User talk:JzG/Archive 15

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




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

Hi, just a note that this user is still engaging in violations of Wikipedia content and conduct guidelines using the sockpuppet Cestlogique (talkcontribs); Icankeepthisupforever (talk · contribs) is another probable sock. --Muchness 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Blocked. Please report on WP:ANI for faster response, though. Guy 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I will do so in future. Regards. --Muchness 09:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) sock?[edit]

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

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

...Tuatafa Hori.[edit]

Tuatafa Hori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


She was randomly deleted.


I was told to post sources.

She was deleted after I posted FOUR credible sources.

And not a single explanation to me.

What the flip?!

Bohemienne815 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Again "she" was deleted as functionally unverifiable and previously proven to a very high degree of credibility as a hoax. There is absolutely nothing random about this. Here's a hint: if your best source is a Geocities page, you're better off looking at another subject. Guy 09:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that you didn't read the references, because it wasn't just a geocities page this time. I listed three other sources... two books and an article. I'm not sure what's so uncredible about two books and an article. I just don't think it's fair that she keeps getting deleted. She's basically my favorite princess ever, and I can't stand seeing her without a wikipedia page. :( Bohemienne815 04:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a reply. Just to remind you. Bohemienne815 21:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You've had all the answer you're getting on this one. Guy 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Whatever. I'm sorry, I know I must be getting annoying... I just want to clear the air. If you all honestly think she's a hoax or whatever and doesn't belong on Wiki then fine. I'll stop. I'm just really interested in oceanian culture, and I think she deserves a page. What would be the harm, after all.. I doubt that many people would even notice the article. And I can't help but wonder why my other three sources were ignored. But.. I will cease and I hope that this doesn't lower my credibility or ruin any sort of editor to editor relationship between us :)

Thank you to you and Wiki for at least allowing me to try, but I'm sorry to say I don't think I'll be contributing much more. Bohemienne815 22:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A large part of the probem is that you have not contributed anything other than this, which was discussed in depth after previous deletions. Creating Tuatafahori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was also a bad move. Sources which can't be readily accessed are of no value where there is no editor in good standing to vouch for them, especially where there is nothing "out there" to back them up and where there is credible evidence to support the idea of a hoax. Guy 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Smeelgova (talk · contribs) and AfDs; it's worse than you think[edit]

Hi Guy ... if you get a chance, please go back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lobbying in AfDs and read my comments there. The actions of Smeelgova (talk · contribs) in one AfD are but a tiny part of a much bigger mess involving tendentious editing on a whole range of articles, and I think some admin needs to be warned about it. --Aaron 13:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Complex. Time for an RfC, I think. Guy 17:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please just give me a chance and watch to see if my actions have actually changed. No one has done that. Please take a step back all of you, breathe, and realize that you are all getting angry over my questions and comments and words to you, when I stopped the actual actions in question the first time Jossi mentioned it to me. I want to learn from you all, and be part of this community, just give me a chance please and don't get so angry at me so fast. Thank you. Smeelgova 18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
No, we're not getting angry, we're just irritated that your reaction to being corrected was to attack the messenger. Guy 19:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Attack the messenger? All I want is more information, and answers to my questions. And yes, it seems like you all got very angry, very fast, and didn't give me a chance to respond. That's my opinion. Thanks for the response. Will you give me a chance to learn, be able to listen to others and be taught, and give me a chance to be part of the community in a more warm and welcoming fashion? Thank you. Smeelgova 19:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
If you were paying atention you'd realise that the whole point was that we want you to learn and move on. Jossi's original comment to whihc you took such exception really was no big deal. People spam talk pages all the time, usually with the best motives, and if they've not been told it's frowned on they can hardly be criticised for it. What we do is point out, politely but firmly, that we don't like that sort of thing, and mostly folks just accept it and carry on. That's an end of it, as far as I'm concerned, since I'm pretty sure you've got the message.
As to the other issues, they are more complex and you'll need, I think, some guidance from someone with more time to spare than I have right now. You might try the association of members' advocates. Guy 19:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a recent deletion...[edit]

This is the Byeard Maggott, host of the infamous Maggott Show and Emperor of Operation CWAL, who's honor you have besmirched by deleting it's article.

I decided to go ahead and respond in a special Maggott Show, because it was funnier that way. Congratulations, you're about to be famous!

It's very inflammatory. Enjoy!

This is a new definition of famous of which I was not previously aware. I listened to your programme for about five seconds before becoming annoyed at your American pronunciation of 'Wikipedia' and switching Winamp to a Tom Lehrer song about Wernher von Braun. Don't say that he's hypocritical, rather that he's apolitical. Vonce rockets are up, who kares vhere zey come down, zat's not my department, says Vernher von Braun. Good day.--Sam Blanning(talk) 04:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Cute. Besides the fact that it's basically a personal attack and besides the fact that listening to the first five seconds and immediately declaring judgement based on nationality doesn't do wonders for your credibility, I've never heard of either of those people. By your logic they must not be noteworthy. Ironically, the show you didn't listen to pointed out that very concept. Listen to the show this time, and when you get to the part about raising holy hell about what you think is important, I'm talking to you and Vernher von Braun. (By the way, I made an account so you can tell which replies are me. The previous replies here weren't. I'm also turning on my nice voice since this isn't my turf, so I promise I won't call any of you douchebags.)--Byeard Maggott
Rich, given the content of the wank. Er, link. Guy 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That was exactly my point. On Wikipedia I am beholden to observe some basic rules of etiquette. On my site I'm not. Though obviously I can start calling you names if you want. --Byeard Maggott
Und I'm learniing Chinese... I have that song, too, and the sheet music for it :-) Guy 07:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the originator read WP:CSD; no assertion of notability is indeed a valid speedy deletion criterion. Great to know that this was indeed vanispamcruftisement though; it's always great to have confirmation. Guy 09:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I did read what I thought were the criteria for speedy deletion, but they were different. Hopefully I was reading the wrong page instead of just being stupid, but I can't find the one I was citing. My apologies.
HOWEVER. As far as it being vanispamcruftisement, I take serious issue with that. It's starting to sound like you didn't even read the articles. CWAL isn't a business and mine wasn't given any mention whatsoever. I wasn't involved in any way with either of the articles (Operation CWAL or Byeard Maggott) until now. I do sell things and I do advertise, but I don't do either one of them here. To make that assumption is very rude. (If you knew the show, you'd know how much I hate marketroids. I deliberately avoid ANY questionable marketing practice.) Before you go making that kind of call, I suggest you *check,* using whatever means you may have as an admin. If you don't have any means of checking, then making off the cuff judgements is flat out irresponsible. Assuming good faith is also an official policy of Wikipedia. That is the *exact opposite* of what you're doing.
I do see where you're coming from with this, because I'm a suspicious bastard myself and tend to think that practically everybody who mentions a business is a plant. But it's hardly logical to think that the Operation CWAL article was a spamvertisement considering it didn't even link to me. As for the Byeard Maggott article, I can see how it could look like spam (it wouldn't be my first impulse, but it did link to my site), so while I may have ripped everybody a new asshole in the show, I'm not going to hold a grudge for that one. (Especially since you're not the one who deleted it anyway--you just gave everyone else a reason to.) While I certainly like extra exposure and don't think there were good grounds for deleting it, that's largely because I'm the only one who actually knows for sure that I didn't write it. Thus I decided I'd satisfy myself with a public harangue and leave it at that. If people are looking for me they probably already know who I am anyway. But getting rid of Operation CWAL was just bullshit. --Byeard Maggott
Your link makes it plain that your ego is three times the size of Wikipedia.Guy
Guilty! Actually, I describe my ego as being a determining factor in our galactic geometry. But, you know. It's all good. --Byeard Maggott
Thing is, I seem to get more Google hits than you do, and I am my own personal benchmark for complete non-notability. And CWAL was deleted before and then recreated still with no assertion of notability. Guy 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Who's going to Google for "Byeard Maggott?" Most of my notoriety is word of mouth. (Out of curiousity, where are you measuring these hits? I'd kind of like to take a look.) And if you get more traffic than I do, then you're notable, if not outright notorious. I'm not Penny Arcade, but I get my share.
As for the assertion of notability thing, I think it's self-evident. Zillions of people know about it. Why does it need to have a sales pitch? Asserting notability is not the same as having notability anyway, so why the assertion part is important I just don't get. --Byeard Maggott
An article on any subject must make it clear why that subject should be considered significant enough to have an article (see criteria for speedy deletion, A7). You are quite wrong when you say that the article was deleted incorrectly for lack of notability, it was deleted correctly for failing to make any claim of notability. Once the claim is made, it may still be deleted if it is decided that the claim is implausible, unverifiable or exaggerated. If something has been the primary subject of multiple noin-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, that is usually accepted as proof that the subject can be covered in line with policy, but if no claim of significance is made, then it will almost certainly fail one of the core policies, and debating it is a waste of time - hence the speedy criterion for subjects for which no claim of notability is made. See? Guy 10:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be a proper assertion of notability? Operation CWAL is a group officially recognized by Blizzard entertainment, in both the instruction manual for StarCraft, and in the game's credits, and is arguably noteworthy for having such an influence on the devellopers of a very popular game as to warrant inclusion in the game itself as a cheat code.
Looking for precedent, I can find a few seemingly non-noteworthy articles not currently scheduled for deletion, including The Juggernaut Bitch, though without the note about inclusion in the third X-Men film it becomes just as irrelevant as Operation CWAL. On top of that, the only proof that it was included in the film at all is a clip on Youtube, and I guess I'm not entirely certain, but are film clips posted on the internet in violation of copyright valid sources for noteability?
If the answer to my question is "yes", then I guess I'll get right on scanning the manual for StarCraft, as well as ripping a portion of the game's credits, as inclusion in the game, as well as acknowlegement from the game's producers seems to make this group just as noteworthy as the Juggernaut, bitch. --Spankotron 18:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Just as a note on this, The Juggernaut Bitch was heavily debated, and even had been deleted. It was later restored only after a Deletion Review. The use in the third X-Men film was the deciding factor to put it back in the Keep category, and without that, it would have almost certainly stayed deleted. Fan-1967 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Then what makes Operation CWAL any less noteworthy? Is it favouritism because the X-Men films are (arguably) more popular than StarCraft? --Spankotron 18:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Arguably?" Ask the average man on the street (not someone in a web forum) if he's heard of the X-Men movies. Then ask him what StarCraft is. Most likely he'll ask if it has something to do with Captain Kirk. Fan-1967 18:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then, why not just remove the article on StarCraft altogether, if it's so unimportant? And since when has the average Joe on the street been the default criteria for importance on Wikipedia? Given the game's rather lengthy stay at the top of the best selling PC games lists, dismissing it's relevance is nothing more than an obvious bias towards video games. --Spankotron 18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a matter of degree. Both are side-topics relating to a main topic. X-Men are far more well-known than StarCraft, so a side-topic to X-Men is more likely to be considered notable than a side-topic to StarCraft. And, based on my recollection of the debate, Juggernaut Bitch just barely squeaked by. Fan-1967 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Juggernaut Bitch was actually deleted and kept deleted at review, but then it was referenced in X-Men The Last Stand and featured on Fox, which caused it to be undeleted at review. Needless to say a good 75% of the current article is original research and 50% of the balance is cruft, but the topic is probably significant enough. Guy 19:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, so because it's currently relevant it's noteworthy, but because StarCraft is so old at this point, anything related to it is no longer important. Gotcha. --Spankotron 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
On the off chance that you are genuinely puzzled rather than being wilfully obtuse, Juggernaut Bitch was actually referenced in the text by a major character in a massive blockbuster movie, and this in turn was noted on Faux News; Op. CWAL is mentioned as an "oh, by the way" in the manual and credits of a video game. So your argument is essentially that because we have an article on Westminster Clock Tower, which is part of the Palace of Westminster, we must have an article on the back door of Fenchurch Street Station, and if we don't have an article on the back door of Fenchurch Street Station then we might just as well delete Fenchurch Street station altogether. Guy 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Why stop there? We might as well delete London. It's just full of Brits, anyway. Fan-1967 21:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This noteworthiness concept seems to me to be out of hand. If someone who isn't involved with the originator of the material (i.e. "vanispamcruftisement") thinks it's important enough to take the time to write an article on and post it, then it's noteworthy by definition, because *someone has taken the time and effort to note it.* It's not like you're going to run out of server space keeping articles on Juggernaut Bitch or Operation CWAL. Hell, you know why I found out the articles had been deleted in the first place? Someone completely unaffiliated with CWAL OR the Maggott Show had searched for Byeard Maggott, seen that it had been deleted, and came to me and said that I should post some sort of response because he thought the reasons were BS.

I don't think you guys really have a grasp as to *why* you should delete non-noteworthy articles. You're not supposed to do it for it's own sake--you do it to make Wikipedia a better information source. Less information is not better than more unless it's getting in the way. And Operation CWAL is not going to get in the way of a damn thing. Neither am I. I hate marketers as much as you do, but if a third party wants to write about me, there's no harm in letting them--"Byeard Maggott" is not a commonly encountered search term.

Obviously, you're not going to just take my word as to whether Operation CWAL is noteworthy. So here's an exercise. If any of you guys play World of Warcraft, go into the auction house and yell "Does anybody here know what Operation CWAL is?" For that matter, go to ANY public forum with a decent population and ask.

CWAL is VERY well-known. So long as we're talking about comic book characters, far more people know about CWAL than know about, for example, Longshot or Johnny_The_Homicidal_Maniac. Hell, if the forum you choose supports it, you can set up a poll. Ask how many people have heard of Johnny the Homicidal Maniac, how many have heard of Operation CWAL, and how many have heard of both. I guarantee you more people will have heard of CWAL. But don't take my word for it. Go check. I can wait.

The problem with Operation CWAL is that while tons of people have heard of it, a lot of those people don't know what it is. And that's exactly why it SHOULD have an article! So they can find out and Wikipedia can perform it's intended purpose!

On a more personal note, JzG, I like your writing style and I really hold no personal grudge against you. I started out with a wave of vitriol because I'm the Byeard Maggott. It's what I do. Most of that was directed at the guys who deleted the Maggott article anyway, not the CWAL article (and it was because they were attacking CWAL as justification for deleting me, which was just stupid). I only mentioned you because, well, you're the one who gave them the idea that the CWAL article wasn't notable in the first place.

Of course, you can hate me anyway. I'm perfectly cool with that.

I'll tell you what--we can compromise. We reinstate the CWAL article (optionally after asking on a random forum whether people have really heard of it), you edit it to say that I'm a jackass, and we'll call it even. And since there's no article on me or my business for it to link to anymore, there's obviously no concern that it's spam. (Or if there were direct links, we can get rid of them.) What do you say? --Byeard Maggott

Hate? Not as such, no - you seem to be reading a differnt thread from me. For myself, I'm just doing a job which takes up a lot of time for no pay whatsoever. All the vituperation seems to be in your link. Guy 22:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Vituperation! I learned a new word today! Anyway, I just figured a Maggott Show named "JzG is a Jackass" might, you know, cause some ill-feelings between us. But I'm glad to see that's not the case. And I don't get paid to do this stuff either. --Byeard Maggott
I get called far worse things on a regular basis by those who dislike my opinions on road safety issues. Guy 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
As a random note, I just made a post on the Penny Arcade General forum asking, simply, "Have you heard of Operation CWAL? What is Operation CWAL?", and though it was deleted almost right away as spam, when I asked why, aside from being told that my writing style seems to closely match some spam bots, I was told to take it to the gaming forum. To summarize: Giving no information whatsoever beyond the name, I was told by someone who assumed I was simply spamming to take it to a forum, the topic of which was simply assumed to be a close match to what I was talking about, without having ever mentioned gaming. Now, this is far from proof of notability, but it does show that people outside of the group do know of the group's existance, in relevant context, even. --Spankotron 00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of existence is not evidence of significance, of course. Guy 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
As the originator of the deleted article in question, and given the extremely stupid arguments I've had for legitimate academic content which was only preserved after continuously reapplying said content over and over again, I hereby declare for my own part that Wikipedia is a bastion of the Elite and personal fiefdom. Guy's behavior has made me cease to want to contribute to this previously worthwhile medium of knowledge. This, combined with the nonsense at the [[1]] article are now sufficient to cause me to cease contibuting to this medium. If your goal here is, by psuedointellectual snobbery to drive potential contributors away, you have succeeded. I am the new apostle to your illegitimacy, and your standards are subject to the review of your peers. Wikipedia is now about popularity and personal fiefdom, not about serious ethical debate and academic honest. Guy is your poster child. Good Day. 11-27-2006
After a day of sleep, I have determined that Wikipedia is still a useful source of information, but in the inevitable maturation of institutions, it still saddens me that this kind of behavior goes on. The requirement for a 'casual' wikipedian to now maintain constant viligance over their articles lest someone actively seek to destroy them is tragic. The fact that the article I wrote on Byeard Maggot (Which is of admittedly minor fame) also led to the destruction of the Operation CWAL article (which is criminal in its vicisiosness and arbitrary nature) forces me to call into question the neutrality of the administrator in this case of having a hidden agenda. I will be watching. When I can provide more concrete proof of what that agenda is, be assured, I will let thy superiors know about it. Your pettiness, combined with the behavior of others has still caused me to resind my interest in contributing, but one must wonder if that was not the intention all along? 11-28-2006


  • I have not pressed on or done anything of the sort. And yes, I did get the message. Perhaps I do not understand, can there be consensus building? Please, attempt to be kind and polite, and I will listen and obey. Smeelgova 09:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Smeelgova, Jossi is an admin, a long-term and respected member of the community who came here to give you some advice for your own good - namely that recruiting !votes in a deletion debate is one of the things which really gets people's backs up. The correct response is "Oh, OK." Please just learn from it and move on. Making a mistake once because you didn't know about something is No Big Deal. Arguing the toss about how it wasn't really a problem and it's all someoen else's fault and nobody should have the temerity to tell you that you've violated the community norms, well, that's the kind of thing that tends to have no good result. Guy 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, so many new admins make me confused! I still maintain that since the original notice, I have ceased whatever it is that you all had a problem with. I have only continued this discussion because I still want more clarification. There was a reference to "consensus building" above. How does one go about "consensus building" without risking being summarily blocked by an all-knowing Wikipedia Administrator, who judges something not to be "consensus building" but something else, in their opinion? What is consensus building if you are prevented from posting on others talk pages about things that interest you, or things that you want to build consensus on? Yours, Smeelgova 11:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
So just accept that you have been informed of a community norm of which you were ignorant (God knows there are enough of them) and drop it. It's the argufying that causes the problem. One goes about consensus building through processes such as requests for comment. Guy 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice just given as advice, however I still don't appreciate your command tone/grammar "So just accept that...and drop it.", That's not nice. I can choose to accept what I wish and/or drop what I wish. There's no way that I should get blocked just for refusing to end a discussion about something on a talk-page (especially my own talk page), if I've already ceased the editing-actions in question. Anyway'... another question: OK, so you said I can go to requests for comment for "consensus building". But that looks like it's just for existing disputes. What about just things that I want to inform other editors of similar interests about? How can I get the word out to editors of similar mind, who may not mind a simple note on their talk pages? Is there a policy or procedure for this? Yours, Smeelgova 12:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC).
Article RfCs exist to help establish consensus in content disputes. Whether or not you appreciate the tone of advice given to you is pretty much irrelevant: when someone tasked by the community with policing its policies tells you that you should not do something, the correct response is to learn and move on. Wikilawyering about the status of the advice, and the tone in whihc it is given, is considered disruptive. It really is no big deal unless you make it one; you seem intent on doing so. I'm sure that is not your aim, so again I suggest you just drop it. Guy 12:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

United States military nuclear incident terminology[edit]

Regarding the deletion review of United States military nuclear incident terminology, what do you mean by "In what way is this not a copy of a primary source"? I thought the deletion was regarding A5 (transwiki articles--specifically Wiktionary, in this case) -- not copyright problems. What primary source are you referring to? Am I missing something? -- Renesis (talk)


Just out of curiosity, whatever happened to User:Xosa? -- 19:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Definite sock of Zephram Stark. Guy 22:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
In other words, Xosa disagreed with User:SlimVirgin or User:Jayjg, the two Zionists who control content at Wikipedia. Guy's help is implicit because he's too worried about his position to note that the emperor has no clothes. If you don't believe me, look at Special:Contributions/Xosa and try to find anything that he did wrong. Xosa's only crime was not subjugating himself to Zionism, as Guy apparently has. -- 18:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No, several people with detailed knowledge of your editing pattern back this diagnosis. You are not welcome here, please go and find another project to disrupt. Guy 11:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John Doolittle[edit]

