boldfaced "moving house" header atop this page still in force, or did you just forget to remove it? Newyorkbrad 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, thank you. I have been fitting fire doors to my garage today :-) Guy 19:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


I see you consider them to be the same. Have you requested a checkuser I don't know about or are you basing this on similarities in edit behavior? It could be that they're just people with the same POV. I'm sure we could get a checkuser confirmation if we asked, though. - Mgm|(talk) 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was basing it on this: [14] Guy 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
As noted at User talk:Fred Bauder, there is no user named Londhart. That is (was) just User:Etaonsh's signature. Newyorkbrad 22:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That was how I understood it, too. Guy 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Normally there would be something a little bit procedurally unorthodox about responding to a user's RfAr by having the most active arbitrator indef ban the user and then declare the case moot. And normally I would say that escalating straight from 48 hours (Etaonsh/Londhart's previous record) to indef is a bit hasty. But I don't see anyone lifting a finger to advocate for another chance for this person, and I'm certainly not going to be the first. Good job on compiling the evidence. Newyorkbrad 13:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It was an open and shut case, I reckon, and I'm always prefer clue-based administration over slavish following of process. I was on the way to doing exactly the same myself. There's no reason arbitrators can't act in their capacity as admins; all it means is that if it comes back to ArbCom for review, Fred will have to recuse, which is no big deal. Thanks for the compliment :-) I think ArbCom have enough to do without having to find the paper trail themselves, I was just helping out, really. Guy 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Fred recusing could become a big deal given that the ArbCom seems to be working in slow motion these days (they still haven't finished voting the St Chris case), but no matter. I guess we'll never know now if this gentleman's mother really died that day, though.... Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't worry - it'll be finished before the deadline :-) Guy 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Londhart, the case could be considered withdrawn by him now, which is even easier than moot. See my comment at WP:RfAr. Regarding St Chris, if they don't hurry I just might climb..... Newyorkbrad 08:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Shady Side Academy[edit]