John Doolittle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An annon has reverted the removal of the criticism section. I've taken the liberty (perhaps wrongly) to revert the annon's action. Though you would want to know, ---J.S (t|c) 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor? User:Devilmaycares has been adding some highly slanted material to John Doolittle... (oddly the exact stuff a banned user was adding previously). Maybe if two people admonish him he'll stop. ---J.S (t|c) 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess his response is a fairly clear indicator of his attitude. ---J.S (t|c) 15:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Hey, I remember talking to you the last time I tried to get Lostpedia an article. I remember you telling me to go through the right channels and stuff, and the reason I'm attempting to try and get the article back now is cause I felt we had some notability from the Lost Experience that would satisfy Wikipedia rules. Can I possibly ask you to read the comment I've made at Talk:Lostpedia#Discussion, as well as possibly review the deleted content using your Admin powers? Then, would it be possible to chat to you about your opinions and stuff? I don't want a great war going on, I'm just looking to maturely discuss points, as well as possibly hear about what it WILL take to justify an article (as from accounts right now it seems like "a miracle" lol). Thank you very much for all the help you've given me in the past, its very much appreciated. Cheers, --Nickb123 3rd 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time here, it was deleted and the deletion reviewed. Right now we have a link to it on Lost, which is fine by most people. Wikipedia is not a weeb directory, after all. Guy 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, but I'm still on the "notability" page. Just as long as we keep the conflict mature eh. I don't want counterproductive name calling anymore than you do :-) --Nickb123 3rd 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Notability is subjective. I want to see evidence that Lostpedia has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial treatment in reliable secondary sources. What we have seen thus far is either unreliable or trivial. Guy 18:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Whoa!Looks like my asking questions about it led to its userifying. My apologies. :PNearly Headless Nick {L} 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I am coming to the view that we should prune project space of all cruft and just have very short policies, slightly longer guidelines, and as little else as possible.
What do you think of this?
4. What is the difference between guidelines and policies on Wikipedia? How important is it that guidelines be followed by admins as well as non-admin users? Do Wikipedia administrators, as the representatives of the community and (possibly) role-models to the other users need to strictly adhere to guidelines as well as policies? — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know where bullet point 4 comes from (RFA?) but in order of importance:
  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a collection of that which is known from reputable sources, presented in neutral terms.
  2. Wikipedia policies support the above.
  3. Wikipedia guidelines and processes can give useful guidance in how policy is and should be applied.
  4. You cannot either legislate or document Clue.
For my money a good admin should be able to demonstrate the ability to apply items 1 and 2 in the face of blind adherence to 3. Ideally this should be achieved through the process of debate, showing those who advocate the slavish following of process precisely why, in that specific case, the encyclopaedia can be improved by ignoring it. I pretty much ignore the questions on RFA anyway, preferring to look at how the editor actually works in practice. With time I could formulate the ideal set of answers to the questions and copy-paste them into the template, thus making them redundant :-) Who's going to answer "I want to be an admin so I can delete all articles on that non-fiction crapo and block everybody who is not a YTMNDer"? They really are a bit naive. Guy 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User we discussed earlier.[edit]

FYI, I have filed an RfC about his actions. JoshuaZ 20:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Based on his representations to the Arbitration Committee, Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is unblocked. Ackoz is placed on probation for one year. Should he edit in a provocative manner he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to a month in the case of serious offenses. Should Ackoz edit while blocked all accounts may be blocked indefinitely. Should Ackoz revert to his previous pattern of sustained trolling a community ban may be imposed. All blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ackoz#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, with the reason given.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Menage article[edit]

Please see my recent comments at Talk:Ménage_à_trois#Image_again. I'd appreciate it if you would offer your opinion in the talk page, and leave the image alone so that others can comment too. We are trying to find a consensus, and basically, you are stepping on toes by changing the image when that is not wanted by the consensus. When we we submitted the RfC, we were asking for opinions on the matter, not asking for people to come change things according to their opinion. I appreciate that you have good intentions, and look forward to your opinion. Atom 03:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way round. The responsiobility for justifying inclusion is yours, you nead to leave it out for the duration. Guy 09:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I've tried to explain and be reasonable. I've explained that the image was already in the article, and that you removing it is the problem. I've tried explaining how there is a regional difference in the usage of Menage, and that where I am from (and in most english speaking countries) the term is used primarily as a sexual euphemism. Trying to change the minds of all non-french speaking people is a waste of time. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, just to respect the majority of us who have a different opinion.

When you remove the image from the article, it interferes with us trying to gain consensus. What I am trying to say diplomatically, is that you are being disuptive, rather than working with me, or others editing the page. Of course, you can behave as you wish, I am trying to indicate how that affects others. Reading the comments, it would seem that current consensus is for continuing inclusion of the image, and for having other images that reflect other aspects of the topic.

I focus primarily on sexology and sexuality articles, and watch hundreds of articles in that area of Wikipedia. Other than a change I recall you made in the "female ejaculation" article, I don't remember seeing you participate in this area much. AT any rate, images in sexology and sexuality articles are often controversial, which is why we are discussing issues like this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. It is a work in progress, and has more to be done, but perhaps discusses issue relavent to this article.

Again, I am asking you to stop removing the image and participate in the process. Regards, Atom 12:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring two facts: first, you must justify inclusion, not I removal. That has been pointed out many times. Second, I am participating in the process. I'm just disagreeing with you. Apparently disagreeing with you is the same thing as not participating; this is known as tendentious editing. Guy 16:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube memes article[edit]

Notable YouTube memes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are you suggesting that we actually remove (or merge and redirect) all the YouTube crap into this one article and then nuke anything which is not covered in multiple non-trivial reliable sources? If that is actually what you are saying then I will do what I can to help with the process, starting with seeing how much we can get on YouTube itself. The approach taken on YTMND where we leave the assessment of significance to the YTMND community and link to their own wiki for anyone who is interested is, I think, a good model, since it removes the inevitable tension between fans and policy. Removing multiple articles on passing fads, of whatever source, is and always will be a great idea, and I apologise if I have misunderstood your intent here. Guy 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy - my answer to your question is yes - this is exactly what I am proposing. I think it's better to link so-called YouTube celebrities to a single article linked to (or even part of) the main YouTube article. These people have done nothing to make them notable except posted videos on YouTube, and it just invites trivial facts that don't mean anything. I can't see how most of the articles could ever be expanded to a good or featured quality either (lonelygirl15 might be an exception if it turns out to be a long-running series or a movie or something...). I didn't know what YTMND was until you told me, so perhaps it was me that didn't understand. My aim is to remove the useless articles rather than create more and it was never my intention to have both. Let me know what I can do. (JROBBO 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC))
I think the best way to proceed is to merge and redirect any existing YouTube cruft into the main article at YouTube, until that section gets too bog - at which point it can either be pruned or forked. Images should not be necessary. Half a dozen items is probably about right. Guy 11:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you want to stop the debate on the Notable YouTube memes then so I can have a go at doing that before it gets deleted and I'm unable to access the information? JROBBO 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Any response to that? I don't know how to proceed if you agree with me that this is worth keeping... JROBBO 04:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello - any response? (JROBBO 03:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Opinion requested[edit]

Hi! As an admin who has not been previously involved, and as far as I know holds no strong opinion on the matter, could you take a look at this thread at AN/I? The user has been asked to stop by several administrators (Morven, Renata, Kusma and Freakofnurture) before, but the problem is still ongoing and a fresh view from an administrator would be appreciated. Many thanks, Aquilina 10:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi there! There is presently an arbitration case relating to Fresheneesz, whom you might remember from the UniModal discussions in April. I have seen some indication that you may have been the target of vexatious litigation, or possibly harassment, on his part. Speaking as his present target, I would appreciate it if you could comment on your experiences with him. Thanks. >Radiant< 15:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My experience with him is that no amount of patient explanation will ever persuade huim that he is wrong, or that your view is based on anything other than blind prejudice. Actually this is a little unfair - I have a stubborn streak a mile wide myself - but I found him to be possibly the single most frustrating editor I have ever come across. See Talk:Personal rapid transit and archives, Talk:UniModal and archives, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-04-22 SkyTran/UniModal uncooperative admin etc. I suspect that the crusade against notability is the result of the removal of UniModal, a fictional implementation of a hypothetical transport mode, as a merge and redirect. Fresh warred over this and re-created the content as soon as he was able to. Compare Fresh's original [2] with the current version. User:Stephen B Streater may be able to give you a less jaundiced view. Guy 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Howdy - I saw your commentary over at the Talk:Ménage à trois page. May I ask which dictionaries you use, and what you think of them. I've been looking for a more modern dictionary than those I already have, but haven't been very impressed with the few I've had a chance to review at length. Thanks. --Badger151 21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I find Merriam-Webster's Collegiate is very good for US usage, and for British usage I have always preferred the Oxford (Concise generally). Guy 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks --Badger151 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I ask here so as not to stir things up on the Talk page...[edit]

regarding MaT. My experience has been to use MaT as indicative of a threesome, but I'll admit that it's not a phrase that I use often. In your experience (as a speaker of English) would MaT describe something similar to a marraige between three people (and I'm including not just a sexual life (which may not be present at all in some marraiges) but also the shared resources and interdependency, emotional attachements, sense of unity, etc)? Do I have that right?--Badger151 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Unaccredited med school issues[edit]

See the Talk:American Global University School of Medicine, for anon's issues. Arbusto 00:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO[edit]

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"I absolutely agree that Jaskaramdeep is an editor of an incredibly trying kind"[edit]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but antagonizing someone in this way, in a place he's likely never to find it, is violating WP Civil, no?. Perhaps if you had actually read the page and saw that I provided links to ALL of the statements Muero said were POV, you would change your mind. (also, not every editor agreed with Muero - he has a history of "exaggerating" the truth. Several said there needed to be a balance between his dry version and my overly congratulatory version). Jaskaramdeep 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You could always try being less... trying. If you want to write a fanblog, please try myspace. Guy 08:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What does it mean to be "trying"? Is it consistantly engaging yourself in altercations by promoting yourself to the status of "Wikicop"; showing those who you deem lesser than youself that they are, infact, lesser than yourself? Or is it minding your own business, sincerely attempting to contribute to Wikipedia, and getting upset when the self-proclaimed Wikicop deletes 3/4 of your article, citing POV, when you can (and have several times) provided links that show that the removed substance was not POV? Perhaps this time, before responding and accusing me of writing a fanblog, you should read the talk page to see my responses to his accusations of POV. Jaskaramdeep 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It means trying the patience of other editors. Especially by promoting an agenda. And actually some of us are Wikicops. Plus, if you notice, I suggested a dispute resolution process as an alternative to edit warring, raise here by someone else after I told him to stop edit warring. You were, however, unintentionally correct in your edit summary: there was no NPOV in your edit. Guy 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. What agenda am I promoting? A thorough Ales Hemsky page. What agenda is Muero, a Detroit Red Wings fan, promoting? Removing all positive information possible from the page of the player who scored two goals late in the third period of Game 6 which knocked the Wings out of the first round of the playoffs. I'm sorry, but if anyone has a hidden agenda, it is Muero. Jaskaramdeep 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"THIS IS HEMSKY'S WORLD; we just live here" Guy 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As I already said, my agenda (if any), is a thorough Ales Hemsky page. You said that the material I re-added (which was subseqently removed) was not POV, so I don't see how my being a fan of this player (which your quote shows) is cause for any concern. However, you ignored my concern with Muero's ability to be unbiased in the article. Do you think it's a coincidence that he only started removal of "POV" from this page after the player scored two miraculous goals to break the heart of his team, and send Steve Yzerman into retirement on a sour note in what was supposed to be "Detroit's Year"? Jaskaramdeep 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As you also already said, your version was "overly congratulatory". That translates to a violation of one of our core polciies: WP:NPOV. Feel free to learn and move on. Guy 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said, some other users referred to my initial version as overly congratulatory. Sometimes I wonder about the point of discussing issues with people who try and twist the truth to their advantage. If being "trying" is due to being too rational, then I guess I'm going to have to live with that. You still haven't addressed my concern with Muero Jaskaramdeep 21:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
And other edits were, similarly, excessively congratulatory. Plus, as noted above, I was actually admonoshing someone else entirely. Off you go, now, and don't do it again. Guy 21:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, off I go indeed. Thank you, though. And not just for the entertaning dodging of my valid concern with Muero. It is through your completely irrelivant responses, and lack of any accuracy whatsoever regarding my comments that I have decided that some people on this site are just, for lack of a better term, dense. I have chosen to ignore such people in the future. Peace out Jaskaramdeep 21:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation: you refuse to acknowledge any fault whatsoever and will go on your way secure in the kowledge that it is everybody else who is wrong. In other words, a garden variety tendentious editor. Why ask, I wonder, if you're not going to listen to the answer? Guy 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
You just keep digging youself into a deeper and deeper hole, man, This is exactly what I am referring to when I say that you lack any accuracy whatsoever concerning my comments. Twice I asked you to read the talk page. Twice. Perhaps if you did, you would have stumbled across this quote from me: "As I've already said, looking back, lots of the stuff I originally wrote was POV, and should have been removed. But lots wasn't, and still hasn't been restored, even though I've provided links". If this doesn't prove that you're unwilling to look at the facts, nothing will. Jaskaramdeep 22:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
So you say. Me, I tend to the view that you may not be the person best qualified to judge the quality of your own work. Further discussion of this particular issue should be directed here. Guy 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that's the sound of a checkmate. Thanks for this. It feels good to know that when I don't get angry at the other party so that they can bring up WP Civil to end the discussion, the rational basis of my argument will win out. This was productive! Jaskaramdeep 22:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly open to that possibility, as son as you state this supposed rational basis I can make an informed judgemnt. Guy 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortuna saga[edit]

Recently, you deleted the Fortuna Saga Wikipedia page. I belive it should be undeleted, and urge you to check out the deletion review about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles C. (talkcontribs) Miles C. (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • No deletion review exists. If you want to start one, do be sure to bring evidence of this being the principal subject of multiple non-trivial articles in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, also include those references which allow us to verify the neutrality of the article and establish its objective significance as rated by independent authorities. Note that blogs and edit-yourself sites are not acceptable sources. Guy 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fortuna Saga[edit]

I don't mean to be rude, but is there a reason why you deleted the Fortuna Saga page? People can search nearly anything on wikipedia, but now they'll never find the Fortuna Saga. Just wondering the logic behind that decision.

If you want to find Fortuna Saga then Google is your friend. I remain unconvinced that anyone will be loking for it here, mind, since there are zero cited sources in the article. The answer to your question is at DRV right now, see above. Guy 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In the deletion review, you'd mentioned your willingness to transfer the last content to a userspace so it can be taken out of Wikipedia. However, any mention of it in the deletion review itself has gone unnoticed. If there is some specific process required for this to happen, please let me know. Otherwise, however, I'd like for this to be done into my userspace, so this issue can be put to rest. Imaria Prime 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All you need to do is ask a passing admin (e.g. me). User:Imaria Prime/Fortuna Saga, I'll delete it from there in a couple of days. Guy 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've got the source saved, and I will make it available to the rest of the Fortuna Saga community. Thank you for your help; you can delete it whenever you like now. Imaria Prime 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guy. I'm looking at doing the transwiki to Comixpedia, and it appears that when I originally edited the Fortuna Saga article I somehow managed to nuke the history prior to my edits in the process of changing the page title from "Fortuna saga" to "Fortuna Saga". In respect for the terms of the GFDL, is there any way to get the rest of the history back so it can be preserved in the transwiki process? (I feel like such a nerd right now, writing this kind of stuff... ;) Grim Revenant 09:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Chamomile@original size.jpg
For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Regarding the warning you issued this user: can I suggest more caution? I have not observed any disruption of the Jews for Jesus article. He was in a rather nast edit war, but the other party was as reposnsible as he was. Feel free to contact me for more information. DJ Clayworth 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The principal difference is that ParadoxTom (talke-mailcontribspage movesblock userblock log) does not seem to be active anywhere else or doing anything other than disrupting - and has the block log to prove it. Guy 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Thank you. 06:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackoz (talkcontribs)

You are most welcome. Guy 08:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was looking through this page to see if there was any discussions about current Rouge admin events (I know I should get out more) and I stumbled across this little exchange and it fascinated me:

did you help him with an edit? boring.
did you fight off the Mongol hordes? more likely.
did you give her a baby? nice idea, but ...
did you massage his ego? not like you.
did you lend her your rouge lipstick? ah, now we are getting somewhere.
whatever it was, please don't tell me; I am enjoying imagining. Abtract 13:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As you rightly guess it was duller than you would like, your speculation is far more entertaining :-) Guy 13:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


I recently created an article that was deleted then recreated as a terrible stub. Is it still possible to retrieve the original article that was deleted even though the page has been recreated? Could you also find out why the article was deleted. The article is called "The The Lighthorsemen . Could you retrieve it and give it to me to improve? Thanks Culverin? Talk 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio speedily deletable under CSD G12. The deletion log is here. MER-C 11:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that MERC. Sorry for the bad grammer. I fixed it though. Culverin? Talk 12:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I change my User name with your authorization?[edit]

I'm sorry. I've been way too immature on Wikipedia and I really wanna stop. So, with your authorization, can I create a new username to start all over with a clean slate? You can have administrators watch me and espionage everything I do. Please answer me as soon as you can. Thanks. Dragonball1986 01:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Air Training Corps - List of Squadrons[edit]

I agree really, but I was looking for a way to disuade additions. There is no easy list on the official web site. CS46 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The wing sites usually have a list, though - and frankly, finding the squadron is best done by going to the region or wing anyway, as it won't necessarily be obvious which is the right one. I do get seriously pissed off with people who delete "don't add foo" comments and then add foo, which is what's been going on here for a while. WP:VSCA applies. Guy 12:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Time Cube unjustified deletion[edit]

Hi JzG, I noticed that you attempted to suppress Time Cube via a deletion nomination. The time has now come for you to provide a straight answer: are you part of a Cubeless conspiracy, do you support 1-corner singularity religion or academia, and is it your aim to silence all mention of Time Cube and to brainwash humanity into a death-cursed stupor that will lead them to terrible explosive Armageddon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The single word "suppress" tells us everything we need to know here. Wikipedia is not the place to promulgate deranged theories. Guy 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review: web operating system[edit]

Guy, thanks for your comments on the deletion review of the web operating system article. I've written a response there that I hope you might have a look at. Thanks again. - JohnPritchard 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Guy, will you consider changing your position on DR:WOS?. - JohnPritchard 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a user two weeks ago you threatened to block, is at it again.[3][4] Arbusto 19:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute and the clashing of two robust editors to me. She's a valuable and respected editor, as is Arbusto. I would urge dispute resolution over any talk of blocking or such like. --kingboyk 12:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to worry, Kingboyk. What I am "at again" is restoring a POV tag that was removed (three times, no less) by Arbustoo; he has expressed the idea that POV expires after a week, if there is no further discussion, and no attempt by the editor who inserted a campaign attack ad into a bio to neutralize the information. As far as I know, POV doesn't expire :-) Sandy (Talk) 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right there is no expiration date for tags. However, you are the only one who has POV issues and you added the tag. You have not made any proposal for changes nor have addressed the issue in the last week. Thus, no POV debate=no tag. Arbusto 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect. Arbustoo, I'm noticing a pattern of incorrect statements about my edits across a number of unrelated talk pages, while you seem reluctant to engage in conversation in the appropriate places, which in this case, is the article talk page, where the explanations for the POV tag have been detailed since the Farrell attack ad was added to the Shays' article. Please confine your commentary about my edits on articles to article talk pages; it may appear that you want to paint a certain picture of my edits across a wide number of talk pages, rather than engaging productively on the article talk page. Sandy (Talk) 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
We're looking at a well-trodden path here. Document on Talk, in detail, what you would like to see change, discuss, and if you can't agree go to dispute resolution. Keep WP:BLP in mind at all times, and do not be tempted to give undue weight to campaign claims of the subject or his opponents. If all else fails, roll back to the version before the campaign and wait until after the election. We have no publication deadline. Guy 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sound advice, JzG — except for the Wikilink to deletion review as dispute resolution :-) Arbustoo and Francisx seem concerned about election deadlines; correction of POV issues and removal of undue weight paragraphs has not been possible so far. Until/unless they agree to work on the POV together, I can only continue to maintain the tag, and move on to other work that keeps me quite busy on Wiki. I'm sorry this issue continues to pop up on your talk page. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Always be open to the possibility that the other editors involved in the dispute are right. Guy 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
As soon as I'm caught up on backlogged work, I'll have a look at that possibility on the Shays' article (there are pretty clearly issues of undue weight there, how to fix the rest is harder). In the meantime, I'm expending unnecessary effort defending myself against inaccurate claims Arbustoo is spreading across numerous talk pages, instead of focusing his efforts on resolving issues on the article talk pages. Thanks for the advice, Sandy (Talk) 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no deadline: Perhaps you should not POV tag an article when you cannot address the POV, and not before. Also perhaps you shouldn't remove the entire controversy section until you get consensus.Arbusto 00:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You are confused on both counts, Arbustoo. It's not my obligation to address someone else's POV, and there was clear consensus on the Media Matters material. Can you please confine your comments to article talk pages in the future, so we don't have to keep abusing of JzG's talk page? Working things out directly with involved editors can be so much more effective then running to an admin whenver you have a difference. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 02:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Web operating system encore[edit]

Guy, thanks for your comments. I think I've finally realized the desired idea and have merged WebOS, Webtop and Web operating system. Thanks again. - JohnPritchard 03:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Guy 08:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact Finder[edit]

Just a heads up, Fact Finder (talk · contribs · logs) is claiming, thru {{unblock}}, that he should be unblocked, because he claims everything has been sorted out between you and him. Thought you'd like to have a look. See User talk:Fact Finder. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


I came across User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. It's superficially intended to seek out "Strivercruft", but lately it seems to have become rather more wide-ranging and overtly politicised in its goals, and becoming a source of Wikidrama into the bargain. Since the Userproject:Conservatives thingy was rightly squished, I'm wondering to myself if the above page would be a suitable subject for MfD. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance, 15:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid use for a subpage, tracking the growth of 9/11 conspiracy articles, if you feel it is overly personalised then you can edit it mercilessly. Guy 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bowling for Columbine[edit]


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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 17:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Green Week?[edit]

Is this article about the same thing as the one discussed here? I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask to be sure. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that was a band (or hoax band). But this one is a WP:NFT failure to my reading... Guy 09:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)



I'm curious about the guy at the WHO who is corrupting their reports. Do you have any links about the WHO's helmet policy? Thanks, Peregrine981 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not "corrupting" as such, but Philip Graitcer is a "liddite" - a true believer - and the reports he writes and the advice he gives are from the standpoint of accepting TR&T 1989 and the Thompsons' other work at face value. He will not respond to questions about the awkward reality that there is no known population anywhere in the world where cyclist head injury rates have improved as a result of changes in helmet use. The same problem caused the BMA volte-face last year. Guy 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

SEO Contests[edit]

You're joking right? About the SEO Contest article and the alleged pagerank. Please tell me you were joking... Wit 16:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way? Guy 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I meant your mini-rant about pagerank. Wikipedia is not about pagerank any longer. We can get back to linking to pages we like to reference, instead of making people guess. I agree there's a lot of linkspam these days, but there's no need to exaggerate IMHO.
Funny thing is that I can't be arsed about the links because they are not pointing to my own sites. What I don't like is Wikipedia articles turning into incestuous little bits of semi-info, solely designed to keep people on the site. I mean come on: do we have to turn each and every single date into October 26th, 2006 FCOL.
Articles without external references are nigh-worthless, in my view. They suggest Wikipedia is the sole source of info while making it obvious that it is not. They make it look like the info is all made up. (LOL, I just realised those remarks are best replied to with "Ok, I'll just delete the article then, at your request". I've seen that happen before - recently. Still, I presume you're not like that, since I've seen your previous edits which were not as harsh as your earlier ones and which put you on my "mental serious WP editor list" a long time ago.)
I have to ask you though: Are you still having fun editing for Wikipedia? Wit 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanity check requested - Clint Curtis[edit]

Guy, William, if you guys get a chance, can you take a look at Clint Curtis and let me know what you think? I hope I'm not in an edit war, but it's getting close to an edit border conflict or something, and I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Diploma mills[edit]

  • Patriot Bible University, the place Hovind was "educated" via the USPS mail service with, is getting hit by a new user.

He is acting in good faith, but he does need a warning from someone else that removing references to it being a mill is not acceptable. He is removing that is is considered a diploma mill from the introduction. Also unrelated to a warning, he wants to explain it isn't on the FTC (that's right the Federal Trade Commission) list of diploma mills. How does the latter mean its not a mill? Arbusto 00:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nations University is a spammy ad page created a new user with the same name today. Speedy per corp without notability? Arbusto 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nations University is actually NOT a diploma mill. It is an unaccredited, non-profit school for reasons listed in its article...namely that it offers all of its resources for no charge, and has a student body scattered about the globe, making campus size and library size impossible accreditation categories to fulfill. I am a relatively new editor to wikipedia, but the opening page said to make contributions on subjects on which you were knowledgable. Therefore, I have only edited a few pages. Naturally, I would not be editing a wide variety of pages during my first few days as an editor. If you feel an article's language is too slanted or not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it would be appreciated if you simply suggest that the author revise it, rather than speedy deleting it. It is natural that one would be slightly slanted towards subjects about which one cares enough to contribute an article. Nationsu 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Every unaccredited school has a really, really good reason why it, unlike its accredited competitiors, shold take a principled stand against accreditation. This holds across the entire gamut, from the PO Box diploma mill to the substantial campus Bible college. Guy 21:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't allow unaccredited schools to claim to want legit accreditation, should B. H. Carroll Theological Institute be an exception. See these: [5][6][7][8] If it becomes a candiate for accreditation that is woth mentioning, but posting that its website claims to want accreditation is silly. The removal of the mention that it is not a canidate for accreditation citing WP:OR is equally as silly. Arbusto 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking through these, thanks. The usual mix of spam and special pleading, of course. Guy 09:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Advice need on Talk:American Global University School of Medicine. Arbusto 23:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That is interesting! Our sources need to be kept carefully neutral and reliable, but it's certainly an endorsement wirth mentioning on the Talk page. Guy 00:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka[edit]

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I appreciate that you took the time to comment, and I did pay close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western University[edit]

JzG, you've expressed an interest in this article before -- can you take a look at Talk:Pacific Western University#This article is stuck as a stub -- I need your help and leave a note as to whether you think the proposed draft is acceptable as a replacement for the existing stub?


--A. B. 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is removing commercial links vandalism?[edit]

This is on my talk page. I received these two vandalism warnings today:

*First warning:

--Vandalism warming--

{{test2a-n}} -999 (Talk) 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

*Second warning:

--Removing citations is vandalism--

Please stop removing citations from articles. It is vandalism--

{{test4}} -999

    • Vandalism warnings replaced with template calls on Guy's page only. --kingboyk 12:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

*My actual behavior:

The "vandalism" of Winterstar Symposium consisted of (as recorded in the edit summary) -- (External link - removing 1 of 2 links to a Rosencomet commercial site as 2 links to exact same site address are unnecessarily commercial). This was one edit only. I have not edited that article since, so I do not know what the second warning refers to. The last time I edited that article was October 12, 2006.

An administrator Samir धर्म 21:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC) removed them. But now they are back minutes later, now placed by User:Ekajati. This all has do do with the User:Rosencomet commercial links. Can I be blocked for removing a commerical link in an article? Thanks! Timmy12 23:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Calton got the point[edit]

Finally someone did. I can go home now.

A more pertinent issue to examine might be the probable linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk · contribs) of his website, often using the claim that they're "citations". --User:Calton 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My complements to him, enabled by User:Timmy12's valient (reckless?) attack. I can rest in my grave now. Mattisse(talk) 03:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Advice request[edit]

Hi, Calton (talk · contribs) suggested that I ask you for advice, and stated that he would take take the blame for me bothering you.[9] ;-). There is currently some contention between, on the one hand Calton and myself, and on the other hand Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), Rosencomet (talk · contribs) and 999 (talk · contribs). The contention is over a large number of links inserted by the latter editors, and removed by the former. Calton and I may see things slightly differently, so the view I present is purely my own. The editors on the "insert" side, have been inserting links to ostensibly as references to support assertions in a number of articles about various musicians as well as others. I think there are definite conflict of interest issues, but that aside, the links appear to me as link spam. (Calton, I believe is more concerned with the "internal" linkspam aspect of these edits). I have expressed my opinion that references need to be from reliable third party sources and not a promotional website. We briefly argued the issue [10], [11], [12], [13] but this did not prevent a a new round of insertions and deletions.

If you have time, I would very much like to know your opinion on this matter. Please do not be afraid to tell me if you think I am mistaken, either about the policy, or about the best way to proceed. Thanks. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 01:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to start a new section, I am in a cafe in Dusseldorf and my Blackberry browser is a bit crippled.

I diagnose spam. Links added by the webmaster, site has no evident authority or editorial board, 999 looks like a possible role account or sock. Nuke the lot and if necessary ask for blacklisting, is my gut reaction here. Guy 08:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --BostonMA talk 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry to bother you again. Two items. First a report. Have been unsuccessful in discussing the matter with rosencomet. Nuking the links has resulted in rosencomet, 999, ekajati and Hanuman Das reinserting them. Calton will be filing a report on AN/I tomorrow. Second, I'm not in the habit of removing warnings from my own talk page, but prefer to have them reviewed by third parties. Could you take a look at this and remove or keep as you feel is appropriate. Thanks. --BostonMA talk 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've removed it and the preceding thread too. It's quite clearly not vandalism and no involved party is so new that they need to be told about the sandbox! :) --kingboyk 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm filing a RFC against Devilmaycares' conduct. Since you have former dealings with him I'd really appreciate your input into the proceedings. ---J.S (t|c) 18:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I apreciate your input. ---J.S (t|c) 20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A non admin-related acknowledgment[edit]

Just thought I'd add this note... well done! I see you everywhere lately, keep it up! CattleGirl talk | e@ 05:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Admin coaching - October 29 - Pending[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the coaching box.

  • If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
  • If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
  • You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
  • If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
  • If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.

Thank you for helping with admin coaching! Highway Grammar Enforcer! 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo (talk · contribs) is back[edit]

Dear Guy

I've filed a request for check-user on Brampton 2006 (talk · contribs), whom I strongly suspect is a sock puppet of our old friend WW, at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WikiWoo. Since you have dealt with him pretty extensively in the past, I thought you might want a heads-up. Cheers, JChap2007 07:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. I've had a gutfull of that one. Guy 10:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you help block his other sockpuppets? Checkuser results are back, and has identified several other sockpuppets:
I've placed what I believe is the appropriate sockpuppet template on the userpages. Thanks. --Stéphane Charette 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Steere[edit]

Something that I found on him at BoardGameGeek:

My recent experiences in SDG were terrible: I had a weird discussion on the *true* meaning of the word "simultaneous" as if there were just one truth, one *true* definition. This reminded me rather of the world view of religious cults who want to save you and who claim that just they can do it. This was followed in other threads by a deliberate misquotation to make me look ungrateful, and, instead of real arguments, the other side was called "ridiculous", "megalomanic" and "pseudo-intellectual". I got an e-mail that warned me against a "troll" who dominates all the discussions and, I should add, is permitted to insult everybody. I met him soon. There is an atmosphere of fear generated by the owner of the group who supports this kind of behavior and then exclude those from the SDG discussion forum who defend themselves. So, take care of yourself and keep a low profile if you chose to play there. If you want to know more, just write me privately, join the group stacking games at Yahoo! ( ) or just take a look at the recent discussions in SDG forums to see how this (pseudo-)community ticks; e.g.

Thank you for posting the links to the discussions. I think they will speak for themselves. I remain deeply saddened by the actions I felt I had to take but still feel they were the right thing to do. SDG remains an open, free, and above all safe place to gather and play abstract strategy with others around the world. All are welcome. The above list of relevant discussion threads should also include the following:

Any place in which Mark Steere is allowed to intimidate other users can hardly be called "safe" (especially if he is supported by Aaron Dalton):

I disagree with your deletion of the Time cover in the Goatse article[edit] is my reasoning, posted before your edit [14]. If it's the caption you have issue with, that can be changed. I think that image contributes to the article simply by making it more interesting. The cover is a humorous accidental allusion to Nobody in any seriousness thinks that this "accidental goatse" was intentional, although the resemblance can't be argued. So I don't think WP:OR even comes into play here.

I won't myself add the image back unless you read my reasoning and change your mind, but that image has been fought over for awhile. Before you came along, two people removed it and two people put it back, all different people. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 17:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's disputed. Which means: we need an external reliable source. Actually, scrub that: according to WP:FUC you can't use a Time cover on any article other than the one on Time magazine. Guy 17:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Throwing the fair use issue into the argument definitely tips the scales toward removal. I'm okay with it now. Thanks for your reply. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete Nowhere-Else and Beyond?[edit]

Nowhere-Else and Beyond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Okay, I saw the log for Nowhere-Else and Beyond's deletion and it said "Absolutely no signs of significant value". That doesn't make sense since it is a MMORPG and the article was also under development. What are the signs of significant value to you? If you deleted Nowhere-Else and Beyond you should also delete the other MMORPG pages because most of them are no different than Nowhere-Else and Beyond's page. What I'm getting at, is that I want a good reason for Nowhere-Else and Beyond being deleted. Garth of NEaB 13:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What I said was: no evidence of significance. Feel free to rewrite it in terms which unequivocally demonstrate its importance, by reference to the multiple non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources of which it has been primary subject. Of course, if it hasn't been the primary subject of any non-trivial treatments in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, that would be an indication that we cannot cover it without violating policy. Guy 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that I should re-write the article giving secondary sources that give reference to what I put into the article, right? I;m sorry if I misunderstand you as I'm probably not as old as you think I am and some of what you said is a bit confusing to me. Garth of NEaB 14:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I always assume that anybody writing about a browser-based game is the same age as my elder son, who is twelve :-) So, what you need to do (ideally in your user space, for example User:Garth of NEaB/NEaB) is to document the game exclusively from reliable secondary sources, such as reviews from computer magazines. What you know, we can't verify. Above all you must establish the significance of the game. There are some guidelines at WP:WEB which might help you out. Guy 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! That was what I wanted to know! I have only one more question, can I have what was already written for the Nowhere-Else and Beyond article to revise. I was working on getting secondary sources, but that was taking some time. I needed a base on which to start, so I wrote what was there and said it was unfinished. Anyway, if I could have what I had already written I would be greatly appreciative! Garth of NEaB 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Presto: User:NEaB/Nowhere-Else and Beyond. Please tell M. Bertrand that editing articles on oneself or one's own endeavours is strongly discouraged. Guy 15:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
He (M. Bertrand) was not editing it for his own good but rather for the good of the article since it was so short. He was just adding information about the site, although it was from a primary source it was not bias and, as far as I could tell strictly information. And since anyone could edit it, if they found it incorrect they could of course edit it themselves. I'm also sorry to say that I have yet another question: Could I use information from the players of Nowhere-Else and Beyond's web pages? The problem with this being that their web pages are hosted on Nowhere-Else and Beyond (Although it is all original information and was all written by the players themselves). Garth of NEaB 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Even so, things you know are counted unverifiable. The answer for M. Bertrand is the same as the answer for the player info: only as a last resort. All articles should draw primarily from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Guy 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
But the players are a secondary source, if players are not a secondary source then it is impossible to have any source but the primary one. So, you're saying that information can come from reviews of the game by non-players? Garth of NEaB 16:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. They are not a reliable source and anything drawn from what the players write is original research. It is also a waste of time if the game has not been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Start with the magazine articles and see how far you get. If there are no magazine articles, tag it {{db-author}} and find something else to write about. Guy 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I worded that last question right, and I will elaborate on it: If information can't come from a player, it is impossible to get any information on the game as non-players don't have access to any of the features in game. Even the people who write magazine articles are writing information that they either got from a player, or they found out themselves from playing. From what I see, the only way I can get information is if someone posts information about it and then I take that. (BTW I will have a magazine article that I will include for information) Garth of NEaB 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If player writeups are the sole source, then we can't have an article. An independent non-trivial review will contain details of gameplay. Guy 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
And how is an independent non-trivial review going to come into being if it can't be written by players? It can't happen, it's impossible for any game to have information that doesn't come from a player of that game, because people who don't play that game can't say what is in it unless they know about that game! I do have articles that are written by players for publication in an actual magazine that isn't affiliated with Nowhere-Else and Beyond. ( Also, I have found a game article that doesn't appear to have any other noted sources: Wyvern (online game)) Garth of NEaB 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Simple. One of the big gaming magazines writes up the current crop of browser games. If none of the big gaming magazines have written it up, then it almost certainly fails the inclusion guidelines. Guy 18:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If I can chime in, Garth, JzG isn't acting personally towards you; he's just explaining the widely accepted standards for starting new WP articles. As further advice, the first thing that you would need to do to create an article would be to establish notability through verifiable and reliable sources. (Follow those links for more information about each of those policies/guidelines). As a threshold matter, if there aren't some external sources discussing a game, it's not ready yet for inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:WEB discusses the standards that apply to websites, but as a general rule of thumb, if there aren't two "non-trivial" reliable sources discussing the site, it won't be found sufficiently "notable" for wikipedia. (I discussed this issue with another editor regarding a role-playing game recently -- see here, item 4, and thereafter).
The best thing to do might be to canvas any relevant chat groups or e-mail the author and see if they know of any reviews. If not, your best options are to create a page outside of Wikipedia (there's no shame in that), or to start up an (off-Wikipedia) campaign to write to some of the leading gaming or web magazines and request that they review the game. Thanks, TheronJ 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to find these articles, I have never said I wouldn't, only that they have to be players to review the game (which he stated would not be a secondary source). I am also trying to bring to your attention the multiple games that are not listed in any gaming magazines I know of, and their only visible source of information is from the main site and its subsidiaries, just look at the List of MMORPGs, it's full of links to articles like that. Garth of NEaB 18:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Chances are, when someone notices them, they will get deleted. I know the policy is enforced mostly when someone notices things, but (1) it's a volunteer project; and (2) the editors do work very hard. Thanks, TheronJ 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Another question: Would it be possible for the people who delete these articles to leave a message in the Talk page of that article for maybe a week before it was deleted, or on the creators talk page because, had I known it was that close to being deleted I would have tried to find secondary sources sooner. I know it's not required, but it is helpful, and it was a bit odd expecting to see the article and then find it gone without a reason given (Except in the deletion logs). Garth of NEaB 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it isn't. We have several thousand new articles posted each day, of which the majority (sadly) are speedy deletion candidates. Most are removed within minutes. A delay of a week or so would leave Wikipedia's charity-funded servers swamped by trash. Within that time, we would have a large minority of our articles being speedy deletion candidates, with more pouring in by the minute, the majority of them stealing bandwidth from a not-for-profit organisation in order to promote themselves or tell the world that their friend is a gay. So we evaporate first and ask people to get it right second. Suggestions for other policies are welcome (although not on Guy's talk page per se) and should address the overall reality, not a single page amongst the multitude. Thanks. ЯEDVERS 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
When I said "these articles", I mean valid articles that have true information from the actual site, or game. (Referring only to MMORPGs) These articles are hard to write because "secondary information" is very hard to come by since it can't come from the site itself, or directly from players. I completely understand why most articles are deleted right away as this site is full of people who just post nonsense, but for a seemingly valid article thats only problem is not having enough secondary information I don't see why it was deleted without prior warning. Garth of NEaB 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
This is only a problem if your primary commitment is to documenting games rather then building an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. Anyone who wants to find out what NEaB is about can do so trivially easily. Meanwhile, until yesterday we had no article on Giovanni Punto. Guy 23:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell from the Wikipedia:Deletion policy article, the Nowhere-Else and Beyond article should not have been deleted that quickly. In fact it should have been a proposed deletion, or it should have been tagged with {{cleanup-verify}}, since it wasn't nonsense and only needed more reliable sources. Garth of NEaB 15:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This is what is known as Wikilawyering. The article made no credible claim of notability. Feel free to rewrite it, establishing notability from reliable secondary sources. You have the original to work from. Guy 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I am looking at them and seeing that only the articles that are either pure gibberish or are obvious vandalism are removed quickly and without prior warning. The articles that are not meant to be trash should have some prior warning, even if it's not a rule it is common courtesy. Even if the article I wrote didn't prove any of what it said in it, it was still a valid article not meant to clutter up Wikipedia, but rather add to it. Garth of NEaB 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
See the bit about fixing it with reliable sources to establish its significance and verify the content? Do that. If you can't, process is irrelevant. If you can, further discussion is unnecessary. Guy 19:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bloody wonderful! Just... perfect![edit]

ЯEDVERS awards this Barnstar to Guy for being the wind beneath my wings :o)
Seconded. That made me laugh and scare my office neighbour. Well done. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm still waiting for a response about YouTube and what to do with that. The article in question has been deleted now, but I'm still curious on how we are to proceed. See User_talk:JzG#YouTube memes article. JROBBO 22:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy. The answer is to work on the section on YouTube personalities, with a brief (cited from external sources) synopsis of the ones which have been most significant. If you need the deleted content, I will userfy it for you. Guy 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute[edit]

B. H. Carroll Theological Institute user[15] is repeatedly removing the cited fact that it is not a canidate for accreditation. Arbusto 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you review Alansohn's comments and edits. Arbusto 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you tell this Alansohn (talk · contribs) to stop calling my edits vandalism, bad faith attempt by Arbusto, my edits are blatant violations of WP:POV and "your own personal POV about this school and other school articles that fail your arbitrary standards", POV, "your malicious handiwork", your offensive efforts will not be tolerated and so on. Arbusto 04:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Review Alansohn's threats to block Helical Rift (talk · contribs) (a new user). Clearly a violation of WP:BITE. Arbusto 07:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of (56/0/2). It was great to see so much kind support from such competent editors and administrators as commented on my RfA.