I wish you would have consulted me before deleting this, there are plenty of adequate versions in the history. Please undelete. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't consult because I rarely do when going through a large backlog at CAT:CSD. But I have no objection to undeleting. I didn't notice how much history it had, which should have alerted me. The substantive content at deletion was:
Shady Side Academy is an independent school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was initially founded as a boy's boarding school in 1883, though the Senior School was only established at its current suburban campus in Fox Chapel in 1921. Fox Chapel High School, Shady Side Academy's other, is a public school offering the same opportunities for free.
The faculty is underpaid, none of them went to college, let alone high school, and students tend to be extremely flighty and dumb.
Just that. No formatting, nothing. It also had the text from the speedy and hangon tags copy-and-pasted into the article above and below the tags. A mess, like I said. Feel free to try and find a valid version in the history if you can, it's been the subject of vigorous edit warring by the looks of it.. Guy 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
A persistent edit warrior has reverted to that version a few times. Thanks for undeleting, I'll try to keep a special eye on it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Let me know if it needs protection, I'll do my best not to pick the wrong version ;-) Guy 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In case you cared, the user who nominated the page for speedy deletion (User:Davej9475) was the same user who changed the content to the aforementioned shameful version. Thought you might want to know. "Country" Bushrod Washington 01:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I was intending to spend a bit of time this evening looking into it, so thanks for that. I suspect I need to dust off the cluebat (and apply it first of all to myself...) Guy 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we might need that protection. The page has been once again been nominated for speedy deletion. This time by User:Random19, whose edits are conspicuously similar to those of User:Maxtor118, User:Davej9475, User:Random17, and User:Ak45m16. Please note that each of these users only have a few edits to their name, all to the Shady Side Academy page. Furthermore, all of their edits are substantially the same, that is vandalism. It seems obvious to me that this is just one, lone person with a vendetta against the school. Some kind of protection, and/or and I.P. level ban seems to be in order. "Country" Bushrod Washington 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Guy, I read your comment on my talk page and I am uncertain what you meant. The sources referenced to the geocities site are newspaper, magazine and documentary articles that are no longer available on the internet, but appeared in published form in the past. The geocities site was created as a neutral site in which articles (that were previously linked to controversial, partison and biased Anti-Sai sites) could be listed free of promotion of a particular POV. This was agreed to by all parties in mediation with BostonMA (including Andries). If you believe that the geocities site cannot be linked to, then what do you suggest? No links? Anti-Sai sites are no more trustworthy than a geocities site. They are worse because they push an antagonistic POV that is exclusively critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Furthermore, these articles were never originally published on Anti-Sai Sites. Are you saying that the previous agreement in mediation is no longer applicable? SSS108 talk-email 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In which case they are copyright violations. We should not link to offsite copyright violations any more than we allow them internally; we can cite treeware without having to link to a copy of it on the web. Just cite the original source. An "anti" site which can be traced to an identified authority, that is, an authority on whose expertise other authorities rely (for example, newspaper reports and TV reports) is quite acceptable, the reader is unlikely to be misled by an open statement of an agenda. As far as I can tell the balance of informed opinion is that SSB is a charlatan, and we need to reflect that in the balance of the article, which means we can't ignore the work of opponents. Guy 08:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no Anti-Sai sites that can be traced to an identified authority. Also, I must disagree with you when you say that the "balance of informed opinion is that SSB is a charlatan". Even Andries (an Anti-Sai activist) conceded that all of the people and agencies involved (that reported negative information against SSB) either held an Anti-Sai view or were sympathetic with Anti-Sai activists (something I discovered through independent research). Needless to say, all this information has been purposely withheld. Particularly disturbing was the article. I found private e-mail correspondence between Goldberg and Anti-Sai Activists in which she confessed writing her article in cooperation with them. A fact never divulged in her article. Khushwant Singh, a journalist interviewed by the BBC, had openly stated in previous years that he was an atheist, rationalist and was anti-guru. This information was withheld in the Secret Swami programme although he was a prime interviewee. All this points to bias. Furthermore, you seem to be unaware of the numerous books and newspapers [15] that speak favorably about Sathya Sai Baba and whose numbers far exceed Anti-Sai articles. Perhaps you can reference your sources for the "balance of informed opinion"? I agree that Sathya Sai Baba is a controversial guru and I have no problem with the article discussing that. As a matter of fact, I do not object to the opposing or antagonistic POV whatsoever. SSS108 talk-email 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The balance of informed opinion is that one cannot produce gold, ash or indeed anything else from thin air. This much requires no citation. Guy 19:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Then that much you have. SSS108 talk-email 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also thinking, would it be appropriate to say that the "balance of informed opinion" also contends that Jesus is a charlatan? After all, using your reasoning, multiplying fish and wine and walking on water would fall under this same stipulation. Is this type of commentary allowed on Wikipedia? It sounds like POV pushing to me. Please explain. SSS108 talk-email 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Not many people take Bible stories literally. One common interpretation of the feeding of the five thousand is based on the well-known phenomenon of the "bring and share" meal. I have no doubt that the Bible would be a very different book if Jesus had lived in the present day. Guy 08:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you, I am more interested in whether or not one can include a comment on the Wikipedia articles on Buddha, Krishna and Jesus that the "balance of informed opinion" contends they are "charlatans" (your word) because the miracles attributed them are not possible. That is what I want to know. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 15:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you can compare a situation where a story was handed down by word of mouth for several generations before being written down, with one where an individual still alive makes extraordinary claims but refuses to provide the necessary extraordinary proofs. It's no different to Uri Geller, really. Guy 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy, the fact remains that miracles are attributed to Buddha, Krishna and Jesus. Since that is the case, would it be proper to call them "charlatans". Sathya Sai Baba has not been exposed for faking anything yet. Dr Erlendur Haraldsson (who wrote a book about this very issue) investigated Sathya Sai Baba's alleged miracles and found no evidence of fraud. I consider this discussion ended because I don't think any Wikipedia article can state that the "balance of informed opinion" contends they are "charlatans". That sounds like your own personal view and POV pushing. I would like references to Wikipedia policy that would allow you to include such statements in Wikipedia articles. It all has to be referenced by reliable sources. Making these generalized and unattributed statements could be seen as potentially libelous and can be removed from the article without discussion in accordance with WP:BLP. SSS108 talk-email 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And the determined rationalist can explain them away (there are many books whihc set out to do juat that). Moreover, we do not have contemporaneous reports of these figures claiming to do these things. And those were simpler times. What we have with SSB, however, is contemporaneous claims of physical impossibilities, where the means to test such claims exist and have been offered, and a steadfast refusal to undergo such tests. Of course in the Bible (to quote the one I know best) we have "do not put the Lord your God to the test", but that is not incompatible with an allegorical interpretation. In the case of SSB no allegorical interpretation is on offer. Also I am suggesting that the lead should say "Sathya Sai Baba is a fraud and a charlatan". I am saying that in order to reflect the dominant world-view, the claims of "miracles" should be cast in a sceptical light and the many valid criticisms fairly represented. All of whihc is somethign of a tangent from point A, which was that we shouldn't link to offsite copyright violations. Guy 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy, okay, let's get back on track. I happen to agree with you regarding possible copyright violations (although many sites apparently can link to newspaper articles under 'fair use'). Talk to Pjacobi about "offsite copyright violations" on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. He is currently working on the references section and links. However, you can be certain that Andries will not agree with you. So you better be prepared for a fight and be prepared to site Wikipedia policy because that is exactly what Andries is going to ask for. Thanks. SSS108 talk-email 18:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was pretty confident you would agree on that, from your past history (which is impressive). Linking to a newspaper article is fine, because we are linking to the copyright holder. And you'll see form my history that I am not averse to a fight where it is necessary. However: if Andries has a site which is authoritative, then we need to think carefully about whether we should link to it. The keyword being authority: if reliable sources have quoted or cited the site, then it's reasonable to consider it authoritative. I'll happily accept your word on whether or not that is the case. Guy 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries site is not authoritative. No reliable sources have either quoted or cited his site. View Mediation Thread Where This Was Discussed. SSS108 talk-email 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe De Volkskrant cited Andries 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
When, where and under what context? We need verfiable citations. It seems there is just no end to your Dutch references. SSS108 talk-email 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked whether your behavior at talk:Sathya Sai Baba is a violation of WP:BLP See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You already asked ArbCom to advise on this issue. Why are you taking this issue to other sources when you already submitted it to ArbCom for evaluation? SSS108 talk-email 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not include a question on this issue among my questions to the arbcom. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. You were talking about Guy, not me. Adding a name would help :-) SSS108 talk-email 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It will be clear that I agree to a great extent with user:JzG. But I want to make two additional remarks. Of course the above polemical discussion has been made thousands of times regarding SSB. In the Netherlands and in India it raged in the newspapers more than a decade ago several times. The first one is that the view point expressed by JzG seems to be based on a somewhat skeptical world view. Nothing wrong with that, but it is just one world view among many. Clearly, it was not my world view when I was still a SSB follower. The second one is that quite a lot of report of miracles by SSB cannot be simply explained by sleight of hand. Andries 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You and Guy are entitled to your world-views and I agree there is nothing wrong with a scientific/skeptical world view. However, this issue all boils down to WP:BLP and reliable sources. No one can include potentially libelous comments in an article because it suits his/her world-view. The comments have to be sourced via reliable sources as outlined in Wikipedia's policies. Of course, Andries, I don't expect you to understand these things because you see absolutely nothing wrong with people slandering others using Wikipedia as their soapbox (Ref) SSS108 talk-email 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It is true that I hold the opinion that the subject of an article can slander anyone whom he likes in his own article. For example, I think that in the article Michael Moore Wikipedia contributors can quote Moore making comments against George W. Bush that would violate WP:BLP in any other article e.g. in Talk:George W. Bush. Andries 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP is all about slander/libel/defamation. If you say "George W. Bush eats french fries with garlic butter", and Dubya hauls you into court for s/l/d, his burden is only to show that you made a defamatory statement and it cost you damages (so that the courts know how much of your skin to award him). If you can show it's true, however, you're in the clear. The truth is an absolute defense against s/l/d (in the US, that is; they have different rules in, for example, the UKoGBaNI).
If you say, "According to Jon Stewart, George W. Bush eats french fries with garlic butter", however, you don't have to prove what Dubya eats, because you're not alleging that it's true, you're only alleging that Jon said it. If you can prove your statement is true, you're in good condition, and it's Jon that has to deal with Dubya. But you've got to be very careful with this one.
That's why the policy is that you remove unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory material immediately. You can defame living persons all you want, but you must prove that your defamatory statements are true. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Fortuny on deletion review[edit]

I have asked for a deletion review of Jason Fortuny. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Things are taking an egregiously bad turn at this DRV. I haven't participated much in AfD, but anticipate posting to this one, but want to let you get your close reasoning in first. Newyorkbrad 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. It's the drama queens, of course. I found a grand total of 91 unique Googles outside Wikipedia and mirrors, of which none were substantial coverage of the supposed article subject in reliable sources. I see no reason whatsoever why we should join ED in perpetuating this story. Guy 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This morning I wrote an impassioned reply to Kelly Martin on WP:BN. She basically took the position that "the community" is meaningless and that a few strong leaders have to make the decisions. I disagreed. Now I am going to post to an RfA where my position is that if necessary, the admins will have to overrule the majority of users. "A foolish consistency......" Newyorkbrad 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say it, but I think you were hasty on this one, Guy. Your reasoning makes sense to me, but given the newness of the situation and the speed at which it is evolving, I think the speedy close was a mistake. Today's AP article in the IHT and the New York Times suggests that this is more than your average internet drama. Of course, I don't know what I would have done in your stead. The BLP concerns are completely reasonable, but stubbing and/or protecting an article doesn't fit well with the normal deletion process. Messy. But it looks like this will be a lasting issue given Fortuny's desire to exploit this and the possibility of legal action. Whether this will end up as a bio on him or an article on the incident, I don't know, but I don't think deletion and protection is the right solution. Sorry, William Pietri 04:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see some potential for a paragraphj in an article on online privacy, but we are a very long way short of having sufficient information for a biographical article on this person. 91 unique Googles outside Wikipedia as of yesterday also does not indicate massive notability. Guy 08:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And a paragraph is what I could make out it. See Internet_privacy#Noted_cases. I'll mention it on the deletion review, and I think a redirect would be best. William Pietri 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
{Applause}. That was just what I had in mind. What annoys me is the indecent haste to get an article up - WP is very poorly set up to document events which are only just becoming known, witness the DRV comment offering the tomorrow's newspaper as a source. What's the hurry? We should wait until the dust has settled and we have all the facts. Guy 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh. It was once the belief of historians that they had to wait 30 years after an event to write an actual history. I envy that. Now we have people liveblogging from press conferences. I think the real frontier is in writing articles about things before they happen. You know, just in case. I'm going to go get started on the articles for the US 2006 election results. William Pietri 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a guy on SlashDot who says he went to high school with Fortuny. He might be able to point you to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources for biographical information, such as a high school yearbook, local newspaper articles, etc. (You know next month, there will be some woman who will post a similar ad, and she'll also put up all the responses for public display, but with the explanation that she's no longer interested, and she hates to have all these wonderful guys go to waste. It'd be a lot harder to win a suit against her than against Fortuny, who admits to deliberately setting out to pranking people.) ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

All Headline News[edit]

Hi JzG,

Is All Headline News significantly different to the version that got deleted? Thanks, Andjam 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat different. AfDed anyway. Thanks, Guy 13:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures[edit]

Hi. I can understand your exasperation with my persistence, but there's no need to target me like that. All this is based on a very simple, easy to verify fact. Please understand that I know the fact of the matter from every possible angle as I live here, as do others who have contributed to the discussion. I'd also like to remind you that there's much more going on here than meets the eye - the misnaming has in part 'local' motivations and quite personal opinion seen elsewhere that I cannot bring up in our discussions - because doing so would be a quite personal attack. Another note you may have missed - that I have been openly accused of sock-puppetry, and this if anything is a personal attack, and one of the very reasons mediation was called.

I've kept it to fact, and nothing but that, and will continue to do so. Mediation will help in this, and I am waiting for it to run its course. I am concerned with the process, but in no hurry. Thanks for your understanding. THEPROMENADER 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not targeting you, I'm just telling you that you're wasting your time. No consensus exists to move and you have not persuaded anyone otherwise. I do not believe you have engaged in sockpuppetry, for what it's worth, but I do think you are taking the entire dispute way to seriously. Guy 06:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Emil Kraepelin RfAr, User:Etaonsh, User:Continueddonations[edit]

The Kraepelin RfAr has been archived as rejected in light of Fred Bauder's indef block of Etaonsh/Londhard, but without attention to the status of User:Continueddonations who posted to the RfAr as his first edits with uncivil and anti-Semitic remarks and has continued his attacks on User:Ebbinghaus at Talk:Schizophrenia. This is a highly troubled individual. See User Talk:Fred Bauder for more. MgM has requested a Checkuser at WP:RfCU but it's an open-and-shut sockpuppetry case. You may want to take action if Fred hasn't already. Newyorkbrad 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have shown them the door. Guy 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Fortuny[edit]

I noticed you closed the Jason Fortuny AfD, citing WP:BLP concerns. I'm wondering how that might impact the mention of him and this matter at Internet privacy? Personally, I think it should be trimmed/removed since it simply is just the latest internet privacy issue to hit the news (presentist bias), but perhaps there are BLP issues there as well? Your thoughts are appreciated. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's kept neutral and sourced, the fact that it's in context should keep WP:BLP concerns to a minimum. Any slide towards an attack should be strongly resisted. Guy 06:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


For your input. I contemplated crossing 3RR per WP:BLP, but said to myself, "no lets not do that and stir up a hornets nest, I want to avoid trouble, lets ask an arb for help." You could just have declined to intervene. Or you could have left some advice with a friendly tone on my page. Instead you left a message titled "warning" on my page.

You point out my allegedly disruptive edits on Scientology. A total of 4 edits EVER over 4 days (yes I also edited related articles during that period, never exceeding 3RR, and usually not even approaching it). Removing huge blocks of text? Na. Vandalizing? Na. First removing, a category, and then when it became clear there was probably a consensus against that, adding a new subcategory? Yep. Pretty tendentious on my part to compromise?

I'm sorry that adding the term "alleged" is offensive to your sensibilities. Which Wiki policy does it violate that you felt the need to add that to your "warning?" From my view point, and the viewpoint of one of the world's foremost experts on cults, its the equivalent of trying to remove the category "fags" or "niggers" from an article. And adding your insight that Scientology is "pretty much the dictionary definition of a cult" when the article itself points out that some experts disagree with this was also a nice addition to your "warning." Heck, anybody that would stand up for religious minorities must be disruptive, right?

I edit over 100 controversial articles over a week period and a massive groundswelling of 4 or 5 people leave some sort of response on my talk page. Mostly to invite me to join a discussion on the matter, which I always eventually did. The only "warning" other than yours was this one. And that one was BS because I did not violate the rule in that instance (or at any time on any of these articles). And then that editor added an ad homim attack to his next edit summary. Which he repeated in his edit summary just before you contributed to to the article. But you ignored that. I mean come on, anybody that would stand up for a religious outlier deserves to be attacked, right?

I hope that you were tired and made your comments in haste. You came off very heavy handed. I asked for help, and you chewed my head off, and gave me several "warnings" which included your personal opinion on the pronoun "alleged" when used in categories, and the "textbook definition of a cult." I am not a member of any of these organizations. I do not have an axe to grind. I care about dignity of all human beings, I have seen nice people driven to tears by having their religion called a cult. It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to them. If, within the rules of wikipedia, I can make tiny changes to an article that retain the same basic content, but are less insulting to certain groups, then I will try to do so. My editing history clearly shows that I don't violate 3RR to do this, rarely come close, and if it becomes evident that after a few days that its more than just one or two people who have a beef with my edits, I seek compromise, increase participation on the talk pages, and decrease editing on the article itself. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I found one case of WP:BLP violation, vigorously opposed it (per policy), asked for help when I was unsuccessful, and you gave me a "warning" for my troubles.

I hope you will reconsider your actions, and come to the realization that when a wiki participant asks for help, this is not the way to respond. Please assume good faith, when possible. I have listened to what you had to say. In particular I see your point about blanking my talk page. I had no sisnister intentions, it was just cluttered and I'm usually too lazy to archive, but now that you bring it up, I can see how it might be helpful to others, not just the people I've already talked to. I'll either archive in the future, or wait a few weeks after a comment before starting over.