I know I have much reading to do before I'll feel comfortable enough to use some of the more powerful admin tools, so I'll get right to it.

Again, thanks;  OzLawyer / talk  13:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

More Emmalina nonsense[edit]

Okay, so I reread the DRV closing today after seeing that you reprotected the redirect this morning. Do you really think it's a good idea to go against the closing here, especially since there doesn't seem to be clear consensus to keep the redirect at this point, especailly since you've offered no input on the talk page? Can I ask you remove the protection in good faith and not add some undue weight to a certain side of the discussion without input and without current consensus? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because there is clear consensus to not have an article, but to redirect it. The fact that the YouTube memes article was removed is secondary; they can be covered in YouTube until they get too big and then we can fork (as long as they are properly cited). Guy 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there? The latest consensus check seems to be that there...well...isn't any, now that the YouTube memes article is gone. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really; the YouTube memes should be covered as a section in YouTube. Feel free to help ROBBO with that, I think you may well be able to. Guy 16:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't really know. I only know ofthe newsworthy ones like geriatric1927 and lonelygirl15. And Emmalina, who is conspicuously absent from the way we've handled every other newsworthy YouTuber. I'm actually more concerned with your actions regarding the protection while discussion is ongoing, especially following the DRV result. Did you even discuss it with Xoloz at all? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
We'd already had the discussion. Several times. YTMND is a good model here: we briefly mention the popular YTMNDs, but leave it to the YTMND wiki to publish the original research. There is a pressing need to purge Wikipedia of YouTube links, a very large proportion of them appear to be copyvios. Guy 09:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what the copyvio issue w/YouTube has to do with this one. YTMND is a poor model in this instance - YTMNDs don't get the type of news coverage that certain YouTube celebs do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the term "slebrity" to distinguish the famous-for-being-famous from actual celebrities, i.e. those whoa re actually celebrated for some ability :-) Guy 12:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but I'm actually taking this somewhat seriously right now. How do you contrast two very different things? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, I think you have hit upon the problem: you are taking it seriously. Emmalina is a bored teenager who got a small amount of notoriety which will probably embarrass her when she is older. On a global scale this almost but not quite rises to negligible importance. Meanwhile, until a couple of days ago we did not have an article on Giovanni Punto, who was, in his day, more famous than Beethoven. I find it really hard to take YouTube memes seriously. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not the YouTube faq, and frankly anybody who wants to know about Emmalina can find out trivially easily. I have no evidence that readers want to find out about her, only that a small number of obsessive teenaged writers want to write about her (and judging from the article as deleted, without bothering about all those tiresome reliable sources, either). They should find something more productive to do, or get a girlfriend or something. Or maybe start their own Encyclopaedia Cruftannica. And that is my serious take on it. Guy 13:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess one person's problem is another solution. I do wish you wouldn't let your personal biases regarding the subject stand in way of doing the right thing here, but I know full well I can't stop you, as much as I understand where you're coming from. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
While I'm frustrated, this isn't a reflection on you as much as desire to have this resolved, and possibly by someone completely uninvolved, so I've started a topic at WP:AN just to try to get some neutral review. I have no question regarding your acting in good faith here, but it's obvious both of our biases are clouding things here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You are rather begging the question fo what is the right thing. Is my bias any better than yours? In my view YouTube is important and should be documented, the fact that it spawns memes is a valid topic for an encyclopaedia, the identities of some of those memes and how they spread is a matter easily worth a sentence or two, but anything more than a sentence or two on any of these memes - any of them - is, to my mind, excessive, especially given the way people are having to rewrite policy to redefine reliable in order that we can use unreliable sources to cover them. Plus, I don't see the need. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, what's the problem with going and writing about things that take a little bit of effort to find out about? Subjects like this are not so much low hanging fruit as maggotty half-rotten windfalls. Perhaps I will be in a better frame of mind after I have been to see Steven Isserlis play, this evening :-) Guy 15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone's biases are better than anyone else's. We both want consistency, and, consistently, we've had articles on the people who transcend YouTube into greater attention - that was essentially the argument at the Notable memes AfD. While you feel they don't deserve more than a line mention, you also wouldn't get any consensus regarding a single-line merge of geriatric1927, lonelygirl15, or the evolution of dance guy. All I'm looking for is that consistency with this article. But we agree on the last part - cello has a way of making things better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
(unindent) Jeff, you are pitching your biases against mine. In this case there was an AfD which supported not having a separate article. You'll see fomr my past discussions with ROBBO that whether or not the YT memes article exists, we should aim to cover the memes briefly in a block, and that can be in YouTube for now until it grows to the point where it needs to be forked. As to whether there would eb a consensus for a single-line merge of Lonelygirl, it might just be worth a try. The sooner we start being an encyclopaedia instead of a cruft-o-rama the better. Guy 22:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

...for your kind words of support during my recent RfA. I've always had deep respect for (if not always agreement with) your opinions, so I am particularly humbled that you would consider me worthy of the buttons. If I can ever be of any help with an admin project or just by providing a pair of fresh, idsinterested eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to let me know. If I wasn't on the worng side of the pond, I'd buy you a pint of Abbot Ale (or make you a proper cuppa) to show my gratitude, but i do fear that my simple "thanks" will have to do for now. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Western[edit]

I had questions about the edits that were made to the Pacific Western University article, and rolled back the article so that they could be discussed on the talk page here: [16]. I don't think any of your changes were bad, but I think with the pages' recent troubles they need to be more clearly substantiated and discussed before we make them. Sirmob 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Interviewees[edit]


I am a freelance writer working on an article about the subculture of people who use Wikipedia the way the rest of us use MySpace. So I’m looking to interview several Wikipedia “addicts” as well as people who, while they don’t consider themselves addicted, do spend a good amount of time on the site editing articles, patrolling for errors, seeking out false articles, fighting for changes they made to be kept in, and otherwise contributing to the site. If you are interested please email me at

This offer is open to anybody else reading this, not just this particular user. But please, don’t come to me with if you’re hoping I’ll be exposing conspiracies or censorship issues amongst the wikipedia higher-ups. That’s not really what this article is about.


Brian68.39.158.205 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Improved AFD discussion[edit]

I've persuaded the proponents of the article to cite sources to support their arguments that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Please revisit the discussion, read what is cited, and add your comments on how far they go towards satisfying WP:WEB. Uncle G 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gah! This is a perfect example of the kind of AfD which makes it really hard to be open-minded. Aggressive demands to "do your homework" by visiting links which are not cited in the article and absolutely no changes whatsoever to the article itself - the link to the game is still 404 right now. No sources, 100% OR, and lots of arm-waving. Guy 09:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD FYI[edit]

Based on some of your edits in the past where you've cited it, I think you may be interested in this MfD debate: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Single_purpose_account. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know where they are coming from, but I think it needs fixing not deletion. Guy 22:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Newyorkbrad 22:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of a Deletion you did.[edit]

Your speedy deletion of Siantonian Proof has resulted in a recreation. I've listed it as a G4 CSD candidate, but I thought I should point out that while you were probably right to speedy delete it, you cited the Patent Nonsense criterion, which the material didn't meet at all. The speedy could have been justified under the attack page standard and the AFD result was inevitable, so I doubt anybody'll fuss at you, but I've seen RFCs and asinine policy proposals over lesser offenses than citing the wrong CSD when deleting something. So, I figured I'd give you a friendly pointer on that. The Literate Engineer 21:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That one is staying deleted, and if I need to WP:SALT it I will. Guy 22:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:your response to my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Thanks for responding, and apprently two users have warned him. If you don't mind, can I ask you a couple questions regarding this type of situation since your administrator. There are a couple images of his I tagged as copyright violation, but I think 2 I couldn't find a link for, was a wrong to tag them without a link? Also do you think {{PUIdisputed}} tag should have been better in this situation? Thanks. - Tutmosis 23:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's tricky, but in this case the rate of creation demanded urgent action. Normally you can just leave it to OrphanBot. Tagging is good, you can tag as unsourced using {{no copyright holder}}. Guy 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A good tag but it seems wrong for such a situation since the copyright status was provided by the user: pd-self, but the images didn't seem to reflect that as being true. Also since it's tagged as pd-self, I dont think OrphanBot would pick such information up. - Tutmosis 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think this one is beyond my simple brain. I'd ask at the Village Pump or WikiEN-L - or maybe one of the copyright gurus at WP:AN. Sorry, that's one for the "too hard" basket. Guy 11:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks for your help. I hope you didn't mind me asking. :) - Tutmosis 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

International Copper Association[edit]

The article International Copper Association was deleted as "public relations spam". Could you please restore the article to my userspace so that I could try to turn it into something acceptable? -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with this. JoshuaZ 06:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Guy 11:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guy[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_5#Mark_Dalton_.28porn_star.29 - note my comments here. The DRV requester's claims that the article passes WP:PORNBIO are not true, and (may) have been made purely to get the article relisted on AFD. Proto::type 14:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Guy 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Devilmaycares RfC[edit]

Hi, could I request you certify the Devilmaycares RfC, otherwise this RfC would technically be invalid. Thanks very much... Addhoc 15:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't, as I did not try to resolve the problems, but there are others who could certify it. Guy 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. As it happens this diff is currently used in the Devilmaycares RfC. Addhoc 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Your the only person to comment on his talk page regarding his entire behavior and not just one sub-set of actions. ---J.S (t|c) 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blomby Car[edit]

You deleted my article. There is some discussion about it at User_talk:PresN Sandman30s 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I refer to this article that you speedied here. Please also see the conversation at User talk:BlueValour#Blomby Car. I initially prodded on the notability question but was persuaded that blowing holes in the project to record all MAME arcade games was a bad idea. I would ask that you undelete and, if necessary, put it up for an AfD so that the broader issue can be discussed. BlueValour 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
ABM & Gecas was deleted as a non-notable company, and Blomby Car also made no assertion of notability. Guy 22:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Please can someone then clean up the "List of arcade games" - I would hate for any more of my articles to be deleted as this takes a lot of my time and expensive South African bandwidth to do. I am merely going through this list, and MAME list, and adding them for the sake of completeness. Is there somewhere I can check for notability before I add a new article? Sandman30s 09:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, if you can't find at least two non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject (e.g. substantial reviews in a major gaming magazine, not one of ten reviewed in a market survey) then the subject is likely to fail the verifiability policy. I do regularly clean lists of redlinks, largely to save people wasting their time creating articles on trivial subjects. Time was when a list of redlinks was helpful in increasing coverage of a subject, but these days we have so many articles - especially in pop culture - that it is getting hard to find genuinely notable games which have no articles, and the pendulum has swung the other way, with spam and unverifiable articles being a much bigger problem than lack of coverage. At least in this area. I completely support attempts to document that which is genuinely and verifiably significant but not trivially obtainable via Google, so if you have a stack of old gaming magazines in the cupboard please do cite them as sources and redress the massive bias towards things that happened in the last five minutes. Guy 10:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I am too dumb to understand what most of this means :) However, my articles have nothing to do with magazine or online reviews. It is merely taken from MAME including a history and description file within MAME itself. If I find the game to be personally significant then I will add more content from google, or play the game a bit further on to see what happens. Right now I am too scared to add any more content. Sandman30s 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not think MAME is counted as a reliable source. Per verifiability policy, we must have enough reliable sources to check both the facts and the neutrality of any article. For many subjects this involves actual work, which is shunned by those who consider Google to be as far as they need look. Wikipedia is not Google. So, by all means go through MAME but please make sure that you can find at least a couple of good, non-trivial sources for each subject. If you can't find any, then best to leave it until someone can find sources (or not bother at all) since policy requires them. Guy 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Dalton (porn star)[edit]

I would ask you to revisit your recommendation in light of evidence from Men Magazine itself as to the validity of the statement that Mark Dalton won the "Man of the Year" award. The link is available at the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 5#Mark Dalton (porn star), but I am also providing it here. Thanks.Chidom talk  16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Online University[edit]

Can you speedy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Online University? Arbusto 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, in this edit a user claims this mill is accredited in the UK. What do you think? Arbusto 08:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy ANMAB, redirect for deleted article. Arbusto 00:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Requesting page protection[edit]

You know what happens when page protection is put in place? If it's on a version the anti-mainstreamers like they stop discussing on the talkpage. If it's on a version that they don't like they complain loudly until it's unprotected. This is exactly what occurred when I was blocked inappropriately. There is almost no bargaining with them. They are tireless tendentious POV-pushers, and arbcom seems to be content to allow them to destroy mainstream articles since they apparently represent "minority scientific opinions". What a lark! How does Fred think he is qualified over myself to determine what a "minority scientific opinion" is? --ScienceApologist 17:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that in this case it's less likely to happen. Although all page protctions are, by definition on the wrong version, it is pretty easy to document what constitutes mainstream, and the existence of the ArbCom case suggests a halt to edit warring while the committee deliberates. Read the proposed decisions and look which way the wind is blowing. In the end, whatever Tommy might say, WP:NPOV means that we must reflect the dominant view. So: mainstream must be mentioned in articles on fringe views, but the converse is not true. Treatment should be proportionate, so tiny fringe views should not be the subject of vast walled gardens of articles. The best solution here is to stay calm, wait for ArbCom to decide, and if (as is likely) they ban Tommy from pseudoscience articles, you will be left with a lower level of heat, a clear message, and a community of editors who are, in the end, reasonable people. You may not agree with Ian, but I suspect you would hold him in somewhat higher regard than Tommy. Use the dispute resolution processes to attract more editors. The more people come along,t he more the balance is likely to reflect orthodox opinion because, after all, that is what mainstream is all about. Just my $0.02. Guy 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Crum page blanking[edit]

Guy -

You don't blank a page which is up for deletion, even if it is User:StevenCrum. Indeed, I personally consider this a de-facto example of blanking vandalism. I do sympathize with your stand, but let's do this in the right way. --EMS | Talk 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually he blanked it, or rather replaced the version up for discussion with a barely-coherent rant, so I blanked it to save his embarrassment. Guy 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It's all been a barely-coherent rant IMO. What changed was the content, not the acceptability. I really saw your action as unfair to others, as the result was much more acceptable than anything the Steve had posted. As for any embarrasment, I would point out that
  1. Steve had brought it on himself, and
  2. that once the MfD is concluded, there will be nothing left to embarass Steve, not even the history.
--EMS | Talk 23:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I thought the original version was kind of coherent, just barking mad. And seriously I don't think deleting it will help - the problem is the user, not the content. We need either to persuade him to stop it, or to ban him. Guy 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support![edit]

23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm a bit pale in the face now,
it's because of the amazing support
during my recent request for adminship
and because of all those new shiny buttons.

And if in the future
my use of them should not always be perfect
please don't hesitate to shout at me
any time, sunset, noon or sunrise.

GFP Personal Finance Manager deletion[edit]

GFP Personal Finance Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GFP Personal Finance Manager

I disagree, if you type gfp and “personal finance” on google you will see that the first 10 result pages are about the software, some of then not in English (Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, French), indeed the software is more used for people that does not speak English natively. Even if you type only GFP on google you will see that that 7th result is about GFP, but it isn’t in Enlgish. It was published in an article on Italian Magazine named “PC Professional” (It’s obviously written in Italian) as you can see clicking on the link in this article: There are articles about GFP on (In Chinese), and (In Brazilian Portuguese). In any of these articles it is indicated as a good Open source and multi platform alternative to MS Money. Just because its popularity in other languages is grater them in English, isn’t a reason to remove it from English idiom articles (the idea is that with the English article on wikipedia users that speak others languages in witch GFP is more used can write their idiom translation). And there are other similar software topics on wikipedia see, some of then not so expressive: for example. Many softwares that run on Linux are release 0 is just a matter of version control discipline; when the developer advice the user that the system will be more complex when reach the 1.0 release that will be considered full featured. There are others similar OpenSource software that are 1.0 relase but haven't all features that GFP has.

Hi JzG, I have only one more thing to say, GFP web site was ranked as one of the 7 best sites for "Personal Finance Manager" according to search engines result, as you can see here:

Image:Ottl ima 010805.jpg[edit]

I hope you realize that you are endorsing a bad faith deletion here. The only reason why it was nominated was because User:Panarjedde couldn't find anything to revert in the Bayern Munich Junior Team. He was following around my every edit and he couldn't find anything to revert in that article. Kingjeff 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't give a toss about your personal fight. Guy 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my personal fight. This is about what you're doing. By endorsing the deletion, you're essentially saying it's ok to do bad faith editing. Kingjeff 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, by entering the discussion I'm saying it's OK to delete unfree images, and pointing out to you the crucial difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech which applies in this case. Guy 00:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Not when it was a bad faith nomination. Kingjeff 00:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's an appeal to motives, a logical fallacy. You need to defend the image at WP:DRV by reference to policy. This you have not done, other than to assert that in your opinion press pack images are free, which is false in the sense that the word "free" is used in respect of images in Wikipedia. Guy 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You want a policy. He's violated this policy. It's impossible for me to think this way of him. Kingjeff 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That policy says nothing about images. The discussion is about the image. Guy 08:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tapestries MUCK, Albedo Anthropomorphics[edit]

Guy, I don't mean to imply bad faith, but I was wondering what research you did on the two above pieces before nominating them for deletion. Anything beyond counting Google hits? I ask because Albedo is very well known -- I knew of it, and I'm not even a furry fan, just a comic book fan -- and Tapestries, while admittedly harder to source due to its theme, likewise seems to be very well-known, at least among its audience and their detractors. There also seem to be quite a few "furry"-related deletions proposed within the last day or so. Some of them, like the hyper-thing, rightfully so, I'd say, but the nomination of a handful of apparently quite popular and well-known entities like these two and Furcadia strikes me as an odd coincidence. Did anything in particular happen to draw your attention to these articles.

I apologize if this seems confrontational; it's not meant to be -- those are honest questions -- but it seems I'm too poor a writer to phrase them in a better manner, at least at 6 AM. Shimeru 10:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I read around a bit, although I freely admit that I have trouble telling good from bad when it comes to furrydom. I was going through the furry category looking for junk, since I found several of highly questionable merit as a result of the WikiFur DRV. I don't have a problem being proved wrong (a crap article can be improved or deleted, either way is good for the project). Do you really think, though, that Albedo deserves three articles? Essentially I am suspicious of walled gardens. Articles whose significance is established only in respect of other articles which refer back to them tend to be the mark of excessive zeal on the part of a particular group of enthusiasts, and when (as with these) they are all unreferenced, we have a problem that needs fixing. Adding good sources is always welcome :-) Guy 11:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that does explain a lot. Not sure about the related articles, but I think Albedo definitely does. The rest, I'm having more trouble with, as I'm not that familiar with them myself -- learned more than I ever thought I'd want to know during the last day or two, though. :p Don't want to be seen as attacking you, because I've done the same thing, going through a category. Of course, the last time I did that, it was schools. Ouch. Shimeru 11:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Yes, I can see how that might have been... educational. Guy 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

to be mopped[edit]


God is an astronaut, now a redirect to God Is an Astronaut, has history and previously housed early version of the article before the author cut-and-pasted it to the properly capitalised version. There is a single author before the cut-and-paste. Does that warrant the effort of history merging?