Regards, Dr U 06:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been editing against consensus, and you have been dismissive of the opinions of others. Many of your edits have been considered problematic. The warning was, I think, fair, in that I did acceot that you are acting in good faith, but so are the other editors. And it was couched as a warning because if you don't start to work more productively with others you are likely to end up blocked, and you need to know that. Believe it or not, I was actually trying to help, in that I was telling you that if you carry on as you are, the only one marching in step, you will end up in trouble. Guy 06:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom accreditation[edit]

If you're feeling up to the task, maybe you can give this article on accreditation groups a UK perspective? Arbusto 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do some reading around in the next couple of days. Guy 08:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Also is Burton College legit? A school with the same name is linked to Carl Baugh, which some people have questioned.[16] Arbusto 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A comment[edit]

On the American side of the pond, your tone in [17] can call to mind racial prejudices that are perhaps better off forgotten. I assume you didn't mean anything by it, and quite plausibly didn't know the history such comments evoke, but it might be better to find other ways to poke fun in the future. Dragons flight 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Really? I had no idea. I am English, as you know, that is the language of Jeeves (or a poor facsimile thereof). What's the context? And thanks, by the way, I got sidetracked and never went to look at the article, which I had meant to do. I never could get the hang of Thursdays. Guy 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The exagerated subservience brings to mind the stereotypical way a "well-behaved" black man was expected to talk to "inherently superior" white men. Keep in mind that in the American South many people believed that about the best a black man should ever aspire to be was a butler, so in practice I guess Jeeves-like language took on extra overtones. Dragons flight 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
OIC. Never even occurred to me! I always had that shit in the "massah" bucket, but that's the result I guess of not having read enough serious American cultural literature? Anyway, one lives and learns, thank you for setting me straight. The seocnd "u" in humour is all-important, isn't it? Guy 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I've only ever been called "Sir" by rich white Americans, so there you are. Stephen B Streater 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
One of our Australian sysadmins always addresses me as Sir in email. Guy 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


I suppose I'm more curious than frustrated about it: [18], [19]. You satiated me by being polite and not vandalistic; but I an wondering what you meant by "The link list for YTMND is too long to be easily manageable". What's a link list? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Perfectly reasonable question. [20] is the list as it stands, down from something over 300 links a month or so back. The major problem is the addition of YTMNDs to mainstream articles, many of which have soundtracks which are copyright violations. Guy 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting. I didn't even realize that was a feature of WP. Thanks! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pride in Aberdeen - thanks! and a query[edit]

Thanks very much for moving the content for me. How long does the user page stay available? Do I need to save the content somewhere else, or can I work on it there? Yonmei 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule, but keeping deleted content in your user space is generally discouraged, it has been abused as an end-run around policy in the past and WP:NOT a free web host, so it's a short-term thing. Guy 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD/Speedy Delete for enviropop[edit]

Hi Guy, Thanks for deleting the Greenest Piece page. Can you also delete enviropop? It was created by the same user. Let me know if I should just go through the nomination process again. Thanks, H0n0r 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedied as empty. Guy 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much :-) H0n0r 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Return of an old friend[edit]

Hi there,

this page speaks of moving and other such Real Life fun stuff, but I thought you'd be interested in GST2006 (talk · contribs): in particular, his account creation date, compared to the date of departure of some other wikipedians, and his contributions that are starting to look familiar. Now our friend WikiWoo has been gone for a while, so as I understand a checkuser is out of question, but he sure looks familiar.

Currently, our friend has a bit of a financing issue with l'Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, where he managed to get into a bit of a revert war with another new wikipedian, apparently a CSDCSO employee, but they haven't been too bad yet. Of course, there is a problem in that we can't just revert him summarily, since his claims of company employees censoring wikipedia would have at least some reflection in reality this time around.

He hasn't become unmanageable just yet, but I wouldn't mind some admin back-up in case things do escalate further. I was thinking to watch him a few more days, or is it not worth it? He did bring forward a valid issue at the CSDCSO page, but once again he is the one speaking of controversy, no notable group that we can cite so far.

Feel free to reply on this talk page, no need to incite anger, and who knows what he might do if he sees your nick on a talk page of someone he's talking with right now. Cheers. --Qviri (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking quite likely. Let's keep an eye. Guy 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"LBU is not accredited to award doctorates"[edit]

What does this mean? You said it in the Rick Scarborough edit comments. A school doesn't need to be accredited to legally award doctorates. In effect, there is no such thing as "accredited to award doctorates." Maybe you misspoke. - JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Delay (talkcontribs)

Go through this user's history. He added two Gastrich links to the LBU page. Arbusto 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated article needs some attention. Myself and two other editors have been warning two new accounts that are doing the same white washing at David Loren Cunningham. Arbusto 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Potentially crazy idea: putting users on probation[edit]

Hi! Before I end my the-girlfriend-is-away multi-day Wikipedia binge (so much fun!), I wanted to run a potentially crazy idea by you. It seems like there's a lot of problem with blocked users coming back, especially those on indefinite blocks. With a new name, they can go on quite a tear, stirring up a lot of trouble before there's enough cause to block them again. And that gives an incentive for speedy banning of difficult but potentially reformable users, which leads to more grudges against Wikipedia.

I'm thinking there's a potential solution, one inspired by the notion of tarpitting. Let's call it putting a user on probation. The notion is that rather than blocking a difficult user outright, a user on probation would be given a limited number of edits a day. Maybe it's ten, maybe just one; it depends on the administrator's judgement. Otherwise, though, it works like a block: it's issued by admins as they see fit, and it can be for a defined period of time or indefinite.

I see a few benefits from a scheme like this:

  1. The necessity to let somebody go on a long spree to gather evidence (like the recent Pussy Galore incident) is reduced.
  2. Giving admins a less drastic option reduces the risk of an error, and will seem less hostile to well-intentioned but difficult newbies.
  3. Some people who would have just made a new sock to evade a ban will stick with their old account's limited edits, reducing the number is-this-a-sock-or-not debates.
  4. Deciding whether to unrestrict somebody becomes less of a drama, and more a matter of evidence; you just look to see what they've done with the edits they have.
  5. Similar to the upcoming German solution, it moves us in the direction of greater openness.

The main drawback I see is that it would take coding work. But given that it's an extension of the existing blocking system, it may be pretty modest. What do you think?

Thanks, William Pietri 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my jumping in, but I think such intermediate solutions are a good idea. It wouldn't require coding. The editor is simply given a limit of 10 or whatever edits and their contribution history can be checked to make sure they haven't exceeded it. If they persist in doing so, then their lack of co-operation will have been demonstrated. Tyrenius 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll jump in as well. I've always found the level of hostility directed at sub-optimal users a cause for concern, often leading to a self fulfilling spiral to destruction. A trick one learns in martial arts is to avoid taking the force of an attack full on, as channelling the energy to ones own advantage is much more fruitful. With limited edits, people will think about their edits more. I suggest limiting article edits but not talk edits to start with. Stephen B Streater 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. Now that you mention it, it's obvious that automatic enforcement of the number of edits would be convenient but not necessary. The 3RR rule is manually enforced, and that seems to work well enough. Thanks to both of you for the feedback. Since Guy's talk page is apparently a hub of activity, I'll let this sit here more for some feedback. But assuming nobody pokes big holes in it, I'll turn it into some sort of proposal. William Pietri 19:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea a lot. On the other hand, though, do you think this policy would have been useful in the specific case of PG? TheronJ 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm no admin, so I can only speculate. But I imagine I would have used probation at the same time I removed a personal attack [21]. A look at the edit history then made me suspect trolling, but I didn't feel like a block was justified at that point. But limiting the user to, say, five edits a day would have reduced the potential for mischief if respected, and made a quick block easier if violated. And as Stephen suggests above, I think forcing the users to consider how to spend each edit will cause them to self-regulate more than they might otherwise. How does that fit with your experiences? William Pietri 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely like your idea, but just playing devil's advocate, and using Mr./Ms. Galore as an example:
  1. If the 5 edit/day probation didn't include talk pages, it wouldn't have affected PG, who was on an apparent trolling rampage, but pretty much just on Talk.
  2. Alternately, if the limit did include talk pages with the exception of PG's own talk page, would PG be entitled to respond to RFCU's, RFC's, AN/I's, etc. if she had already made 5 edits?
  3. People tend to flip out when admin action of any kind occurs. (Let me know if you want some links.) Would probation have similar limits to blocking, particularly the "warn first" preference and the preference that admins not block if they're involved in a content dispute? If so, the probation may not have gone on any faster than the block did. If not, you'll get a lot more cabal, process, consensus, etc., complaints.
Thanks, TheronJ 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I certainly appreciate the devil's advocacy; I'd rather figure out the issues early on. "The best kind of friend is like iron sharpening iron." Matching the order of your points:
  1. I think Tyrenius's observation offers us the way out. When you put a user on probation, you say what kinds of edit are restricted.
  2. I'd say yes. And thinking further, the page on probation (and probably the notice block on the user's talk page) would ask other editors not to bait someone on probation.
  3. I think it would fall between. Warnings would be less necessary, and could be left to the discrection of admins, both acting and overseeing. I think bias that admins should only use their powers when they're not involved is a good one to retain here, though.
And I think more generally we'll want to do this with a "hold on a bit" tone. The notion isn't that we are punishing them; we just want them to slow down a bit while they get settled or get over some temporary brain fever. Perhaps we need a term other than probation, as that has legal connotations that would probably encourage the out-flipping you mention. William Pietri 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Guy, I actually put this here to get your feedback. Any opinions? Thanks, William Pietri 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading and thinking. I can't make up my mind whether we can take this forward as a technical proposal for programmers, or whether we could ask for a technical fix which restricts users from editing in certain spaces (main or project or whatever), or whether it can be proposed as a comunity sanction. I'm also struck by some of the message behind the posting below in respect of SV. I want to do some reading around the project space here. I am becoming more convinced that there is an escalation of acrimonious disputes, but not sure whether this is a reaction to the profile of Wikipedia making us a more attractive target for POV pushers and vainglorious idiots. Problems like myg0t and ED also cause me great concern; there seems to be an attitude that communities have a "right" to be documented here and, conversely, that they should not be allowed to move in. What would Jimbo do? I know it's tangential to this, but I want ot think of a solution to the Brian Peppers problem. Of course, by solution I mean a way of ensuring it stays deleted out of ordinary human decency, but that of course is my own POV, whcih is where it all comes back to. Guy 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. Regarding the latter part, I read up on the cases you mention (or at least the AfDs and linked materials), and my first reaction is that a number of editors and admins are giving the troublemakers exactly what they want, which is drama. It also seems like there's a Wikipedian POV bias, but I can't decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. Thanks for pointing those out; it's good stuff to chew over.
For the first part, my current theory is that this could start out as a community-enforced sanction. Then automation could be a good next step. As a progammer I have a strong automation bias, but I'm amazed at how much people get done here with just text. E.g., the whole warning notice system. Were I around when it was first proposed, I would have certainly suggested software features. But people seem to get by just fine with the text, and the system can evolve without code changes. Ditto 3RR. William Pietri 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


I was hesitant to block this guy for longer because it's a shared IP, but look at the block expiry times and the times of the subsequent block. This guy just keeps coming back almost immediately after his blocks expire. Would a (much) longer block be appropriate? Get rid of him for 6 months or something? -- Steel 10:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Check the box for anonymous only and uncheck the box for allow account creation, that should do the trick. Guy 10:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Okay Man just remove all the details for Patrick Buri and clean all the pages and disscussions for Amoon and Ammoonamoon, whatever its irelevant anyway. Please clean all the details.... REMOVE THIS PAGE

STOP SHOUTING. I am quietly going aboutn the business of removing it, removing your blocked accounts, and allowing you to quietly vanish, OK? If you want to come back with another username and make a fresh start steering clear of that particular subject, I'm sure you will be quite welcome. But I'm not being paid to do this and I have to fit it around real life, so it may take a few hours. Guy 15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC

Okay thanks, Take care, I enjoy wikipedia and will probably make a new fresh start with new user name and this time I will be a perfect civil wikipedia member. Take care, have a nice week end ( make your best to clean all the stuff to make sure that things will not come up again.) Best Regards.

Sure, and if you can stay calm and not take things too personally you'll do just fine. Best of luck, Guy 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi Guy, there were patterns in the edits strongly suggestive of Zephram Stark. Interestingly, Xosa seems determined not to e-mail me to discuss it, which I invited him to do. I asked one of the arbitrators who dealt with Zephram during his ArbCom case to review the block, and sent him the evidence. His view was that it was either Zephram or another sockpuppet who was just as bad. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. As you see from the comment above, a thought provoking point was made. I reckon this is an event with a long tail and there's not much anybody can do to turn it round. Guy 20:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Zephram is always able to be calm or otherwise as he chooses. :-) Bear in mind what the arbitrator said: if it's not Zephram, it's another sockpuppet account and just as bad. Even if you reach the conclusion that it's not him, it would still be wise not to unblock. If you're familiar with Zephram's editing, you'll see what I mean when you look at the contribs. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh I'm not about to unblock. Just trying to make sure everything's above board. Guy 21:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Why did you say I was in a content dispute with him? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Because Xosa and the meta user both said so. I guess it's time to go and make up my own mind, and I bet I know what I'll find. ZOMG Rouge admin abuse! Guy 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles[edit]


Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [23]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [24] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are out of order[edit]

Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

How dare you threaten me. You are referring, of course, to the GLF article, which I merely reverted to the previous position because of the directions of the Wikipedia Legal Team. I have been unable to find where that team have given the go-ahead for restoration of the illegal materials within it and so I correctly reverted the article. No "vandalism" was involved and you are out of order.Chelsea Tory 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are out of order. I did not threaten you, I warned you, which is different. Also, the assertion that material is "illegal" is solely promoted by fans of Lauder-Frost, who were quite happy to have the case mentioned as long as it was in the context of a blatant falsehood. You may not blank an entire article because you dispute a single fact within it, and you may not remove cited content against consensus. As a single-purpose account you may also be banned from editing that article. Guy 09:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin war?[edit]