In addition, one of Image:Giaawiki.jpg and Image:Giaa logo.jpg can be deleted as they are redundant. --user:Qviri 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Damn a band article I can't delete. Done. Guy 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Arb Com[edit]

Hello Guy, I decided to go for it too. Thanks for the encouragement. I figure the more the merrier. FloNight 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, great! You'll get my vote. You should be a shoo-in, I think. Guy 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello there -- I noticed that you've commented on the blocking of GoodCop. The alleged reason is legal threats, but I really don't see any. Mind pointing them out? MESSEDROCKER 07:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Repeated allegations of libel Guy 09:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wii Startup Disc[edit]

I noticed that you voted for delete on the AfD page of Wii Startup Disk. User:TJ Spyke has provided us with the following information: "In the new IGN Weekly (IGN Weekly Holiday 06), they have the final Wii box and take everything in it out. There was no startup disc there (they also re-confirm that Wii Sports will just come in the same cheap cardboard that Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt came in)." Please consider changing your vote to redirect, as this disc does not exist, and people may search for it and need a redirect. A consensus for this issue would be excellent. Scepia 07:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. People won't come to Wikipedia looking for a startup disc if there isn't one in the box, they'll go to the manufacturer or RTFM. I wonder if we have an article on the Windows XP boot CD? Guy 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Mattisse (me) re Starwood & Rosencomet[edit]

I have just received notification that a Requests for comment/Mattisse has been opened against my behavior regarding articles related to Rosencomet and Starwood Festival. BostonMA talk suggested your name as a person who might be willing to make a comment on it. So I am bringing this RFC to you attention Thank you! Mattisse(talk) 14:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland Steamer[edit]

Hello sir:

This is to notify you that this article is up for deletion again. I reviewed its records, and I have noticed that you took the unprecedented action of taking it to DRV to have it deleted. You may want to chime in again, but as things go, even to this newbie it seems futile. Mr Spunky Toffee 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One subjects oneself to somewhat random questions when one stands for ArbCom elections[edit]

Hi JzG,

I was somewhat surprised at your stated disatisfaction with "Requests for Adminship" process. Could you suggest one or two RfAs of "worthy" rejected candidates? I don't think the process is perfect: it certainly creates more stress in a candidate's life than it should; however, I think cases of the "wrong outcome" are really quite rare, and I'd like to see what examples underlie your unhappiness. Best wishes, Xoloz 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I have added the response to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for JzG#Questions from Mailer Diablo, along with the original question. Guy 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I certainly agree that Jeff got short-shrift (and Kappa before him, in the single most mean-spirited RfA ever.) Hostility arising from legitimate wiki-philosophical differences is a sad thing to see on an RfA, I agree. I have absolutely no idea how to address that problem, however. Actually, as I consider the question, it's quite depressing that this kind of difficulty is more likely to afflict an intellectual candidate, who has taken the time to think deeply about wiki-issues. Thanks for the insight. Best wishes, Xoloz 03:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


In your reply to my question, you said "...articles on views which are dismissed or refuted by the scientific consensus are treated in a way which , while it provides full information about the subject (provided it is verifiable from neutral sources of course) leaves te reader aware of the extent of its acceptance or lack thereof..." (emphasis added).

Do you really mean that sources must themselves be neutral to be used? If so, is this only a requirement when presenting minority views in opposition to a scientific consensus? Certainly many articles (particularly on controversial topics) employ non-neutral sources, and rightly so (for example, it takes a pretty tortured definition of neutral to say that more than a small portion of the sources, representing either side, in the intelligent design article are neutral, but they are used in a way that comes pretty close to an NPOV presentation).--ragesoss 04:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, my answer was ambiguous. Thank you, I have clarified it at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for JzG#Question from Ragesoss. Guy 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks[edit]

Fireworks cholmes75.JPG Hi Guy, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as a expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case[edit]

Some created a RFAr against you and didn't bother informing you of it. So I guess I am officially notifying you of it. semper fiMoe 04:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the user and case was reverted :) semper fiMoe 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A strange one, that. I suggested he go to dispute resolution rather than edit warring and posting complaints to WP:ANI, and for that he files an ArbCom case against me? Seems like maybe he's not here to build an encyclopaedia. Guy 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

DRV question[edit]

You seem to be wise in the ways of DRV, so I thought I'd ask you this. If I undelete Image:Nikkor lenses.jpg (the subject of the discussion here), notify everyone who's seemed interested on their talk page, slap a {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} tag on it and start up the standard discussion on the talk page of the image, leaving a note on DRV saying "the party is that way", will anything particularly unpleasant happen to me? I ask because I recall hearing that DRV is home to some particularly dangerous varieties of man-eating proceduralism, and I am generally fond of not being devoured. --RobthTalk 17:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I think that's perfectly reasonable. Well, OK, people might bitch but in this case I think it's a fair use of boldness. Guy 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I went ahead and did it. --RobthTalk 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA[edit]

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


Please review my reworking of the Forocoches article proposed for undeletion. Uaxuctum 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A fine job of work (but what does forocoches mean?). You want it moved back in? Guy 09:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
ForoCoches means simply "CarForum" in Castilian Spanish (ForoCarros would be the equivalent in Latin American Spanish). The main topic of the portal and forum is automobiles, hence the name; but there is also a large subsection for off-topic discussions. If you think the article is already acceptable for inclusion, then move it back in. Uaxuctum 00:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons[edit]

Lt Mike Hunter 1.jpg Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.
~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Lt Mike Hunter 2.jpg

You're nicked![edit]

Glad you liked the Matthew Boyden edit. Shame I messed up the summary with a few typos (you can't preview the damn things). Actually, I would love to know Sgt. Boyden's take on the world's major opera composers. Maybe we could compare his choices with those of June Ackland, DS Burnside and the late lamented "Tosh" Lynes. Then we could create List of major opera composers according to Sun Hill nick. Bound to be one of Wikipedia's finest articles. --Folantin 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your nationality[edit]

I had no idea you were from the United Kingdom. My respect for you has gone from this:


to this:


Congratulations on this milestone in your adminship!

(note: each - represents fifteen Chipping Sodburys)--Dreaded Walrus 12:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh! I never knew it was a secret. Back when I were a lad we had a controller in an asphalt plant at Sodding Chipbury. Oh how we laughed... Guy 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Playboy Cyber Club Undeletion attempt[edit]

I often argue about my vision of the way things should be because I can see my vision very clearly. In order to gain a proper perspective I have created my vision for you to more fairly assess the question of whether wikipedia would be better with separate Playboy Online and/or Playboy Cyber Club pages. See the template that is of the type I referenced above at Template:Playboy. I would appreciate your reconsideration of your delete/undelete opinion on this question in light of my creation. TonyTheTiger 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I'm still struggling to care. Try writing an article on something that is not trivially available from thirty seconds of Googling? Seriously, I have had it up to here with articles on crap off Teh Internets. This is nothing personal, I'm sure you're a fine editor (some of your articles are just the kind of "wow, I never knew that!" that makes Wikipedia great), but the idea of an encyclopaedia largely made up of articles on trivial porn subjects fills me with apathy. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate your reply. Unfortunately, claiming apathy after voicing a negative vote where you are 1/3rd of the electorate seems wrong. You are casting 1/3 of the possible votes against undeletion. This is not apathy. If you are struggling to care, I would appreciate it if you were to soften your 1/3 or the electorate affirmation. What I am saying is that I have created several useful templates. Template:Playboy would be greatly improved if I could get you to WP:AGF and allow me to recreate an informative page. Since you realize already that most of what I do eventually takes the form of an informative interesting contribution why don't you WP:AGF that I will do so here. Playboy online is a $50 million/year business. It is the fastest growing part of the playboy empire. It is the possibly the future of Playboy. There is a lot that can be written on this subject without plastering porncruft photos of girls who you only feel are notable for having appeared nude for the business. I can do this. Please WP:AGF and reverse or at least soften your vote. TonyTheTiger 21:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is the site I don't care about. I think we already have more than enough porncruft without adding to it. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are saying that because you don't like the porncruft at you don't think wikipedia should have a separate article for Playboy Online. That does not make sense. Do you think we should delete every page that properly addresses a topic you think we have enough of. It is likely you are either a Republican or a Democrat, Pro-Abortion or Right to Life, or on one side of the fence or another on some issue. Would you cast a vote to delete an article describing the other side of the fence? If it were already deleted would you cast a vote to keep it deleted? Help me understand.TonyTheTiger 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the fact that I think we already have comprehensive coverage of the Playboy organisation and have no pressing need of more. It would be remarkable if any pornography publisher these days did not have a website. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So what you are saying is that although I know that most pages you, TonyTheTiger, create are interesting and teach me about things in new ways, wikipedia has a lot of pages for Playboy and I don't think you could effectively teach me anything interesting or in new ways about Playboy that would be properly located in a Playboy Cyber Club or Playboy Online article. TonyTheTiger 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a masterful summary. I believe there is little to be said which is both of merit and cannot be covered in the Playboy article. Of course this is just my opinion. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. Do you feel that it is incorrect for most conglomerate companies to have separate articles for their most important divisions as is the case with most other business conglomerates? TonyTheTiger 22:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I work for a Fortune 500 company most of whose divisions do not have articles. They are discussed in the main article. This is not a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to draft what I think the pages should look like. I concur that there has been excessive porncruft in prior editions of the related pages (User:TonyTheTiger/temp). I now realize that my greatest credential is not my history of interesting contributions as a page creator, but my experience in fighting sportscrufting of fans who wanted their favorite players included in the Five-tool player page. You should take a look at the cruft that was on the page before I got involved by editing and setting policy. There had been talk of taking down the page

I still have to add some categories, but the following two pages are as they should be


I still have some more editing to do to User:TonyTheTiger/PCC, but it is getting closer to acceptable given the start I had with User:TonyTheTiger/temp. I would suggest you note the discussion pages of Five-tool player and User:TonyTheTiger/PCC. I think if I can get the same kind of help to narrow things down that I did with five tool player, this can be an effective page.

Suspicion denied.[edit]

You recently left this in the schools discussion: "I have a sneaking suspicion that none of those who assert "all schools are notable" were born before 1980."

I was most certainly born long before 1980, and I have personal knowledge regarding several of the others who've advocated that view in this debate that indicates otherwise as well.

A backhanded accusation of "everyone who disagrees with me is probably immature" isn't really all that relevant to the debate where you typed it, so I decided to respond here instead. It is a little humorous, because, to be quite frank, I was beginning to suspect that a majority of those who don't see the inherent notability of schools are teenagers or younger. I certainly would not have shared that suspicion without reading yours first, and I commit to pushing that notion out of the logical part of my mind. Hope you'll do the same.  ;) Unfocused 19:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't meant like that. I just feel that maturity lends a certain perspective, and also tends to reduce the tendency to hysterical arm-waving. "All schools are inherently notable" is, frankly, pointless verbiage, since it implies either such a low bar to notability as to make the word meaningless, or parity between all schools, from Dunghill Junior to Winchester. It's an absurd premise. There is a scale of notability, and all subjects lie somewhere along that scale. At some point along that scale we stick a stake in the ground and say that is the level of notability which is worth documenting on Wikipedia. The quasi-religious view that all foo (be they schools, pokemon, ships, micronations or politicians) should be included by virtue of mere existence is utterly destructive of any attempt to rationally debate any given subject. Guy 19:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


This is uncivil, but let's move beyond that. You seriously think there are no Greek POV-pushers to deal with in WP? If in doubt check my contribs! :-) •NikoSilver 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The "silliness" was in earlier edit summaries and the "nutshell" which had been inverted. I changed it again very shortly afterwards because I did not read that version carefully and it, too, was inverted. As to the "no Greek POV-pushers", clearly I am an evil rouge admin whose sole agenda is to conceal form the world the levels of controversy surrounding Greek issues. <cough>Cyprus</cough> :o) Guy (Help!) 09:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ha! I'm that rouge user [sic] over at Cyprus, FYROM, Turkey, Smyrna etc. I also have high connections to the American govt and drive a UFO to go to work. Beware! This is your last warning! :-) •NikoSilver 09:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleveland steamer[edit]

I've taken the bold and quite possibly very rash decision to take this to WP:DRV, as you did months ago. I've cited all the policy I can find, and I'm hoping for the best. I thought you should know. Mr Spunky Toffee 11:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


I removed your tags from this article. As it stood it was a heady mix of original research, Editoral comment and well.. chuff. Hopefully you agree that (and there is no other way to describe it) slash and burn brings it upto community standards. --Charlesknight 12:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Slash and burn is what I would have done if I was not mired in working through the user's contribs and trying to work out which was was up - your version is a huge improvement! Guy (Help!) 12:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Check these out[edit]


Frustration! Help![edit]

I'm totally frustrated by User:badlydrawnjeff. He can't refute the fact that Cleveland steamer blatantly violates policy, and can't come up with a good answer to say that it conforms with policy. He just says that it's already been decided. As I understand it, "consensus" does not override core Wiki policy. Am I wrong about that? Are there exceptions, and should they be noted in the policy pages? Mr Spunky Toffee 12:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff is an extreme inclusionist, but he is well aware of policy and he is a perfectly reasonable person. If you can't agree with him then you can agree to differ. Please play the ball, not the man. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll back down. Mr Spunky Toffee 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lindsey German Picture[edit]

Lindsey German (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sorry you have been dragged into this (again). I am happy to provide reasons for removing the picture. I have just not bothered to argue with JK because he is not interested in a reasonable discussion. He has only one agenda.

JK is a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, an extreme left wing sect that is obsessed with Lindsey German and the Socialist Workers Party. On 2 July 2005 JK travelled up to the Make Poverty History rally in Scotland and proceeded to take dozens of pictures of Lindsey German and her partner John Rees - so many that they thought he must be a police officer until I explained he was part of the CPGB. He then tried to upload the most unflattering pictures to Wikipedia. Here is an example of the picture JK has continually tried to upload to the John Rees page on Wikipedia;

JK will try and present himself as a disinterested contributor. In reality he hates everything that Lindsey German and John Rees stand for. Hence his obsession with them and hence his obsessional behaviour on their Wikipedia pages for the past 18 months. No normal contributor behaves in this way. A single decent and uncontroversial picture is fine for short biographies like John and Lindsey’s and its probably a good rule of thumb to follow generally across Wikipedia so far as short biographies are concerned in order to avoid edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion1 (talkcontribs)

That is an appeal to motives, a logical fallacy (maybe all his pictures are of similar quality, who knows?). I have seen plenty of normal contributors behave in seemingly irrational ways. This is a difference of opinion, and should be settled through dispute resolution. I think the picture is fine, it shows her with two other prominent left-wing activists, both of whom have articles, at an important event. I don't think the picture at John Rees (activist) adds anything as it is redundant per the somewhat higher quality picture already in that article, but this picture does add something and frankly your continued use of the term "vandalism" to describe not only its insertion but also its reinsertion by other editors (including me) is every bit as problematic as what you complain of in JK. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the picture he tried to insert on the John Rees biography is redundant. Its also deliberately unflattering. Why would JK pick that picture to post (over and over again) out of all the dozens he took of John Rees on the day? The answer to that question (which you don’t ask) is informative. It is because JK is not interested in adding to the article. JK is interested in trying to post unflattering pictures of people he is obsessed with. He is trying to do the same to the biography of John’s partner Lindsey German. See a pattern here? I am happy to go through whatever procedures are necessary to solve this dispute but I would appreciate it if you did not make threats towards me. My motives are honest, I just want to defence this biography against this obsessional nutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fashion1 (talkcontribs)
That's your interpretation. In practice I don't know because I have not seen the rest of his pictures. The warning is not anything personal, and neither is blocking you for violating WP:3RR - you have been edit-warring and completely ignoring attempts at discussion, that is problematic behaviour. So: take it to a dispute resolution process, please, and try to use objective statements in respect of the image itself rather than impute motives to the uploader. Or upload a better picture of German at the rally with some other prominent activists and make the issue moot. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Build your own[edit]

Build your own House and Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I dont understand why you deleted my article on Build your own house and home, i was clearly in the process of editing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rory Deegan (talkcontribs)

Because it made no assertion of the notability of the subject, and appeared to serve more to promote the subject than to describe it. A quick Google finds 15 unique hits, of which noe appear to be reliable sources for the purposes of verifying both the content and its neutrality. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done to maintain the page? Please excuse my naivety , im rather new.

Step 1: it needs to be the primary subject of a number of non-trivial treatments in reliable sources independent of the subject. As far as I can tell this is not yet the case. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Its existance is confirmed on where it is documented as homes magazine. User:Rory Deegan14:16, 16 November 2006

Mere existence is insufficient. Per policy, we must be able to verify both the content and the neutrality of the content by reference to reliable independent sources. If no such sources exist, which as far as I can tell they do not here, then we cannot have an article. In short: you need to get famous and then come to Wikipedia, not come to Wikipedia as part of your attempt to get famous. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Information is available on, this is a press organisation. It is also noted on, this is a advertising information website.