Its always a little confusing when one admin says one thing and another admin goes and does something completely different. I am refering to Slimvirgin's intervention of the GLF page in which she has basically restored Chelsea Tory's edit and, in my opinion, made a nonsense of the whole article. I'm also a little cross that she specifically requested myself and Endomorph not to edit the article but said nothing of the anonymous IPs who have been vandalising it for almost a week. I'm worried she might ban me if I go and revert it so perhaps you other admin could bang your heads together and reach some kind of consensus. Guidence needed! Thanks.--Edchilvers 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We already agree on one thing: you should take a back seat. We will come to an agreement on content, on which we already have similar views as you will see above. Guy 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I agree not to edit the article, but I shall remain active on the talkpage. The fact is we are not going to reach a consensus because the Lauder Frost camp are not prepared to budge. You and your fellow admin must also prepare for the very real prospect of Brad and myself recieving writs through our postboxes in the next few days and we will need to decide what to do with the article whilst a court case is pending--Edchilvers 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
We will have to see. For everyone's sake it is best by far if we leave as much of the editing as possible to William, who is an editor of exemplary neutrality. Guy 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. When the case against us is outlined in the court documents (assuming the arrive at all) we will have a much better idea as to how to proceed--Edchilvers 21:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

Guy, I completely understand your concerns. I spent some time last night going through the edit history and I can see it was GLF or friends who created the article as a vanity piece, and then added a reference to the legal case but misrepresented it. I also agree entirely that it can't be a hagiography. What would your overall preference be — to have a full article with the conviction, or a stub? My concern is the editing by Edchilvers and Endomorph who seem to have been involved in a libel action before in relation to a friend of GLF. That complicates things enormously. I've e-mailed Brad for guidance, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

William's suggestion of a customised neutrality warning has merit, I think. In the end nobody wants to pay for the legal bill; if I thought that there was any merit or substance whatosever to the legal threats I would unequivocally advocate stubbing until Brad has come back (which may indeed be the best thing anyway). Guy 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


I've used talk and thoroughly supported the paragraph with 11 cites. Cites are directly to legal statutes and directly to where the content is found in the forum. As for having to defer to majority opinion when I am outnumbered - is it wiki policy to have an article say "1+1=3" just because more people want that in than the people who want "1+1=2"?

My content gets scrapped repeatedly even though it has 11 cites and the best excuse they can come up with is 'original research'. That is incorrect. They also accuse me of editing first and posting to talk after. That is incorrect. They also accuse me of merely reinserting the same text. That is incorrect. I have tried to rephrase it in many different ways, they still auto delete it.

I'm totally behind the whole freedom expression goals of Wikipedia but not to the extent that a tiny subculture can remove factual content from the wiki page about their forum merely because they don't like the way that content makes them look. The wiki article is not an extension of their forum. It is not an advertisement or a recruitment opportunity. It contains fact and should be objective.

I offered them to counterbalance my paragraph by mentioning some ways of accomplishing a White Nation that do not fit the legal definition of genocide. They have been unable or unwilling to do so. If that is because there is no other way presented on the site, that is not a reason to excuse my paragraph - if anything, it makes the paragraph that much more pertinent.

The entire site is perfused with 'white nation', ethnic cleansing, and Nazi icons and other imagery that evokes images of the holocaust. Several of the forums have stickied threads devoted to the holocaust or ethnic cleansing or other militaristic strategies.

I have not passed judgment on them - if you look carefully at the paragraph they keep scrapping, you will note that it does not say that the conduct is genocide. It merely cites some of the content, describes it, and gives the legal definition of genocide under US and international law. That is also cited. It is not original research - original research is not going out and finding facts and referencing them, but that's what they appear to think.

I do not attribute the content to the webmaster or the forum itself - I only note that the content is present there. This is partly due to a statement that the site does not permit advocating or suggesting illegal content. This is clearly lip service only - like if Tony Soprano circulating a memo prohibiting whacking people. A policy that is not enforced is no policy at all.

Please take a closer look and, if you like, reassess your conclusions in light of what I've said. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Another note - you should know that one or more of those involved have been practicing extensive forum shopping, trying one admin after another to try to get them to side against me. If you really believe in impartiality I hope that you will discourage them from doing this in the future and instead, encourage them to use the normal process.

UberCyrxic (sp?) has contacted admins before, trying to get be banned for violating 3RR without going through the usual process. Please remain impartial and discourage this behavior. Thanks, Stick to the Facts 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, I'm afraid. If other editors don't support an edit then you need to either accept it and move on, or go to dispute resolution. Edit warring is not the way to go forward. Guy 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

m:User:Jason Gastrich[edit]

While Mr Gastritch may not be a desirable editor, on Meta I am not aware of a policy which supports removing links the user has added to his page there (keeping in mind that nofollow is turned on there, as it is on all WMF sites except en.wp, and therefore provides no benefit to the user himself.) On Meta the user is also not banned. I have restored the page to its previous state at the request of the user via e-mail. - Amgine 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He is a serial vanity merchant and spammer. If meta want to give him a storefront I guess that's up to meta, but the PhD bit is rather naughty since it is from a degree mill. Guy 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it really important to have a link to his guitar lesson business? Is it acceptable to use sock puppets on metawiki[25]? On the plus side, its not like anyone who reads the title "Dr" every other word on a wiki user page will take the claims seriously. Arbusto 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Mercola BLP issue[edit]

JzG, you seem to specialize in WP:BLP. Joseph Mercola, a nationally known alt med DO, has previously, publicly complained about the quality of the Wikipedia article about him. Having some familiarity with Mercola & his newsletter, but also agreeing with a number of criticisms of him, I have run my own article improvement on the article. With regard to one final element is an issue of WP:BLP on settlement of a lawsuit between Mercola & Stephen Barrett, "quackwatcher". A QW partisan, Fyslee, is eager to finish the article with a spamlink to QW that claims Mercola made a $50k payment & a retraction. I think that such a claim would be fine if there is evidence beyond Barrett's mere claim in a case of where a BLP actually has a public complaint, but I question Fyslee's interpretation (Mercola-Barett lawsuit discussion with regard to article on Stephen Barrett) over NATTO's, "withdrawn" (which is similar to mine[26]) as to reference quality required in a BLP with such a complaint, between two legal combatants.

Edit dif series starts here [27]. Could you give us an opinion?--I'clast 11:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a nasty one. I' ave a suggestion, though... Guy 11:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I have read your comments and replied. There is a misunderstanding, as there is only one version of what happened. -- Fyslee 21:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Guy. I cannot spend all my time checking the talk page so have not been able to reply immediately at the time Fyslee, who is the one who complained, posting his reply. There is quite a lot on the talk page , including the archive so it is difficult to have a clear understanding with a a quick look. I noted the comments above regarding Dr. Mercola. Certainly if all articles related to living persons were properly referenced and editors took pain to make sure that facts were correct, it would be a big improvement, in my opinion, for WP. Verifiability is fine however there is a level of quality involved... That is what we are trying to do with the Barrett article.
As for the POV tag on the section on controversy and litigation, this is probably the best referenced section with many of the references being from court document and legal rulings. Also when critics make claims about Barrett , they are clearly identified as claims and Barrett is quoted to give his version of the situation. Fyslee does not like it because many of the court decisions have been against Barrett.
Finally I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a community were issues are properly discussed and open to either consensus or agreement. Maybe I misunderstood :-).NATTO 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Your misunderstanding is in what constitutes consensus or agreement, I think. What is required is not truth but verifiability, as stated on the Talk page. Guy 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected your honour. Verifiability it is. I assume that you accept that there are degrees of verifiability and that not all documents are of equal value... Or is that another of my misunderstanding ? NATTO 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
There are indeed degrees of reliability and verifiability, and we should be careful not to give undue weight to any individual criticism of a living individual. You will always have a problem here, given that you are solely interested in supporting the side of non-traditional remedies, that Wikipedia's policy by its very nature supports the scientific consensus. Medical journals are reliable sources, websites making extravagant claims of benefit are not. You will see this friction in places like pseudoscience. Guy 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am glad I did not misunderstand that one. Thank you for your in depth analysis of my sole interest. Of course I am only a trained health professional who has written peer-reviewed scientific articles so what do I know about these issues.... NATTO 13:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: your sole apparent interest in this project. You give every appearance of being a single purpose account, all your edits appear to be in support of non-traditional health subjects. Guy 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

JzG, thank you for your prompt attention to the Mercola BLP matter. Both Fyslee and NATTO are open partisans about SB and the QW site. I have not encountered NATTO before so I don't know his story. Given your SPA concern, he might be simply contra-QW in Wiki interests or a SPA anti-stalking handle among other possiblities. You aver to "reliable sites" and "pseudoscience". I am not examining NATTO's edits too closely. QW is a polemic site that seems to attack *everything* that it doesn't like, fairness, accuracy and science be damned. Interesting to read. I refer to it for some things, with reservations, but also recognize that QW is served as a opportunistic hardball without regard to fairminded scientific accuracy, rather more legalistically - "so sue me". So far I have avoided edits on the QW related sites. If you look around, you'll find hardcore scientific skeptics, well credentialed, about QW's reliability although it seems muted. Perhaps they are trying to keep volume low, in house for right now. Don't know. Anyway, may I request that you address the BLP part separately from NATTO's SPA question as there are several of us, counting statsone, that seem to have an interest, in general, and specifically, the Mercola BLP. My reading of the rules is that SB gets to give his personal version, within reason, on the SB BLP bio, but that Wiki requires hard references for legally controverted BLPs where Wiki itself has been publicly criticized and is itself in question. I want to see your directed opinion on BLP since you have faced the issue more. Frankly, I would truly like to see QW partisans dish up the actual hardcopy on any amounts and other details, rather than just rumor mongering. Trust but verify.--I'clast 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well expressed I'clast. NATTO 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Criticism from reliabel medical sources would inevitably carry much more weight han criticism from - well, quacks, for want of a better word. Feel free to replace the acres of "there was an earthquake, a fire, a terrible flood, an old friend came in form out of town" etc. with some hard evidence of real criticism from people whose criticism actually carries some weight. Guy 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If medical doctors are not enough, is a California Superior Court judge acceptable or do we need a peer-review study listed on PubMed ? 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that somebody is trying to argue that because he is not a board-certified psychiatrist, he can't possibly be an authority on health scams. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning... Guy 09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What the article says is simply factual a) he was never Board certified in his own field of professional activity b) a judge found him to be no expert in at least one of the modality he is critical of and even found him to be not credible at the trial ( all referenced with legal documents ). His critics are voicing their opinion . Barrett then explain what qualifies him to write on so many topics ( his own words ) All factual and referenced. I am sure the readers can make up their up their own mind. NATTO 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
All of which would be so much more credible if it wasn't for the self-evident fact that some of these critics are charlatans. Whihc is why I want to collect the criticisms by person. Guy 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
With respect to the Mercola article, this 1998 editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine references an ongoing general bias in medicine against nutrition[28], dif. I don't think Mercola's WP:BLP should depend on the QW/SB/Bolen is-too, is-not byplay. However, with respect to QW, SB et al as polemics questioned for reliability on alt med/nutrition subjects pertaining to Mercola, this article[29], dif seems more independent and relevant than the current critics cited at SB. I would especially take time to read this latter, it's an eye opener.--I'clast 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Negrete is a lawyer, fully licensed in the state of California, Dr. Chopra and Dr. Sahelian are M.D. the same medical qualification that as Barrett has, Peter Barry Chowka is a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine and Haley J. Fromholz is a judge of the California Superior Court... What is the problem with them... They do not share your POV, is that the problem ? It leaves Bolen which Fyslee does not like at all and constantly rails about. Like it or not Bolen is openly critical of Barrett and Barrett is openly critical of Bolen. This is factual and well known so it is relevant. By the way Guy calling others charlatans and quack does not help progress the discussion.NATTO 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What a lwayer says tends to be dependent on, and should be viewed in the context of, who is paying him to say it. That is a large part of the problem. And there is little doubt that there are many charlatans in the alternative health market, and all of them would be a great deal happier if consumer advocacy groups like Quackwatch went away. Which is why it is vital for any criticism to fully establish the bona fides and conflicting interests of the critic. This is a general principle and is not so very controversial, I think. Guy 13:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a very general statement that is not helpful in progressing the discussion. Please be specific. If you think that Negrete, Chopra, Sahelian , Chowka , Fromholz fit your above description, then please provide factual information instead of ranting based on your view of the situation. NATTO 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Guy 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if some history of the criticisms could be mentioned where relevant. The Bolen connection to many (certainly not all) criticisms and most libel suits is worth mentioning and is verifiable. Sometimes it should also be possible to identify what types of criticism we're dealing with: libel, ad hominem, straw man, ethical, professional, educational, scientific, etc.. Many of these would be combinations, as most of the last few I've mentioned are actually ad homs or straw man attacks. It would be a service to readers to identify just why the critics make their utterances: Bolen is paid to do so by quacks that have been exposed by Barrett. Others parrot Bolen because they have had their own unethical or unscientific practices criticized by Barrett, etc.. His criticisms that motivated their attacks could be linked to. In the few instances where he has been attacked prior to specific exposés of individual quacks, that could also be mentioned.