The first is evidence of existence and in any case not independent of the subject, the second is also not truly independent and in any case falls under the heading of trivial, since it is a storefront for selling advertising space (would you believe that a magazine is significant based on its advertising sales brochure?). Please do not re-create it again. Deletion review is over there → Guy (Help!) 18:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Would you consider this block request as listed at AN/I? Another admin agreed that a block was in order but looks like it didn't happen. The problems are still continuing. Thanks. Ekantik 19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because the problem seems to be in abeyance right now and the parties are discussing it on Talk, which is reasonable. This is a legitimate, if heated, difference of opinion between editors in good standing and acting in good faith. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You know when you read a talk page and feel silly...[edit]

I would just like to note that I feel silly about getting into an edit war over the pic' of Lindsey German. What a complete waste of time. Thanks for your level-headed comments.--JK the unwise 20:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedied speedy[edit]

LOL! That was the quickest turnaround I ever had on an AfD (Da Crew), gone within 15 minutes. Thanks for the quick response.  :) --Elonka 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ED talk deletion[edit]

I just responded to you, and in doing so, I couldn't resist quoting Empirse Strikes Back. I thought I'd take just a second to be sure I tell you that I'm just a big geek-- I'm not being flippant. In this whole ED mess, I have the easiest role. I'm not a ED troll (i promise!), I don't have a close relationship with anyone who was attacked by them, and I don't have a mop. I get to sit back and be yoda. I hope, in the grand scheme of things, my cautions about the subject help wikipedia, but never let that imply I don't have a definite respect for you who are on the frontlines, as it were. You in particular did something at some point that made me give you a mental thumbs up-- I don't remember what, I need a buddylist on this thing, I can never remember who is who, but somewhere along the way, your name got a possitive association so.. whatever you said or did I agreed with at some point-- thanks! lol. --Alecmconroy 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From what you say, I probably quoted Douglas Adams in delete summary or some such :-) Guy (Help!) 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions for Paul August[edit]

Hi Guy. I've answered your question. Thanks for asking. Paul August 01:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Marsden-Donnelly harassment case[edit]

Hi Guy,

Would you consider restoring Marsden-Donnelly harassment case? I've put some comments here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Proposed_decision with concerns about speedying pages that do not fit a strict definition of "attack page." I think this deletion would be controversial if sent to AfD, and that's a good reason to send it to AfD. My preference, however, would be to fix or stub the article instead. The case is a very important one in the history of Vancouver. People in this city still talk about it. Kla'quot 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought a redirect to Rachel Marsden would do the trick, but I have taken it to deletion review for consideration. Guy (Help!) 08:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. Kla'quot 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a problem.[edit]

Seethis, small puppies cry when they see the return of that ranty POV pushing version. --Charlesknight 08:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


I see you are a pro-active consultant in integrating rapid removal solutions into the global framework of collaborative encyclopaedia structures. yandman 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes he seems to have put aside blue skies thinking, thought outside of the box and proactively provided a leveraged knowledge tranfer of that article. --Charlesknight 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

SOCK or MEAT puppet problem[edit]

Hi Guy, I have a problem with two POV pushing users (Huckleberry1 (talk · contribs) and HappyFun (talk · contribs)) who are white washing critcism from the Jim Ryun page and POV pushing on the Nancy Boyda. Judging by the addition of personal facts to the Ryan page i suspect it is a user with close ties to Ryun himself. Campaign staff or possibly even family? I have not escalated this to a vandalism warning yet. I am hovering on 3RR but since I consider these edits to be vandalism, especially the Ryun white wash, i might consider more aggressive talk page interaction. To date, i have not had a peep out of them. Care to give me a second opinion on this? Thanks for your time. David D. (Talk) 22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd like to give this more time than I have available right now. I have gone with my first instinct, which is to block the two offenders and semiprotect to prevent further sockery. Please be very careful that the articles are WP:BLP compliant after the idiocy, I will trust your judgement on that. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I went through and copy edited out anything without a reliable source. We'll see what happens next. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzball MUCK[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to say it would've been nice if you had left a note on my talk page after proposing Fuzzball MUCK for deletion. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support![edit]

Admin mop.PNG A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again for your kind comments, I will try to keep Wikipedia free of copyright violations as much as possible! ReyBrujo 20:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion request[edit]

Since you expressed an opinion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote, I would appreciate it if you could comment on WP:DDV, in particular as to whether it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't) and as to whether it is correct that we generally discourage (but not forbid) voting. Thanks. (Radiant) 08:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already made some changes there. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I noticed, thanks for that. Does that imply you mostly agree with the page as written? (Radiant) 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit of it, and most of the text. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr Spunky Toffee[edit]

Hi there,

I see that User:Mr Spunky Toffee has been blocked for being a sockpuppet. As I had adopted (WP:ADOPT) him - I wonder if you can give me a bit more info/background to put my mind at rest. Thanks Lethaniol 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This was a self-admitted sockpuppet of User:Brian G. Crawford who is indefinitely blocked by order of the Foundation's lawyer, Brad Patrick, for making death threats. He was on psychogenic medication at the time, but the community is not disposed to even ask for unblocking. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete UHSA article?[edit]

Hi, Is it possible to delete the article? Most of the info posted here is wrong and biased. As a current UHSA student, I humbly request it to be deleted. The article is being vandalized by current students (although I'm against that), so it has nothing meaningful to contribute to this encyclopedia. I started the article and never realized it would lead to long lasting edit wars. Thanks. DrGladwin 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are free to nominate it for deletion. There are instructions at WP:DP. I can't just nuke it because it does not, to my reading, meet any of our criteria for speedy deletion. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. DrGladwin 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I need your help again. It appears Leuko doesn't want to delete the article and left a message which I don't understand. The message reads, "rm prod. Instead of requesting deletion with a WP:COI, please provide [WP:RS that article is factually incorrect." So what do I do next? DrGladwin 23:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll do it. Please edit the AfD to include your reasons for deleting. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again, Guy. I really want to see the end of edit wars, which will never end as long as this article is here. DrGladwin 23:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
If that were a valid reason for deleting, we'd have nuked George W. Bush long ago. The article, not the real thing (else I'd have been first with the red button). Guy (Help!) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

If someone is using a User page just as a bulletin board for love notes back and forth (no actual article edits) what is the rule on that? [17] Been watching this one a while. Don't know if it should just be ignored. Fan-1967 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a no-no, obviously. I would (and have) delete the user page (which has no meaningful history) and leave a message telling them why it's a problem (they seem not to be aware). If it carries on then lock the page. But actually I don't see any evidence that they were told not to do this. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure. It's not actual vandalism, after all, just an inappropriate use of server space. Fan-1967 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but there is a big difference between using Wikipedia for chat in and among edits, and using for playing kissy-kissy. Maybe I'm a bit harsh, who knows. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, seems that your messages and mine are having no effect at all. Not even noticing them, except to remove them. Fan-1967 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think he has something else on his mind :-) Guy (Help!) 17:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ's tried a 24-hour block. We'll see what happens tomorrow. Fan-1967 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It then occured to me that a block won't really help so I protected the page. Actually it might make more sense to just protect and not to block. If anyone wants to remove the block on that rationale feel free. Note that they were also using User:Tinkerbell34 for the same thing. JoshuaZ 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Protect and no block was what I was going to do next, I'm just dashing out the door though. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the User page needs protecting, too. Same thing going on there. Clearly, he just doesn't care. Fan-1967 17:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Military brat[edit]

A few weeks ago an article that I had just started working on was nominated for deletion. At that time, I indicated that I had just started working on it. Since you were one of the more critical voices towards this article, I tought I'd seek out your feedback on the current state of the article. Could you go and take a look at it and let me know what you think? What areas still need to be improved? What do you like/don't like? I am still working on the article and know that it needs to be copy edited, so I'm primarily looking for tone/content advice. I'll watch your page for response, but you know I'm serious to come to one of the main critics for advice. Balloonman 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It has references, it appears reasonably neutral, it is a good article on this subject, but it is 100% US-centric. Well done for getting it right, though. Sorry for the faint praise, I'm sure it's better than that. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the US centricity is one of my criticisms of the topic too... unfortunately, ALL of the research that I've seen deals with American brats. I haven't found anything dealing with non-American brats... the only thing I've found is that American Brats often find that they have more incommon with brats of other countries than they do with American non-brats. Anyways, thanks for taking a look at it.Balloonman 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
That's partly down to the title - the term military brat is used, as far as I can tell, only in the US, whereas much of what it says about forces children applies to a much wider locus. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
British, Australians, and Canadians also use the term. Brits often use the acronymn "British Regiment Attached Travellers" for their brats, and Michael J Fox (a Canadian) refers to himself as a "Proud Military Brat." So I do know that other countries, where English is the primary language, use the term brat. I tried going back through the article and taking out some of the explicit language linking it to the US.Balloonman 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for text of deleted article[edit]

I have recently created an article about Wil Harris and subsequently discovered that a previous article about him has been deleted due to non-notability of the subject. (I believe that the he may now be considered more notable and so the article should hopefully be able to remain).

I was wondering if you'd be able to obtain a copy of the text of the deleted article for me to see if there is anything I can use to improve the new article? Thanks MartinBrook t 14:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Done, also listed for review at WP:DRV. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response :) MartinBrook t 15:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested undeletion to userspace[edit]

Could a copy of the deleted Public Netbase be dropped to a subpage in my userspace? I know the original article wasn't particularly good (and died an expired prod's death), but I think I have materials together to write a survivable one, and I'd like to see what came before to see if its worth building off of with an eye toward eventual GFDL history restoration if I can get a version that will stand. Many thanks, I know you stay busy already! Serpent's Choice 15:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Done Guy (Help!) 15:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks much, Guy! Not really much there to go on (I'd hoped there might've been a ref I didn't have), but its nice to know what came before. With any luck, I'll have something eligible for a history-only in the next couple days to at least record the work that went into it. Serpent's Choice 15:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Friends return[edit]

Hi Guy. Don't know if you have noticed but theres been an anonymous IP going around and posting links to law websites on the talkpages of people involved in the old GLF debate which, according to a comment posted by the same IP on the talkpage of User:Omicronpersei8 are links to British legal judgements on internet slander and libel which are extemely pertinent to Wikipedia and its administrators, especially those who have previously sneered at UK laws in this respect. I wouldn't give it much credit if it weren't for the fact that another anon IP has been on my talkpage and altered the text of an old discussion concerning the debate, removing names and the like. Any ideas?--Edchilvers 18:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ave you got the IPs? We should notify this to Foundation, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User: is the guy going around posting links to the websites on various talkpages (although user:Omicronpersei8 reverted most of his edits in a few minutes, assuming them to be spam) whilst User: altered my talkpage.--Edchilvers 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If that's the best they can do then we have little to worry about: there is a world of difference between calling someone an unrepentant anti-semite and noting a widely-reported conviction which is a matter of public record! The IP has been rolled back; any future nonsense can certainly be reported at WP:ANI or indeed just revert the trolling yourself. It seems to be a drive-by so there's not much more we can do right now. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, although it struck me that they might have been seeking to provoke people into making some sort of defensive kneejerk response. Fortunately nobody appears to have taken the bait and an admin was on hand with a revert so no harm seems to have been done. Cheers--Edchilvers 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, reverting is the way to handle this kind of crap. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lauder-Frost himself has commented on the issue on a discussion forum:

Gregory Lauder-Frost 1177 23-11-2006 11:25 AM GMT Edited by author 23-11-2006 11:25 AM The recent judgements in the Court of Appeal demonstrate that not only the Wikimedia Foundation can now be sued for breaking our laws but so can those editors whom the Foundation would be obliged to identify - especially if the Foundation wished to squeeze out of an action here by denying responsibility and so passing the buck. Being based in North America, our court has ruled, will not stop a judgement being made here. Given that there are increasing mechanisms for enforcement of such judgements I'd be concerned if I were the Wikipedia/Wikimedia legal team.

Think we ought to alert Brad?--Edchilvers 22:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, not least since Brad is of the opinion that this is bullshit. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Closure of Mega Society[edit]

I did not have a dog in this fight, since I am not a member and never heard of the society before seeing the Afd. I just like to see established process followed in deletion debates. You apparently closed the debate (early?)and deleted the article without a consensus for deletion. The closure was labelled "Guy" but clicking on the talk link brought me here, so are you also "Guy?" I am not and have never been a sock of anyone. You did not even say you were deleting it, just the you were "calling a halt." How did you determine that there was a consensus for deletion? Were any of those calling for "Keep" determined to be single purpose accounts? How many were established editors with a history of contributing to articles? I count 9 editors, none identifies as new or single purpose accounts calling for Keep and 5 calling for Delete. Thanks. Edison 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a G4 and conflict of interest situation, the fact that others have been sucked in is regrettable and entirely my fault. The society has a couple of dozen members; looks like 10% of the entire membership is here boosting the article! I should never have opened the can of worms. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest that you cancel the "call a halt" and allow the AfD to progress, or even withdraw the AfD altogether? You clearly have a conflict of interest in both raising and suspending the AfD. --Michael C. Price talk 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think you may, since you have a vested interest in the content. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What vested interest? --Michael C. Price talk 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC), for example. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Membership is not the same as a vested interest; association articles are typically editted by members of associations. If you're sure of your case why not let the AfD continue? Don't you have a far greater conflict of interest as the AfD raiser, as has been pointed out by others as well? --Michael C. Price talk 06:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Michael, you are accusing me of a conflict of interest, but you have a conflict of interest. You and your associates have caused more than enough disruption with this vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 07:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you fail to address the questions raised? What is your problem with this? An AfD is meant to be a debate, not a pronouncement by one individual who is quick to assume bad faith and see conflicts of interest in others, but seems singularly incapable of recognising the same problems with his own conduct. Your claims need discussion, not assertion. That's why these procedures exist. --Michael C. Price talk 08:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you spend so much time arguing for an article on a tiny vanity society with which you are associated, re-created out of process by someone else associated with the society, after it was deleted and kept deleted at review? Oh, wait, I think I might know the answer here... Guy (Help!) 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You claim it is a vanity society, others say otherwise; again your claims needs discussion not assertion. If you examine the original AfD you will see that it was procedurally flawed, since there was no consensus for deletion; there was also the usual confusion between Chris "CTMU" Langan and his Mega Foundation and the distinct Mega Society. Your claim about it being recreated out of process is incorrect, as I pointed out on the now deleted talk:Mega Society, I was explicitly given leave by the closing admin to recreate it at the DRV. Finally, I note again, you hint at bad faith. --Michael C. Price talk 08:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
"You and your associates have caused more than enough disruption with this vanispamcruftisement..." Guy, please, be not paranoic and do not accuse without proofs. For example I am not a member of the society, nor an associate of Michael. In fact, I found the AfD discussion only by chance. And moreover, there is no rule prohibiting members to edit articles about their organizations and to discuss them - so please do not use false arguments ad hominem. I think that your behaviour in this case is not OK and can corrupt your good reputation here. Please, rethink the whole case once more after a good cup of tea. :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There are three individuals associated with the group who between them are responsible for most of the edits, most of the argument, and the out of process re-creation. In the end, the group fails the primary notability criterion (multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject). We have one borderline non-trivial independent secondary source cited. The involvement of parties with a clear conflict of interest, and virtually nobody else, means a problem for WP:V and WP:NPOV as well, and the absence of any significant number of sources underlines that. Almost all the article was, in any case, a discussion of the validity of IQ tests above 4sd from the mean, which belongs in IQ. Once that is stripped out we have existence, namechecks, and nothing else. No evidence of objective significance has ever been produced (the sole acceptable source seems to regard it as a curiosity). There is some evidence of !vote solicitation and no evidence that this society has any importance outside the minds of its members, who are the main ones arguing for its inclusion. The group gets under 700 Google hits outside of Wikipedia and forums, zero Google News hits, nothing apparently relevant on an academic search, either for the group or citing their journal. In short, they appear, by reference to the standard tests, to be less significant than me - I score over three times the number of Google hits and have citations in some learned journals. And believe me, there is nothing notable about me. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy, I have no doubt that Mega Society is not extremely notable - in fact I regard it as a clear borderline case and I will surely not cry for it if it will be deleted. But if you have initiated a discussion, you should respect rights of those who were involved. I am sorry, but as clever as you are, you are still not a super-user with a monopoly on truth. Even if the users are members of the society, they have still the same right to speak as other users including you and me. Understand me: I do not protest against the result, but against the procedure, against the idea that one admin has automatically more right than nine rank and file users. I lived here in Prague too many years under almighty leaders with a monopoly on truth, so I do not wish to repeat these experiences. - Regarding the sources, they mentioned at least two independent important ones: The Wall Street Journal and the Guiness Book of Records. This is much more than in cases of many other articles about local schools and local bands and obscure video games. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And there are the Omni articles. Omni sold very well in the UK for many years (and probably in the States as well); their repeated coverage of the Mega Society indicates a commercial recognition of public interest in the subject. The professed lack of notability is not as self-evident as Guy indicates. Follow procedures and allow a discussion. --Michael C. Price talk 13:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Ioannes, it is like this: I initiated the discussion in error. I should have read the DRV with more care. I corrected my error, prompted by comments at the AfD I mistakenly opened. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
If the AfD was mistakenly opened then calling a halt to it shouldn't cause the article to be deleted; restore it and we can all be done. --Michael C. Price talk 14:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, no kewpie doll. I did what I should have done in the first place and deleted the vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you not noticed that AfDs get closed early all the time when the article qualifies as a speedy delete? -- Donald Albury 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you not noticed that a speedy delete was rejected just a few weeks ago? --Michael C. Price talk 00:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you not noticed your conflict of interest yet? Guy (Help!) 00:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Acknowledged awhile ago, unlike yours. --Michael C. Price talk 00:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
...which is illusory. Like I said, if I'd simply deleted this outright as I should have, we would not be having this discussion. No, actually, looking at your history with respect to this subject, we probably would be... Guy (Help!) 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Judge, jury and executioner. Why do you think AfDs exist? Or the DRV closer advised rework and repost? --Michael C. Price talk 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsden-Donnelly harassment case[edit]

Fyi, this is now live. I kept the article semi-protected, as it was before. I'll leave it up to you if you want to change it. ~ trialsanderrors 06:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Castle Park deletion[edit]

Just curious why you deleted "Castle Park, Michigan" wiki? You did not provide a reason.

There is a reason stated in the deletion, but for the record the entire contents of the article was Castle Park is a small private community of 100 summer houses and cottages along the Lake Michigan shore. The community has a small castle built in 1890 by a German immigrant businessman, Michael Schwarz. No sources, no claim of significance. I was just the janitor here anyway, User:Elonka tagged it for speedy deletion due to failure to make any claim of notability. Small private communities? Hard to think where they fit on the notability guidelines. If you can find a number of non-trivial independent sources of some authority then perhaps it might pass, I don't know. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Metrocenter Mall (Mississippi)[edit]

I am not particularly interested in retailing in Mississippi, but I was able to find two references for Metrocenter Mall (Mississippi). Viewing the full article costs money, but the free preview gives you a general idea of what the article is about. Mississippi Business Journal, October, 2004 by Lynn Lofton "Metrocenter-area businesses stay optimistic despite departure; coalition cleaning house to attract new faces" As well, an article in the Jackson Free Press at describes the mall's curfew policy. If you think these articles establish notability, could you please restore the article and add the references? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pecanland Mall[edit]

This was a very informative article, even if it had mistakes, did not deserve deletion. As a newbie, I do not know the proper channels for things here, nor do I wish to, however I ask that you look into the deletion of this article. Thanks!

WP:NOT a directory, of malls or anything else. A spamming campaign by a property development company is being dealt with. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


The only reason I didn't take you to arbitration is because you are part of the cabal and I am not. Your repeated threats to block Skybum for saying something he never said should alone have been punishable; not to mention your repeated wholesale reverts, repeated unfounded accusations of POV-pushing, and admitted conflict of interest with Avidor (so much of a fan of Avidor that you, a deletionist, created and defended the barely-notable Roadkill Bill article - yet you never recused yourself from that mediation).

Now, you grossly mis-characterize the dispute in the Non-notability arbitration. It's one thing to repeatedly ignore the rules on the little-viewed PRT pages, it's quite another to bend the truth to attack Fresheneesz in his arbitration, where everyone is watching. That, to me, is the last straw. If I thought I had a snowball's chance of breaking through the Wikipedia cabal mentality, you'd be in arbitration today. The evidence is certainly all there.

But I'm enough of a realist to know that arb com will not rule against you unless you do something that overtly hurts the project. You are on the inside, the four of us were not, therefore there was no way I was going to win in arbitration.. The difference between Fresheneesz and me is he is more idealistic than I am. I knew the Wikipedia oligarchy was impenetrable unless I sold out; Fresheneesz thought he could fight the cabal and win. The current status of his arbitration is yet more proof that my cynical view is dead-on.