What is lacking is more serious criticism made in a proper manner, using scientific research and without personal attacks. I've seen a couple in the last seven years, but can't recall where. They were serious attempts, but were fallacious, and therefore haven't been a continued part of the repertoire of attacks. If they had been successful debunking efforts, they would be very prominent and noticeable, and he would have revised his viewpoints. -- Fyslee 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


I am somewhat uncomfortable about having reverted an edit of yours to Logo. I can see that your edits do seem extremely constructive, however the one I reverted seems quite out of character. The summary states "removing spam" and yet it actually put back in a link a number of other editors had previously removed as well as taking some logos out leaving some blank picture areas. Thanks --Nigel (Talk) 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's probably to do with some trouble I'm having with my internet connection andproxy server today. I did not add any links that I am aware of. I'll go along and remove the spammy one (a single purpose account has been linking his website - most unusual) Guy 13:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting change on the Logo article. I think it makes a good point about the recent rv war. I will have to contest with your claim of the SPA and ask for you to weigh in at Talk:Logo/Archives/2012#Removed_link. ThanksCochese8 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Different link, different account. added by User:Logomage. Guy 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Noted that one and thanks for the above answer - it did look quite a strange edit for any experienced wiki editor but I've not been around long enough to annoy admins. (At least I'd prefer not to!). However maybe the "war" on Logo needs some admin intervention too. While it is spam I do not wish to go 3RR on it. It does seem a pity that no one has seen fit to place spam warnings on the user page but the activity seems disruptive to say the least and the postings of the user above seem at best inflamatory and not in the spirit of Wiki - should I request Admin Intervention? Regards --Nigel (Talk) 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A bit heated, isn't it? Guy 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Buri[edit]

Sure... I don't care at all. It's not a big deal. Grandmasterka 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done the needful. Guy 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
New article surrounding a diploma mill needs speedied: St Clements University Network. Arbusto 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's baaaaaaaaaaaaack. At least this version looks decent, but it's still not sourced. Speedy delete and indef ban? AfD to settle the matter once and for all? Help me decide, or do it yourself, I don't care too much. Grandmasterka 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sprotection failure?[edit]

Hey. I'm wandering how a user with 15 edits was able to edit an sprotected article. [30] Any ideas? What am I missing here? Regards, El_C 23:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's partly that you have to have made edits and partly that a certain time must have elapsed. This account was created in early August. Guy 08:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me what a deleted article said?[edit]

I am curious to know what the "NEDM" article said. If you can get it, please leave all versions of the article on my talk page. Thanks a bunch! --BLuToRsE 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article on the YTMND wiki ( is based on it, and already much expanded. That's the place to go, I think. Guy 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Move request of NASA Shuttle Landing Facility[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering why you closed the poll, which resulted in no objection to a move, but did not actually perform the move that was requested. As I understand it, if there are no objections the move should be carried out, even if nobody has voiced support. Please could you clarify this matter for me. Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there is nothing wrong with the existing title, basically. Agreement of the editors on NASA shuttle landing faciclity that this is the only or primary meaning of shuttle landing facility does not amount to an actual consensus within the project for a move. Not that I can think of any others, but shuttle is ambiguous in a way that NASA shuttle (or space shuttle) would not be. Guy 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I recently created the article London Street Commune, but it was deleted. I looked at the Deletion review page, and I would like to recreate the article. Would you mind giving me the original text, and maybe some guidance on what I could do to it please. It wasn't very long but I would like to see what I orginally put. Trevor Saline 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Trevor Saline/London Street Commune, please work it up with reference to reliable sources, so we can verify the content and the neutrality of its coverage. Holding copies of deleted content in your userspace can be problematric and if it's not being actively edited it may well be deleted again. At a glance this appears to have merit as a subject, so good luck. Guy 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much, but why did you delete the other articles without any discussion? Were they so bad that they warranted a "speedy" deletion. I have recorded them on the deletion review page. Trevor Saline 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple of them were essentially empty, one was a restatement of one sentence already in another article and posted under the wrong title, etc. Guy 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I have looked at the criteria for deletion without debate and none of these seem to match. I have added more comments at the deletion review. Do you think the correct process was followed here? If not, why did you decide not to follow the relevant process? Also what do that fact that I have a list of "all the articles that I have created" on my user page have any relevance? Trevor Saline 10:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Process is irrelevant. What matters is policy. Guy 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the process irrelevant? Doesn't the policy require that the process is followed? Which policy did you follow when deleting these, an established one or your own? I have responded to your comment on the deletion review. Trevor Saline 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
No, process requires that policy is followed, but not vice-versa. And ignore all rules is policy. If you had created articles of more than one sentence we would probably not be having this conversation. Guy 21:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
But you said that the policy was important. What I am asking is if your actions in deleting these items went against policy. IAR should only be used when you need to ignore rules in order to "maintain or improve Wikipedia". It doesn't seem to give anybody the right to ignore them just because they want to. Why was ignoring rules the only way that you could have acted in this case. When you get a chance could you please respond to my questions on the deletion review page. Trevor Saline 09:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is policy. When an article doesn't stand a snowball's chance, quietly deleting it is just fine. You have now further inflated the noise-to-signal ratio of these one-sentence articles. Guy 21:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see you didn't follow the correct policy here. None of the reasons match the speedy criteria. One of the articles that you deleted because "it redirected to a game that hasn't been released" has already been recreated - where did you get the idea that was a valid criteria. Quietly deleting these articles is not "just fine". You just seem to be using IAR and SNOW as excuses for not following the original policy. When I try to discuss this with you, you just bring up this "noise-to-signal" argument, or that "the discussion is now many times the size of the articles". If you are not happy to back up your decisions with logical discussions I think that you should just undelete these articles (and put them on AFD, if you see fit). At least give me the original content, so that I can do so myself. Trevor Saline 21:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. I followed policy just fine - you might quibble about process, but to quote another and more prolific editor, "fuck process". Guy 10:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
No I don't want to quibble about process, I want to discuss the policy. I assume that you are working on the basis that anything done to implement a policy is a process, and "fuck process", which therefore really means "fuck the policy". In this case the "policy" is to have a formal debate is to have a formal debate (AFD etc) if the article doesn't very clearly match the speedy criteria. The process is to actually create the debate. So what have done is said "fuck (the debating) process" and just delete them instead. The effect therefore, is to actually bypass (or "fuck") the policy. From what I understand of Wikipedia, you have not followed the correct policies and you have stepped outside of you authority as an administrator. I have tried to discuss this with you, but you just keep raising issues such as IAR, SNOWBALL and "fuck process", and sending me instructions on how you think articles should be written to avoid deletion. Could you please let me know what avenues are open to me to further address these issues. Trevor Saline 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am done with this; the amount of argumentation you have produced now outweighs the effort you put into the "articles" by some orders of magnitude. Guy 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand your frustration. All I ask is that you point me in the right direction regarding which avenues are open to be (which, or course, may not necessarily be the avenues that you think I should pursue) or, at least, point me to another administrator who could help me with this. Trevor Saline 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I left you all the help you should need on your Talk page: an example of a stub which establishes the subject's validity, links to the content policies and the "five pillars of Wikipedia", information on what the problem was with the articles. Guy 15:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but what I meant is addressing the fact that I feel the correct policy wasn't followed here. I am a bit nervous, because my questions seem to be getting me labelled as a "troll" and raising suggestions of having me blocked for "disruption" - but I would like to push on with this issue until I feel it has been dealt with (I'd just like somebody to explain why they matched the policy, not just the policy "workarounds"). I know that you have explained it as you see it, but I just don't agree. It may be better for me to follow another path or speak to somebody else, rather than keep bothering you. Just the name of another user that you think would be prepared to help me, or some way in which I could find such a user, would be greatly appreciated. Trevor Saline 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)