So, go ahead, call me a megalomaniac if it makes you happy. I choose the term "realist": I now know what Wikipedia is, how it works, and how to protect it from POV abuses like the one you tried to pull on the PRT pages. I check in here every now and then, and I've got a few articles on my watchlist in case you decide to go on another crusade in support of your favorite cartoonist. So instead of thinking of me as a megalomaniac, maybe you should consider me a watchdog - someone who faced real MPOV (from someone on the inside, no less) and won, and continues to watch diligently for future abuses. Nothing more, nothing less. ATren 17:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I rather wish you had. Since every other person who came along told you exactly the same thing I did, it might finally have persuaded you that when lots and lots of people tell you that you are wrong, sometimes it's because you are wrong. Oh, and my favourite cartoonist is Scott Adams. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You prove my point! It's a cabal... of course they all agreed with you! Why do you think I didn't go to arb com, because I didn't have a case? Of course I had a case. I still have a spreadsheet with links to all of your abusive edits. The only reason I didn't go because I wouldn't get a fair arbitration against an admin like yourself - all your buddies would swarm into the debate and defend you regardless of the merits of the case.
So I had to fight for all my changes, and after months of persistence, every single one of the edits you summarily reverted eventually got in. Despite your insider status and blatant ownership issues, I was able to defend the article from your POV pushing. Not with mediation and arbitration - those are worthless for non-admins - I did it with patience, research, and dogged persistence. That's what Fresheneesz doesn't yet understand: trying to change the way things are will never work for outsiders like us. The best we can do is fight for truth on a case by case basis, even when someone as influential as yourself tries to elevate cartoon to fact. ATren 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Is that how it looks in ATrenWorldTM? Glad the rest of us don't live there. As for being influential, I think that's an amusing piece of nonsense. there is nocabal, but even if there were I would not be counted part of it. Influential editors are people like Uncle G. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see now - there's no cabal because the cabal says there isn't! Now you've got me laughing out loud! Thanks for the comic relief.
As for "conspiracy theories", I'm not the one who believes that PRT is a worldwide conspiracy against trains... ATren 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither am I. But I don't believe the article reflects anything I'm likely to see in my lifetime, either, so at least I live in the real world :-) Guy (Help!) 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And what you believe is all that matters, right? WP:OWN. ATren 23:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL! Another priceless gem! ATren accuses me of WP:OWN! I'm lovin' it :-D Guy (Help!) 23:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you like me to post the countless reverts on PRT where you basically decided your version was the right one and reverted us on sight? Would that make you laugh even harder? Would you like me to post the links to your threats to block Skybum for opposing you? Would that make you fall on the floor laughing? How about links to you repeatedly accusing us of POV pushing even when we tried to engage you in real debate? Would that send you into a paroxysm of uncontrollable laughter? ATren 23:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Better go and get your Spider-Man suit. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You mock that which you cannot defend. In any event, I will post the evidence on my user page, and then every time you try to insinuate that the four of us were at fault, I can just point to that evidence. It won't make a difference to your status, because your position makes you immune to reprimand, but at least other editors will be able to see your abuses for themselves. ATren 00:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I mock you because you are indefensible :-) Guy (Help!) 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
So I assume by your light hearted responses you have no objection to me posting this evidence on my user page? ATren 00:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by evidence. Here is the difference between the article as I found it and the article as I left it to Stephen [18]; here is the difference between that and what I think was Stephen's first big batch of changes [19] and here is the difference between that and now: [20]. My major problem with the article was the uncritical acceptance of anything published by Schneider or Anderson, the number of links to their opinions, and the apparent need to "balance" every point which was even slightly sceptical with something from a True Believer. My major problem with you and Fresh was your resolute determination to paint your own bias as neutrality, something to which I see you are still prey. I have biases, I am open about them. I have no bias on the subject of PRT, because it does not yet exist in the form described and there is no realistic prospect of it existing in the near future, so it has no impact on my daily transportation. I am perceived as strongly anti-car; this, too, is fallacious - I am pro-cycling and pro public transport, I tend to describe aggressive and excessively fast driving as selfish and anti-social, which is a problem for those who wish to pretend that their actions have no effect on others, but in an average week I will use bikes, trains, buses and my car (which is, I must shamefacedly admit, a large and powerful one).
Your entire view of me is coloured by the simple fact that I find RoadKill Bill funny. Don't you? Or are you so obsessed with its author that you are unable to see the bitter truth of what he is saying about modern urban planning? And do you honestly think that my entire view of a subject would be entirely dominated by the opinion of someone I don't even know? That's a pretty jaded view I reckon. My view on PRT has not changed much since I first read the article. It's an interesting concept but essentially untried; we have no real idea whether it would ever scale to the size described in the article because there are far too many untested assumptions; it faces so many obstacles from vested interest that it will probably be a long time if ever before we see a wide-scale implementation. I have a major problem with an article being used to sell the concept. I have a major problem with the article on UniModal as I found it, since the product has no existence other than as a sales pitch - even the Moller Skycar at least has a prototype. I have a major problem with articles where the only reliable sources are proponents of a new or emerging technology, because it is virtually impossible to ensure WP:NPOV (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for more examples). And I have a major problem with people who see everything in black and white, with anything other than uncritical agreement being seen as implacable opposition, although I recognise that this is a natural result of any polarised political debate (which is what PRT was then and to an extent still is even though the proposals seem to have died a death again). I also have a major problem with people who read every word I write through a filter, looking for evidence to reinforce their prejudices rather than trying to understand what I'm saying. I am not a stupid man, I am not unduly prone to intellectual rigidity, I have a pretty fair working knowledge of how this place works, and I am not afraid to admit my mistakes. To hear your version of events you would think that I am some kind of mindless zealot.
Just to take one tiny part of my issues with the PRT proponents' arguments: if you said to everyone that you could produce an electric car that was the same price as an IC engined car, just as fast, just as comfortable, and asked if they would buy it on that basis, would you take the results of that survey as being a valid and neutral indication of the public acceptance of electric vehicles per se? I'm guessing you would not be so naive. And yet we had arguments on the PRT article for ridership assumptions based on just that kind of model. Any model which assumes the public - and the pollsters - are being entirely objective, is fatally flawed. In polls, everyone says they are in favour of looking after the poor in society. In the polling booth, they vote consistently further to the right than they poll. Any reason to think they won't make similar judgements when it comes to trading their car for a PRT journey? We should be sceptical of such an assumption absent some credible real-world evidence, and there ain't going to be any of that until a system is built, and that ain't going to happen without someone being incredibly brave. Urban planners can be brave, as a look at the Düsseldorf skyline will attest, but most are more concerned about staying in office. Of course, I am a cynic, when it comes to politicians. Follow the money, and all. And the money here is usually not with those proposing radical new schemes, is it? It's with the existing vested interests. When GM produces a PRT system then I will certainly sit up and take notice.
Anyway, you will, I'm sure, do just as you like. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
<<===reset indent
Yet again, you vastly mis-characterize what that debate was about. Skybum, Fresh and I agreed with many of your edits. We came to agreement on ridership and many other debatable issues when you bothered to listen to our arguments. The problem was you were insistent in forcing an unverifiable skepticism on the science of PRT. I'm not talking about marketing, or whether it will ever succeed - I'm talking about the science that is indisputable, and which you repeatedly sprinkled with ridiculously skeptical phrases like "stations may be located on sidings" because the word "would" was somehow too strong - even though offline stations are fundamental to PRT designs. Your insistence in aggressively pushing this unjustified skepticism of the science, along with your refusal to treat us as anything more than mindless proponents, was what we most objected to. After months of debate you refused to even read our comments - writing us off as just a bunch of POV pushers even as we agreed with 90% of your edits. And even as you were pushing to get Avidor's cartoon in the article - an attack cartoon drawn by an anti-science luddite whose arguments have zero foundation in reality - you were suppressing the words of Schneider and Anderson, two PhD's and researchers with dozens of peer-reviewed, published works! And we were the POV pushers! Even as we produced rock-solid sources like journals and textbooks (which you rejected because they came from the off-limits Anderson and Schneider), you were pushing inclusion of material from a pro-light-rail advocacy site filled with anonymously-written anti-PRT propaganda! This is your idea of balance! This is your idea of neutrality! And we were the biased ones! Laughable!
In the next few weeks, will post my evidence on my talk page so you can no longer make your ridiculous claims in the future. ATren 18:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to cite all the real-world examples of wide-scale PRT from which the operating assumptions are drawn, will you?
Yes, I thought I was wasting my time writing the above - I suppose one day you might read something I write without the filters in place, but not this time. Has it never occurred to you that the virtual absence of any discussion of this topic in any source outside of its proponents is significant? The only really good source we found, that is, a commentary by a neutral third party of some evident authority, said precisely that: the literature is dominated by uncritical coverage from proponents. No doubt you're perfectly comfortable with an article that relies almost exclusively for its content on people who are trying to sell a novel idea, I'm not, never have been, and non--negotiable policy suggests that I may be right. We've deleted articles for that concern in the past.
I see that you attacked me as Avidor's biggest fan on Wikipedia, in the blog thread linked below, which may or may not be true (it wouldn't take much fandom to be a bigger fan than me, but I don't know how many other fans there are). At least, though, I'm capable of understanding the difference between a battleground and an encyclopaedia. I'd remind you not to bring your battles to Wikipedia, but of course your bias is neutral, isn't it? Silly of me to think otherwise. Are you from Minnesota, I wonder? Not that I care, the real-world fights of silly, vain politicians have not much to do with Wikipedia for the most part. I do think that castigating me for daring to admit to liking RKB while apparently thinking nothing of happy talk page comments about messages from "Doug" makes you look a bit foolish, but I'm just an admin who wandered into a POV war, so what would I know? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
More spin. I did not bring the battle to Wikipedia, Avidor did. I just joined the fight, like you. But you've never been able to look at Avidor's actions objectively, have you? I can understand, we tend to idealize those we idolize, but really man, don't you think this is taking it a bit too far? This is a guy who believes that there is a vast global anti-transit conspiracy hiding behind PRT, and tried his best to include this ridiculous, unverifiable content in the article. He also repeatedly tried to use Wikipedia to advance his political activities, a blatant abuse. When I and others tried to block him, you came down on us! According to you, I was a POV pusher for resisting the addition of political propaganda to an encyclopedia as you, an admin, defended the propagandist!
Even when we supplied sources with rock solid credentials, you arbitrarily blocked them in favor of propaganda from completely unreliable sources! After we called you on this, you dug through the literature and found a single insignificant conference paper that implied PRT literature could be more self-examining (though not even criticizing PRT itself!), and you immediately elevated that single paper above the reams of hard research produced by Anderson and Schneider.
So who's the one with the bias, JzG? Me, who accepted 90% of your edits and only objected to some instances where verifiable responses to criticism were arbitrarily suppressed; or you, an admitted devout fan of the editor on other side; you, who tried to push the Light Rail Now astroturfing site as an academic journal (!!!); you, who repeatedly rejected 100% of my edits (as well as Skybum, Fresh, and JJLatWiki), even when they were uncontestably backed by verifiable research! Who has the bias, JzG?
You can spin it any way you want, but this is a Wiki - the evidence is all there. You'll be seeing it in all its detail shortly. ATren 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If your entire case is based on the characterisation of one source which provided much-needed balance to the egregious puffery of the Anderson / Schneider fanwanks, then you haven't got much going for you. The fundamental truth which you still don't seem to acknowledge is that this is a technology which is virtually ignored outside of its proponents, and that presents a pressing problem for Wikipedia per our neutrality policy. "Verifiable fact" as you call it amounts in almost every case to a claim the making of which can be verified but the truth of which cannot because no system exists on which to base it. Who knows, we haven't yet seen what the cost constraints of a real-world installation will do. Maybe the outlying ones won't be. Or maybe they will. How do we define inherent, in a hypothetical construct? Inherent properties? Who knows? We haven't seen what the inevitable horse-trading of a practical installation will yield. Stations always off the guideway? Morgantown is stated not to be "true" PRT, but who's to say? What do sources independent of those trying to sell small-pod PRT make of it? Well, nothing, actually, because they don't seem to talk about that either. See what I mean? All that argumentation about sub-second headways - pure speculation! Yes, we can model mathematically what happens in idealised circumstances, but we have no idea how it will work out in practice because no system exists with sufficient track and sufficient pods (and sufficient users and sufficient variation in demand and and and...) to verify it operationally. Teaming ditto. Even the systems now in build will not tell us because they do not approach the scale described in the article; there are not enough pods in the system as specified right now for it to be an issue, by the looks of it, but who knows, because there is nothing operational. When the Heathrow system opens the article will be ready for a rewrite documenting the real installation, and the fandom can be relegated to a short paragraph describing what proponents state to be the capability of the technology, and the article will then be on a much firmer footing. Until that time what we have is an article on a theoretical concept which is largely unsupported by any critical judgement independent of its proponents; the best we can say from reliable independent sources is that there aren't many reliable independent sources. Paint that any colour you like, it's still a concern. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You continue to reject peer-reviewed research that has demonstrated the concepts, from simulations to engineering drawings to 1:12 prototypes to full scale functioning prototypes that have carried passengers. Your skepticism is based on nothing but ignorance of the research and a steadfast refusal to accept the science. You shield your eyes to the research, and then claim there is no science! It's an anti-scientific position that rivals creationism.
Fact is, you will never be satisfied by PRT research, because you reject it with circular reasoning: scientists who study PRT automatically become proponents, which in turn invalidates the research. No amount of science can ever break through someone who argues from such a position of intentional ignorance. In this case, the science refutes the skepticism, a verifiable fact that you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. And you want to become a member of the arbcom? Based on my (and others') extremely frustrating experience with you, I cannot imagine a worse candidate for a position of judicial authority. ATren 22:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
As always, you fundamentally misunderstand. I am distrustful of any subject which has no sources outside of its proponents, this is absolutely not restricted to PRT. The worst example in my memory was Aetherometry, and it was the devil's own job getting rid of that one. Perhaps you can cite the evidential basis for your purported "fact" that I will never be satisfied by PRT research? Actually, as I've said before, I'd be really happy to see some discussion in the engineering journals to give us a more solid basis for the article. The problem is not the quality of the sources, it's the fact that they are all biased - a point noted by the one genuinely independent source we have found thus far. It may be significant that even in transport-specific issues I don't recall any discussion of PRT in the journal of my institution. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The Journal of Advanced Transportation is not acceptable to you? A quick search reveals several articles on PRT, and most are not written by Anderson or Schneider. But of course JAT isn't good enough... the only "journal" you'll accept in the article is Light Rail Now.
In addition to the JAT sources, you conveniently ignore the Irving textbook which is widely regarded as the foundation of PRT research, laying down all of the significant theory and design tradeoffs. Much of the work that's followed is based on this text, including many of Anderson's designs, papers, and textbooks. But again, you choose to ignore such rock-solid sources in favor of (1) Avidor's propaganda, (2) a single conference paper which encourages more self-analysis among PRT researchers but doesn't actually criticize PRT directly, and (3) your own opinion that such a system will ever come about. Somehow, these three completely irrelevant and/or unreliable points trump the decades of research conducted by hundreds of researchers on three continents. Oh, yeah, but none of that research counts because anybody involved with PRT is automatically a proponent, therefore automatically disqualified from the debate. ATren 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And the real-world system on which the hypotheses are based is? Oh, wait, I forgot - there are no real-world systems, are there? So once again we fall back on the claims of proponents, in the absence of any coverage in the mainstream engineering journals. I don't think I ever implied any lack of pioeple saying what a jolly good idea it would be, only a lack of independent critique. It's funny, though, how we have this long article on an extensive urban transportation system, but the only planned implementation is in a car park. Does that not strike you as odd? Guy (Help!) 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So here we go again. I give you reliable sources, you ignore them. You accept blogs and advocacy sites as skeptical sources, but reject textbooks and journal articles as biased. It doesn't get any more blatant than that, does it? POV pushing at its finest, from an admin and wanna-be arbcom member no less! Are you seriously rejecting peer reviewed journals and textbooks in favor of your prediction that it will never work?
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, yet you would reject all this verifiable research solely based on your gut feeling that it will not (future tense - will not) work. You're the one predicting the future, JzG. What we have today is research and engineering on the theory of operation, and several fully functioning prototypes to validate that research. We also have pro and con arguments about applicability in a city - arguments that are implicitly debatable because there is no city system, but these applicability arguments do not invalidate the research and engineering! Your position is to look into the future, decide it will never work, and use that assumption to invalidate the verifiable research we have today. It's an anti-science (and anti-encyclopedic) position. ATren 00:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
For crying out loud! It's not verifiable, it's speculative! We can verify that the speculation has been made, but no system has ever progressed beyond prototype, some have not even got that far, and the only ones we know of that are in build are nothing like the system described in the article. We can't verify the supposedly inherent properties of PRT because the systems which are out there do not all seem to share those inherent properties, a problem which PRT proponents get around by simply stating that they are not PRT, which is simply a statement of belief and not a provable fact. If we define PRT as x, and this system does not meet x, then it is not PRT, but that begs the question of whether it is in fact correct to characterise x as an inherent property of PRT; with so little in the literature that is a problematic assertion. Add to that the fact that several individuals and groups are out there vigorously promoting this for commercial and political ends, and you have a problem for WP:NPOV, a non-negotiable core policy. As the man said, the literature is dominated by a lack of critical thinking, which is also a problem for WP:NPOV. If you view this from the perspective of a fan of PRT, then WP:NPOV is the problem. If you view it from the perspective of a Wikipedia admin, then PRT is the problem. You do not appear ever to have accepted these fundamental issues. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You will never get it will you! Peer reviewed research is peer reviewed research, regardless of your particular biases! You are calling into question journal articles and textbooks based on the ramblings of a cartoonist with an agenda! Snap out of it man - your rationality is being held hostage by your fanatical admiration for a cartoon! Go to Google Scholar and search on "personal rapid transit" and tell me which of the hundreds of journal articles, conference papers, and text books, written by dozens of authors on three contentents are not mindless proponents with alterior motives - then we can take the sources you do trust and enhance the article with them. I understand - this is how Wikipedia works: the admins get to set the ground rules according to their biases, so go ahead, search Google Scholar and tell me what I can and cannot use so I don't go wasting my time bringing journal papers that don't fit your particular idea of what's verifiable in this particular case. ATren 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You will never get it will you! A subject for which no independent critique can e found is a problem for WP:NPOV. Doesn't matter how many times the proponents get articles in the press, without significant discussion outside of its proponents (which, as was noted by at least one independent source, is largely absent) we still have a problem. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Press? PRESS? You call IEEE Transactions, ASCE conferences, IEEE conferences, journal articles, and textbooks press? This is ridiculous. Now you are just being intentionally argumentative. I can't believe that someone of your intelligence would be blocking science in favor of flat-earth style conspiracies. ATren 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I call the academic press press. So do they. Article in press, standard terminology. You know, you sound a very great deal like the people over at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. You really do need to accpt that the science of hypothetical concepts is quite difference from the science of real-world projects. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. So let's just follow up on that point: are you claiming that the IEEE, ASCE, and Journal of Advanced Transportation are pseudoscientific organizations? ATren 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Stop twisting my words. PRT is an essentially untried concept, being vigorously pushed by a few proponents, and the literature is marked by a lack of self-criticism. This much is documented fact. Pointing to the literature which is known to lack self-criticism does nto help redress that balance. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Documented fact? You scoured the literature and found one conference paper that alluded to a documentation imbalance, and you have elevated that paper above thousands of pages of documented, verifiable research. I honestly cannot believe that you are seriously clinging to this single paper (which, truth be told, was only mildly critical of the literature) in opposition to the hundreds of other sources. It is an indefensible position. And how exactly am I twisting your words? I pointed out IEEE and ASCE sources, you claimed it was pseudoscience. Are you now claiming they are not pseudoscience? Which is it, JzG? ATren 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Will it ever end?[21] For me it will end soon. The two chief PRT-promoting elected officials in Minnesota face jail time for criminal offences... too bad the Wikipedia PRT article has nothing about that. Zimmermann will be likely sentenced for his bribery conviction in January and Mark Olson will go on trial for domestic assault next month[22] Avidor 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again... pointless links back to his own blog. Why isn't this considered linkspam, JzG? You're against linkspam, unless it's posted by your cartoonist idol. You're a fierce deletionist, except when it comes to your own fancruft. You're unswerving in protecting Wikipedia against abuse, but you steadfastly refuse to criticise Avidor's well-documented abuses. Why is that, JzG? Do the rules not apply to you and your friends? ATren 03:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a link not on that article[23]Avidor 03:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how much time PRT wastes... but that's what it's designed to do. It's unfortunate that Wikipedia doesn't treat PRT the way it treats other wedge issues like intelligent design or what David Barton pushes, both of which PRT-promoters Michele Bachmann and Mark Olson also promote. I predicted that the Wikipedia PRT article would be cited by Olson supporters to validate Mark Olson's PRT claims and it was [24].... if the Wikipedia PRT had said the plain truth about PRT, Olson and maybe Bachmann would not have been elected. The plain truth is that PRT is a scam promoted by scoundrels like Olson and Zimmermann to confuse people about real transportation choices.... here's something that indicates just how phony PRT is; a recent conference of the Advanced Transit Association could barely pull in 90 people, half of them were probably PRT proponents... the media didn't even cover it.... just a blogger with an axe to grind with the City of Santa Cruz[25]....I hope somebody soon goes back and fixes that article, but it doesn't matter much now because Zimmermann is out of office and Olson will likely have to resign after his trial in December. Michele Bachmann hasn't mentioned PRT, and I doubt she will when she gets to Washington. If you check the links on the Wikipedia PRT page, you'll find a bunch of dead PRT websites. Taxi 2000's news page stopped posting news in 2004 and Skyloop has been dead since 2001...there has been nothing new about PRT in Dubai for a year. Time to overhaul that page... oh, and ATren lives in Buffalo, NY, not MInnesota..... Good luck!..... (I see the revert war has just started up again over at the PRT page)Avidor 03:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Avidor, such a pity that you couldn't manipulate Wikipedia to sway your election.
JzG, how do you feel about falsifying a Wikipedia article to affect a political campaign? Since you've never discouraged Avidor's political maneuvering here - in fact, you've faithfully supported him at every turn, and even acted at his behest a few times - maybe you should make your position perfectly clear on this kind of activity. I think it's wholly inappropriate for an admin (and arb com candidate) to give even the slightest impression that he supports such abuse, and therefore I think you should explicitly state your position on Avidor's activities: his constant link spamming back to his blogs, his attempts to replace the entire article with "PRT is BOGUS", his edit-warring on the NPOV tag (which was done solely so he could reference the disputed article in his campaign, by pointing back to the tagged article and claiming it was infiltrated by cultists - never mentioning that it was he who put the NPOV tag in the first place), his MPOV (after learning he couldn't put his conspiracy theories in the article, he lashed out at Wikipedia, left the project, and joined Wikipedia Review). Not to mention his direct pleas to you and others that the PRT article be changed because of upcoming elections. JzG, what is your view of these activities? ATren 04:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was part of the problem, misrepresenting PRT as a practical mode of wide-scale public transport in order to support a political agenda, I'm glad you have finally realised why that is a problem. Oh, no, sorry, I just re-read it - you're portraying your own biases as neutrality again! Guy (Help!) 09:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, you had no problem with Avidor's political manipulations. No problem with manipulating the POV tag to give the appearance of "cultists infiltrating Wikipedia". No problems with adding ridiculous conspiracy theories to the article at election time. No problem spreading linkspam back to his political blogs to spread his political message. Correct? ATren 15:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, I have a problem with all manipulation for political ends, especially by those who steadfastly refuse to admit they have a bias, but instead paint everybody else as part of some supposed conspiracy. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's complete bunk. I have no political interests whatsoever. And last time I checked, I don't have a "PRT is a joke" propaganda page, I haven't written letters to the editors to dozens of newspapers describing a phantom conspiracy theory, and I don't have attack blogs against every Minnesota PRT politician. To indicate that I have a political agenda is a complete fabrication.
And please stop changing the subject. I've asked a question twice now that you refuse to answer. I've copied the question below where your response won't get lost. I'd appreciate a real answer. ATren 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop misrepresenting an answer you don't like as a lack of an answer. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Please stop answering a different question than I asked. I requested your opinion on Avidor's documented abuses, you in turn accused me of somehow having an alterior political motive. So, in one fell swoop, you refused to acknowledge Avidor's documented manipulations, and accused me of something that is completely unfounded. More evidence that your bias with respect to Avidor and his views is extreme - so much so that you don't even realize you're doing it. ATren 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a point where you realize that you are not in a discussion, but like the Monty Python "Argument Sketch"[26] you are in an argument with someone who gets their kicks by being in an argument. A.T.E is a classic internet troll. He was banned from the Seattle Post Intelligencer discussion board for this sort of endless, endless argument and ranting.... Instead of wasting your time, I suggest kicking this PRT page controversy upstairs to whoever runs Wikipedia. I suggest they conduct their own research instead of relying on info from PRT proponents like ATren. I also suggest that they not use the the internet alone which has been Google-bombed by the PRT proponents with countless PRT websites... notice that no matter what version of PRT, the PRT websites never fail to knock rail transit as "too old" or "too expensive" or whatever... I strongly suggest contacting transportation engineers and transit advocay groups. I also suggest looking at Professor Vukan Vuchic's books particularly "Transportation for Livable Cities" where he gives PRT only a few's a scan[27]... that's all PRT deserves. Most of all there is the real world out there where no ful scale PRT system exists.... and trains do[28]. Please take this matter to a higher level. Thank you.Avidor 15:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see more links to sceptics have been "pruned" from the PRT page... It's amusing that someone who is obsessed about me to the point of devoting an entire blog on me[29] and attack me here on this page would also attempt to erase any link to my web site on the PRT page.... I have another suggestion, this time for ATren; Why not start a Wikipedia page on Ken Avidor. You could reveal everything about me.... it's a golden opportunity to discredit me once and for all. I'm surprised you and David Gow didn't think of it. Of course, somebody is likely to say that a critic of something that doesn't exist (PRT) is not worty of note.... and I'd have to agreee with that. But, there is so much more that I have done that you and David Gow have already Googled up and posted on your blogs... it would be a shame to let all that research go to waste.... put it up on Wikipedia and I promise I will never edit the Ken Avidor page... GO FOR IT, ATren!!!Avidor 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I pruned some links lately, it was approaching the spam event horizon. One day we might even get a relibale secondary source, but I'm not holding my breath :-) Guy (Help!) 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, you're just closing your eyes. ATren 03:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

More reality is a good thing.... Take a look at this website...[30]... who says PRT is not political?Avidor 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well quite. More polemic, in other words. I spent actual money on searches looking for neutral sources, but Cotterell was the only one which I found. Advocacy is al well and good in its place, but this isn't its place. I guess I might be happier if ATren and Fresh were more open about their personal background and biases. Of course thay have a right to anonymity, but in a politicised debate that does weaken one's case somewhat. There was never much danger of being misled as to your agenda here. We've never prohibited proponents of an idea from editing the articles on it (see User:ELerner) but it is always better to know up front who is who when strong feelings are involved. And it really does piss me off that ATren refuses even now to acknowledge that he has any bias. The middle position may well be closer to his POV than yours (I am always alert to the fallacy of the false middle) but there is no possible doubt that he and Fresh are a good deal less sceptical than is the world at large, based on the available evidence. Still and all, my biggest problem with that article remains the fact that it is mostly about a system which is hypothetical, but it uses examples wihch are concrete in an attempt to make it appear more than what it is. Once Heathrow goes online we should have a better basis for an encyclopaedia entry instead of a battleground between opposing advocates. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 26 November 006 (UTC)
You spent money on searches? How about just looking at Google Scholar? There are dozens if not hundreds of journal articles, books, and conference papers. PRT is well represented in the Journal of Advanced Transportation, as well as IEEE and ASCE conferences. Don't play ignorance, JzG.
As for my history, I have absolutely nothing to do with PRT or politics. Nothing whatsoever. I only got involved when I was researching PRT (just for my own curiosity) and I found the signal-to-noise ratio almost unbearably low, all of it due to a rampant disinformation campaign by a single individual. Then, he started attacking Wikipedia with his disinformation, and I got involved. Not because of PRT, but because the idea that someone could use Karl-Rove-like tactics to suppress discussion of a potentially exciting technology repulsed me, and I felt the need to set the record straight. His goal is and always has been disinformation, and I just wanted Wikipedia to be a place where his disinformation (and that's all it is) would not clutter the actual science and technology of PRT. That's my story. My agenda is truth. Avidor's agenda is political attacks (look at his web pages FFS!)
If you doubt this, go ahead and look through the the last 10 months of the PRT article, and find one instance where I made a blatantly POV edit. Go ahead, find ONE. ATren 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm being compared to Karl Rove by somebody who won't reveal his identity.... Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy on this sort of drive-by defamation?Avidor 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question, JzG[edit]

I've asked twice now, and you've given two evasive answers. I'll ask again:

What is your official position on Avidor manipulating Wikipedia to push a well-publicized political campaign? I'm not political, never have been, but Avidor has a very clear political agenda and has no problem admitting it. There's plenty of evidence that he was playing games with the NPOV tag so he could point to it as evidence of "the conspiracy" from his various blogs. He's also repeatedly asked you to take urgent action on the PRT article for the explicit purpose of aiding his campaign, and there's evidence that you responded by coming down hard on us. There are other cases where he complained about phantom problems with the article, and you threatened to block us for no reason not 30 minutes later.

Once again, what is your position on this kind of activity on Wikipedia?

ATren 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Sierra Club is an "astroturfing group"?[31] Avidor 01:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't remove the Sierra Club link. Light Rail Now is the astroturfing group. ATren 01:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You did remove the Sierra Club link...also...Explain the term "astroturfing" and why you apply it to LRN.Avidor 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not "remove a link". I removed a paragraph containing original research and POV that referenced the Sierra Club. The reference was removed with my revert. Re: astroturfing - look it up. ATren 02:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Light Rail Now[32] is a grassroots organization that has the support of other grassroots organizations such as Transit for Livable Communities. Anyone who would call LRN an "astrofurf" organization has a serious problem with facts and should not be "editing" an online encyclopedia.Avidor 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you read astroturfing? ATren 04:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Clarified above already. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I must have missed your clarification. Would you mind reposting it here please? ATren 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"So, just to be clear, I have a problem with all manipulation for political ends, especially by those who steadfastly refuse to admit they have a bias, but instead paint everybody else as part of some supposed conspiracy." Guy (Help!) 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I assume those comments are directed at me? (1) Please cite where I have "manipulated for political ends", (2) Please cite where I have made any political statement about anybody, (3) Please cite where I've painted others as part of a "conspiracy".
Note, I can readily cite examples of all three of these items from Avidor. To imply that I do the same is a complete lie. I have zero interest in politics.
Now, back to the question, which you've now evaded three times: What is your view of the well documented political manipulations, linkspam, and general misuse of Wikipedia by Avidor? Perhaps more importantly, why do you refuse to answer this question with a straight answer? ATren 13:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"So, just to be clear, I have a problem with all manipulation for political ends, especially by those who steadfastly refuse to admit they have a bias, but instead paint everybody else as part of some supposed conspiracy." Avidor's last edit to the PT article was 11:44, April 17, 2006 - what problem, precisely, are you claiming he currently poses? I can see fomr your blog that you have a very storng peronsal agenda here, and you are actively editing the article - why do you inisist that I address solely an editor who has no recent edits to that article? That seems to me like a waste of admin time. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
My "agenda" is exactly as I have stated it: debunking the rampant pseudo-skeptical disinformation of a single individual who has made anti-PRT propaganda his own personal crusade. But, of course, you continue to think of me as the POV pusher, despite the fact that I've encouraged real skepticism in the article. Go back through the logs and read my discussions with Louis Demery, who did some interesting investigations into the Japanese political resistance to very short headways. I had no problem with his well-researched conclusions. I had no problem including the Vuchic-Anderson debate. I had no problem with perhaps 90-95% of your edits! You conveniently ignore all that.
As for "why do I insist": I have long claimed that you are incapable of being neutral in this dispute. From almost the first day, you were sympathetic to Avidor and hostile to Skybum, Fresh, and me; even though it was Avidor who was trying to turn Wikipedia into his own personal blog and link farm. Throughout this "mediation", your interactions with Avidor can best be described as adulatory. When he's asked you to do something, you've almost invariably done it with little question, including just yesterday when you restored links to his personal pages after he requested it (he doesn't need to edit the article if he can get you to do the dirty work).
Contrast this kit-gloves treatment of Avidor with the hostility you've shown to someone like Skybum, who had a stellar Wikipedia history: you actually threatened to lock the article based on your misreading of a single word - and even after Skybum politely corrected you you did it again! This level of hostility has been evident in every single interaction with all of us, while you continue to defend Avidor at every turn.
This from an admin who, in almost every other case, has no patience for link spammers, or political manipulation, or pushing unverifiable information into an article. How else to explain your 180-degree flip-flop in this dispute? I assert this: you should have recused yourself from this mediation, because your affection for Avidor and his work prevented you from taking a neutral view. Your belief that you could act neutral despite your feelings is arrogant and irresponsible, especially for an admin, and especially for someone who aspires to be on the arb com.
So, in effect, you're non-answer is all the answer I needed. It is the final piece of evidence that you are incapable of recognizing your own biases, or of recusing yourself from cases where you would be anything but a neutral authority. Thank you for proving my point. ATren 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As you will see from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, allegations of "pseudo-skepticism" are a mainstay of the proponents of fringe theories when it is documented, as WP:NPOV requires, that they are fringe theories. How many wide-scale PRT schemes are there in existence, after around 40 years of debate? How many PRT systems of any description are currently operating? See also Moller Skycar. Wikipedia cannot tell the difference between the new-great-thing which will change the world and the new-great-thing which will be forgotten by next month; we are not a crystal ball. And your blog goes considerably further than "debunking", it is strongly pro-PRT. Your utter inability to perceive your own bias is the root cause of our entire disagreement. Oh, one last thing - when I arrived at that page I had no idea that Avidor was even involved. It is perfectly plain that your deep-seated anger and hatred towards him dominate your view of the entire debate on Wikipedia. One might almost be tempted to speculate that you are connected with one of the parties involved, such is the strength of your reaction to the defeat of the Minnesota scheme. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Addressing each of your points:
  • Once again, you ignore the specifics of this particular case when you say "allegations of 'pseudo-skepticism' are a mainstay of the proponents of fringe theories" - rather than deal with the indisputable science of this technology, you prefer to cite irrelevant generalities about the pseudo-science debate. Are you really implying that an accusation of pseudo-skepticism is an automatic indication of pseudo-science?
  • You continue to cite the absence of wide-scale schemes to cloud the issue - even though the article is absolutely unambiguous in stating there are no commercial systems. Your position is to doubt the science due to the lack of commercial installation, and that's always been my problem with your POV.
  • "not a crystal ball" - yet you continue to argue your position based on your opinion that PRT is a "quixotic dream" (your words). Who's the one with the crystal ball? The one who acknowledges the hard science but leaves open the question of commercial application, or the one who uses his skepticism of future application to invalidate the hard science?
  • "Your utter inability to perceive your own bias is the root cause of our entire disagreement." - and yet it is you who has repeatedly defended a proven abusive user; it is you who ignores the repeated violations of said user; it is you who tried to push unverifiable fluff (Light Rail Now?) into the article but ignores IEEE and ASCE conference papers. In other words, "Physician, heal thyself."
  • "One might almost be tempted to speculate that you are connected with one of the parties involved..." - so let's get this straight: we all know Avidor is involved, and yet you have no problems with his political maneuverings here. Yet you accuse me of being involved based on... nothing. More evidence that you are blissfully ignorant of your own biases. And, BTW, I live in Western New York State, have no interest in Minnesota politics other than what relates to Avidor's PRT disinformation campaign, and I've never even met a PRT proponent or professional. But it would be the first time you baselessly accused me of alterior motives while giving Avidor a pass for his confirmed motives... ATren 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This is just more evidence of your own refusal to admit your own biases, a classic case of MPOV. From the MPOV list of "symptoms":
  1. "You know you're acting in good faith, but assume many others involved are acting in bad faith." - you accused four others (Fresheneesz, Skybum, JJLatWiki, and me) of POV pushing.
  2. "You believe that all other versions of the article are biased" - we accepted 90% of your edits, but you rejected 100% of our edits.
  3. "The other editors say you act as though the article is somehow yours" - I and the others in the debate were quite frustrated by your ownership attitide.
  4. "Upon reading this list, you are convinced that most of the people you deal with are suffering from MPOV." - many times you accused me of MPOV.
Who's the one with the megamaniacal point of view here? Do you believe that, as an admin and "experienced" user, you are somehow immune to such biases?
And in any event, you once again ignored the crux of my question: which is "What is your view of Avidor's questionable activities in spreading political propaganda and linkspam on Wikipedia?" Once again, in your refusal to acknowledge these abuses, you provide evidence that you have never been able to view Avidor's activities or views with a neutral eye, even as you continue to insist you are a neutral mediator in this dispute. ATren 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Look at it this way: I have no real problem getting a long with people who are open about their biases, especially if they have a sense of humour about it. We all have biases, after all. I have more of a problem with people who refuse to admit their biases. I have a much larger problem with people who insist that their biases amount to neutrality, especially when they assert that all points of view more sceptical than theirs are biased. And I have a massive problem - and here I really do mean a massive problem - with people who come along demanding that I join them in singling out one side of a clearly bipartisan dispute for criticism, especially when the other party has not touched the article in half a year. In all the verbiage you have spilled, I can't recall a single time when you've openly admitted to your own bias. Until you are prepared to be honest with yourself about this, and others, I don't see much point in continuing this debate. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, but you have no bias whatsoever. Your view is so hypocritical that I have to laugh: you accuse me of not admitting my biases, while you continue to parrot the completely unsupportable Avidor party line! You scoured the literature and found one verifiable semi-critical article and elevated that to such extreme importance that it invalidates the hundreds of other papers by dozens of researchers on 3 continents over 4 decades -- and I'm the one with the hidden biases! How long are you going to deny your own hidden biases, JzG? And speaking of "massive problems", I have a massive problem with those in positions of authority not recognizing their own biases, and in turn using their adminstrative power to bully 4 other editors into accepting their view of the world. As long as we're talking about "massive problems" - there's mine in a nutshell! Newbies are one thing - they often don't recognize their own biases, but for an experienced admin (and arb com candidate!) to deny such an extreme bias is inexcusable. With power comes responsibility, and I'm afraid your refusal to acknowledge your fan-like admiration for Avidor and its affect on your decision-making is extremely irresponsible. You should know better, JzG. ATren 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can point me to the place where I said I have no bias? The problem here is that you insist that I should condemn one side of a clearly bilateral dispute, and that you insist that you have no bias, or that your own bias is neutral. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you being intentionally argumentative? You have clearly condemned only one side of the debate from day one. Even as you were sending "Are you the real Ken Avidor?" fancruft messages to Avidor, you were criticisizing Skybum for good, valid edits, even threatening to lock the article! You called all of us POV pushers (and worse) accused me of MPOV, and I've seen not a single admonishment for Avidor's activities - indeed, why would you admonish him when you continue to push his "PRT is a fraud" view? You came upon a dispute, found two sides to the debate - then sided with the unverifiable position, criticized and threatened the good faith editors on the other side, and took ownership of the article to protect the "fraud" view. No, I never claimed you should condemn one side, because that's exactly what you did. ATren 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again you accuse others of your own faults. This is precisely why I have such a problem with you - you are, it seems, utterly unable to perceive in yourself the things you evidently find problematic in others.
Perhaps you can point out where I have called PT a "fraud"? My view is that it is an interesting but essentially untried technology which faces very considerable barriers in the form of political conservatism, a number of powerful vested interests, and human nature - which is why, after more than forty years, there is still nothing on the ground. It's also evident that it is a political football - the article is no place for advocacy. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you accuse others of your own faults. See, I can do it too! The difference is I have hundreds of peer reviewed journals and engineering papers on my side, you have an astroturfing group, a cartoonist, and a one-page resolution by a local environmental group. It is a testament to the cabal that the latter wins on Wikipedia... ATren 14:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This matter really needs the attention of whoever runs Wikipedia. I stand by all the facts I've written about the PRT scam and Wikipedia can contact me by phone or e-mail anytime. Will ATren reveal his identity and agree to cooperate too? I suggest that if ATren continues to attack me without revealing his identity, he should be banned from editing Wikipedia. ATren has his attack blog[33].... Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an attack blog.Avidor 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you ask your friends at Wikipedia Review to figure out who I am? ATren 16:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever....Avidor 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society "Calling a halt"[edit]

Can you explain your decision to call a halt a bit more? You mention a conflict of interest, puppets and apparent solicitation. But Chris Cole's conflict of interest was declared, the "puppet" (I presume User:Kevin Langdon?) has an easily verified existence IRL and what was the evidence for solicitation? Assuming that you do not wish to reconsider (although I hope you will) could you also send me a copy of the article at the point of deletion for further improvement. Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this question - do you really believe that I am a puppet or in a conflict of interest? Moreover I think that a person who started an AfD discussion should not close it (separation of powers, yes).--Ioannes Pragensis 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
They should at least let the AfD run to its natural close, instead of leaving so many questions open. --Michael C. Price talk 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, it was deleted and reviewed perfectly correctly, the major argument for keep is form the society's own Internet Officer, and it turns out that the user who created it either is or has a connection to Langham. Add to that the fact that there is only one non-trivial source, and the society is not only tiny but of absolutely no evident influence, and you have a pressing problem for WP:NPOV and WP:V. I should simply have deleted it in the first place. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You perhaps should simply have deleted it, Guy. But you did not. Therefore you should keep the procedure of AfD. And in the discussion, more users voted for the article. Please re-create the article and let the discussion continue. - I do not think that this article is essential for Wikipedia; but what is essential for Wikipedia is to keep procedures and do not trick users who believe that they are taking part in a fair discussion.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I made an error and then corrected it. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If an error involves other people, you cannot correct it without them. To be arrogant is a bigger error than to let an unimportant article live.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I made an error, I corrected it after it was pointed out to me. I apologise for any disruption this caused. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, although calling a halt is not really a good closing argument, Speedied as recreation of deleted content and as A7 (any assertions of notability were dismissed in the first AfD and DRV). would have been fine, with the same result. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought I'd made that clear in the comments. Ah well. I brought it all on myself through deficiency of Clue. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Lack of notability was not established in the original AfD, nor in the subsequent DRV. The AfD was procedurally flawed (as was AfD2, which is the correct forum for debating this). --Michael C. Price talk 22:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That's your opinion, as a member of the group with a vested interest in keepign the content. Your view was considered at DRV and rejected. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The DRV closing admin explicitly endorsed rework and recreation, as detailed on the deleted article's talk page. Please stop pronoucing on subjects where you not prepared to the required background reading. --Michael C. Price talk 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my arguments for including an article on the Mega Society in Wikipedia. Canon 01:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)